grandview hills stage vi, cambridge, ontario environmental

Grandview Hills Stage VI, Cambridge, Ontario Environmental Impact Study Prepared for: Huron Creek Developments PO Box 86 New Dundee, Ontario N0B 2E0 Project No. 1824 ӏ October 2016

225 Labrador Drive, Unit 1, Waterloo, Ontario, N2K 4M8 Tel: (519) 725-2227 Web: www.nrsi.on.ca Email: [email protected]

DRAFT

Grandview Hills Stage VI, Cambridge, Ontario

Environmental Impact Study

Project Team: David Stephenson Senior Biologist, Project Advisor Ryan Archer Terrestrial & Wetland Biologist, Project Manager Pat Deacon Erin Bannon

Terrestrial & Wetland Biologist Terrestrial & Wetland Biologist/Certified Arborist

Gina MacVeigh Aquatic Biologist Gerry Schaus GIS Analyst

Report submitted on October 19, 2016

___________________________ Ryan Archer Project Manager Terrestrial and Wetland Biologist

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................... 1

1.1 Study Area .......................................................................................................... 2

1.2 Project Scoping .................................................................................................. 3

2.0 Relevant Policies, Legislation, and Planning Studies ........................... 9

3.0 Field Methods .......................................................................................... 13

4.0 Existing Conditions ................................................................................ 17

4.1 Soils, Terrain and Drainage ............................................................................. 17

4.2 Vegetation ......................................................................................................... 18

4.2.1 Vegetation Communities .......................................................................... 18

4.2.1 Vascular Flora .......................................................................................... 20

4.2.2 Tree Inventory .......................................................................................... 21

4.3 Wildlife ............................................................................................................... 25

4.3.1 Birds ........................................................................................................ 25

4.3.2 Herpetofauna ........................................................................................... 26

4.3.3 Mammals ................................................................................................. 28

4.3.4 Butterflies ................................................................................................. 29

4.3.5 Odonata ................................................................................................... 29

4.4 Aquatic Resources ........................................................................................... 30

4.4.1 Aquatic Habitat ......................................................................................... 30

4.4.2 Fish Community ....................................................................................... 32

5.0 Natural Environment Development Constraints ................................... 33

5.1 Significant Natural Features and Habitats ...................................................... 33

5.1.1 Regional Core Environmental Feature and Environmentally Sensitive Landscape ............................................................................................................. 33

5.1.2 Provincially Significant Wetland................................................................ 35

5.1.3 Species at Risk ........................................................................................ 36

5.1.4 Significant Wildlife Habitat ........................................................................ 38

5.1.5 Aquatic Features and Fish Habitat ........................................................... 42

5.1.6 Regionally Significant Species ................................................................. 43

5.1.7 Hedgerows ............................................................................................... 44

5.2 Buffers ............................................................................................................... 45

6.0 Impact Assessment ................................................................................ 48

6.1 Description of the Proposed Development ..................................................... 48

6.2 Approach to Impact Analysis........................................................................... 49

6.3 Direct Impacts and Recommended Mitigation Measures .............................. 49

6.3.1 Vegetation Removal ................................................................................. 50

6.3.2 Tree Removal .......................................................................................... 52

6.3.3 Impacts to Wildlife and their Habitats ....................................................... 53

6.3.4 Impacts to Aquatic Features and Fish Habitat .......................................... 56

6.4 Indirect Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...................................................... 58

6.4.1 Encroachment into Recommended Buffer ................................................ 58

6.4.2 Disturbance to Protected Natural Features and Wildlife Habitats ............. 60

6.4.3 Sedimentation and Erosion ...................................................................... 61

6.4.4 Changes to Hydrologic Regime ................................................................ 64

6.4.5 Changes to Water Quality ........................................................................ 65

6.5 Induced Impacts and Mitigations .................................................................... 66

6.6 Restoration and Enhancement of Natural Features ....................................... 67

6.7 Monitoring ......................................................................................................... 68

6.7.1 Pre-Construction ...................................................................................... 68

6.7.2 During Construction ................................................................................. 69

6.7.3 Post-Construction .................................................................................... 70

7.0 Summary .................................................................................................. 72

8.0 References ............................................................................................... 75

List of Tables Table 1. Relevant Policies, Legislation and Planning Studies ........................................................ 9 Table 2. Field Survey Summary .................................................................................................... 13 Table 3. Summary of Inventoried Trees ....................................................................................... 23 Table 4. Overall Condition of Trees Inventoried ........................................................................... 24 Table 5. Locations of Potential Bat Cavity Trees Observed Within the Study Area. .................... 29 Table 6. Butternut Compensation Requirements Based on O. Reg. 242/08 ................................ 51

List of Maps Map 1. Study Area and Designated Natural Features

Map 2. Vegetation Communities and Survey Locations

Map 3. Snake Hibernaculum Assessment

Map 4a Natural Environment Constraints – Designated Features and Vegetation

Map 4b Natural Environment Constraints – Wildlife Habitat

Map 5 Aquatic Features

Map 6 Proposed Development

List of Appendices

Appendix I Significant Species Reported from the Study Area and Vicinity

Appendix II Terms of Reference and Agency Comments

Appendix III Cambridge West Master Environmental Servicing Plan Figure 15 –

Environmental Setbacks (MHBC et al. 2013)

Appendix IV ELC Data Forms

Appendix V Detailed Vegetation Management Plan (NRSI 2016)

Appendix VI Plant Species Recorded Within the Study Area

Appendix VII Bird Species Reported From the Study Area and Vicinity

Appendix VIII Herpetofauna Species Reported From the Study Area and Vicinity

Appendix IX 2015 Snake Emergence Survey Results

Appendix X Mammal Species Reported From the Study Area and Vicinity

Appendix XI Butterfly Species Reported From the Study Area and Vicinity

Appendix XII Odonate Species Reported From the Study Area and Vicinity

Appendix XIII Butternut Health Assessment Report

Appendix XIV Significant Wildlife Habitat Assessment

Appendix XV Draft Plan of Subdivision (GSP Group 2016) and Preliminary Grading Plan

(Meritech 2016)

Natural Resource Solutions Inc. Grandview Hills Stage VI Environmental Impact Study 1

1.0 Introduction

Natural Resource Solutions Inc. (NRSI) was retained in August 2016 by Huron Creek

Developments to complete a scoped Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for a proposed

residential subdivision known as “Grandview Hills Stage VI”, also known as the

“Newman Lands”. The proponent is proposing to develop the subject property to

accommodate 90 residential lots, a stormwater management (SWM) facility, a

community park and an internal road network with associated servicing infrastructure.

The subject property is currently dominated by a mixed meadow community in the north

half, and active agricultural row crop field in the south half. An existing SWM facility (wet

pond and forebay) exists within the north half of the subject property, which was

constructed to service the adjacent Grandview Hills Stage III residential development.

Deciduous hedgerows line portions of the property boundaries and traverse the property

interior, reflecting remnants the site’s historical agricultural landscape context.

Woodland edge defines a large proportion of the western property boundary.

The subject property falls within the Development Study Area of the Cambridge West

Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) (MHBC et al. 2013). The development

proposal is therefore guided by the planning recommendations of the MESP, in addition

to Official Plan policies and other regulations. The subject property is located adjacent

to, or in close proximity to, 3 Core Environmental Features identified in the Regional

Official Plan: the Barrie’s Lake-Bauman Creek Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW)

complex, Devil’s Creek Swamp Environmentally Sensitive Policy Area (ESPA) 59, and

the Cruickston Creek Headwaters ESPA. Collectively, these Core Environmental

Features are contained within the adjacent Blair-Bechtel-Cruickston Environmentally

Sensitive Landscape (ESL). Additionally, portions of the subject property fall within the

Grand River Conservation Authority’s (GRCA) regulation limit. Consequently, the

Region of Waterloo, City of Cambridge, and GRCA have requested that a scoped EIS be

completed to demonstrate that the proposed development will not cause adverse

environmental impacts to the adjacent natural features or their ecological functions, as

per Regional, City and GRCA policies, and in accordance with the Cambridge West

MESP. Furthermore, the City has requested that a Detailed Vegetation Management


Plan be prepared as per the City’s Tree Management Policies and Guidelines for New

Developments (City of Cambridge 2002).

This report summarizes background information on natural heritage features, as well as

results of original field surveys of breeding birds, mammals, herpetofauna, and vascular

flora for the study area. Based on the recommendations of the Cambridge West MESP,

and supplemented by site-specific background review and field studies completed by

NRSI, natural feature development constraints were identified to guide the layout of the

proposed development. An impact assessment was completed based on details of the

proposed development, and recommendations have been provided to avoid or otherwise

mitigate anticipated impacts to the adjacent natural features.

1.1 Study Area

For the purposes of this report, the term “subject property” refers to the lands owned by

the proponent on which the development is proposed to occur (Map 1). The term “study

area” refers to the subject property plus the surrounding area (within 120m) for which

additional information was collected and reviewed (based on site access). Legacy data

collected from agencies encompassed an area of up to 10km around the property to

ensure that all surrounding natural features were considered.

The subject property is bordered on the west and north by lands owned by the rare

Charitable Research Reserve, on the east by the existing Grandview Hills Stage III

residential subdivision, and on the south by active agricultural lands that lie within the

Cambridge West MESP’s development lands and are currently the subject of a

development application. The subject property is located at the western edge of the city

of Cambridge, at the terminus of Newman Drive, Rosecliff Place and Wilkinson Avenue,

west of Westcliff Way (Map 1). The western subject property boundary represents the

municipal boundary between the City of Cambridge and the Township of North Dumfries.

The subject property represents a combination of former (fallow) and active agricultural

lands within the north and south halves of the property, respectively. Deciduous

hedgerows line the north boundary of the property, portions of the west boundary, and

east-west through the centre of the property. The northwest property boundary occurs

immediately adjacent to rare’s Hogsback woodland/wetland complex, which is known as


a regionally important feature maintaining a high level of biodiversity, significant habitat,

and areas approaching old-growth forest characteristics (MHBC et al. 2013). Wetlands

within this feature comprise part of the Barrie’s Lake-Bauman Creek PSW complex. The

“Hogsback” feature west of the subject property has also been recommended as part of

a new Regional ESPA known as “Cruickston Creek Headwaters”. The rare property

lands to the immediate north and west are also considered part of the Blair-Bechtel-

Cruickston ESL as defined by the Region of Waterloo.

The existing SWM wet pond and forebay was created to receive stormwater from

portions of the adjacent existing residential subdivision; however, it likely does not meet

current SWM facility design standards and requires retrofitting to accommodate

stormwater from the proposed development. The SWM facility represents the source of

Newman Creek, which flows north to the Grand River.

Areas of the subject property have been subjected to anthropogenic disturbances in

addition to the historical agricultural uses, such as the placement of a large fill pile along

the south property boundary, and additional areas of fill deposited within the property’s

naturally regenerating cultural meadow within the north half. The site is regularly walked

by local residents, such as to access the adjacent Hogsback feature, and has been

subject to litter, garbage, and yard waste disposal.

1.2 Project Scoping

The focus of this project scope was to supplement existing natural environment data

collected for the Cambridge West MESP Development Study Area with site-specific data

to provide a detailed assessment of natural feature constraints to inform the proposed

development design. In order to inform this scoped EIS study approach, existing natural

heritage information was gathered and reviewed to identify key natural heritage features

and species that are known or have potential to occur within the study area. The

Cambridge West MESP (MHBC et al. 2013), and its natural environment technical report

(Ecoplans 2013), served as the primary background information sources in identifying

existing natural features and species, including those considered significant and

sensitive to development impacts. Previous NRSI bird survey data collected for the

subject property’s previous landowner in 2008 was considered for background


information purposes, but was not incorporated into species inventories for this project

due to the age of the data.

Existing background information was requested from the Ontario Ministry of Natural

Resources and Forestry (MNRF), Region of Waterloo, and the GRCA. Information was

provided by the MNRF on May 26, 2014, from the Region of Waterloo on June 11, 2014,

and from the GRCA on May 15, 2014.

Background information on the natural environmental features within the study area was

also gathered from the MNRF Natural Heritage Information Centre significant species

database (MNRF 2014), the MNRF’s Land Information Ontario, and relevant taxa-

specific databases, as listed below.

Initial wildlife species lists were compiled to provide information on species reported from

the vicinity of the study area (10km radius) using various atlases; including the Ontario

Mammal Atlas (Dobbyn 1994), the Ontario Reptile and Amphibian Atlas (Ontario Nature

2015), the Ontario Butterfly Atlas (McNaughton et al. 2016), and the Ontario Odonata

Atlas (OMNR 2005). Data on breeding birds in the area was extracted from the Ontario

Breeding Bird Atlas (BSC et al. 2008). Since this atlas provides data based on 10x10km

survey squares, information on breeding birds from the square that overlaps the study

area (17NJ62) was compiled. A list of species contained the Species at Risk (SAR) in

Ontario list that have occurrence records in Waterloo Region was also provided by the

MNRF Guelph District office (Laurence 2014). These initial species lists were used to

guide the scope and type of field surveys required as outlined in the following sections.

Additional background information sources on the natural features present within the

study area were also reviewed to inform the scope of this study, and included the

following:

Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA Information Network)

Draft Technical Data Sheet for Recommended Cruickston Creek Headwaters

Environmentally Significant Policy Area (Region of Waterloo 2014)

Region of Waterloo Official Plan (Region of Waterloo 2015)

City of Cambridge Official Plan (City of Cambridge 2014)

GRCA Wetland Policy and EIS Guidelines (GRCA 2005)


Region of Waterloo Greenlands Implementation Guideline (Region of Waterloo

2010)

SAR are those listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List (MNRF 2016a). These

include species identified by the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario

(COSSARO) as provincially Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern. Species

listed as Endangered or Threatened are protected by the provincial Endangered Species

Act (ESA), which includes protection of their habitat.

Species considered Special Concern are included in the definition of Species of

Conservation Concern (SCC), which includes the following:

species designated provincially as Special Concern,

species that have been assigned a conservation status (S-Rank) of S1 to S3 or

SH by the Natural Heritage Information Centre, and

species that are designated federally as Threatened or Endangered by the

Committee for the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) but not

provincially by the COSSARO. These species are protected by the federal

Species at Risk Act but not provincially by the Endangered Species Act.

Habitats of SCC are considered a form of Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) (OMNR

2010) which is afforded protection under the Provincial Policy Statement (OMMAH 2014)

and various municipal natural heritage protection policies.

Based on these initial species lists, a total of 13 ESA-regulated SAR and 33 SCC were

identified as having records from within 1km of the study area, as well as several other

significant species with records from Waterloo Region (Laurence 2014), as listed in

Appendix I. SCC are discussed further within the context of SWH (Section 5.1.3).

A preliminary screening exercise was conducted for these species based on air photo

interpretation and previous MESP reporting (Ecoplans 2013) to identify which species

have suitable habitat within the study area, and of these, which have suitable habitat

present within the subject property itself. This involved cross-referencing the preferred

habitat for reported SAR and SCC (OMNR 2000) against habitats known to occur within

both the broad study area and the specific development area. This was completed to


ensure that the potential presence of all SAR and SCC within the study area was

adequately assessed in this EIS.

Suitable habitat is present for 10 regulated SAR within the study area. However, only 8

SAR are considered to have suitable habitat within the subject property lands proposed

for development, while the remainder are associated with the woodland/wetland complex

located adjacent to the subject property. The following SAR were identified as having

potentially suitable habitat within the subject property:

Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) (foraging habitat only)

Rusty-patched Bumblebee (Bombus affinis)

Little Brown Myotis (Myotis lucifugus)

Northern Myotis (Myotis septentrionalis)

Tri-colored Bat (Perimyotis subflavus)

Butternut (Juglans cinerea)

Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii)

American Badger (Taxidea taxus jacksoni)

Suitable habitat is present for 17 SCC within the study area. However, only 9 SCC are

considered to have suitable habitat within the subject property lands proposed for

development, while the remainder are associated with the woodland/wetland complex

located adjacent to the subject property. The following SCC were identified as having

potentially suitable habitat within the subject property:

Northern Hawthorn (Crataegus pruinosa var. dissona)

Woodland Flax (Linum virginianum)

Soft-hairy False Gromwell (Onosmodium molle ssp. hispidissium)

Northern Pin Oak (Quercus ellipsoidalis)

Red-headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus)

Monarch (Danaus plexippus)

Eastern Milksnake (Lampropeltis taylori triangulum)

Eastern Ribbonsnake (Thamnophis sauritus septentrionalis)

Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina serpentina)


These species are discussed in Section 4.0 of this report under their respective biota

subsections.

A preliminary screening for the presence of SWH was also completed for the study area.

The Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (SWHTG) is a guideline document that

outlines the types of habitats that the MNRF considers significant in Ontario as well as

criteria to identify these habitats (OMNR 2000, MNRF 2015a). The SWHTG groups

SWH into four broad categories: seasonal concentration areas, rare vegetation

communities and specialized wildlife habitat, habitats of SCC, and animal movement

corridors.

Based on the results of this preliminary screening exercise, the following were

considered to be candidate SWH for the study area:

Bat Maternity Colonies (adjacent to subject property)

Turtle Wintering Area

Snake Hibernaculum

Colonially-nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Bank/Cliff)

Colonially-nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Trees/Shrubs) (adjacent to subject

property)

Waterfowl Nesting Area

Bald Eagle and Osprey Nesting Habitat (adjacent to subject property)

Woodland Raptor Nesting Habitat (adjacent to subject property)

Turtle Nesting Area

Seeps and Springs (adjacent to subject property)

Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Woodland) (adjacent to subject property)

Marsh Bird Breeding Habitat

Woodland Area-sensitive Bird Breeding Habitat (adjacent to subject property)

Terrestrial Crayfish Habitat

Amphibian Movement Corridors (adjacent to subject property)

Based on the findings described above, a Terms of Reference (TOR) for the EIS was

prepared by NRSI and submitted to the Region of Waterloo, GRCA, and the City of

Cambridge on May 23, 2014 for review and comment. Comments were received from


the Region and City on June 11, 2014, and from the GRCA on June 24, 2014, in which

all agencies found the TOR acceptable. The TOR, and associated agency comments,

are included in Appendix II.


2.0 Relevant Policies, Legislation, and Planning Studies

Table 1 provides an overview of policies, legislation and planning studies that were

considered and which informed the field program and analysis. To help inform suitable

land-use concepts, guide the layout of development, and identify areas to be protected,

inventoried natural features were evaluated against relevant policies, legislation, and

planning studies outlined in the following sections. The specific implications of these

policies to the study is discussed in further in Section 5.0.

Table 1. Relevant Policies, Legislation and Planning Studies

Policy/Legislation Description Project Relevance Provincial Policy Statement (OMMAH 2014).

Issued under the authority of Section 3 of the Planning Act and came into effect on April 30, 2014, replacing the 2005 PPS (OMMAH 2005).

Section 2.1 of the PPS – Natural Heritage establishes clear direction on the adoption of an ecosystem approach and the protection of resources that have been identified as ‘significant’.

The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR 2010) and the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000, OMNR 2012) were prepared by the MNRF to provide guidance on identifying natural features and in interpreting the Natural Heritage sections of the PPS.

Natural features that occur within the study area, and which receive protection under the PPS, include: o Provincially Significant

Wetland, o Significant Woodlands, o Fish Habitat o Significant Wildlife

Habitat, and o Potential habitat for

Endangered and Threatened species.

Endangered Species Act The original ESA, written in 1971, underwent a year-long review which resulted in a number of changes which came into force in 2007.

The ESA prohibits killing, harming, harassing or capturing SAR and protects their habitats from damage and destruction.

Based on a preliminary analysis, several SAR were identified as having the potential to occur within the study area based on presence of suitable habitat.

These include bird, amphibian, reptile, mammal, insect and fish species.

Canadian Fisheries Act Manages threats to the

sustainability and productivity of Canada’s commercial, recreational and Aboriginal fisheries.

The Act prohibits “serious harm to fish” including destruction of habitat

DFO has developed an online, self-

Newman Creek may represent indirect habitat in support of the downstream Grand River fish communities.

Consequently, impacts to this watercourse may require an authorization under the


Policy/Legislation Description Project Relevance assessment tool, where proponents can determine whether their projects require DFO review based on the type of water body the work is occurring in and the nature of the proposed activity.

Fisheries Act.

Migratory Birds Convention Act

Prohibits the disturbance, destruction, or taking of a nest or eggs of migratory birds.

Any vegetation removal required for construction of the proposed development must have regard for this legislation in the form of timing window restrictions or other suitable mitigation measures.

Regional Municipality of Waterloo Official Plan (2015)

The Region of Waterloo Official Policies Plan (ROPP) 2006 outlines current policies for the protection of natural features within the Region (Region of Waterloo 2006).

The updated Regional Official Plan (ROP) 2010 (currently under appeal) includes policies related to the natural environment.

It provides a much more detailed policy framework than the ROPP 2006 that protects environmental features; therefore, the ROP 2010 is referred to throughout this report as the most current guidance for delineating and protecting Core Environmental Features within the study area.

Core Environmental Features identified within the study area include: Barrie’s Lake-Bauman

Creek PSW Complex (west of subject property)

The newly recommended Cruickston Creek Headwaters ESPA (west of subject property)

Significant Woodland (west of subject property)

Habitat for Threatened and Endangered species have been confirmed through previous studies within the proposed ESPA.

Fish Habitat may occur within the study area

The Blair-Bechtel-Cruickston ESL borders the subject property on the north and west sides.

The proposed Cruickston Creek Headwaters ESPA has been identified as a regionally important ecological linkage feature, but outside the subject property.

The Barrie’s Lake ESPA and Devil’s Creek Swamp and Forest ESPA occur in the study area vicinity, to the southwest and southeast, respectively.

City of Cambridge Official Plan (2014)

The City of Cambridge Official Plan (2004) outlines current policies for the protection of the City’s natural heritage resources.

A revised City Official Plan (2012),

Policies speak to the protection of natural features within the study area including: o PSWs, o Locally Significant Natural


Policy/Legislation Description Project Relevance adopted by City Council, was approved by Regional Municipality of Waterloo; however, the plan is currently under appeal.

Areas

GRCA Regulation 150/06 Regulation issued under Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990.

Through this regulation, the GRCA has the responsibility to regulate activities in natural and hazardous areas (i.e., areas in and near rivers, streams, floodplains, wetlands, and slopes).

GRCA requires that an EIS be undertaken in accordance with their EIS Guidelines and Submission Standards for Wetlands where development is proposed within 120m of PSW or 30m of non-PSW (GRCA 2005).

The GRCA regulates a portion of the subject property due to the presence of the Barrie’s Lake-Bauman Creek PSW complex and Newman Creek.

As such, permitting from the GRCA must be obtained for proposed works within their regulation area.

City of Cambridge Tree Management Policy

The City of Cambridge Tree Management Policies and Guidelines for New Developments (City of Cambridge 2002) outlines the data collection, analysis and reporting processes necessary to identify, assess, and adequately protect trees and vegetated areas in accordance with City policy.

Detailed Vegetation Management Plans are an outcome of this process, and are used to document the inventory, location and health assessment of trees within lands proposed for development. Recommendations for tree retention and protection are provided.

A Detailed Vegetation Management Plan for the subject property will be created that identifies opportunities for tree retention in the context of the proposed development layout.

Recommendations to maintain and protect retained trees during- and post-construction, will also be provided.

Cambridge West Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MHBC et al. 2013)

The MESP was undertaken by the City of Cambridge and area developers to provide the necessary environmental and servicing studies ahead of planned urban growth in west Cambridge.

The MESP guides the development of remaining greenfield lands in west Cambridge while identifying and recommended protective measures for sensitive and significant natural features

A Natural Environment Study (Ecoplans 2013) was completed in support of the MESP.

The EIS study area is included within the MESP Development Study Area.

The woodland and wetland communities within the rare Hogsback feature/proposed Cruickston Creek ESPA, located adjacent to the study area, were identified as high-level constraints.

A 15m dripline buffer from the adjacent woodland, extending just within the west subject property boundary, was recommended to protect the existing vegetation and


Policy/Legislation Description Project Relevance enhance the existing edge community.

The short north-south hedgerow extending south from the rare woodland edge was identified as a Moderate-High constraint; no buffer from this feature was proposed.

All other subject property natural features were considered low-level constraints.

See Appendix III for MESP mapping showing proposed buffers.


3.0 Field Methods

Terrestrial field surveys were undertaken within the study area to characterize natural

features and identify significant and sensitive natural heritage features and species that

have potential to be adversely affected by the proposed development. A total of 13 field

survey visits were completed between April and December 2014 to complete a variety of

field surveys which are described in detail within the TOR (Appendix II) and summarized

in Table 2. Additional surveys were completed in 2015 to assess the presence of Snake

Hibernaculum SWH, and an additional visit was completed in 2016 to update the tree

inventory, as described further below.

Table 2. Field Survey Summary

Survey Type Protocol Date

Vegetation community description and mapping

Lee et al. 1998 June 5, 2014

Vegetation inventories Systematic search by ELC polygon

June 5, 2014; August 13, 2014; September 8, 2014

Woodland dripline flagging and confirmation with Region of Waterloo staff

N/A June 5, 2014

Butternut Health Assessment MNRF 2015b July 22, 2014 Butternut Hybridity Field Test MNRF 2015b August 13, 2014 Tree inventory and assessment City of Cambridge 2002 July 22, 2014;

August 19, 2014; September 10, 2014; September 7, 2016

Breeding bird surveys BSC 2001 June 5, 2014; July 4, 2014

Marsh bird surveys BSC 2009a June 5, 2014; July 4, 2014

Reptile Visual Encounter Surveys and Snake Coverboard Checks

Systematic area search of suitable habitats and coverboard checks

May 6, 2014 (board placement); June 5, 2014; June 11, 2014; July 4, 2014; August 13, 2014; September 8, 2014

Anuran call surveys BSC 2009b April 24, 2014; May 19, 2014; June 11, 2014

Bat cavity tree assessment OMNR 2011a July 22, 2014 Aquatic habitat assessment N/A August 13, 2014 Snake emergence surveys Systematic area search

of suitable habitats and coverboard checks

April 15, 2015 (additional board placements and area search); April 25, 2015; May 1, 2015; May 5, 2015


See Map 2 for survey point locations within the subject property.

In addition to the methodology outlined in the TOR, the following additional field surveys

were undertaken in support of the EIS.

Bat Cavity Tree Assessment

Trees and snags inventoried within or immediately adjacent to the subject property were

assessed for the presence of cavities that might provide potential bat maternity colony or

roosting habitat. This assessment did not include trees located within the FODM5-2

forest community west of the subject property. This work was completed due to the

potential for the SAR Little Brown Myotis (Myotis lucifugus), Northern Myotis (Myotis

septentrionalis), and Tri-colored Bat (Perimyotis subflavus) to occur within the study

area. Evaluation methods for maternity colonies were consistent with methods outlined

in Bats and Bat Habitats: Guidelines for Wind Power Projects (OMNR 2011a) and Bat

and Bat Habitat Surveys of Treed Habitats (MNRF 2016b). This assessment identified

any snags or trees greater than 10cm DBH within the subject property, with suitable

cavities and loose bark. Cavity trees were identified and evaluated according to the

following criteria (in order of importance) (OMNR 2011a, MNRF 2016b):

Tallest cavity trees,

Containing cavities or crevices originating as cracks, scars, knot holes or

woodpecker cavities,

Largest diameter at breast height (DBH),

Within the highest density of cavity trees (i.e. clusters),

Large amount of loose, peeling bark,

Cavities or crevices on trees are greater than 10m high,

Tree species that provide good habitat (e.g. white pine, maple, aspen, ash, oak),

Open canopies, and

Exhibits early stages of decay (i.e. decay Class 1-3 (Watt and Caceres 1999)).

Other criteria were also considered, including the use of cavities by other wildlife, the

potential for cavities to be used by predators, supporting/surrounding habitat, and other


characteristics contributing to the habitat requirements of these species, such as

temperature regulation.

Butternut Health Assessment

Due to the presence of Butternut (Juglans cinerea) on the subject property, a Butternut

Health Assessment (BHA) (MNRF 2015b) was completed for 6 trees on July 22, 2014.

A hybridity field-test was also completed for these trees on August 13, 2014 to determine

their status as pure Butternuts or as hybrids. A 7th Butternut, identified during a tree

inventory update completed on September 7, 2016 and located immediately north of the

subject property boundary, has not been assessed using the standard MNRF method to

date.

Snake Emergence Surveys

Due to observations of snakes in the immediate vicinity of a potential hibernaculum

feature during 2014 field surveys (see Section 4.3.2.2), additional area searches and

coverboard surveys were completed during the spring emergence period for snakes

(April-early May 2015). These surveys were completed to further assess the presence

of Snake Hibernaculum SWH on the subject property, with a focus on the south-facing

exposed-gravel slopes of the old fill pile within the north-property cultural meadow

community.

A total of 4 site visits were completed between April 15 and May 5, 2015. Each site visit

consisted of targeted area searches for snakes as well as snake coverboard surveys. In

order to conduct active searches and cover board surveys, a Wildlife Scientific

Collectors’ Authorization was obtained from the MNRF on April 1, 2015. Snake

emergence survey methodology was developed following guidance from J. Crowley

(2013), J. Urquhart (2013), and OMNR (2012) and is described in detail below.

Coverboard Surveys

The 6 snake coverboards placed on the subject property in 2014 were used again in

2015 for the spring emergence surveys. An additional 4 coverboards (SNK-007, 008,

009, 010) were placed on the subject property on April 15, 2015, focusing on the area

around the potential snake hibernaculum (see Map 3). The coverboards were checked

on sunny days when air temperatures were > 5 ºC or on days with a mix of sun and


cloud when air temperatures were >10 ºC. When checking boards, NRSI biologists

approached the board cautiously and lifted the board to check for snakes, taking care to

replace the board in its original location. All observed individuals were photographed,

and information recorded including species, sex (if known), number of individuals,

approximate length, and behaviour.

Area Search Surveys

Area searches were conducted over 4 days on April 15, April 25, May 1, and May 5,

2015 in conjunction with snake cover board surveys. Area searches involved walking

appropriately spaced transects in order to thoroughly search the study area while

carefully lifting all encountered logs, rocks, or other suitable forms of cover. To ensure

that no wildlife were harmed or crushed when searching under rocks/logs, the cover

feature was lifted straight up, rather than flipped on its side. NRSI biologists also took

care to replace moved items to their original location so as not to disrupt the habitat.

During each survey, detailed notes were taken which described the habitat searched,

level of effort, weather conditions, and species observed. In addition to targeted

surveys, all incidental wildlife observations within the subject property were documented.


4.0 Existing Conditions

4.1 Soils, Terrain and Drainage

The study area is situated within a glacial spillway channel associated with the Grand

River (Chapman and Putnam 1984). Soils within the study area are comprised

predominantly of the Burford-Fox Series which is characterized by coarse and medium

textured soils over outwash deposits (Presant and Wicklund 1971). A small portion of

the northern extent of the site is comprised of Dumfries Series soils which are

characterized by medium textured soils over stony till (Presant and Wicklund 1971).

The topography within the study area is gently rolling with some degree of undulation

clearly evident across the site. A significant amount of mineral fill has been introduced

within the northern half of the subject property, beyond the western terminus of Newman

Drive and Rosecliff Place. The western boundary of the subject property which borders

the rare Hogsback feature is a slope crest that runs the entire edge of the adjacent

woodlot and creates a notable east-facing slope toward the SWM facility. The subject

property lands to the north of Newman Drive drain into the SWM facility, which

discharges northward crossing Blair Road and eventually outletting to the Grand River

approximately 1km downstream. The majority of the southern half of the subject

property contains hydrological catchment areas that infiltrate stormwater in-situ and do

not result in stormwater outflows (Meritech 2016).

Hydrogeological studies have been completed in support of the Cambridge West MESP

(LVM 2013) as well as supplemental studies completed for the proposed residential

development south of the subject property (MTE 2016). Because the subject property

falls within the MESP Development Study Area and the “Cambridge West Community”, it

was incorporated into hydrogeological analyses completed for both studies. The

groundwater table on the subject property was measured to range between 304 and

308masl, fluctuating by approximately 1m seasonally. Water table elevations are

highest at the south end of the property and lowest within the SWM block. Groundwater

flows in a northerly direction across the property toward Newman Creek, regardless of

season (Meritech 2016).


4.2 Vegetation

4.2.1 Vegetation Communities

The majority of the subject property consists of culturally-influenced mixed meadow and

annual row crops. Deciduous hedgerows also exist within the subject property and the

deciduous forest community to the immediate west of the property was also

characterized. The ELC community for the PSW within the rare property was derived

from previous ELC work completed by NRSI in 2011. This community, a Yellow Birch-

Conifer Organic Mixed Swamp Type (SWMO3-1), is located >30m from the subject

property boundary and is not described in further detail within this report. ELC

communities are described below in detail and shown on Map 2. Original ELC data

sheets are provided in Appendix IV.

Annual Row Crops (OAGM1)

Much of the southern half of the subject property is comprised of annual row crops which

extend to the west and south. In recent years this field has been grown in corn and

soybeans. The higher elevation in the southeast corner of the subject property makes a

gradual decline of approximately 6m toward the southern edge of the rare Hogsback

feature.

Dry-Fresh Mixed Meadow (MEMM3)

The northern half of the subject property is dominated by mixed meadow which shows

clear signs of anthropogenic influence. The SWM facility exists within the northern

portion of this community as well as a large area of introduced fill that has naturalized to

mixed meadow. A footpath connects Newman Drive with the rare property to the west,

with abundant dumping of garden waste and grass clippings along this path. A large fill

pile adjacent to the south subject property boundary, which has been on-site for

approximately 6-10 years, has also naturalized to mixed meadow.

The meadow features comprise a mixture of native and non-native species including

Awnless Brome (Bromus inermis ssp. inermis), Orchard Grass (Dactylis glomerata),

Canada Goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), Wild Madder (Galium mollugo) and Wild


Carrot (Daucus carota). Young, early successional trees and shrubs occur sparsely

throughout the meadow areas including Manitoba Maple (Acer negundo), Common

Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), and Black Locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia). While

hedgerow species were included in the original ELC data sheets, the composition of

these features is discussed separately below.

The fringe of the main SWM wet pond has established as a mixture of common marsh

species including Broad-leaved Cattail (Typha latifolia), Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum

salicaria), Purple-stemmed Aster (Symphyotrichum puniceum var. puniceum) and a

localized population of Common Reed (Phragmites australis ssp. australis). Willow trees

(Salix ssp.) and Eastern Cottonwood (Populus deltoides ssp. deltoides) saplings have

established along the perimeter of the pond. The slopes surrounding the pond include

scattered plantings of young Eastern White Cedar (Thuja occidentalis), Freeman’s

Maple (Acer X freemanii) and White Spruce (Picea glauca).

Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple-Beech Deciduous Forest Type (FODM5-2)

The upland forest habitat within the rare Hogsback feature immediately west of the

subject property boundary is comprised predominantly of Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum

ssp. saccharum) throughout the canopy, sub-canopy and understorey. Other common

tree species include Common Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), American Basswood (Tilia

americana) and Red Oak (Quercus rubra). Choke Cherry (Prunus virginiana spp.

virginiana) is occasional throughout the shrub layer with a patchy groundcover of Blue

Cohosh (Caulophyllum thalictroides), Blue-stemmed Goldenrod (Solidago caesia) and

Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata). Common Buckthorn occurs continuously along the

length of the forest edge and extending hedgerows adjacent to the mixed meadow. The

forest groundcover appeared sparse throughout the multi-season inventory.

Deciduous Hedgerows

Four deciduous hedgerows occur on the subject property, referred to on Map 2 as

Hedgerows 1, 2, 4 and 5. A previously existing hedgerow (Hedgerow 3) has been

removed. It is NRSI’s understanding that this hedgerow was removed for the purposes

of the existing agricultural land use in that location (R. Martins, Huron Creek

Developments, pers. comm., September 2016). The removal of Hedgerow 3 is therefore

assumed outside the scope of this development application and will therefore not be


further referenced within the EIS or the Detailed Vegetation Management Plan (DVMP;

Appendix V).

Tree species diversity within these hedgerows is reflective of the Dry-Fresh Sugar

Maple-Beech Deciduous Forest community but including an area of Butternut within

Hedgerow 1. Hedgerow 2 exhibits a very limited selection of herbaceous species as a

result of dense thickets of Common Buckthorn. Alternate-leaved Dogwood (Cornus

alternifolia) occurs sporadically at the edges of the hedgerows; however, the

regeneration of hardwood trees is limited due to the prevalence of buckthorn. Hedgerow

1 contains patches of May-apple (Podophyllum peltatum) with few other herbaceous

species present. Hedgerows 4 and 5, which connect to the Hogsback forest on the

western boundary of the subject property, also exhibit an abundance of Common

Buckthorn among the mid-age and mature hardwood trees.

4.2.1 Vascular Flora

A total of 190 plant species was identified during site investigations. A complete list of

these species is appended to this report (Appendix VI). This included several native and

non-native tree and shrub species, common meadow forb species and non-native cool

season grasses. The mixed meadow communities exhibit a high proportion of non-

native species or species indicative of early successional habitat. The flora within the

rare Hogsback forest is comprised of hardwoods and associated herbaceous species

typical of dry-mesic forests within the area. While Common Buckthorn dominates the

hedgerow understories, many of the canopy trees are mature with a mid-size to large

DBH and are in good condition (see Section 4.3.2).

One provincially significant species, Butternut, was confirmed within the study area. Six

Butternuts were observed within the subject property, confined to an area within or

immediately south of Hedgerow 1 (Map 4a). One additional Butternut was located

immediately north of the subject property boundary. Butternut is designated as federally

and provincially Endangered (MNRF 2016a). This species is therefore protected under

policies of the ESA. These Butternuts and the results of a BHA are described further in

Section 4.2.2.1.


Six vegetation species considered to be regionally significant were observed within the

study area:

White Spruce

Black Walnut (Juglans nigra)

Cockspur Thorn (Crataegus crus-galli)

Eastern Cottonwood

Common Hackberry

Virginia-creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia)

Significance rankings for Waterloo Region (Richardson and Martin 1999) are provided

for these species in Appendix VI. See Section 5.1.6 for further discussion about the

location and significance of regionally significant vegetation species in the study area.

4.2.2 Tree Inventory

A total of 458 trees, representing 38 species, was inventoried within or immediately

adjacent to the subject property by a Certified Arborist. Several hardwood species were

inventoried including 117 Sugar Maple trees, which was the most abundant species

inventoried in the study area. Notable aggressive non-native species include Black

Locust and White Mulberry (Morus alba). In general, most trees were noted to be in

good to fair condition, with most being assessed as having low to medium potential for

structural failure. The average DBH of all inventoried trees was 20.2cm. Fourteen trees

were measured to have a DBH of 50cm or greater; 2 of these trees (a Hop Hornbeam

(Ostrya virginiana) and a Bitternut Hickory (Carya cordiformis)) had a DBH greater than

70cm. See the DVMP (Appendix V) for additional details of the tree inventory completed

on the subject property.

As noted in Section 4.2.1, trees inventoried within the subject property included the SAR

Butternut. The 6 inventoried Butternuts that occur on the subject property have been

identified as Tree IDs 225, 233 234, 235, 236 and 237, and their locations are shown on

Map 4a and in DVMP Map 1a. A 7th, untagged, Butternut (Tree ID 560) was observed

during a tree inventory update completed on September 7, 2016 and is located

immediately north of the subject property as shown on Map 4a and in DVMP Map 1a.

The results of the BHA are described below.


Table 3 provides a list of tree species inventoried within the subject property, whether

they are native or non-native and their overall condition.

Table 4 provides a summary of the overall condition of trees inventoried within the

subject property, along with their potential for structural failure rating. See the DVMP

(Appendix V) for further details of the tree inventory summary.


Table 3. Summary of Inventoried Trees

Common Name

Scientific Name Excellent Good Fair Poor

Very Poor Dead Total

Native Species

American Basswood

Tilia americana

4 13 4

21

Balsam Poplar

Populus balsamifera

1

1

Bitternut Hickory

Carya cordiformis

11 42 4 2

59

Black Cherry

Prunus serotina

7 10 3

20

Black Maple

Acer saccharum ssp. nigrum

1 1

2

Black Walnut

Juglans nigra

1

1 2

Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa

1

1

Butternut Juglans cinerea

6 1

7

Choke Cherry

Prunus virginiana ssp. virginiana

1

1

Common Hackberry

Celtis occidentalis

3 8 1

12

Eastern Cottonwood

Populus deltoides

26 10 2

2 40

Eastern White Cedar

Thuja occidentalis

2

2

Eastern White Pine

Pinus strobus

9 1

10

Freeman's Maple

Acer X freemanii

1 2

3

Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica

1

1

Hawthorn species

Crataegus sp.

1

1

Hop Hornbeam

Ostrya virginiana

5 7

12

Manitoba Maple

Acer negundo

3 9 1

13

Peachleaf Willow

Salix amygdaloides

1 1

2

Red Oak Quercus rubra

2 3 1

6

Shagbark Hickory

Carya ovata var. ovata

1 1

2

Silver Maple

Acer saccharinum

1

1

Sugar Maple

Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum

53 55 7 2

117


White Ash Fraxinus americana

2 4 6 2 4 18

White Elm Ulmus americana

1 1

2

White Oak Quercus alba

1

1

White Spruce

Picea glauca 3 11 1

15

Total 3 139 176 37 10 7 372

Non-Native Species Alaska Yellow Cedar

Cupressus nootkatensis

1

1

Black Locust

Robinia pseudoacacia

9 5

14

Colorado Spruce

Picea pungens 1

3

4

Common Apple

Malus domestica

1

1

Common Pear

Pyrus communis

1

1

Crack Willow

Salix fragilis 15 24 7

46

Norway Maple

Acer platanoides

1 1

2

Saucer Magnolia

Magnolia soulangeana

1

1

Siberian Elm

Ulmus pumila 2

2

White Mulberry

Morus alba 1 2

3

White Willow

Salix alba var. alba

4 4 3

11

Total 1 36 38 11

86

Overall Total 4 175 214 48 10 7 458

Table 4. Overall Condition of Trees Inventoried

Potential For Structural Failure Rating

Overall Condition

Total Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor Dead

Low 4 161 52 1 0 0 218 Medium 0 14 156 2 0 0 172 High 0 0 6 45 10 7 68 Total 4 175 214 48 10 7 458

4.2.2.1 Butternut Health Assessment

A BHA was conducted for 6 trees which were observed on the subject property and

tagged during 2014 surveys. The BHA found that all 6 trees are considered Category 2


(i.e., “Retainable”) based upon the assessment of their condition. The BHA report is

included in Appendix XIII. Project considerations pertaining to Butternut are discussed

further in Section 5.1.3. A 7th Butternut observed north of the subject property boundary

will be assessed as part of a future BHA update to be completed prior to site

development.

4.3 Wildlife

4.3.1 Birds

A total of 193 bird species is reported from within 1km of the study area based on the

OBBA (BSC et al. 2008). Forty-five of these species were documented within the study

area during the field surveys. Of observed species, 33 exhibited signs of breeding, such

as males singing, females carrying food or nest materials, and the presence of fledged

young. Refer to Appendix VII for a list of bird species found in the study area and

vicinity.

Appendix I provides a summary of significant bird species known to occur or observed in

the study area, their current status ranks, and preferred habitats. Two of these species

were confirmed within the study area: Barn Swallow and Eastern Wood-Pewee

(Contopus virens).

Barn Swallow is listed as Threatened and is afforded protection under the ESA. This

species breeds commonly throughout Waterloo Region and southern Ontario. Barn

Swallow commonly nests on man-made structures and is adaptable to human presence.

Barn swallow was observed flying above the agricultural field within the southern extent

of the subject property during the June 5 field survey. The observed individual appeared

to be flying through the subject property rather than actively foraging over the field. This

species was not observed on any other survey date and suitable nesting habitat for the

species is not present on site. Agricultural row crop fields are considered poorer habitat

for Barn Swallow relative to open wetlands, meadows and woodland edges, which are

present within the subject property but at which no foraging Barn Swallows were

observed. Suitable nesting habitat (e.g., barns and agricultural outbuildings) do not

occur within 500m of the subject property boundaries. The subject property is therefore

not considered functional habitat for Barn Swallow.


Eastern Wood-Pewee is considered a SCC; consequently, confirmed habitat for the

species is considered SWH. This species breeds commonly in deciduous forests

throughout the Region. This species were heard singing within the adjacent Dry-Fresh

Sugar Maple-Beech Deciduous Forest community on the adjacent rare property during

both breeding bird survey dates, indicating evidence of probable breeding within the

adjacent forest. Suitable habitat for this species is absent from the subject property.

Nine bird species were observed that are considered regionally significant (see

Appendix VII). Five of these species exhibited signs of breeding within the study area.

Species which showed probable breeding evidence include Wood Duck (Aix sponsa)

and Orchard Oriole (Icterus spurius), which were observed as breeding pairs. See Map

4b for the ELC communities in which these two species were observed. Scarlet Tanager

(Piranga olivacea), Brown Thrasher (Toxostoma rufum) and Great Blue Heron were

observed with evidence of possible breeding in the study area, due to observations of

singing males or observation within suitable breeding habitat. Common Merganser

(Mergus merganser), Green Heron, Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura) and Sandhill Crane

(Grus canadensis) were observed without breeding evidence in the study area.

4.3.2 Herpetofauna

NRSI field investigations confirmed the presence of 9 herpetofauna species within the

study area. A complete list of herpetofauna reported from the study area, based on

background information and observations made as part of this study, is included in

Appendix VIII. The results of species-specific surveys are detailed in the following

sections.

4.3.2.1 Anurans (Frogs and Toads)

Six anuran species were recorded during call surveys or observed incidentally within the

study area. Spring Peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), Green Frog (Lithobates clamitans

melanota) and Bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeiana) were observed calling within the SWM

facility (wet pond and forebay) during anuran call surveys. Of these species, Spring

Peeper was recorded with the highest abundance, but was not recorded calling at full

chorus (i.e., <20 individuals). Four Bullfrogs were heard calling within the forebay.


Spring Peeper and American Toad (Anaxyrus americanus) were heard calling within the

swamp community of the rare Hogsback feature, west of the property. Both species

were heard calling at full chorus (i.e., >20 individuals) during anuran call surveys.

Both Northern Leopard Frog (Lithobates pipiens) and Gray Treefrog (Hyla versicolor)

were observed incidentally within the study area during other field investigations.

4.3.2.2 Snakes

2014 Field Studies

Two species of snakes were observed during 2014 area searches, snake coverboard

checks, and incidentally during other surveys. Eastern Gartersnake (Thamnophis sirtalis

sirtalis) was observed at the following snake coverboards (see Map 2):

SNK-002 (1 individual observed on 2 survey dates)

SNK-005 (1 individual on 1 survey date)

SNK-003 (2 individuals on 1 survey date)

Two individuals of Northern (DeKay’s) Brownsnake (Storeria dekayi dekayi) were

observed under SNK-002 on one survey date. The adult shed skin of an unidentified

snake species was observed under SNK-005.

During coverboard placement on May 6, 10 Eastern Gartersnakes were observed

basking or moving within the mixed meadow community in the north half of the subject

property. Two Eastern Gartersnakes were also observed incidentally within this mixed

meadow community during the June 5 field visit. The timing of this event correlates with

snake emergence, which suggested that the observed snakes had recently emerged

from a nearby hibernaculum.

2015 Spring Emergence Surveys

Across the 4 site visits completed during spring 2015, NRSI biologists observed a total of

43 Eastern Gartersnakes and 1 Northern (DeKay’s) Brownsnake. However, some of the

observed gartersnake individuals may have been re-counted among site visits. The

maximum number of Eastern Gartersnakes observed during a single site visit was 17.


See Map 3 for the snake observation locations on the subject property relative to the

location of the potential snake hibernaculum. Details of the snake emergence survey

results are summarized in Appendix IX including information on species observed,

number of individuals, observation locations, survey dates, time and weather conditions.

The spring emergence survey results met the criteria to designate the potential snake

hibernaculum as Reptile Hibernaculum SWH as described in the Significant Wildlife

Habitat Criteria Schedules for Ecoregion 6E (MNRF 2015a). See Section 5.1.4.1 for

more information on the presence of this SWH type on the subject property.

4.3.2.3 Turtles

Midland Painted Turtles (Chrysemys picta marginata) were observed basking within the

subject property across multiple site visits. On May 6, 4 Painted Turtles were observed

within the SWM facility (wet pond and forebay). On June 5, a live Painted Turtle was

found basking on the pavement at the western dead-end extent of Newman Drive. The

cement curb was acting as a barrier to the turtle and it was relocated to the edge of the

nearby SWM facility by NRSI staff.

No herpetofauna SAR or SCC were observed within the study area. Appendix I provides

a summary of significant herpetofauna species known to occur or observed in the study

area vicinity, their current status ranks, and preferred habitats.

4.3.3 Mammals

According to the Mammal Atlas of Ontario (Dobbyn 1994), 34 mammal species are

reported from within 10km of the study area. Seven of these species were observed

within the study area: Eastern Cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), Woodchuck (Mormota

motax), Meadow Vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), Eastern

Chipmunk (Tamias striatus), Northern Raccoon (Procyon lotor), and White-tailed Deer

(Odocoileus virginianus). Appendix X provides a complete list of mammal species

reported from the study area.


There were no mammal SAR or SCC observed within the study area. Appendix I

provides a summary of significant mammal species known to occur or observed in the

study area vicinity, their current status ranks, and preferred habitats.

4.3.3.1 Bat Habitat Assessments

Cavity tree assessments completed within the study area (excluding the FODM5-1

community) resulted in 5 suitable cavity trees being identified within inventoried

hedgerows as shown on Map 4b. Of these, only 2 trees (#188 and 196) are located on

the subject property, while the other 3 are located immediately north of the subject

property boundary. Any individual cavity tree may provide suitable habitat for the SAR

bats Northern Myotis, Tri-colored Bat or Little Brown Myotis. Table 5 lists the cavity

trees located in the study area.

Table 5. Locations of Potential Bat Cavity Trees Observed Within the Study Area.

Tree ID

Common Name Scientific Name

UTM Coordinates (+/- 3m)

200 White Ash Fraxinus americana

552832 4802586

206 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 552823 4802583 7 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 552778 4802571 188 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 552792 4802257 196 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 552870 4802272

4.3.4 Butterflies

According to the Ontario Butterfly Atlas (MacNaughton et al. 2016), 74 butterfly species

are known to occur within the study area. NRSI biologists observed 6 species during

surveys completed within the study area. No SAR or SCC butterfly species were

observed during site visits. No regionally significant butterflies were observed. A

complete list of species observed and reported from the study area and vicinity is

provided in Appendix XI.

4.3.5 Odonata

A total of 121 odonate species are known from Waterloo Region. Of these, 2 SCC

odonates are have records of occurrence within 10km of the study area: Swamp Darner

(Epiaeschna heros) and Spatterdock Darner (Rhionaeschna mutata) (MNRF 2014).

Suitable habitat for Spatterdock Darner does not exist within the study area. However,

neither Swamp Darner nor any other SCC or regionally significant odonate species was


observed within the study area during field investigations. A complete list of species

reported from the study area vicinity is provided in Appendix XII.

4.4 Aquatic Resources

4.4.1 Aquatic Habitat

The following is a description of the aquatic habitat characterized within the study area,

which has been divided between Newman Creek and the SWM facility (Map 5).

4.4.1.1 Newman Creek

Newman Creek originates from the main SWM facility’s wet pond on the subject

property, and flows in a northeasterly direction before discharging into the Grand River

approximately 950m north of the property. Flow from the SWM facility occurs via a

controlled outlet structure.

Newman Creek was assessed for approximately 100m from the outlet structure to

downstream and outside of the subject property boundary (Map 5). Within this section

the creek had a medium gradient and a bankfull width ranging from 0.5 to 2.5m. The

channel banks throughout the reach assessed were gradual with heights of 0.2 to 0.6m.

Erosion was noted along the banks, which was most likely caused during high flows.

The channel was defined and had natural meanders. Wetted widths ranged from 0.3 to

0.8m. The banks were moderately vegetated with grasses and other herbaceous

species. Skunk Cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus) and Spotted Touch-me-not

(Impatiens capensis) were observed adjacent to the creek. These two species of plants

can be considered indicators of groundwater discharge. Deciduous trees and shrubs

within the riparian zone provide excellent (80%) shading for the feature.

The substrates immediately downstream of the stormwater wet pond outlet structure

consisted of placed boulders. Downstream from that location the substrates consisted of

sand (35%), muck (15%), cobble (15%) gravel (15%) and silt (10%). The proportion of

gravel and cobble substrates decreased the further downstream from the outlet

structure. The surveyed reach primarily consisted of runs and riffles with limited pools.

Aquatic habitat also included woody debris, overhanging vegetation, and coarse rocks

and substrates.


At the time of the assessment water temperature was 19.5°C with an air temperature of

21°C. Limited flow was observed within the channel. As creek flow is controlled by the

outlet structure it is likely that this feature is intermittent in nature. Based on background

information review it was determined the creek becomes less defined further

downstream and moves from a moderate to high gradient (Ecoplans 2013). No fish

were observed during the NRSI site visits, nor were fish observed during MESP

technical studies (Ecoplans 2013). Newman Creek provides indirect fish habitat to the

Grand River.

4.4.1.2 Stormwater Management Facility

The SWM facility on the subject property comprises the main wet pond and a small

settling forebay. The pond forebay is located immediately north of the Newman Drive

terminus and is approximately 20m by 10m in size (Map 5). A 1m inlet structure is

located on the east side of the pond. The inlet structure was not flowing at the time of

the assessment. The forebay was surrounded by cattails and willow species. Algae

were noted on the surface of the forebay except for within the middle where the water

was clear and open. Water Milfoil (Myriophyllum sp.) was also observed along the

shores of the forebay. Substrates consisted primarily of muck with few boulders near

the inlet structure. Green Frogs were observed incidentally during the site visit. No fish

were observed although there is likelihood that the forebay supports fish species. The

forebay outlets into the main stormwater wet pond through a small overflow channel on

the northwest side.

The main SWM facility’s wet pond is located immediately to the north of the forebay

(Map 5). The wet pond is wider at the southern extent and narrows towards the outlet to

Newman Creek. The controlled outlet structure is located at the northern extent of the

pond. The shores and banks of the pond were heavily vegetated with cattails and willow

species. Open water was present within the centre of the pond. Algae were present on

the surface of the pond around the edges. Water depths were estimated to exceed 1m,

and substrates comprised very soft muck. Green Frogs were observed incidentally

within this pond during the site visit. No fish were observed at the time of the

assessment. The wet pond likely supports a fish community.


During field investigations, NRSI biologists did not observe any seepage areas within the

subject property or within the forest community immediately adjacent to the subject

property.

4.4.2 Fish Community

As described in the Natural Environment Study for the Cambridge West MESP

(Ecoplans 2013), fish were not observed in Newman Creek during trout spawning

surveys completed in 2010 and 2011. Furthermore, due to the high gradient sections,

low flow conditions and undefined channel sections, fish use of Newman Creek

upstream of Blair Road was considered unlikely (Ecoplans 2013). No fish were

observed within Newman Creek during NRSI field investigations.


5.0 Natural Environment Development Constraints

The natural environment constraints analysis is used to identify natural features that are

sensitive to disturbance based on the rarity or significance of the feature or the

functions/processes and/or policies inhibiting development within them. These areas are

identified as “constraints”, and are discussed in the context of natural heritage policies

governing their protection. Conversely, opportunities for development may occur outside

of these natural environment constraints within the subject property. Development or

site alteration within certain natural feature constraints may be permitted by the

regulatory agencies subject to implementation of recommended measures to

appropriately mitigate anticipated impacts as discussed below. Natural feature

constraints have been identified with reference to those mapped and described in the

Cambridge West MESP (MHBC et al. 2013) and the supporting technical report

(Ecoplans 2013). Results of this analysis have been provided as input to the proposed

development plan in order to avoid and reduce impacts to natural features and functions.

A summary of this analysis for the subject property is discussed below. Natural features

identified as constraints to development are shown on Maps 4a and 4b.

5.1 Significant Natural Features and Habitats

As detailed above, several terrestrial, aquatic and wetland features and functions have

been documented within the study area. These include features considered provincially

significant (e.g., PSW) and regionally significant (e.g., Core Environmental Feature).

The following is a summary of the significance and sensitivity of the study area natural

features and how the natural heritage policies and legislation described in Section 2.0

inform the identification of constraints for the proposed development.

5.1.1 Regional Core Environmental Feature and Environmentally Sensitive Landscape

The rare Hogsback feature located immediately west of the subject property has been

mapped as a Core Environmental Feature under the Region of Waterloo’s Official Plan

(2015). This Core Environmental Feature comprises a portion of the Barrie’s Lake-

Bauman Creek PSW complex as described further below. The woodland communities


present within this feature also meet the Regional criteria for Significant Woodland,

following Section 7.C.6 of the Regional Official Plan; specifically:

The woodland is greater than 4 ha in size, excluding hedgerows;

It consists primarily of native trees; and,

It meets the criteria of a “woodland” in accordance with the provisions of the

Regional Woodland Conservation By-law.

The Core Environmental Feature also contains the Cruickston Creek Headwaters ESPA.

Although this ESPA has not yet been identified in Regional Official Plan schedules,

ESPA designation was recommended and endorsed by the Regional Planning and

Works Committee (T. Van Hinte, Region of Waterloo, pers. comm., September 2016).

The Cruickston Creek Headwaters ESPA is described as a regionally significant

assemblage of interconnected wetlands, providing a wide diversity of wildlife habitats

and a landscape-level natural corridor between the Grand River and wetlands

immediately north of Barrie’s Lake (Region of Waterloo 2014). The mosaic of ponds,

swamps and marshes is known to provide habitat for several species of waterfowl,

marsh birds, amphibians and turtles. The rare property Hogsback feature is also

significant due to its inclusion of >5ha of interior forest habitat and areas of woodland

approaching old growth forest characteristics, which is uncommon in the region (Region

of Waterloo 2014, Ecoplans 2013). Several federally, provincially and regionally

significant species are known from the features that comprise the proposed ESPA,

including several species of plants, birds, herpetofauna, butterflies and odonates

(Region of Waterloo 2014). The ESPA falls under the protective policies of Regional

Official Plan Section 7.C.8 for Core Environmental Features.

This adjacent Core Environmental Feature was included in the constraints analysis

completed for the Cambridge West MESP. Within the Hogsback portion of this feature,

the Birch-Conifer Organic Mixed Swamp (SWM6-1) and the Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple-

Beech Deciduous Forest (FOD5-2) were considered “High” constraint levels in the

MESP (Ecoplans 2013). The rationale for this constraint level was the relatively high

species richness and Floristic Quality Index (FQI), the relatively low level of disturbance,

presence of mature forest characteristics, and the presence of federally, provincially, and

regionally significant species (Ecoplans 2013). NRSI field investigations completed

within the adjacent woodland and wetland also documented a mature and relatively


undisturbed natural feature that provides a diversity of habitat features, including

excellent woodland amphibian breeding habitat. The relatively high ecological quality of

the feature was also suggested through confirmation of SWH as described below. Areas

of observed disturbance were primarily confined to the woodland edge facing the subject

property, much of which contains the invasive, non-native Common Buckthorn. This

woodland edge has likely experienced historic disturbance from the former agricultural

land use of the subject property. Based on the results of background information review

and field investigations, NRSI staff agree with the MESP designation for this Core

Environmental Feature as a “high-level” development constraint.

The subject property exists entirely outside of, although contiguous with, the boundaries

of the Core Environmental Feature and the Blair-Bechtel-Cruickston ESL. No direct

impacts to these features are therefore anticipated. However, Regional Official Plan

policy (Section 7.C.9) prohibits development and site alteration on adjacent lands unless

it can be demonstrated through an EIS that the activity will not negatively impact the

Core Environmental Feature and its ecological functions. Buffers and development

setbacks are recommended as measures to mitigate development impacts, and are

discussed further below.

Lands abutting the subject property to the north and west, including the Core

Environmental Feature, comprise an eastern boundary of the Blair-Bechtel-Cruickston

ESL. Regional Official Plan policies protecting development on lands contiguous to

ESLs are outlined in Sections 7.B.12-14, whereby an EIS is required to demonstrate no

adverse environmental impact to the natural features and ecological functions of the

ESL.

5.1.2 Provincially Significant Wetland

The Barrie’s Lake-Bauman Creek PSW Complex comprises a diverse variety of wetland

communities and wildlife habitat across a largely rural landscape between eastern North

Dumfries Township and west Cambridge. A large portion of the wetland complex falls

within the rare Charitable Research Reserve. The complex extends from Barrie’s Lake

in the south to marsh-dominated wetland communities within the Grand River floodplain,


north of Blair Road. In order of percent cover, the PSW comprises a mosaic of shallow

water, fen, marsh, and swamp (OMNR 2013, Ecoplans 2013).

A small portion of the Barrie’s Lake-Bauman Creek PSW extends into the study area.

The PSW boundary, approximated through vegetation community delineation, is located

approximately 35m from the subject property boundary at its nearest point, although the

majority of the wetland is at least 75m west of the subject property boundary. The

proposed development will therefore not directly impact the PSW. However, because

the regulation limit associated with the PSW extends onto the subject property,

consideration must be made to ensure that the ecological functions of the PSW are not

negatively affected by indirect or induced impacts. In this regard, the proposed

development must conform to PSW protective policies identified in the PPS and the

Region of Waterloo Official Plan (OMMAH 2014, Region of Waterloo 2014), as well as

the GRCA’s Ontario Regulation 150/06.

5.1.3 Species at Risk

Based on the completion of background information review and field investigations, 2

SAR, Barn Swallow and Butternut, were confirmed as occurring within the study area.

Functional Barn Swallow habitat was considered absent from the study area, as

described in Section 4.4.1. Based on the results of the cavity tree assessment, there is

potential for SAR bat habitat to occur on the subject property.

5.1.3.1 Butternut

A total of 6 Butternuts were inventoried within the subject property, all located within or

just south of Hedgerow 1 in the mixed meadow. One additional Butternut was located

within Hedgerow 1 immediately north of the subject property boundary. As summarized

in Section 4.3.2.1 and described within the BHA Report (Appendix XIII), all 6 Butternuts

that were identified and assessed in 2014 are considered Category 2 trees. Category 2

trees are only slightly affected by Butternut Canker and are therefore considered

“retainable”. The off-site Butternut will require assessment as part of a future BHA

update prior to site development. Because the number of Category 2 Butternuts that

may require removal to accommodate the proposed development total fewer than 10

trees, the activity is exempt by Section 9(1)(a) of the ESA and an ESA permit is not


required. Rather, the activity that would cause Butternut removal is eligible for MNRF

authorization under Section 23.7 of Ontario Regulation 242/08 whereby the activity is

registered with the MNRF using the “Notice of Butternut Impact” form on the MNRF

Registry. Activity registration must be completed a minimum of 30 days following

submission of the BHA Report to the MNRF. The Butternut Impact Form specifies the

number of Category 2 trees to be removed, whether they will be killed or harmed, the

location and DBH of each tree, and the date and report number of the BHA report.

Butternut removal may occur following MNRF confirmation that the Butternut Impact

Form has been received by the MNRF.

As a condition of Category 2 Butternut removals, Section 23.7 outlines requirements for

compensation that must be followed. For each tree that is killed, removed or harmed,

various numbers of Butternut seedling plantings will be required, with the specific

number depending on the height and DBH of the Butternuts that were removed. See

Section 6.3.1.1 for an assessment of Butternut compensation plantings required, based

on the number of existing Butternuts requiring removal to accommodate the proposed

development. All Butternut seedling plantings must be completed within three years of

the Butternut Impact Form submission. It is anticipated that these Butternut

compensation plantings will be established within proposed buffer restoration zones on

the subject property and/or on the adjacent rare property, where suitable conditions

exist.

In accordance with Ontario Regulation 242/08 Section 23.7, all Butternut compensation

plantings must be monitored annually for two years to assess tree health and success of

establishment. All Butternut compensation plantings must also be managed for two

years following planting. This will include weekly tending activities such as maintaining

tree guards, adjacent vegetation control, and watering as necessary, as described in

Section 23.7(11) of the Regulation. A record of planting, monitoring and tending must be

maintained and provided to the MNRF upon request.

5.1.3.2 Potential Bat Species at Risk Habitat

Habitat for the SAR bats Northern Myotis, Tri-colored Bat and Little Brown Myotis

potentially occurs on the subject property wherever suitable cavity trees or snags occur.

These species may use suitable cavity trees or snags for roosting or maternity colony


habitat. Bats select these trees for the combination of several factors that make them

attractive for these functions, such as the size and location of cavities that limits potential

for predation. Removal of these trees can therefore have a significant impact on the

sustainability of local bat populations.

As described in Section 4.4.3.1, 5 cavity trees were inventoried within the study area that

have potential to be impacted by the proposed undertaking. Impacts to bat SAR habitat

are prohibited under the ESA unless permitted or authorized by the MNRF.

5.1.4 Significant Wildlife Habitat

Several SWH types were identified as Candidate SWH for the study area, based on

desktop-level screening as described in Section 1.2. Based on the results of field

investigations, the majority of these habitats were identified as not meeting the criteria

for SWH. SWH assessment results, including rationale for ruling out a habitat category

as significant within the study area, are included in Appendix XIV.

Based on the results of field investigations, 3 SWH categories were confirmed for the

study area based on MNRF significance criteria (MNRF 2015a):

Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Woodland)

Eastern Wood-Pewee Habitat

Reptile Hibernaculum

Of these, only Reptile Hibernaculum SWH was identified within the subject property.

An additional 2 Candidate SWH types were maintained for the study area, all of which

occur outside of the subject property. It should be noted that while certain SWH types

that are indicative of relatively large, mature and undisturbed woodlands such as

Woodland Raptor Nesting Habitat and Woodland Area-Sensitive Bird Breeding Habitat

were not confirmed for extent of woodland within the study area, it is acknowledged that

the Core Environmental Feature as a whole may provide significant functions such as

these. The ecological significance of this feature has been documented, such as in the

Cambridge West MESP Natural Heritage Study and the Cruickston Creek Headwaters

Proposed ESPA Report (Ecoplans 2013, Region of Waterloo 2014). However, SWH

assessments of the adjacent woodland feature were based on field investigations


completed within 120m of the subject property boundary. Therefore, while additional

SWH functions may occur elsewhere within the Core Environmental Feature, they are

not anticipated to be impacted by the proposed development.

As identified in Section 2.1.5 of the PPS (OMMAH 2014), development and site

alteration is not permitted in, or on lands adjacent to SWH unless it has been

demonstrated that the proposed undertaking will not negatively impact the natural

feature or its ecological functions. As described in Section 3.A.4 of the City of

Cambridge Official Plan (2012), SWH is considered a Locally Significant Area within the

City’s Natural Heritage System. Official Plan policy states that development and site

alteration is to avoid Locally Significant Areas wherever feasible. Where development

and site alteration is proposed within or contiguous to a Locally Significant Area, an EIS

must demonstrate that the ecological function will be maintained, enhanced, or restored.

5.1.4.1 Confirmed Significant Wildlife Habitat

Reptile Hibernaculum

Reptile Hibernaculum SWH is considered a form of wildlife seasonal concentration area

and is defined as an area where reptiles occur in relatively high densities for a portion of

their life cycle, specifically for overwintering. The ability of reptiles to overwinter

successfully in cold climates can have a large impact on population persistence (OMNR

2011b). Snakes depend on hibernation sites located below frost lines in burrows, rock

crevices and other natural locations to escape freezing temperatures. Access to these

sites may occur along tree roots, through broken foundations, or through mammal

burrows.

The north half of the subject property contains a large area of fill that has naturalized as

a culturally influenced meadow over several years. A south facing slope of this fill

deposit comprises localized areas of exposed rock and aggregate that was identified by

NRSI biologists as a potential hibernaculum feature (see Maps, 3, 4b). Eastern

Gartersnakes utilize a wide variety of habitats for overwintering, including areas of

dumped stone and cement, which provide easy-access routes to sheltered, frost-free

zones (Rowell 2012). This potential hibernaculum feature is also surrounded by high

quality snake foraging habitat.


Relatively large abundances of Eastern Gartersnakes were observed during 2015 snake

emergence surveys within the north property cultural meadow, with up to 17 individuals

observed during a single survey visit. These results met the significance criterion of

“congregations of a minimum of five individuals of a snake sp. …near potential

hibernacula (e.g. foundation or rocky slope) on sunny warm days in spring (Apr/May)”

(MNRF 2015). The spring 2015 results, in combination with the observation of multiple

gartersnake individuals in that location of the property during 2014 surveys, was strongly

indicative of the presence of an overwintering hibernaculum accessed through the sun-

exposed southern rocky slope of the well-established on-site fill pile. Multiple

gartersnake individuals were observed on and immediately adjacent to the area of

exposed rocky slope identified as hibernaculum in Map 4b. Based on a review of the

observations documented by NRSI biologists, MNRF staff agreed that the collected data

indicated the presence of Reptile Hibernaculum SWH within the subject property (A.

Timmerman, MNRF, pers. comm., July 2015). The Reptile Hibernaculum SWH includes

the hibernaculum site plus a surrounding 30m radius buffer, as defined by the MNRF

(MNRF 2015a).

Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Woodland)

Amphibians require aquatic habitats to reproduce, and concentrate in breeding ponds

during spring. Suitable aquatic habitats must be unpolluted, shallow, and maintain

surface water long enough through the spring for juveniles to mature. Woody debris and

vegetation are also important components to provide calling sites and egg-laying

structures (OMNR 2011b). Amphibians disperse into adjacent terrestrial areas following

breeding. These terrestrial habitats must provide dense canopy coverage, moist

conditions and cover habitat. Breeding ponds must be sufficiently close to summer

habitats to provide habitat function.

The rare Hogsback feature located west of the subject property was identified as

Candidate SWH for Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Woodland) within the Cambridge West

MESP Natural Heritage Study (Ecoplans 2013). In particular, this study noted the

presence of excellent vernal pool breeding habitat for amphibians within the feature, as

well as a diversity of calling amphibian species and an abundance of Ambystomid

salamanders observed (no pure Jefferson Salamanders).


The Yellow Birch-Conifer Organic Mixed Swamp located within the study area is

considered to provide excellent amphibian breeding habitat based on NRSI field

investigations. Full choruses (>20 individuals) of breeding Spring Peepers and

American Toads were heard calling from this swamp community during 2014 field

surveys. The abundance of breeding individuals render this wetland and the adjacent

forest community as SWH for woodland amphibian breeding (MNRF 2015a) as shown

on Map 4b.

Habitat for Species of Conservation Concern

NRSI field biologists identified the presence of a breeding territory for the SCC Eastern

Wood-Pewee within the Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple-Beech Deciduous Forest (FODM5-2)

immediately west of the subject property (Map 4b). Evidence of a breeding territory was

based on observation of this species within the same vegetation community during both

breeding bird surveys. As a SCC (a provincial species of Special Concern), habitat for

this species is considered SWH and is subject to provincial and municipal protection

policies (OMMAH 2014, City of Cambridge 2012). As seen on Map 4b, habitat for this

species is entirely contained within the Regional Core Environmental Feature.

5.1.4.2 Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat

Bat Maternity Colonies

Bat maternity colonies are critical to the survival of local bat populations. Maternity

colonies can occur in built structures such as attics or barns as well as in natural settings

such as in tree cavities or under loose bark. These features provide habitat for females

and juveniles/sub-adults, and are used for giving birth or raising young (OMNR 2011b).

The Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple-Beech Deciduous Forest community located adjacent to the

subject property represents potential bat maternity colony habitat (MNRF 2015a). NRSI

biologists observed several good quality cavity trees within this forest (not included in the

formal bat cavity tree assessment) that may provide this habitat function. Furthermore,

this adjacent Core Environmental Feature was noted as containing abundant cavity trees

within the MESP Natural Heritage Study (Ecoplans 2013). Assessment of this SWH

type requires plot-based surveys of appropriate cavity trees within deciduous or mixed


forest communities. Because this forest community falls entirely outside of the subject

property and won’t be directly impacted by the development, this SWH type was not

assessed to confirm its status. For this reason it has been maintained as Candidate

SWH for the study area, although further survey work is considered unnecessary. This

does not include additional targeted surveys that may be required to assess habitat for

SAR bats, as described in Section 5.1.3.

Amphibian Movement Corridors

Amphibians need to move between habitats as parts of their life cycle, such as between

aquatic breeding ponds and terrestrial summer habitats, and to disperse to other nearby

ponds (OMNR 2011b). On a landscape scale, amphibian population groups

(collectively, a metapopulation) require regular recruitment of individuals from

neighbouring areas in order to sustain a given population. Breeding and overwintering

ponds require appropriate connecting habitats to upland areas in order to provide that

habitat function. Amphibian movement corridors must be forested (typically with

deciduous trees), maintain suitably moist, interior habitat conditions, and provide

appropriate ground cover (e.g., downed logs) and closed canopy (>60%) (MNRF 2015a).

The MESP Natural Heritage Study identified potential amphibian wildlife movement

corridor functions within the adjacent Core Environmental Feature based on drift fence

surveys (Ecoplans 2013). Due to the presence of significant amphibian breeding habitat

within the Barrie’s Lake-Bauman Creek PSW and the natural linkage provided to upland

woodland and other wetland communities elsewhere within the Core Environmental

Feature, it is possible that significant amphibian movement corridor habitat is maintained

within this feature. However, suitable corridor habitat does not extend onto the subject

property. As there will be no direct impact to potential movement corridor habitat within

the adjacent natural feature, this habitat type is maintained as Candidate SWH with no

further studies considered necessary for the purposes of this EIS.

5.1.5 Aquatic Features and Fish Habitat

Direct fish habitat as defined by the federal Fisheries Act does not occur on the subject

property. However, Newman Creek is connected to the Grand River, and the fish and

fish habitat in the Grand River are subject to the Fisheries Act as they are managed by


the MNRF as a recreational fishery (OMNR and GRCA 1998). The Grand River may

also serve commercial or Aboriginal fishery functions. Therefore, Newman Creek has

potential to provide indirect fish habitat in the form of food supply on which the fish in the

Grand River depend. The Fisheries Act recognizes this indirect habitat function based

on its definition of fish habitat, which is: "spawning grounds and any other areas,

including nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas, on which fish depend

directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes."

As indirect fish habitat, any alteration to the watercourse should be reviewed by

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). Furthermore, because the SWM facility and

Newman Creek fall within the GRCA’s regulation limit, a permit under Ontario Regulation

150/06 will be required for any development or land alteration within this area. A permit

will be issued upon the GRCA’s satisfaction that the proposed development will not

negatively impact the form or function of the regulated features.

5.1.6 Regionally Significant Species

Several regionally significant plant and wildlife species were documented in the study

area as listed in Appendix I and as shown on Maps 4a and 4b, respectively. As shown

on Map 4a, regionally significant plant species were observed within all subject property

hedgerows with the majority occurring in Hedgerows 2 and 5. Saplings of the regionally

significant Eastern Cottonwood were observed within the mixed meadow (MEMM3)

community adjacent to the pond; Cockspur Thorn was also observed within this

community. Black Walnut and White Spruce are believed to be of anthropogenic origin

and are therefore not considered significant.

Seven regionally significant bird species were observed within the study area; however,

only four were observed with breeding evidence. Of species showing breeding

evidence, Wood Duck (Aix sponsa) and Orchard Oriole (Icterus spurius) were observed

with evidence of probable breeding within the study area. The vegetation communities

in which these species were observed is shown on Map 4b.

One regionally significant amphibian species, Bullfrog, was also recorded with multiple

individuals calling from fringing emergent vegetation within the SWM facility wet pond


and forebay (Map 4b). These observations confirmed the use of these SWM features as

breeding habitat for the species.

While regionally significant species are not in and of themselves protected under

Regional or City Official Plan policy, efforts should be made to preserve vegetation

species individuals, or habitats of wildlife species, to the extent feasible within the

development plan. This includes the preservation of hedgerows were feasible, or

otherwise portions of the hedgerows or the significant trees themselves. Regionally

significant plant species that cannot be retained within the development plan should be

relocated to another suitable habitat area (e.g., proposed buffer restoration area, off-site

rare lands) to the extent feasible.

5.1.7 Hedgerows

Recommendations regarding Butternuts and regionally significant trees located in

hedgerows are described above. However, it is further recommended that Hedgerows 1

and 4 be retained to the extent feasible because they serve as natural boundary

demarcations with the adjacent Blair-Bechtel-Cruicktson ESL. Although Hedgerows 1

and 4 are not considered to be of better ecological quality than other on-site hedgerows,

maintenance of these features will serve as a physical barrier to buffer impacts (e.g.,

provide a visual screening for wildlife in the adjacent ESL), inhibit human encroachment,

and maintain a minor ecological linkage between the rare Hogsback feature and

naturalizing coniferous plantation located to the northeast of the subject property.

The MESP natural environment study designated Hedgerow 2 as a “low” constraint and

Hedgerow 5 as a “moderate-high” constraint (Ecoplans 2013). Hedgerows 1 and 4 were

not specifically assessed within the Ecoplans study. NRSI field investigations

determined that all on-site hedgerows were of relatively low species diversity and

containing a high proportion of non-native, invasive species (e.g. Common Buckthorn).

Based on NRSI’s field investigations, although Hedgerow 5 contains a complement of

species representative of the adjacent deciduous forest community, it is also highly

disturbed and is not considered to be a moderate-high level development constraint.

While existing trees should be integrated into the proposed development plan to the

extent feasible, Hedgerows 1 and 4 are considered more valuable for retention due to


their ecological value and function. Nonetheless, because Hedgerows 1 and 4 are not

considered policy-driven development constraints, they are not illustrated as such on

Map 4a.

5.2 Buffers

Buffers are required for natural heritage features such as woodlands, wetlands, and

watercourses to protect them from impacts during development. Based on the

characterization of the natural features on and adjacent to the subject property, a

woodland buffer warrants consideration in laying out the proposed development. PSWs

are typically afforded 30m buffers to protect their form and ecological functions.

Because the Barrie’s Lake-Bauman Creek PSW is located >30m from the subject

property boundary, a wetland buffer would be entirely contained within the adjacent

woodland and has therefore not been mapped. As described below, confirmed or

potential habitats for provincially or locally significant wildlife species will be protected

within these recommended buffers.

Woodland buffers are prescribed based on protecting the trees and their root zones as

well as providing associated open habitats required by forest species or for movement.

The Cambridge West MESP recommended a 15m dripline buffer from the adjacent Core

Environmental Feature that extends onto the western edge of the subject property (see

Maps 4a,b). The rationale for this 15m development setback and recommended buffer

management measures were based on factors such as the following:

analysis of the requirements and sensitivities of the natural heritage features and

functions;

the anticipated future urban land use context;

relevant policy and guideline documents; and,

scientific literature regarding potential impacts and functional buffer widths

(Ecoplans 2013).

The MESP Natural Heritage Study identifies several buffer objectives that should be met

through the recommended development setback and implementation of buffer

management measures. These objectives, as they apply to the recommended 15m

woodland buffer, include but may not be limited to the following:

“vegetation and tree root zone protection;


reducing potential for physical edge effects via establishment of a more robust

and dense edge vegetation community;

protection and enhancement of woodland and forest interior habitat (including

habitat for forest interior or forest-associated birds and woodland breeding

amphibians), via increased functional setbacks from ‘core’ areas and

increased woodland size – relative to current agricultural use;

Protection and enhancement of herpetofaunal breeding and foraging habitat;

Protection and enhancement of Lepidoptera / Odonata breeding and foraging

habitat;

Reducing potential for potential occupancy-related activities (e.g., encroachment,

dumping, noise/lighting etc.), via physical separation and buffer management

measures - along with other mitigation measures;

Ecological enhancement of the buffer zone, (which is, in its current form,

primarily agricultural with an abrupt agricultural / natural interface) via: increased

width; increased habitat diversity; increased native species composition; and

areas for potential targeted habitat creation; and,

Enhancement of ecological corridors, via development setbacks and buffer

zone enhancements” (Ecoplans 2013).

Based on the significance and sensitivity of the Core Environmental Feature as

demonstrated through previous studies and NRSI field investigations, it is recommended

that the 15m woodland buffer identified in the MESP be implemented from the adjacent

woodland dripline boundary as shown on Maps 4a and 4b. This buffer width provides a

greater capacity for wildlife habitat protection relative to standard woodland setbacks

given the high degree of biodiversity, regionally uncommon stand of mature trees, and

the suite of rare species and sensitive ecological functions documented within this

feature. A 15m buffer also provides increased opportunity for restoration of the existing

woodland edge, which abruptly transitions into the adjacent culturally-influenced

meadow and is dominated by non-native Common Buckthorn in its current condition.

Restoration of the buffer through native tree and shrub plantings will enhance the

species diversity, integrity and robustness of the woodland edge, thereby providing

additional impact mitigation potential and reducing edge effects within the adjacent

woodland.


As stated in the Cambridge West MESP, development and site alteration to

accommodate grading for SWM facilities may be permitted within buffer areas, provided

that this can be accommodated without causing negative impacts to the adjacent natural

feature or its ecological functions (Ecoplans 2013).


6.0 Impact Assessment

6.1 Description of the Proposed Development

Huron Creek Developments proposes to develop the subject property into a residential

subdivision consisting of 90 single-detached residential lots, a 0.36ha park, 1.66ha SWM

block, an internal road network and associated servicing (Map 6). The proposed

development will integrate with the existing residential subdivision to the east and a

proposed residential subdivision to the south of the subject property. The internal road

network will include extensions of existing municipal roads including Newman Drive,

Rosecliff Place, and Wilkinson Avenue. See Appendix XV for the Draft Plan of

Subdivision.

The SWM system for the proposed development will comprise lot-level, conveyance and

end-of-pipe controls that have been designed to meet standards, targets and thresholds,

such as those governing water discharge quantity, flow rates and channel erosion

potential as identified in the Cambridge West MESP (MHBC et al. 2013) and associated

technical studies. Specifically, the SWM plan for the development will follow a treatment

train approach, starting with lot-level controls such as grassed swales and soak-away

pits/infiltration galleries. Stormwater conveyance structures such as storm sewers

(minor flows) and road surfaces (major flows) will outlet to the SWM facility forebay, as

well as a grassed drainage swale (maximum 3:1 slopes) to be constructed along the

west end of the development. The existing SWM block will be redeveloped to contain a

forebay for water quality treatment, followed by a wet pond to achieve peak flow

attenuation and extended detention (Meritech 2016). The proposed forebay and wet

pond will replace the existing SWM facility to achieve current SWM design and

performance standards, and to meet regulatory thresholds. The SWM wet pond will

discharge to Newman Creek as under the current condition. Refer to the Preliminary

Stormwater Management Report (Meritech 2016) for further details of the proposed

SWM plan.

A 3m wide asphalt SWM facility maintenance access path is proposed to also function

as a pedestrian trail route, traversing the east side of the SWM block as shown in

Appendix XV. The formal trail would extend off-property to the north to link with existing


and proposed walking trails on the rare property. The specific location of the off-property

trail connection will be determined at a future date in consultation with rare.

6.2 Approach to Impact Analysis

The analysis of potential impacts arising from the proposed undertaking was determined

by reviewing proposed development plans, including overlaying the plans onto the

existing natural features to determine the extent of the disturbance footprint as shown on

Map 6. The outcome of this process is based primarily on the resilience of the identified

natural features to withstand predicted disturbance caused by design, construction and

post-construction use of the development. In this manner, both the significance and

sensitivity of the natural features to disturbance were considered. The following is a

description of the types of impacts which will be discussed.

Direct impacts to the natural features on the subject lands associated with

disruption or displacement caused by the actual proposed ‘footprint’ of the

development;

Indirect impacts associated with changes in site conditions such as drainage

and water quantity/quality; and,

Induced impacts associated with impacts after the development is constructed

such as subsequent demand on the resources created by increased

habitation/use of the area and vicinity.

6.3 Direct Impacts and Recommended Mitigation Measures

The approach to identifying and delineating the subject property natural features was

aimed at avoiding direct impacts from development on significant and sensitive natural

features. The delineation of the rare woodland dripline boundary and the on-site

Newman Creek alignment were used to guide the layout of the residential development

and grading limits.

The proposed development plan has been overlain onto mapped existing natural

features and development constraints as shown on Map 6.


6.3.1 Vegetation Removal

Direct impacts within the subject property will occur as loss of natural vegetation as a

result of clearing, grubbing, and grading where indicated on the proposed development

plan (Map 6). The proposed development will result in the removal of culturally

influenced meadow (MEMM3) and hedgerow features. The majority of these impacts

will occur within the north half of the subject property, comprising the existing SWM

block and renaturalizing meadow, while the majority of development proposed within the

south half of the property will occur within lands actively cultivated for agriculture. Of the

existing hedgerows, only Hedgerow 4 and a portion of Hedgerow 5 are expected to be

retained. The majority of Hedgerow 1 will require removal to accommodate grading

associated with the redesigned SWM facility (see the DVMP (Appendix V) for details of

individual tree removal requirements). The proposed development will also require

removal of the large south-property fill pile that has naturalized to cultural meadow

(MEMM3).

Grading limits within the SWM block have been designed to avoid the surveyed rare

woodland dripline to the west and preserve the existing woodland edge. The majority of

the grading limit is set-back at least 1m from dripline to minimize disturbance to root

zones. However, small grading limit incursions into the dripline may be required as

shown on Map 6 and DVMP Map 1. The majority of this dripline incursion occurs at the

south end of the proposed SWM block drainage swale, which will require the removal of

3 trees located at the extension of the FOD5-2 woodland edge into Hedgerow 5. One

other minor grading limit incursion into the dripline (near Trees 110-113; see DVMP Map

1; Appendix V) is not expected to negatively impact the health or structural integrity of

the adjacent trees.

Various vegetation species were inventoried within the subject property that will be

directly impacted by the development plan. These include the SAR Butternut (Hedgerow

1 and north-property MEMM3), and the regionally significant Eastern Cottonwood and

Cockspur Thorn (north-property MEMM3), Virginia-creeper (Hedgerows 1, 2, and 5) and

Common Hackberry (Hedgerows 2 and 5). Where feasible, it is recommended that

regionally significant vegetation individuals be transplanted to adjacent areas of suitable

habitat (e.g., buffers, adjacent rare lands) prior to construction. Where transplantation is


not feasible, seed should be collected from the individuals to be impacted and dispersed

in habitat enhancement areas where suitable growing conditions exist.

With the exception of Butternut and the noted regionally significant species, all other

inventoried vegetation species within the development areas are considered common

and widespread locally and provincially, and their removal is not expected to cause

negative impact to local natural features or species.

6.3.1.1 Butternut Impacts and Compensation Requirements

Based on the proposed development plan (Map 6) and as detailed in the Detailed

Vegetation Management Plan (DVMP; Appendix V), all 6 on-site Butternuts will require

removal to accommodate SWM facility grading. As Category 2 Butternuts, impacts to

the 6 trees inventoried and assessed in 2014 are subject to the policies of Section 23.7

of O. Reg. 242/08.

Site alterations within at least 25m of a Butternut are considered to present potential for

harm to Butternuts (Forest Gene Conservation Association 2010), which would be

subject to the regulatory policies of O. Reg. 242/08. A future BHA for the off-site

Butternut may therefore be required to determine the potential for impact to this

individual and required mitigation/compensation under the regulatory policies.

Based on inventory and assessment data collected for the observed Butternuts, and in

accordance with the requirements of O. Reg. 242/08 Section 23.7(10)1, Table 6

summarizes the anticipated requirements for Butternut compensation planting.

Table 6. Butternut Compensation Requirements Based on O. Reg. 242/08

Tree ID Number DBH (cm) Required Butternut Compensation Plantings

426 20 20

434 11 5

435 15 20

436 11 5

437 19 20

438 30 20

Total: 90


Due to the age of the BHA results (2 years), the inventoried Butternuts will be re-

assessed using the BHA methodology during late spring 2017. The results will be

summarized in an updated BHA report, which will be submitted to the MNRF for review.

After the prescribed 30-day period, during which MNRF staff may audit the BHA, a

Notice of Butternut Impact will be submitted to the MNRF as outlined in Section 5.1.3.

The number of Butternuts requiring compensation under Section 23.7 (Table 6) will be

updated as necessary based on the results of the 2017 BHA report.

6.3.2 Tree Removal

Of the 458 trees inventoried, 258 are anticipated to be removed, of which 179 are native

and 79 are non-native. This includes 71 trees that have been identified as being in poor

to very poor condition, and/or being identified as dead.

A total of 258 trees require removal based on the extent of the proposed site grading,

which is required to effectively service the lands. This includes trees situated along the

grading limit or in close proximity that may incur root damage as a result of grading.

Most of these trees are in fair to good condition with medium to low potential for

structural failure, and range in size from 10.0cm to 70.3cm DBH. The majority (69%) of

these trees are native and are dominated by deciduous species including Eastern

Cottonwood (15.5%), followed by Bitternut Hickory (10.1%) and Sugar Maple (9.7%).

Non-native trees are dominated by Crack Willow (Salix fragilis). For more information on

tree removal requirements, see the DVMP in Appendix V.

By implementing the recommended protective measures detailed in Section 5.0 of the

DVMP, negative impacts to trees to be retained are not anticipated. Tree protection

fencing will be established along the north and east subject property boundaries where

indicated in DVMP Map 2 to protect off-site trees deemed retainable based on grading

limit requirements within the SWM block. Certain trees within Hedgerow 1 immediately

north of the subject property boundary will require removal due to the proximity of the

grading limit and should be discussed with staff of rare.

Along the Hogsback woodland edge, it is recommended that tree protection fencing be

installed a minimum of 1m from confirmed dripline to provide adequate root zone


protection. As shown on DVMP Maps 1 and 2, small areas of localized grading

encroachment into the dripline will be required, necessitating tree protection fence

installation within the dripline, or within 1m of the dripline. The locations of these

adjacent woodland edge trees have been compared to the proposed activities and

potential for damage is expected to be low for most of the adjacent trees. NRSI

recommends that a Certified Arborist be present to monitor grading activities within

these areas. Should unexpected damage occur to trees that are to be retained, proper

arboricultural pruning techniques will be employed or compensation will be provided as

appropriate, in consultation with the City of Cambridge and rare.

As discussed in Section 4.2 of the DVMP, City tree management guidelines require that

tree removals required by site alteration/development be suitably compensated through

additional native tree plantings. It is recommended that trees in excellent to fair

condition with a low or medium potential for structural failure be compensated at a 2:1

ratio. This ensures that woody vegetation cover within the immediate vicinity of the

subject property will be increased relative to existing conditions, and will represent an

important contributor to ecological restoration efforts on and off the property as

described further in Section 6.6.

6.3.3 Impacts to Wildlife and their Habitats

The proposed development will directly impact the Reptile Hibernaculum SWH as shown

on Map 4b. This impact is considered unavoidable due to the location of the

hibernaculum centrally within the property, and its association with the old fill pile that will

require removal to accommodate the development. In order to avoid mortality to

overwintering snakes, it is recommended that removal of the north-property fill pile and

site grading within that area occur outside of the overwintering period (approximately

mid-October to late April, depending on seasonal temperatures). This timing is based on

reported spring and fall observation dates of Eastern Gartersnake in Ontario, suggesting

that this species is active between late March/early April and late October/early

November in Ontario (Rowell 2012). The specific dates of this timing window will be

determined through future consultation with the MNRF.


It is recommended that an artificial hibernaculum feature be constructed in an

appropriate location on the adjacent rare property as a means of replacing the lost

habitat. Snake hibernacula are sensitive habitat features that require specific conditions

for functionality. Removal of the hibernaculum, which is communally used by Eastern

Gartersnakes on the property, can cause stress or overwintering mortality to the

localized population if a suitable replacement hibernaculum feature is not made

available. The artificial hibernaculum feature should be designed and constructed to

attract snake use, and may comprise a pile of loose stone and larger rocks that extends

below the frost line, in an open area so as to receive sun-exposure on its south-facing

side. The hibernaculum feature should be located in an area of suitable meadow to

provide foraging and cover habitat. The habitat surrounding the hibernaculum feature

should be enhanced through the placement of cover and basking objects, such as

wooden boards and woody debris. The hibernaculum should also be constructed in as

close a proximity to the removed habitat as possible (e.g., within existing meadow

habitat on the rare property north of the subject property). Further discussion will be

held with staff of the MNRF and rare to discuss the appropriate design and location

specifications for an artificial hibernaculum feature.

Cavity trees inventoried within the study area (Map 4b) may provide roosting or

maternity colony habitat for the SAR bats Little Brown Myotis, Tri-colored Bat or

Northern Myotis. Of the 5 cavity trees inventoried, 3 trees (tag # 7, 188 and 196) are

anticipated to require removal to accommodate site grading and development (see

DVMP Map 1a; Appendix V). Tree #7 is located immediately north of the subject

property boundary but will require removal based on the proximity of proposed grading

limits within the SWM block. Removal of this tree and others on the adjacent property

must be discussed with staff of rare. The MNRF should be consulted prior to the

removal of inventoried cavity trees to determine appropriate measures to avoid or

mitigate impact to the species. This may include measures to avoid direct impacts to

SAR bats such as by maintaining tree removal activities outside of the active period for

bats (i.e., approximately May-August).

Confirmed SWH for amphibian breeding and the SCC Eastern Wood-Pewee, and

Candidate SWH for bat maternity colonies and amphibian movement corridors, are


located within the off-site Hogsback feature and will therefore not be directly impacted by

the proposed development.

Wildlife habitat availability on the subject property is greatest within the north-half cultural

meadow with associated SWM pond aquatic and shoreline features, and hedgerows.

This area of the property has been observed to provide habitat for a variety of wildlife

species that are common and ubiquitous on the surrounding landscape, and which are

typically adapted and resilient to human-influenced landscapes. The loss of trees and

other vegetation within this portion of the property, as well as the agriculturally-

dominated south-half of the property, is not anticipated to have significant impacts on

these observed wildlife species in the localized area.

One regionally significant bird species, Wood Duck, was observed within the SWM

facility wet pond with evidence of probable breeding. This species may be temporarily

displaced from the subject property during the construction stage. However, additional

areas of suitable wetland habitat are present in the immediate subject property vicinity,

such as the adjacent deciduous swamp habitat within the Barrie’s Lake-Bauman Creek

PSW Complex. The reconstructed SWM facility will be planted with and designed to

promote the growth of emergent marsh vegetation along the pond perimeters, as

currently exists within the SWM facility. It is therefore anticipated that Wood Duck will

re-occupy the future SWM wet pond post-construction.

The regionally significant Bullfrog was also documented within the SWM facility forebay

and wet pond. As with Wood Duck, this species may be temporarily displaced from the

subject property but is expected to re-inhabit the open aquatic and wetland features of

the SWM facility post-construction. A fish and wildlife salvage should be undertaken

immediately prior to drainage and removal of the existing SWM facility, and pond

drainage should not occur during the herpetofauna overwintering season (see Section

6.3.5), to mitigate mortality impacts to anurans, turtles, and fish that occupy the facility.

Salvaged fish and wildlife will be relocated to an appropriate nearby receiver waterbody

as approved by the MNRF and City.

The adjacent Hogsback feature represents part of a significant landscape-level

ecological linkage between the Grand River and sensitive wetland and aquatic features


to the south (e.g., Barrie’s Lake). The subject property is peripheral to this regional

ecological linkage, and as such, development of the property is not anticipated to

negatively impact large-scale connectivity on the surrounding landscape. Existing

connectivity across the north end of the subject property, between the Hogsback feature

and natural features northeast of the subject property, will be enhanced through planned

enhancement plantings within the SWM block and vegetative restoration/compensation

plantings within the adjacent rare property immediately north of the subject property, in

consultation with rare (see Section 6.6).

Vegetation clearing has the potential to directly impact birds through damage and

destruction of nests, eggs and young, or avoidance of the area by breeding adults.

Nesting habitat on the subject property includes hedgerow trees, aquatic/fringing

wetland habitat within the SWM facility, as well as meadow vegetation that provides

habitat for ground-nesting birds. The destruction of migratory birds and their nests is

prohibited under the federal Migratory Birds Convention Act. Vegetation clearing is

therefore recommended to occur outside the core bird nesting season of April 15 to

August 31 so as to limit disturbances to nesting activities of birds.

6.3.4 Impacts to Aquatic Features and Fish Habitat

The proposed development requires realigning Newman Creek at its origin to allow for

the larger SWM facility wet pond to be built and outlet to the creek. This will require

removal of approximately 13m of the uppermost watercourse reach to facilitate the pond

expansion and new outlet structures. This will represent an impact to indirect fish

habitat, and as such, a Request for Project Review under the Fisheries Act will be

required. In order to minimize or avoid potential impacts, measures should be

implemented to avoid causing harm to fish and fish habitat. These measures include but

may not be limited to the following:

completing any in-water work during specified timing windows established

through consultation with the MNRF and DFO,

working in the dry where possible, such as by completing in-stream work

following SWM facility drainage and cessation of pond discharge to the isolated

watercourse work zone;


otherwise, conducting in-stream work during periods of low flow or isolating the

work site from any flows ,

scheduling work to avoid wet, windy, and rainy periods that may increase erosion

and sedimentation, and,

clearing of riparian vegetation should be kept to a minimum and removal of

natural woody debris, rocks, sand or other materials from the banks and bed of

Newman Creek should be minimized.

No construction impacts to Newman Creek downstream of the proposed new SWM

outlet structure are anticipated.

Fish have not been observed in Newman Creek on or adjacent to the subject property

based on NRSI site visits and MESP technical studies (Ecoplans 2013). However, if fish

are observed during project activities, work should be stopped and a qualified

environmental professional be retained in order to obtain an applicable permit for

relocating the fish subject to MNRF requirement.

The new SWM facility will outlet to Newman Creek through the new outlet pipe as

described in the Preliminary SWM Report (Meritech 2016). The SWM system for the

subject property has been designed such that existing baseflow within the watercourse

will be maintained. During SWM facility decommissioning and reconstruction, baseflow

to the watercourse should be maintained through discharge of temporary stormwater

retention ponds into Newman Creek, downstream of the construction limits, via a bypass

channel or piping. Construction-stage stormwater discharge must be subject to

sediment and erosion control measures prior to release into the watercourse; these

measures will be detailed within a future Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. The

proposed development is not expected to negatively impact the function of Newman

Creek to provide indirect fish habitat, subject to the implementation of indirect impact

mitigations (e.g., sediment and erosion control) as described in Section 6.4.

Any fish present within the existing SWM forebay or wet pond to be removed will be

killed through the process of pond drainage unless a fish salvage is completed.

Although the resident fish community will be directly impacted, DFO staff have

previously indicated to NRSI staff that SWM ponds are not considered fish habitat nor


are the fish contained in them afforded protection under Section 35 of the Fisheries Act.

However, because no official DFO documentation exists that articulates a policy that

excludes SWM ponds from application of the Fisheries Act, MNRF advises that the

draw-down of SWM ponds is a violation to Section 35 of the Fisheries Act. Therefore

fish within the pond must be captured and removed prior to SWM pond draw-down (A.

Timmerman, MNRF, pers. comm., September 2016). An authorization under the Fish

and Wildlife Conservation Act will be required to undertake a fish salvage, which is

administered via a License to Collect Fish for Scientific Purposes provided by the MNRF.

As SWM facilities often contain human-introduced, non-native species (e.g., goldfish)

MNRF fish collection permits typically contain provisions that non-native fish not be

relocated into receiving waterbodies.

6.4 Indirect Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Construction of the proposed development has potential to cause indirect impacts on the

adjacent natural features and functions if not mitigated appropriately. Recommended

mitigation measures are provided for each potential impact.

6.4.1 Encroachment into Recommended Woodland Buffer

As shown on Map 6, construction of the proposed SWM facility will require grading into

the recommended 15m woodland dripline buffer. The proposed grading is considered

necessary to accommodate the required sizing of the SWM wet pond to achieve desired

quality control, stormwater detention and flow attenuation targets, and based on a

maximum 3:1 side slope (Meritech 2016). As stated in the Cambridge West MESP,

development and site alteration within the 15m woodland dripline buffer may be

permitted to accommodate SWM facilities and associated grading, subject to the results

of an EIS (MHBC et al. 2013).

Grading limits within the buffer will primarily be maintained at least 1m from the surveyed

dripline in order to protect the root zones of the adjacent woodland edge trees (see the

DVMP for detailed tree inventory mapping relative to grading limits; Appendix V).

However, see Section 6.3.1 regarding localized minor grading encroachments into the

dripline. The proposed grading limits are not anticipated to cause negative impact to the

woodland edge trees provided that construction-stage mitigation measures (e.g., tree


protection fencing) are implemented and grading activities completed adjacent to the

woodland edge are overseen by a Certified Arborist (DVMP Section 5.1).

As stated in the MESP, SWM facilities provide an opportunity to supplement and

enhance the exiting Natural Heritage System (MHBC et al. 2013). The graded slope of

the SWM block within the 15m buffer will be planted with native tree and shrub species

suitable to the site conditions and reflective of the adjacent woodland forest community

and species assemblage. The buffer will also be seeded with a native meadow seed

mix for soil stability and natural feature enhancement purposes. The effects of proposed

SWM block grading into the 15m buffer will therefore be mitigated through measures to

enhance the ecological quality and function of the existing woodland edge. Furthermore,

the SWM block as a whole will be designed to supplement the adjacent natural features

and enhance natural feature connectivity through the north half of the subject property

through implementation of a native vegetation planting plan and design of the SWM

forebay and wet pond to support the growth of fringing wetland emergent vegetation.

Proposed buffer management measures within the SWM block will be implemented to

achieve the following objectives:

Enhance the ecological condition of the existing woodland edge by providing a

vegetative transition of successional habitat between forest edge and meadow

features;

Provide additional buffer to more interior, core habitat areas and wildlife habitats;

Increase wildlife habitat (e.g., Odonata/Lepidoptera foraging and breeding;

anuran foraging; snake basking and foraging; bird nesting) and vegetative

diversity along the woodland edge;

Provide additional visual screening to mitigate sensory disturbances to wildlife

within the core features;

Close existing informal pathways and inhibit future human access through dense

planting configurations.

See Section 6.6 for additional information on proposed ecological enhancements within

the subject property.


6.4.2 Disturbance to Protected Natural Features and Wildlife Habitats

Vegetation clearing and other construction activities have the potential to inadvertently

destroy, damage and degrade the edges of existing vegetation within buffers or adjacent

hedgerow trees to be retained unless the construction limit boundaries are clearly

marked. For example, construction activities can cause scarring and decreased health

of adjacent trees whose branches or root systems have been damaged by machinery or

affected by construction-related dust and sedimentation. Damage to trees and other

vegetation can also be caused by the compaction of soils within tree rooting zones along

woodland or hedgerow edges.

Construction-related vegetation damage and indirect disturbances can cause stresses

on the natural features that weaken their ecological integrity. In these states, natural

features are more prone to the establishment and proliferation of invasive, non-native

species such as Common Buckthorn. Proliferation of invasive, non-native species within

natural communities decreases their ecological value by suppressing native species,

diminishing biodiversity and reducing habitat suitability. Because the proposed

development is separated from the adjacent woodland, the potential for construction-

stage damage to adjacent vegetation is limited.

To limit ecological impacts during construction, efforts should be made to clearly

demarcate the grading limits so as to prevent unnecessary encroachment into the

adjacent natural features. These boundaries should be clearly marked using either

brightly coloured snow fencing or silt fencing erected for the purposes of on-site

stormwater runoff control. Where adjacent trees are to be retained, protective tree

hoarding should be installed at least 1m from dripline to adequately protect the root zone

from soil compaction and other disturbances.

Designated areas for construction lay-down, vehicle access and parking, equipment

storage, materials stockpiling, and any on-site construction offices should be located

entirely outside of established the woodland buffer, and preferably not adjacent to the

buffer so as to limit potential to indirectly impact the adjacent woodland and buffer

features.


Potential indirect impacts to natural features and wildlife may also arise from noise,

vibrations, human presence, unnatural lighting and dust associated with construction

activities.

During construction activities such as vegetation clearing and grubbing, dust can

potentially result in the following:

Changes in vegetation due to increased heat absorption and decreased

transpiration,

Adverse effects to plants and/or wildlife in aquatic or wetland systems that are

not adapted to high levels of sedimentation, and

Immediate visual impacts.

Impacts due to dust should be mitigated by moistening areas of bare, dry soil with water

as needed during construction activities to reduce the amount of dust produced.

Excessive noise, vibrations and human presence as a result of site preparation and

construction activities may cause wildlife to temporarily avoid the area. These impacts

can be mitigated by restricting the daily timing of construction activities to between

0700hr and 1900hr. This timing restriction should also apply to the use of generators or

pumps insofar as possible.

Lighting associated with construction activities should be turned off following daily

cessation of activities or directed away from the adjacent woodland to reduce the

impacts resulting from artificial lighting on natural features and wildlife.

Such impacts resulting from dust, noise, vibrations and artificial light are expected to be

temporary, minimal and localized during the construction of the proposed development.

Significant effects on wildlife are not anticipated and it is expected that displaced wildlife

species will return to the vicinity of the subject property following construction.

6.4.3 Sedimentation and Erosion

Soil erosion and sedimentation impacts to the subject property and adjacent down-

gradient areas can manifest in two primary ways as a result of the proposed

development if not appropriately mitigated:


Newman Creek channel erosion and downstream sedimentation as a result of

increased stormwater discharge flow rates from the SWM facility; and,

Erosion and sedimentation of exposed soils throughout the construction zones.

6.4.3.1 Stormwater Discharge Flow Rates to Newman Creek

The proposed SWM system for the development has been designed to meet targets

governing peak flow rates and channel erosion potential as established within the

Cambridge West MESP and other regulatory requirements and guidelines. As stated in

the SWM Report (Meritech 2016), discharge rates from the wet pond under the 2-, 5-

and 10-year storm events will be less than the “critical discharge rate” for Newman

Creek as defined in the MESP (MHBC et al. 2013). This represents a decrease in flow

rate relative to existing conditions, which experiences critical flow rate exceedances of

7.4 hours a year. Under the 50- and 100-year storm events, stormwater will flow through

a second downstream discharge outlet to ensure that the critical discharge rate is

exceeded for the shortest time duration possible. Overall, post-development peak flow

rates are less than pre-development (i.e., prior to construction of the existing adjacent

Grandview Hills Stage III subdivision and existing SWM facility) rates for the 5-year

through 100-year storm events (Meritech 2016). The SWM system will effectively

reduce the potential for channel erosion and downstream sedimentation impacts in

Newman Creek relative to existing conditions.

The proposed SWM plan meets the objectives set out in the MESP of discharging flows

in excess of the “erosion threshold” as quickly as possible (Meritech 2016). As proposed

in the MESP, a monitoring plan should be undertaken for Newman Creek for 3 years

following development to ensure erosion does not result as a function of the increased

upstream developed area. Based on the SWM facility design and end-of-pipe discharge

it is not expected to cause indirect impacts to downstream aquatic features.

6.4.3.2 Construction-Stage Erosion and Sediment Control

During construction, areas of bare soil will be exposed which have the potential to erode

during rainfall events and impact adjacent natural features. In the event of a heavy rain,

sediment laden runoff can enter adjacent natural areas by way of overland flow. Due to


the prominently sloped lands being proposed, Newman Creek is particularly susceptible

to erosion and sedimentation if on-site surface runoff is not appropriately controlled.

Soil compaction also has potential to occur as a result of heavy machinery and the

stockpiling of heavy materials in the area of development. Soil compaction can greatly

reduce the permeability of soils and affect their ability to retain water during rain/snow

melt events. This will result in an increase in surface water run-off which will ultimately

increase the erosion potential and the amount of sediment being transported into

adjacent natural features.

In order to protect on-site natural features from potential impacts due to sediment, an

Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) Plan must be developed prior to any construction

activities on-site. The primary principles associated with sedimentation and erosion

protection measures are to: (1) minimize the duration of soil exposure, (2) retain existing

vegetation, where feasible, (3) encourage re-vegetation, (4) divert runoff away from

exposed soils, (5) keep runoff velocities low, and (6) trap sediment as close to the

source as possible.

The following actions are recommended to limit potential for erosion and sedimentation

from construction areas:

installation of heavy-duty erosion control silt fencing around the perimeter of any

construction or grading areas;

inspection and monitoring of all erosion control measures by the contractor, with

repairs completed as required;

operation and storage of all materials and equipment in a manner that prevents

any deleterious substance from leaving the site;

stripping and strategic placement of topsoil stockpiles, and placement of

sediment control fencing around all stockpile areas; and,

re-vegetation of completed areas as soon as possible after construction.

The ESC plan should consider the following issues: construction staging; protecting

disturbed areas from erosion caused by rain; maintenance of the installed measures;

appropriate topsoil stockpile locations; and siltation control measures. Disturbed areas

should be kept to a minimum and re-vegetated in a reasonable timeframe to mitigate


sediment migration impacts. The new SWM facility should also be cleaned out and

reinstated to the final design configuration before transfer of ownership to the City

(Meritech 2016).

Sedimentation and erosion impacts associated with construction within the uppermost

reach of Newman Creek to be removed for SWM facility construction can be mitigated

through the use of cofferdams to isolate an area of de-watered creek-bed. Temporary

stormwater discharge to Newman Creek downstream of the construction limits, via a

SWM facility bypass, should be subject to sediment removal measures. This may

include rock check dams in the creek to create areas of ponded water in which to settle

sediments out of the water column.

The impact resulting from soil compaction can be mitigated by avoiding use of

construction vehicles and equipment within the woodland buffer and limiting soils

compaction adjacent to the retained watercourse reach, and by locating material

stockpile and equipment storage locations away from natural features and their buffers.

An environmental monitoring program is recommended to ensure that the sediment and

erosion control measures are installed, maintained and functioning as intended.

6.4.4 Changes to Hydrologic Regime

Construction of the proposed development has the potential to alter the existing

groundwater regime if not adequately mitigated. The entire proposed development will

drain toward the SWM facility. Surface drainage generated from the proposed

development will flow off-site via the SWM facility discharge to Newman Creek. Due to

the post-construction increase in impervious surface cover within the subject property,

anticipated reduction in evapotranspiration rate, and an increase in area draining to the

pond, a net increase in annual runoff volume to Newman Creek is expected. However,

post-construction monitoring will be completed to ensure no negative impact to

downstream resources caused by stormwater discharge (C. Togoretz, Meritech, pers.

comm., October 2016). As described in the SWM Report, SWM discharge will be

attenuated to meet water quality and peak flow rate objectives outlined in the Cambridge

West MESP.


Post-construction infiltration rates to groundwater resources will be maintained on the

property to pre-construction levels, in conformance with MESP requirements (MHBC et

al. 2013). Lot-level and conveyance stormwater controls have been proposed as

measures to maintain infiltration rates on the subject property. These measures will

include downspouts directed to grassed swales, and rear-lot drainage directed to open-

bottomed, infiltration galleries (Meritech 2016). Stormwater drainage from a portion of

the west side of the property will be collected and conveyed by an engineered grassed

swale, which will allow for infiltration en route to the sediment forebay. Through these

measures, it is anticipated that existing infiltration rates will be maintained. Water

budget calculations will be required during the detailed design stage of development to

demonstrate that the total average post-construction annual infiltration rates match the

pre-construction (Meritech 2016).

6.4.5 Changes to Water Quality

Water quality treatment measures will incorporate three main components as part of the

SWM design: pre-treatment (e.g., use of grassed swales), treatment (e.g., SWM facility

sediment forebay), and enhancement (e.g., extended detention within the SWM facility

wet pond). Water quality objectives will be achieved through a treatment train approach.

This is proposed through lot-level features including downspouts discharging to grade

and along grassed swales to promote sediment removal via filtration. Stormwater will be

infiltrated through lot-level soak-away pits/infiltration galleries to provide further water

quality treatment. The SWM sediment forebay will receive minor storm events, which

will ensure that road runoff is treated prior to entering the SWM wet pond and outletting

to Newman Creek (Meritech 2016). Storms larger than the 5-year event will bypass the

forebay and enter directly into the wet pond via overland flow to avoid the resuspension

of accumulated sediments in the forebay that may occur during a large storm event.

The SWM facility has been designed to provide an “enhanced” level of water quality

treatment based on estimated post-construction imperviousness of 55%. Enhanced-

level water quality treatment will be achieved through extended stormwater detention

within the wet pond, exceeding the recommended 24-hour period (Meritech 2016). No

impacts to water quality within Newman Creek, as caused by SWM facility discharge,

are therefore anticipated.


A spill response plan (SRP) should be developed and implemented to ensure that

deleterious substances do not migrate out of construction areas and into aquatic and

terrestrial natural features. Machinery should arrive on site in a clean and maintained

condition and should be refueled or serviced in such a way as to prevent any deleterious

substances from entering the water. A spill kit must also be kept on site at all times and

on-site workers must be trained in the use of this kit and be fully aware of the SRP. Any

identified spills must be reported to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate

Change’s provincial spill response centre immediately.

6.5 Induced Impacts and Mitigations

Establishment of the proposed residential subdivision will introduce increased potential

for human disturbances within the surrounding natural features, including the adjacent

rare property Hogsback woodland and wetland communities. In particular, in the

absence of any mitigative measures, the increase in local residents may result in

increased human access to, and activity within the Hogsback features, with associated

potential for habitat degradation (e.g., vegetation trampling or damage, path creation,

litter, garbage or yard waste dumping) in what is currently a relatively undisturbed

significant natural area. Habitat degradation may subsequently facilitate the further

establishment of non-native, invasive species such as Common Buckthorn and reduce

the diversity of regenerating vegetative growth. Increased human population in the

immediate vicinity will also increase the potential for domestic animal (e.g., cat (Felis

catus)) and other development-tolerant predatory mammal (e.g., raccoon (Procyon

lotor)) access to surrounding natural areas. Easier access provided to these animal

groups may impact nesting success and direct mortality among certain small-size

wildlife, such as passerine birds. Measures are therefore required to mitigate these

potential induced impacts on the adjacent natural features and to ensure the existing

ecological integrity and regionally significant characteristics of the Hogsback feature are

maintained.

The proposed development will include installation of a permanent chain-link fence along

the western boundary of the SWM block. In addition to dense woody buffer

enhancement plantings which are proposed along the existing woodland edge (see

Section 6.4.1), a fence will serve to immediately inhibit human access into the Hogsback


feature from the subject property and adjacent existing residential areas. Furthermore,

this measure will alleviate the existing human encroachment impacts and allow for

natural regeneration or targeted restoration of informal trails by rare within the natural

features. Because the full extent of the woodland edge occurs adjacent to the SWM

block, and no residential lots will occur next to or back on to the feature, potential for

induced impacts is further reduced.

Recreational pedestrian trail access will be provided via the SWM block maintenance

access path (Map 6), which will link to existing pedestrian trails within the rare property

to the north. This proposed trail route will therefore divert pedestrians away from the

Hogsback feature and into an adjacent portion of the rare property, which as cultural

meadow is much less sensitive to ecological disturbance. The specific location of the

pedestrian trail linkage between the subject property and the rare property will be

determined through consultation with rare staff during the detailed design stage.

An educational brochure should be distributed to homeowners within the new

development to inform them of the ecological sensitivity of the adjacent natural features,

examples of various activities that can cause stresses on the ecological systems, and

tips on how they can enjoy and live next to the adjacent features without negatively

impacting them. It is also recommended that an educational/interpretive sign be

installed along the SWM access path/pedestrian trail route describing the Hogsback and

other nearby natural features on the rare property to increase public awareness and

appreciation for these regionally significant features. Public educational/stewardship

materials can be developed in consultation with rare.

6.6 Restoration and Enhancement of Natural Features

Section 6.4.1 describes recommended measures to enhance the existing Hogsback

woodland edge through implementation of a vegetative planting plan within the 15m

buffer, targeted to the site conditions and appropriate to the ecological characteristics of

the protected feature. The enhancement measures described above will be designed to

achieve the ecological enhancement and buffer management recommendations outlined

in the Cambridge West MESP (MHBC et al. 2013). A vegetation planting plan will be


developed for the 15m woodland buffer and surrounding SWM block as part of detailed

design.

The SWM facility wet pond design will incorporate shallow outer perimeter grades that

will permit the establishment and growth of fringing emergent wetland vegetation. Native

wetland vegetation species (e.g., cattails (Typha sp.)), will be planted along the pond

margins to establish vegetative cover and habitat for wildlife species anticipated to re-

inhabit the pond (e.g., anurans, birds). Ultimately, it is anticipated that the fringing

wetland habitat that occurs within the existing SWM facility will be re-established through

active planting and natural regeneration.

It is anticipated that replacement tree plantings required in compensation for tree

removals will be established within the SWM block. It is also anticipated that several

compensation tree plantings will be established on the adjacent rare property to the

north (see DVMP; Appendix V). This will include Butternut compensation plantings

required in accordance with O. Reg. 242/08. As was discussed with rare staff during a

meeting held on February 19, 2015, an anticipated outcome of the compensation

replanting process will be an expansion of the existing Hedgerow 1 onto the rare

property, in part to compensate for the partial removal of this feature on the subject

property. Detailed planting plans for the rare property will be discussed with rare staff

during the detailed design stage.

6.7 Monitoring

Pre-, during-, and post-construction monitoring is recommended as a means to ensure

that protected natural features are not impacted throughout all stages of property

development. A comprehensive monitoring program was recommended in Section 5.4

of the MESP (MHBC et al. 2013), including biological monitoring components that have

been incorporated into the plan outlined below.

6.7.1 Pre-Construction

The following monitoring and inspection measures should be completed prior to the

initiation of vegetation removal, grading or other construction activities:

Inspection of ESC measures


Inspection of tree protection measures, such as fences installed according to the

DVMP

Two-years of biological monitoring of the adjacent Hogsback woodland and

wetland features as recommended and described in the MESP (see Section 5.4

and Figure 25), including the following:

o Vegetation – quantitative photo-plot monitoring;

o Vegetation – general habitat inspection;

o Breeding bird surveys

Two-years of pre-construction inspection of the woodland buffer to document

baseline disturbance levels, including the following:

o Damage to trees and vegetation from natural sources and vandalism;

o Presence of garbage and yard waste dumping, and unauthorized

structures and activities;

o Presence, location and relative abundance of non-native, invasive

vegetation species.

Note that NRSI has undertaken 1 year of pre-construction monitoring within the

Hogsback feature (in conjunction with rare), and within the proposed 15m woodland

buffer, comprising the MESP-recommended monitoring measures listed above.

6.7.2 During Construction

Periodic monitoring of the above ESC and tree protection measures to ensure

maintenance and effectiveness.

Pruning of any limbs or roots (of trees to be retained) damaged during

construction.

Inspection of the woodland edge to ensure no unauthorized construction

encroachments within the tree protection zone, damage to woodland edge trees,

or other disturbances to the adjacent woodland feature.

Fuelling of machinery to be undertaken at designated location away from the

woodland buffer and Newman Creek.

Storage of machinery and material, fill, etc. in designated areas.

Construction activity and equipment movement through the 15m woodland buffer

to be minimized to the extent possible.


Construction-stage biological monitoring of the adjacent Hogsback woodland and

wetland features as recommended and described in the MESP and listed above.

6.7.3 Post-Construction

As described in the MESP, post-construction monitoring will be initiated following

“substantial completion of the development” (90% of the building permits issued), and

will extend over a 2-year duration (MHBC et al. 2013), unless stated otherwise. Post-

construction monitoring will comprise the following:

Biological monitoring of the adjacent Hogsback woodland and wetland features

as recommended and described in the Cambridge West MESP and listed above.

Inspection of natural and anthropogenic disturbances within the 15m woodland

buffer, including the following:

o Soil compaction and erosion;

o Damage to trees and vegetation from natural sources and vandalism;

o Presence of garbage and yard waste dumping, and unauthorized

structures and activities;

o Presence, location and relative abundance of non-native, invasive

vegetation species;

o Evidence of continued unauthorized human access into the Hogsback

feature.

Inspection of buffer enhancement vegetation and other tree compensation

plantings to evaluate their survival and success of establishment during the

warranty period;

Inspection of Butternut compensation plantings in accordance with the

requirements of O. Reg. 242/08.

Monitoring to confirm the use and efficacy of the artificial snake hibernaculum

habitat, following monitoring requirements determined through future MNRF

consultation.

Monitoring results will be compiled and presented in an annual monitoring report to be

provided to the relevant regulatory agencies and stakeholders (e.g., GRCA, Region of

Waterloo, City of Cambridge, rare). Subsequent monitoring reports will evaluate the

existence of any temporal or spatial trends that suggest changes in ecological condition,

and will make recommendations for additional actions where considered necessary.


The monitoring program will incorporate an adaptive management process in which

monitoring results will be used to identify and focus requirements for improved or revised

impact mitigation measures. For example, wherever the monitoring program identifies

residual impacts to the adjacent Hogsback woodland, the existing mitigation strategy will

be reviewed to identify means to improve its effectiveness. The monitoring program will

detail potential measures that may be implemented to alleviate observed residual

impacts. For example, where restoration plantings are observed to exhibit signs of poor

health or die-back, additional measures will be considered based on the cause of the

impairment (a more frequent watering schedule, installation of measures to mitigate deer

browse). Additional mitigative measures will be considered where monitoring results

indicate post-construction impacts (e.g., increased signage, warning of fines for

unauthorized activities). Components of the monitoring program will also be evaluated

on an annual basis to determine the need for continued monitoring of certain

components, or the addition of new monitoring components.


7.0 Summary

NRSI was retained by Huron Creek Developments to complete a scoped EIS for the

proposed Grandview Hills Stage VI residential development in Cambridge, Ontario. This

report provides a comprehensive characterization of the existing natural features, and

identifies development constraints for the protection of significant and sensitive natural

features with reference to constraints outlined in the Cambridge West MESP. Potential

impacts to natural features were assessed based on development details provided by

Meritech Engineering.

The ecologically significant “Hogsback” natural feature, which is considered a Regional

Core Environmental Feature and contains portions of the Cruickston Creek ESPA and

the Barrie’s Lake-Bauman Creek PSW complex, and comprises confirmed and

candidate SWH, represents the primary natural feature constraint adjacent to the subject

property that was considered in defining the development limits. This feature was

identified as a high level constraint in the MESP, and NRSI site investigations confirmed

this assessment. A 15m buffer from the woodland dripline boundary, as recommended

in the MESP, is considered appropriate based on the significance and sensitivity of the

feature. Site grading within the buffer will be required to accommodate the necessary

sizing for SWM facility quantity and quality control functions to achieve MESP SWM

targets. The majority of the grading limit is set-back at least 1m from dripline to minimize

disturbance to root zones. However, small grading limit incursions into the dripline may

be required. Three trees are anticipated to be removed along the extension of the

FOD5-2 woodland edge into Hedgerow 5. Otherwise, no impacts to the remainder of the

woodland edge trees are anticipated subject to implementation of the recommended

mitigation and inspection measures.

Re-development of the SWM block will require the partial removal of Hedgerow 1,

including 6 Butternuts that were inventoried within the subject property. As Category 2

Butternuts, removal of these trees will require submission of a Notice of Butternut Impact

to the MNRF. It is anticipated that 90 Butternut compensation seedling plantings will be

required in accordance with the policies of O. Reg. 242/08 subject to MNRF consultation

and the results of an updated BHA to be completed prior to site development.


Several additional trees on the subject property, including all or portions of Hedgerows 2

and 5 respectively, will also require removal. Tree removal requirements and proposed

compensation measures are outlined in the DVMP. Based on prior discussion with rare

staff, it is anticipated that several of the required compensation tree and shrub plantings

will be established within future-designated habitat enhancement areas on the rare

property, including re-establishment of Hedgerow 1 on the rare side of the property line.

Tree and shrub compensation plantings will also be established within the 15m

woodland buffer to enhance the ecological condition of the existing woodland edge, and

elsewhere within the SWM block to improve wildlife habitat connectivity through these

lands. These plantings will include the required Butternut compensation seedlings as

well as regionally significant vegetation species to be transplanted or introduced through

seed dispersal.

The proposed development will require the removal of confirmed Reptile Hibernaculum

SWH associated with the south-facing slope of a fill pile within the north-property cultural

meadow. Removal of this feature should be timed to avoid direct mortality to

overwintering Eastern Gartersnakes. A replacement hibernaculum should be

constructed in nearby suitable habitat (i.e., adjacent rare property meadow) based on a

detailed design to be confirmed through consultation with the MNRF and rare.

Five cavity trees were documented within the study area that may provide habitat for

SAR bats. Three of these trees are anticipated to be removed through site

development. Consultation with Guelph District MNRF staff will be completed to

determine appropriate actions to avoid impact to SAR bats.

Newman Creek represents indirect fish habitat due to its connectivity to the Grand River.

A Request for Project Review under the Fisheries Act will therefore be required for

submission to the DFO to address the proposed removal of the upper-most reach of the

creek as part of SWM facility redevelopment. A fish salvage will be required immediately

prior to water draw-down in the existing SWM facility to avoid mortality of native fish

species in accordance with Section 35 of the Fisheries Act. Turtle and anuran species

will also be captured and relocated prior to SWM facility draw-down.


Recommendations have been provided to avoid, minimize or otherwise mitigate impacts

that may occur through construction and human occupation of the proposed

development. These include improvements in the quantity and quality control functions

of the proposed SWM facility relative to the existing conditions, as well as measures to

re-direct pedestrian trails away from the sensitive Hogsback feature. Monitoring

recommendations have been provided to conform to the requirements of the MESP,

including pre-, during- and post-construction monitoring of the adjacent Hogsback

feature and 15m buffer. Additional monitoring will be completed to ensure that

construction-stage mitigations are functioning appropriately, restoration plantings are

establishing as expected, and to ensure that the constructed snake hibernaculum is

functioning as intended. Provided that the recommended mitigation measures are

implemented, the proposed development is not anticipated to cause significant negative

impacts to the adjacent natural features or their ecological functions.


8.0 References Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada's Canadian Wildlife Service, Ontario Nature,

Ontario Field Ornithologists and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2008. Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas Database. http://www.birdsontario.org/atlas/aboutdata.jsp?lang=en

Bird Studies Canada. 2009. Marsh Monitoring Program Participant’s Handbook for

Surveying Amphibians. 2009 Edition. Published by Bird Studies Canada in Cooperation with Environment Canada and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 2009.

Chapman, L.J. and D.F. Putnam. 1984. The Physiography of Southern Ontario 3rd

Edition. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Toronto, Ontario. Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 2.

City of Cambridge. 2014. Cambridge Official Plan. As approved, in part, with

modifications, by the Region of Waterloo on November 21, 2012 and amended by the OMB on April 22, 2014.

Dobbyn, J.S. 1994. Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario. Don Mills, Federation of Ontario

Naturalists. Ecoplans. 2013. Cambridge West MESP: Natural Environment Study. 210pp. Forest Gene Conservation Association. 2010. Butternut Health Assessment in Ontario -

Finding Retainable Trees. Revised ed. Forest Gene Conservation Association, Peterborough, Ontario.

Government of Canada. 2016. Species at Risk Public Registry. http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/sar/index/default_e.cfm. Updated Sept. 29, 2016. Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA). 2005. GRCA’s EIS Guidelines and

Submissions Standards for Wetlands. August 26, 2005. Laurence, A. 2014. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Guelph District.

Personal communication email dated May 26, 2014. Lee, H.T. 2008. Southern Ontario Ecological Land Classification: Vegetation Type List.

Southern Information Management and Spatial Analysis Section, OMNR. Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurray.

1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02.

LVM. 2013. Cambridge West Community Hydrogeology Study Report – Master

Environmental Servicing Plan Roseville/Blenheim Road, Cambridge, Ontario. November 15, 2013.


MacNaughton, A., R. Layberry, C. Jones and B. Edwards. 2016. Ontario Butterfly Atlas Online. Last Updated March 31, 2016.

Meritech. 2016. Preliminary Stormwater Management Report (Draft). Newman Lands,

City of Cambridge. September 2016. MHBC, MTE, Paradigm, Ecoplans, and LVM. 2013. Cambridge West Master

Environmental Servicing Plan. Final for Council Approval. November 2013. Michigan Flora Online. A. A. Reznicek, E. G. Voss, & B. S. Walters. February 2011.

University of Michigan. http://michiganflora.net/home.aspx. MTE. 2016. Cambridge West Community, Domm Farms and Hallman Subdivisions.

Supplemental Hydrogeology Study. Prepared for Gatestone Development Corporation and Hallman Construction Limited. March 31, 2016.

Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (OBBA). 2001. Guide for Participants. Atlas Management

Board, Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Don Mills. Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (OMMAH). 2014. Provincial Policy

Statement. Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2014. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat

Technical Guide. October 2000. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2005. Ontario Odonata Atlas. Natural

Heritage Information Center. Last updated February 15, 2005. http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/odonates/atlas.html.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2010. Natural Heritage Reference

Manual for Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, Second Edition. March 18, 2010.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2011a. Bats and Bat Habitats

Guidelines for Wind Power Projects. July 2011. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2011b. Significant Wildlife Habitat

Mitigation Tool: Version 4.0. ii + 447 pp. MNR, April 2011. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2014. Natural Heritage

Information Centre Online Database (http://www.giscoeapp.lrc.gov.on.ca/web/MNR/NHLUPS/NaturalHeritage/Viewer/Viewer.html?utm_source=MNRCentral&utm_medium=Twitter&utm_term=natural%2Bheritage&utm_content=natural%2Bheritage%2Bbiodiversity&utm_campaign=Biodiversity).

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2015a. Significant Wildlife

Habitat Ecoregion 6E Criterion Schedule: Addendum to Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. MNRF, January 2015.


Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2015b. Butternut Health Assessor’s Field Guide. 2015 Edition.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2016a. Species at Risk in

Ontario (SARO) List. Last updated June 20, 2016. (http://www.ontario.ca/page/species-risk).

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2016b. Bat and Bat Habitat

Surveys of Treed Habitats. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry – Guelph District. Updated: August 2016.

Ontario Nature. 2015. Reptiles and Amphibians of Ontario Range Maps. Last Updated

June 2015. http://www.ontarionature.org/protect/species/reptiles_and_amphibians/index.php.

Presant, E.W. and R.E. Wiklund. 1971. The Soils of Waterloo County. Report #44 of

the Ontario Soil Survey. Research Branch, Canada Department of Agriculture, Department of Soil Science- University of Guelph, and Ontario Department of Agriculture and Food.

Region of Waterloo. 1985. ESA Report Technical Appendices: Appendix 4 Mammals. Region of Waterloo. 2010b. Region of Waterloo Greenlands Network Implementation

Guideline. January 26, 2010. Region of Waterloo. 2014. Cruickston Creek Headwaters Proposed Environmentally

Sensitive Policy Area. Report: P-14-037. Region of Waterloo. 2015. Regional Official Plan, as approved, with modifications, by the

Ontario Municipal Board on June 18, 2015. Richardson, W. and V. Martin. 1999. Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Revisions to

Waterloo Region’s Significant Species List: Native Vascular Plant Component. Rowell, J.C. 2012. The Snakes of Ontario: Natural History, Distribution, and Status. Art

Bookbindery.

Natural Resource Solutions Inc. Grandview Hills Stage VI Environmental Impact Study

MAPS

Barrie 's Lake -Baum an Cre e k PSW

Cruicks ton Cre e k He adwate rs ESPA

WESTCLIFF WAY

NEWMAN DR IVE

R OSSLINN R OAD

PRINCESS STR EET

BISMAR K DR IVE

BLAIR R OAD

HAWTHOR NE R OAD

LINNDALE R OAD

R ONALD R OAD

HALE CO

UR T

R OSECLIFF COUR T

ER INGATE WALK

DOMM LANE

552400

552400

552600

552600

552800

552800

553000

553000

553200

553200

553400

553400

4802

000

4802

000

4802

200

4802

200

4802

400

4802

400

4802

600

4802

600

Grandview Hills Stage VI

LegendStud y Are aCruickston Cre e k He adwate rs ESPAPe rm ane nt Wate rcours eInte rm itte nt Wate rcours eProvincially Significant We tland (PSW)

Study Area

Map 1

0 100 200Me tre s

Path: X:\1502_ Grand vie w_ Hills _ EIS\NR SI_ 1824_ Map1_ Stud yAre a_ 3K_ 2016_ 10_ 12_ LEH.m xd

Map Produced by Natural Resource Solutions Inc. This m ap is proprie taryand confid e ntial and m ust not be d uplicate d or d is tribute d by any m e answithout e xpre s s writte n pe rm is s ion of NR SI. Source : Data provid e d by MNR ©Copyright: Que e n’s Printe r Ontario. Im age ry: Firs t Bas e Solutions (2014).

´Date: October 12, 2016

Project No: 1824NAD83 - UTM Zone 17

Scale 1:3,000

Newm

anCr

eek

Cruic

kston

Creek

[(A[(A

[(A

[(B

[(B

[(B

[(B

[(B

[(B

[(B

[(B

[(S[(S

[(S[(S

[(S

[(S

OAGM1

SWM03-1

Cruick

ston C

reek

Newm

anCr

eek

MEMM3

H1H1

H1

H1

WES TCLIFF WAY

NEWMAN DRIVE

ROS S LINN ROAD

PRINCES S S TREET

BISMARK DRIVE

HAWTHORNE ROAD

LINNDALE ROAD

RONALD ROAD

HALE CO

URT

ROS ECLIFF COURT

ERINGATE WALK

DOMM LANE

OAGM1

MEMM3

FODM5-2

He dge row 1

He dge row 4

He dge row 5

He dge row 2

He dge row 3 - Re m ove d

S KB-006

S KB-005

S KB-004

S KB-003

S KB-002

S KB-001

MBB-002

MBB-001

BMB-005

BMB-004

BMB-003

BMB-002

BMB-001

ANR-003

ANR-002ANR-001

552600

552600

552800

552800

553000

553000

553200

553200

553400

553400

4802

000

4802

000

4802

200

4802

200

4802

400

4802

400

4802

600

4802

600


LegendS tudy Are aRe m oved He dge row

[(S S na ke Cove rboa rd S ta tions

[(B Ma rsh Bre eding Bird S ta tions

[(B Bre e ding Bird S ta tions

[(A Anura n Ca ll S ta tionsPe rm a ne nt Wa te rcourseInte rm itte nt Wa te rcourseWoodla nd Edge (S urve ye d)Ecologica l La nd Cla ssifica tion (ELC)

(FODM5-2) Dry-Fre sh S uga r Ma ple-Be e ch Deciduous Forest Type(H1) De ciduous He dge row(MEMM3) Dry-Fre sh Mixe d Me adow Ecosite(OAGM1) Annua l Row Crops(S WMO3-1) Ye llow Birch – Conife r Orga nic Mixed S wa m p Type

Vegetation Communitiesand Survey Stations

Map 2

0 50 100 150Me tre s

Pa th: X:\1502_ Gra ndview_ Hills_ EIS \NRS I_ 1824_ Ma p2_ ELC_ MonitoringLoca tions_3K_ 2016_ 10_12_LEH.m xd

Map Produced by Natural Resource Solutions Inc. This m ap is proprie ta rya nd confide ntia l a nd m ust not be duplica te d or distribute d by a ny m e a nswithout e xpre ss writte n pe rm ission of NRS I. S ource : Da ta provided by MNR ©Copyright: Que e n’s Printe r Onta rio. Im a ge ry: First Ba se S olutions (2014).



Scale 1:2,500

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!!

!!!!

!

!

!

!

!!!!

!!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!

!!

!!!

((

((((

(

(

(

(

((((

(((

(

((

(

((

(((((((

((((((

((

((

(((

#*!(!(!(

!(

OAGM1

SWMO3-1

Cruick

ston C

reek

Newm

anCr

eek

MEMM3

H1

H1

H1

See Inset

SKB-001

SKB-002

WES TCLIFF WAY

NEWMAN DRIVE

ROS S LINN ROAD

PRINCES S S TREET

HAWTHORNE ROAD

HALE CO

URT

ROS ECLIFF COURT

ERINGATE WALK

DOMM LANE

OAGM1

MEMM3

FODM5-2

H1

Hedge row 1

Hedge row 4

Hedge row 5

Hedge row 2

Hedge row 3 - Re m ove d

SNK-007

SNK-008SNK-010

SNK-015SNK-016

SNK-017

SNK-018

SNK-021

SNK-024SNK-025SNK-026SNK-027SNK-028SNK-029SNK-030

SNK-037SNK-038

SKB-003

SKB-005

SKB-006

552600

552600

552800

552800

553000

553000

553200

553200

553400

553400

4802

000

4802

000

4802

200

4802

200

4802

400

4802

400

4802

600

4802

600



!( S na ke Cove rboa rd S ta tion (S KB)!( S na ke Obse rva tion (S NK)

#* S na ke Hibe rna culum (HIB)S na ke Hibe rna culum 30m Buffe rPe rm a ne nt Wa te rcourseInte rm itte nt Wa te rcourseWoodla nd Edge (S urve ye d)Ecologica l La nd Cla ssifica tion (ELC)

(FODM5-2) Dry-Fre sh S uga r Ma ple-Be e ch Deciduous Forest Type(H1) De ciduous He dge row(MEMM3) Dry-Fre sh Mixe d Me adow Ecosite(OAGM1) Annua l Row Crops(S WMO3-1) Ye llow Birch-Conife r Orga nic Mixed S wa m p Type

Snake Hibernaculum Assessment

Map 3

0 50 100 150Me tre s

Pa th: X:\1502_ Gra ndview_ Hills_ EIS \NRS I_ 1824_ Ma p3_ S na ke Hibe rna culum Assessm e nt_ 3K_2016_10_ 12_ LEH.m xd

Map Produced by Natural Resource Solutions Inc. This m ap is proprie ta rya nd confide ntia l a nd m ust not be duplica te d or distribute d by a ny m e a nswithout e xpress writte n pe rm ission of NRS I. S ource: Da ta provide d by MNRF© Copyright: Que e n’s Printe r Onta rio. Im a ge ry: First Ba se S olutions (2014).



Scale 1:2,500

!(!(

!(

!(

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!!!

!

!

!!!

((

((

((

(

(

(

((((

(

(

((

((

((((

(

(

(((

#*

!(!(

!(!(

!(

HIB-001

SNK-001SNK-002

SNK-003SNK-004SNK-005

SNK-006

SNK-009

SNK-011SNK-012SNK-013SNK-014

SNK-019

SNK-020

SNK-022SNK-023

SNK-031SNK-032

SNK-033

SNK-034SNK-035SNK-036 SNK-039

SNK-040SNK-041SNK-042SNK-043

SKB-007SKB-008

SKB-009

SKB-010

SKB-004

Inset

Hedge row1

!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(E

!(V

!(V

!(V !(V

!(C

OAGM1

SWM03-1

Cruick

ston C

reek

Newm

anCr

eek

MEMM3

H1H1

H1

H1

WESTCLIFF WAY

NEWMAN DR IVE

R OSSLINN R OAD

PRINCESS STR EET

BISMAR K DR IVE

HAWTHOR NE R OAD

LINNDALE R OAD

R ONALD R OAD

HALE CO

UR T

R OSECLIFF COUR T

ER INGATE WALK

DOMM LANE

OAGM1

MEMM3

FODM5-2

He d ge row 1

He d ge row 4

He d ge row 5He d ge row 2

He d ge row 3 - R e m ove d

552600

552600

552800

552800

553000

553000

553200

553200

553400

553400

4802

000

4802

000

4802

200

4802

200

4802

400

4802

400

4802

600

4802

600


LegendStud y Are aBarrie 's Lake -Baum an Cre e k PSWCore Environm e ntal Fe atureBlair-Be chte l-Crickston ESLR e m ove d He d ge row

Significant Tree Species Locations!( Hackbe rry!( Butte rnut

Other Regionally Significant Species (Multiple IndividualsThroughout ELC Polygon)!(C Cocks pur Thorn

!(E Easte rn Cottonwood

!(V Virginia Cre e pe rPe rm ane nt Wate rcours eInte rm itte nt Wate rcours eWood land Dripline (Surve ye d )15m Wood land Dripline Buffe rEcological Land Clas s ification (ELC)

(FODM5-2) Dry-Fre s h Sugar Maple -Be e ch De cid uous Fore s t Type(H1) De ciduous He d ge row(MEMM3) Dry-Fre s h Mixe d Me adow Ecos ite(OAGM1) Annual R ow Crops(SWMO3-1) Y e llow Birch-Conife r Organic Mixe d Swam p Type

Natural Feature Constraints- Designated Features and Vegetation

Map 4a

0 50 100 150Me tre s

Path: X:\1502_ Grand vie w_ Hills _ EIS\NR SI_ 1824_ Map4a_NaturalFe ature Constraints _ 2K_ 2016_ 10_ 12_ LEH.m xd

Map Produced by Natural Resource Solutions Inc. This m ap is proprie taryand confid e ntial and m ust not be d uplicate d or d is tribute d by any m e answithout e xpre s s writte n pe rm is s ion of NR SI. Source : Data provid e d by MNR ©Copyright: Que e n’s Printe r Ontario. Im age ry: Firs t Bas e Solutions (2014).



Scale 1:2,500

#*

!(B

!(B

!(O

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!(B

!(B

!(O

!(W

OAGM1

SWMO3-1

Cruick

ston C

reek

Newm

anCr

eek

MEMM3

H1H1

H1

H1

WES TCLIFF WAY

NEWMAN DRIVE

ROS S LINN ROAD

PRINCES S S TREET

BISMARK DRIVE

HAWTHORNE ROAD

LINNDALE ROAD

RONALD ROAD

HALE CO

URT

ROS ECLIFF COURT

ERINGATE WALK

DOMM LANE

OAGM1

MEMM3

FODM5-2

Hedge row 1

Hedge row 4

Hedge row 5

Hedge row 2

Hedge row 3 - Re m ove d

552600

552600

552800

552800

553000

553000

553200

553200

553400

553400

4802

000

4802

000

4802

200

4802

200

4802

400

4802

400

4802

600

4802

600



!. Ca vity Tre e

#* S na ke Hibe rna culum (HIB)S na ke Hibe rna culum 30m Buffe r

S ignifica nt Wildlife Ha bita tAm phibia n Bre e dingEaste rn Wood-Pewe e Ha bita t

Regionally Significant Species!(B Bullfrog

!(O Orcha rd Oriole

!(W Wood DuckPe rm a ne nt Wa te rcourseInte rm itte nt Wa te rcourseWoodla nd dripline (S urveyed)15m Woodla nd Dripline Buffe rEcologica l La nd Cla ssifica tion (ELC)

(FODM5-2) Dry-Fre sh S uga r Ma ple -Be e ch Deciduous Fore st Type(H1) De ciduous He dge row(MEMM3) Dry-Fre sh Mixe d Me a dow Ecosite(OAGM1) Annua l Row Crops(S WMO3-1) Ye llow Birch-Conife r Orga nic Mixed S wa m p Type

Natural Feature Constraints- Wildlife Habitat

Map 4b

0 50 100 150Me tre s

Pa th: X:\1502_ Gra ndview_ Hills_ EIS \NRS I_ 1824_ Ma p4b_Na tura lFe a ture Constra ints_ 2K_ 2016_ 10_ 12_ LEH.m xd

Map Produced by Natural Resource Solutions Inc. This m ap is proprie ta rya nd confide ntia l a nd m ust not be duplica te d or distribute d by a ny m e a nswithout e xpre ss writte n pe rm ission of NRS I. S ource : Da ta provided by MNR ©Copyright: Que e n’s Printe r Onta rio. Im a ge ry: First Ba se S olutions (2014).



Scale 1:2,500

StormwaterManagement

FacilityWet Pond

StormwaterManagement

FacilityForebay

AssessedWatercourse

Reach

NewmanCree

k

Cruic

kston

Creek

NEWMAN DRIVE

ROSSLINN ROAD

ROSECLIFF COURT

WEST CLIFF WAY

552600

552600

552700

552700

552800

552800

552900

552900

553000

553000

553100

553100

4802

400

4802

400

4802

500

4802

500

4802

600

4802

600

4802

700

4802

700


LegendStu dy AreaPerm anent Wa tercou rseInterm ittent Wa tercou rse

Aquatic Features

Map 5

0 25 50 75 100Metres

Pa th: X:\1502_Grandview_Hills_EIS\NRSI_1824_Ma p5_Aqu a ticFeatu res_7K_2016_10_12_LEH.m xd

Map Produced by Natural Resource Solutions Inc. T his m a p is proprieta ryand confidentia l a nd m u st not b e du plicated or distrib u ted b y a ny m ea nswithou t express written perm ission of NRSI. Sou rce: Da ta provided by MNR ©Copyrig ht: Qu een’s Printer Onta rio. Im a g ery: First Ba se Solu tions (2014).



Scale 1:1,500

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

Hed gerow 3

MEMM3

H1

He d ge row1

He d ge row2

He d ge row3-Re m ove d

He d ge row5

He d ge row4

SWMO3-1

Newman Creek

WESTCLIFF WAY

NEWMAN DRIVE

ROSSLINN ROAD

HALE COURT

ROSECLIFF COURT

ERINGATE WALK

MEMM3

OAGM1

OAGM1

MEMM3

H1

H1

H1

FODM5-2


LegendStud y Are aRe m ove d He d ge row

!( Butte rnutPropos e d De ve lopm e ntPe rm ane nt Wate rcours eInte rm itte nt Wate rcours eWood land Dripline (Surve ye d )15m Wood land Dripline Buffe rSWM Facility Ac c e s s /Pe d e s trian TrailEcological Land Clas s ification (ELC)

(FODM5-2) Dry-Fre s h Sugar Maple -Be e c h De c id uous Fore s t Type(H1) De c id uous He d ge row(MEMM3) Dry-Fre s h Mixe d Me ad ow Ecos ite(OAGM1) Annual Row Crops(SWMO3-1) Y e llow Birc h-Conife r Organic Mixe d Swam p Type

Proposed Development

Map 6

0 50 100 150Me tre s

Path: X:\1502_Grand vie w_Hills _EIS\NRSI_1824_Map6_Propos e d De ve lopm e nt_2K_2016_10_19_LEH.m xd

Map Produced by Natural Resource Solutions Inc. This m ap is proprie tary and confid e ntial andm us t not be d uplicate d or d is tribute d by any m e ans without e xpre s s writte n pe rm is s ion of NRSI.Sourc e : Data provid e d by MNR © Copyright: Q ue e n’s Printe r Ontario. Im age ry: Firs t Bas e Solutions(2014).



Scale 1:1800


APPENDIX I Significant Species Reported From the Study Area and Vicinity

Federally and Provincially Significant Species Known from the Study Area and Vicinity

Scientific Name Common Name SRANK1 COSSARO2 COSEWIC3SARA

Schedule4Waterloo

Status 5,6,7,8 Habitat Preference9,10.11, 12 Background SourceSuitable

Habitats within Study Area

Observed by NRSI

Aplectrum hyemale Puttyroot S2 R moist deciduous woods MNRF 2014 No NoArisaema dracontium Green Dragon S3 SC SC Schedule 3 R wet bottomlands along rivers and

creeks Laurence 2014 No NoAsimina triloba Pawpaw S3 R+ moist woods and stream banks MNRF 2014 No NoAureolaria virginica Downy Yellow False

Foxglove S1 R dry, open, deciduous woods MNRF 2014 No NoCarex lupuliformis False Hop Sedge S1 R wet wooded habitats MNRF 2014 No NoCarya glabra Pignut Hickory S3 R* upland, often sandy, forests,

associated with oaks MNRF 2014 Yes NoCastanea dentata American Chestnut S2 END E Schedule 1 R moist to well drained forests on sand,

occasionally heavy soils Laurence 2014 Yes No

Cornus florida Eastern Flowering Dogwood S2? END E Schedule 1

Dry (usually oak) to rich deciduous forests, especially on hillsides and river banks

Laurence 2014 No NoCrataegus pruinosa var. dissona Northern Hawthorn S3 old fields, poorly managed pastures,

fencelines and roadsides MNRF 2014 Yes NoCypripedium arietinum Ram's-head Lady's-

slipper S3 R cedar woodland on limestone plains, wooded fens and sandy sites MNRF 2014 No No

Erigenia bulbosa Harbinger-of-spring S3? Rrich, moist deciduous woods, open, wooded river floodplains and bottomlands; streambanks and limestone shingle shores

MNRF 2014 No No

Euonymus atropurpureus Burning Bush S3 R dry to moist thickets and woods MNRF 2014 Yes NoGentianella quinquefolia Stiff Gentian S2 R moist soil, roadsides, streambanks and

edges of woods, prairies MNRF 2014 No NoGlycyrrhiza lepidota Wild Licorice S3 R open, sandy or rocky riverbanks MNRF 2014 No NoGymnocladus dioicus Kentucky Coffee-tree S2 THR T Schedule 1 floodplains, edges of marshes and

shallow soil over limestone Laurence 2014 No No

Juglans cinerea Butternut S3? END EStream banks and swamps, as well as upland beech-maple, oak-hickory, and mixed hardwood stands

OMNR 2014, Laurence 2014 Yes Yes

Juncus acuminatus Sharp-fruited Rush S3 R sandy and gravelly shorelines, ditches and gravel pits MNRF 2014 No No

Linum virginianum Woodland Flax S2 R dry, open woods and adjacent fields MNRF 2014 Yes NoMonarda didyma Scarlet Beebalm S3 R+ moist woods, swampy thickets and

roadsides MNRF 2014 No NoMuhlenbergia tenuiflora Slim-flowered Muhly S2 R rich deciduous forest, often on rocky or

sandy soil MNRF 2014 Yes NoOnosmodium molle ssp. hispidissimum

Soft-hairy False Gromwell S2 R

river banks and flats and dry rocky woods, fields, gravelly soil; stable sand dune ridges

MNRF 2014 Yes No

Panax quinquefolius American Ginseng S3 END E Schedule 1 Rdeep leaf litter in rich, moist deciduous woods, especially on rocky, shaded cool slopes in sweet soil

Laurence 2014 No No

Phlox subulata Moss Phlox S1? open, sandy woods, and sandy roadsides and lakeshores MNRF 2014 No No

Quercus ellipsoidalis Northern Pin Oak S3 R Usually associated with other upland oaks and jack pine, on dry sandy soils Ecoplans 2013 Yes Yes

Sanicula canadensis var. grandis

Long-stlye Canadian Sanicle S2 R rich deciduous woods MNRF 2014 Yes No

Schoenoplectiella smithii Smith's Bulrush S3 R wet shores and beaches MNRF 2014 No No

Vascular Flora


Schedule4Waterloo



Observed by NRSI

Valeriana edulis Hairy Valerian S1 R swampy river flats and meadows; wet prairies; wooded, rocky riverbanks MNRF 2014 No No

Empidonax virescens Acadian Flycatcher S2S3B END E Schedule 1 √

mature, shady, deciduous forests; heavily wooded ravines; creek bottoms or river swamps; availability of good quality habitat is limiting factor; needs at least 30 haof forest

Laurence 2014 No No

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle S2N, S4B SC NAR √

require large continuous area of deciduous or mixed woods around large lakes, rivers; require area of 255 ha for nesting, shelter, feeding, roosting; prefer open woods with 30 to 50% canopy cover; nest in tall trees 50 to 200m from shore; require tall, dead, partially dead trees within 400 m of nest for perching

Laurence 2014 No No

Riparia riparia Bank Swallow S4B THR Tsand, clay or gravel river banks or steep riverbank cliffs; lakeshore bluffs of easily crumbled sand or gravel; gravel pits, road-cuts, grassland or cultivated fields that are close to water

BSC et al. 2008, NRSI 2008 No No

Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow S4B THR Tfarmlands or rural areas; cliffs, caves, rock niches; buildings or other man-made structures for nesting; open country near body of water

BSC et al. 2008, Laurence 2014 Yes (foraging) Yes

Chlidonias niger Black Tern S3B SC NAR √

wetlands, coastal or inland marshes; large cattail marshes, marshy edges of rivers, lakes or ponds, wet open fens, wet meadows; returns to same area to nest each year in loose colonies; must have shallow (0.5 to 1m deep) water and areas of open water near nests; requires marshes >20 ha in size; feeds over adjacentgrasslands

Laurence 2014 No No

Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink S4B THR Tlarge, open expansive grasslands with dense ground cover; hayfields, meadows or fallow fields; marshes;

BSC et al. 2008 No No

Cardellina canadensis Canada Warbler S4B SC T

interior forest species; dense, mixed coniferous, deciduous forests with closed canopy, wet bottomlands ofcedar or alder; shrubby undergrowth in cool moist mature woodlands; riparian habitat; usually requires at least 30 ha

BSC et al. 2008, Laurence 2014 No No

Birds


Schedule4Waterloo



Observed by NRSI

Setophaga cerulea Cerulean Warbler S3B THR E

mature deciduous woodland of Great Lakes- St. Lawrence and Carolinian forests, sometimes coniferous; swamps or bottomlands with large trees; area sensitive species needing extensive areas of forest (>100 ha)

MNRF 2014, BSC et al. 2008, Laurence 2014 No No

Chaetura pelagica Chimney Swift S4B, S4N THR Tcommonly found in urban areas near buildings; nests in hollow trees, crevices of rock cliffs, chimneys; highly gregarious; feeds over open water

BSC et al. 2008, Laurence 2014, NRSI

2008No No

Mergus merganser Common Merganser S5B, S5N √ mainly on freshwater rivers and lakes NRSI 2014 No Yes

Chordeiles minor Common Nighthawk S4B SC Topen ground; clearings in dense forests; ploughed fields; gravel beaches or barren areas with rocky soils; open woodlands; flat gravel roofs


Sturnella magna Eastern Meadowlark S4B THR T

open, grassy meadows, farmland, pastures, hayfields or grasslands with elevated singing perches; cultivated land and weedy areas with trees; old orchards with adjacent, open grassy areas >10 ha in size


Caprimulgus vociferus Eastern Whip-poor-will S4B THR T Schedule 1 √

dry, open, deciduous woodlands of small to medium trees; oak or beech with lots of clearings and shaded leaflitter; wooded edges, forest clearings with little herbaceous growth; pine plantations; associated with >100 ha forests

Laurence 2014 No No

Contopus virens Eastern Wood-Pewee S4B SC SCopen, deciduous, mixed or coniferous forest; predominated by oak with little understory; forest clearings, edges; farm woodlots, parks

BSC et al. 2008, NRSI 2008 Yes Yes

Vermivora chrysoptera Golden-winged Warbler S4B SC T

early successional habitat; shrubby, grassy abandoned fields with small deciduous trees bordered by low woodland and wooded swamps; alder bogs; deciduous, damp woods; shrubbery clearings in deciduous woods with saplings and grasses; brier-woodland edges; requires >10 ha of habitat


Ammodramus henslowii Henslow's Sparrow SHB END E Schedule 1 √

large, fallow, grassy area with ground mat of dead vegetation, dense herbaceous vegetation, ground litterand some song perches; neglected weedy fields; wet meadows; cultivated uplands; a moderate amount of moisture needed; requires a minimum tract of grassland of 40 ha, but usually in areas >100 ha

Laurence 2014 No No


Schedule4Waterloo



Observed by NRSI

Ixobrychus exilis Least Bittern S4B THR T Schedule 1 √

deep marshes, swamps, bogs; marshy borders of lakes,ponds, streams, ditches; dense emergent vegetation ofcattail, bulrush, sedge; nests in cattails; intolerant of lossof habitat and human disturbance

Laurence 2014 No No

Parkesia motacilla Louisiana Waterthrush S3B SC SC Schedule 1 √

prefers wooded ravines with running streams; also woodlands swamps; large tracts of mature deciduous ormixed forests; canopy cover is essential; has strong affinity to nest sites; nests on ground

Laurence 2014 Yes No

Colinus virginianus Northern Bobwhite S1 END E Schedule 1 √

grassland, prairie or hay fields with woody cover in form of thickets, tangles of vines, shrubs; fence rows or woodland edges; cropland growing corn, soybeans or small grains and clover or grass; well-drained sandy orloamy soil; pond edges

Laurence 2014 No No

Falco peregrinus anatum/tundrius Peregrine Falcon S3B SC SC Schedule 1 √

rock cliffs, crags, especially situated near water; tall buildings in urban centres

Laurence 2014 No No

Melanerpes erythrocephalus Red-headed Woodpecker S4B SC T Schedule 1 √

open, deciduous forest with little understory; fields or pasture lands with scattered large trees; woodedswamps; orchards, small woodlots or forest edges; groves of dead or dying trees; feeds on insects and stores nuts or acorns for winter; loss of habitat is limiting factor; requires cavity trees with at least 40 cm dbh;require about 4 ha for a territory


Asio flammeus Short-eared Owl S2N, S4B SC SC Schedule 3 √

grasslands, open areas or meadows that are grassy or bushy; marshes, bogs or tundra; both diurnal andnocturnal habits; ground nester; destruction of wetlands by drainage for agriculture is an important factor in the decline of this species; home range 25 -125 ha; requires 75-100 ha of contiguous open habitat

Laurence 2014 No No

Hylocichla mustelina Wood Thrush S4B SC Tundisturbed moist mature deciduous or mixed forest with deciduous sapling growth; near pond or swamp; hardwood forest edges; must have some trees higher than 12 m

BSC et al. 2008 Yes No

Icteria virens Yellow-breasted Chat S2B END E Schedule 1 √

thickets, tall tangles of shrubbery beside streams, ponds; requires tracts of grassland >50 haovergrown bushy clearings with deciduous thickets; nests above ground in bush, vines etc.

Laurence 2014 No No

Herpetofauna


Schedule4Waterloo



Observed by NRSI

Emydoidea blandingii Blanding's Turtle (Great Lakes/St Lawrence pop. ) S3 THR T √

shallow water marshes, bogs, ponds or swamps, or coves in larger lakes with soft muddy bottoms and aquatic vegetation; basks on logs, stumps, or banks

Ontario Nature 2015, Laurence 2014 Yes No

Lampropeltis taylori triangulum Eastern Milksnake S3 SC SC √

farmlands, meadows, hardwood or aspen stands; pine forest with brushy or woody cover; river bottoms or bog woods; hides under logs, stones, or boards or in outbuildings


Thamnophis sauritus septentrionalis Eastern Ribbonsnake S3 SC SC √

sunny grassy areas with low dense vegetation near bodies of shallow permanent quiet water; wet meadows, grassy marshes or sphagnum bogs; borders of ponds, lakes or streams


Ambystoma jeffersonianum Jefferson Salamander S2 END E √damp shady deciduous forest, swamps, moist pasture, lakeshores; temporary woodland pools for breeding;

MNRF 2014, Ontario Nature 2015, Laurence

2014Yes No

Graptemys geographica Northern Map Turtle S3 SC SC Schedule 1

large bodies of water with soft bottoms, and aquaticvegetation; basks on logs or rocks or on beaches andgrassy edges, will bask in groups; uses soft soil or cleandry sand for nest sites; may nest at some distance fromwater; home range size is larger for females (about 70ha) than males (about 30 ha) and includes hibernation,basking, nesting and feeding areas; aquatic corridors(e.g. stream) are required for movement

Laurence 2014 No No

Regina septemvittata Queensnake S2 END E √margins of streams with slow currents and gravel bottoms; shorelines with rocks and debris; old quarries; canals; aquatic habitat with overhanging trees, particularly willows

Ontario Nature 2015, Laurence 2014 No No

Chelydra serpentina serpentina Snapping Turtle S3 SC SC C

permanent, semi-permanent fresh water; marshes, swamps or bogs; rivers and streams with soft muddy banks or bottoms; often uses soft soil or clean dry sand on south-facing slopes for nest sites


Pseudacris triseriata pop. 2 Western Chorus Frog (Great Lakes/St. Lawrence - Canadian Shield Pop.)

S3 NAR Troadside ditches or temporary ponds in fields; swamps or wet meadows; woodland or open country with cover and moisture; small ponds and temporary pools



Schedule4Waterloo



Observed by NRSI

Glyptemys insculpta Wood Turtle S2 END T Schedule 1

slow-moving streams with sandy bottoms and woodyedges; ponds, marshes, swamps; woodlands infloodplains; lives within 150m of stream shores; homerange may be 5 to 25 ha, sometimes as much as 115ha

Laurence 2014 No No

Taxidea taxus jacksoni American Badger S2 END E open grasslands and oak savannahs Dobbyn 1994, Laurence 2014 Yes No

Myotis leibii Eastern Small-footed Bat S2S3 ENDRoosts in caves, mines shafts, crevices or buildings that are in or near woodland; hibernates in cold dry caves or mines; maternity colonies in caves or buildings; forages in forests

EC 2015 No No

Myotis lucifuga Little Brown Myotis S3? END E

uses caves, quarries, tunnels, hollow trees or buildings for roosting; winters in humid caves; maternity sites in dark warm areas such as attics and barns; feeds primarily in wetlands, forest edges

Dobbyn 1994, Laurence 2014 Yes No

Myotis septentrionalis Northern Myotis S3 END Ehibernates during winter in mines or caves; roosts in houses, manmade structures but prefers hollow trees or under loose bark; hunts within forests, below canopy

Dobbyn 1994, Laurence 2014 Yes No

Perimyotis subflavus Tri-colored Bat S3? END E Schedule 1Open woods near water; roosts in trees, cliff crevices, buildings or caves; hibernates in damp, draft-free warm caves, mines or rock crevices

EC 2015 Yes No

Danaus plexippus Monarch S2N, S4B SC SC Schedule 1 VC Host plant is Milkweed (Asclepias spp.) Laurence 2014 Yes No

Bombus affinis Rusty-patched Bumblebee S1 END E Schedule 1

can be found in open habitat such as mixed farmland, urban settings, savannah, open woods and sand dunes


Rhionaeschna mutata Spatterdock Darner S1boggy ponds or ephemeral wetlands with considerable emergent and floating vegetation

MNRF 2014 No No

Epiaeschna heros Swamp Darner S2S3Heavily wooded ponds, streams and ox-bows including ephemeral pools and ponds

MNRF 2014 No No

Asterocampa clyton Tawny Emperor S2S3 UC Host plant is Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis ) MNRF 2014 Yes No

Pieris virginiensis West Virginia White S3 SC Host plant is Toothwort (Cardamine spp.) Laurence 2014 No No

Moxostoma duquesnei Black Redhorse S2 THR T lives in pools and riffle areas of medium-sized rivers and streams that are usually less than two metres deep

Laurence 2014 No No

Ichthyomyzon fossor Northern Brook Lamprey S3 SC SC Schedule 1 inhabits clear, coolwater streams Laurence 2014 No No

Fish

Mammals

Insects


Schedule4Waterloo



Observed by NRSI

Notropis photogenis Silver Shiner S2S3 THR T Schedule 3prefer moderate to large size streams with swift currents that are free of weeds and have clean gravel or boulder bottoms

Laurence 2014 No No

Villosa iris Rainbow Mussel S2S3 THR E Schedule 1 clean, well-oxygenated waters at depths of less than one metre Laurence 2014 No No

Lampsilis fasciola Wavy-rayed Lampmussel S1 THR SC Schedule 1

small to medium rivers with clear water; shallow riffle areas with clean gravel or sand bottoms

Laurence 2014 No No

Fissidens exilis Pygmy Pocket Moss S2 SC SC Schedule 1moist, bare, clay soil often associated with seepage areas and river banks. It usually grows in woodlands, and sometimes on soil that has been disturbed by human activity

Laurence 2014 No No

1MNRF 2014; 2MNRF 2016a; 3COSEWIC 2016; 4Government of Canada 2016; 5Richardson and Martin 1999, 6Martin 1996; 7Regional Municipality of Waterloo 1985; 8Grealey 2010; 9OMNR 2000; 10MNRF 2014b; 11Michigan Flora Online 201612Odonata Central 2014

THR/T ThreatenedSC/SC Special ConcernNAR Not at Risk

UC UncommonVC Very Common

√* Significant when nesting in natural circumstances

Region of Waterloo Status

C Common√ Significant

Schedule 3 Special concern; may be reassessed for consideration for inclusion to Schedule 1

R RareR+ Most populations considered to be anthropogenicR* rare, but further study may prove otherwise

SARA ScheduleSchedule 1 Officially Protected under SARA

Molluscs

Mosses

LEGEND

COSSARO/COSEWICEND/E Endangered

SRANKS1 Critically ImperiledS2 Imperiled

S#? Rank UncertainN Non-breeding

S3 VulnerableS4 Apparently SecureS5 Secure SNA UnrankedB Breeding


APPENDIX II Terms of Reference and Agency Comments


May 30, 2014

1502 Tim Van Hinte Environmental Planner Region of Waterloo 150 Frederick Street Kitchener, Ontario N2G 4J3 John Brum Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road Cambridge, Ontario N1R 5W6 April Souwand Senior Environmental Planner City of Cambridge 50 Dickson Street Cambridge, Ontario N1R 5W8 Dear Mr. Van Hinte, Mr. Brum, and Ms. Souwand; Re: Scoped Environmental Impact Study – Grandview Hills Stage VI

Draft Terms of Reference On behalf of Natural Resource Solutions Inc. (NRSI), I am pleased to provide the following Terms of Reference (TOR) to undertake a Scoped Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for the proposed Grandview Hills Stage VI residential development. The subject property is owned by Freure Homes, and is located west of Westcliffe Way, at the terminus of Newman Drive in the north and Wilkinson Avenue in the south, within the west end of the City of Cambridge (see Figure 1). The subject property is also located within the Development Study Area of the Cambridge West Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) (MHBC et al. 2013). Freure Homes proposes to develop a 105-lot residential subdivision within the subject property through a Draft Plan of Subdivision, including associated stormwater management facilities, services, and internal road network. As the subject property falls within the Cambridge West MESP study area, the development proposal is subject to the planning recommendations outlined in the MESP, in addition to Official Plan policies and other regulations. The subject property is located adjacent to, or in close proximity to, three Core Environmental Features identified in the Regional Official Plan: the Barrie’s Lake-Bauman Creek Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) complex, Devil’s Creek Swamp Environmentally Sensitive Policy Area (ESPA) 59, and the proposed Cruickston Creek Headwaters ESPA. Collectively, these Core Environmental Features are contained within the adjacent Blair-Bechtel-Cruickston Environmentally Significant

2

Landscape. Additionally, portions of the subject property fall within the Grand River Conservation Authority’s (GRCA) regulation limit. Consequently, the Region of Waterloo, City of Cambridge, and GRCA have requested that a scoped EIS be completed to demonstrate that the proposed development will not cause adverse environmental impacts to the adjacent natural features or their ecological functions, as per Regional, City and GRCA policies. Furthermore, the City has requested that a Tree Management Plan be prepared as per the City’s Tree Management Policies and Guidelines for New Developments. The following Terms of Reference has been prepared to outline NRSI’s proposed work plan to complete this undertaking. This work plan has been scoped in accordance with the GRCA’s Guidelines and Submission Standards for Wetlands and the 2010 Region of Waterloo Greenlands Network Implementation Guidelines.

3

Scoped Environmental Impact Study – Grandview Hills Phase VI, City of Cambridge

Draft Terms of Reference Introduction A pre-consultation meeting was held on February 19, 2014 to discuss the proposed development of a 105-lot residential subdivision (Grandview Hills Phase VI), with associated stormwater management facilities, servicing and internal road network. Comments provided by the Region, City and GRCA included the need for a scoped EIS to demonstrate that the proposed development will not adversely impact the adjacent core natural features (including PSW and ESPA) within the Blair-Bechtel-Cruickston Environmentally Significant Landscape. A scoped EIS is required as per Policy 7.C.9 of the Regional Official Plan. The application, including the scoped EIS, is to be submitted to the Region’s Ecological and Environmental Advisory Committee (EEAC) for review. The City requires that a scoped EIS be completed to document compliance with the Cambridge West MESP Natural Heritage System, Stormwater Management Strategy, and Monitoring Program. A scoped EIS is also required due to the presence of lands within the subject property that fall within the GRCA regulation limits, which are subject to Ontario Regulation 150/06. Furthermore, the City requires the completion of a Tree Management Plan based on the City’s Tree Management Policies and Guidelines for New Developments. Requirements of a scoped EIS for the proposed development have been outlined by the review agencies as part of the pre-consultation. These recommendations, in addition to EIS guidelines provided by the GRCA and Region of Waterloo, and recommendations provided in the Cambridge West MESP, have been used to inform the scope of the proposed study. Collection and Review of Background Information Background information pertaining to the biological resources on and in the vicinity of the subject property will be collected and compiled. This will include the results of natural heritage studies completed in support of the Cambridge West MESP, the results of 2008 NRSI breeding bird surveys completed on the subject property for Freure Homes, file material from the GRCA and the OMNR, as well as the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (OBBA), Ontario Reptile and Amphibian Atlas, Ontario Mammal Atlas, Ontario Butterfly Atlas and online databases such as the Natural Heritage Information Centre, Species At Risk listings at the federal (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC)) and provincial (Species at Risk in Ontario) levels, and species of regional significance. As well, City and Regional policy documents will be reviewed as they apply to the natural features present within the subject property. Ecological Land Classification (ELC) descriptions and mapping completed by NRSI for the adjacent rare Charitable Research Reserve property in 2011 will also be reviewed. A desktop-level screening of potential Significant Wildlife Habitat will be completed using habitat categories and significance criteria established by the OMNR for Ecoregion 6E (OMNR 2012). Habitat for federally, provincially, and regionally-significant species that have been recorded as occurring in the vicinity, as identified through the above background review tasks, will be screened to determine which species may occur on or

4

adjacent to the subject property. These screening exercises will fully utilize the results of Significant Wildlife Habitat analysis completed for the MESP, as well as through use of aerial photography, base maps, and other available information. Significant Wildlife Habitat screening will be used to help inform NRSI biologists about features or species of potential significance requiring focus during site investigations. Field Studies Amphibian Call Surveys NRSI biologists will complete three night-time amphibian call surveys during April, May and June of 2014 following the Marsh Monitoring Program (MMP) amphibian monitoring protocol (Bird Studies Canada 2009). The focus of these surveys will be the main stormwater management pond cell and forebay located within the subject property, while adjacent areas of the Barrie’s Lake-Bauman Creek PSW complex will be surveyed from the west property boundary. All relevant weather information will be recorded during each survey, including air temperature and wind speed. Vegetation Inventories and Community Descriptions, Woodland Dripline Delineations, and Confirmation During May or early June 2014, NRSI biologists will characterize and map the boundaries of the vegetation communities within the subject property following ELC methods (Lee et al. 1998, Lee 2008). Adjacent natural features will also be characterized to at least the ELC ecosite level based on observations from the subject property boundaries. All species of vascular flora present within the subject property will be recorded during all field surveys, including a three-season (spring, summer and fall) detailed botanical survey. Any observations of federally, provincially, or regionally significant plant species will be documented, photographed, and georeferenced with a hand-held GPS unit. Digital copies of the ELC and soil characterization field data sheets will be appended to the EIS. In conjunction with ELC work, the woodland dripline boundaries of the following features will be flagged by NRSI biologists (see Figure 2):

• Adjacent woodland located on rare property • North hedgerow • West hedgerow • South hedgerow

NRSI will subsequently arrange for a site visit with staff of the Region and/or City to review and confirm the on-site woodland dripline boundaries. The confirmed dripline boundaries will be surveyed by NRSI staff and mapped on an aerial photo base map of the subject property, and will be used as the basis for the accurate delineation of suitable buffers/setbacks. Tree Inventory and Assessment All trees ≥10 cm diameter-at-breast-height (DBH) within the subject property will be inventoried, tagged and assessed by an NRSI Certified Arborist. Immediately adjacent property trees (e.g., on the rare property) that may be impacted by the proposed development will be inventoried and assessed as feasible based on site access

5

allowances. The results of inventories completed in support of the MESP will be referred to in developing a site-specific inventory for the subject property. All inventoried trees will be accurately georeferenced to sub-metre accuracy using GPS for mapping purposes. Each tree will be tagged with a pre-numbered aluminum forestry tag and the following information will be recorded for each individual assessed tree;

• species, • DBH, • crown radius (metres), • general health (excellent, good, fair, poor, very poor), • potential for structural failure (low, medium, high), • tree location, • general comments (i.e. disease, aesthetic quality, development constraints,

sensitivity to development), • presence of tree cavities using OMNR bat habitat assessment protocol, • management recommendations where appropriate (i.e. prune, relocate, remove,

retain, etc.) and, Bird Surveys Peak breeding bird season in southern Ontario occurs from May 25th to July 5th (Cadman et al. 2007). Two breeding bird survey visits are proposed for early June and late June/early July, 2014 following the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (OBBA) methodology (OBBA 2001), which will involve area searches and point counts throughout the subject property. Observations of bird species, especially significant species, will be recorded including breeding evidence, by ELC polygon and point count station. Two marsh bird surveys will be completed in conjunction with the early morning breeding bird surveys to survey for the presence of secretive marsh bird species within wetland vegetation located in the stormwater ponds. The marsh bird surveys will be completed in accordance with the Marsh Monitoring Program marsh bird survey protocol (Bird Studies Canada 2009). Reptile Surveys The on-site stormwater management ponds will be carefully surveyed for the presence of basking turtles. Surveys for turtles will be completed during each daytime site visit, particularly under appropriate basking conditions (i.e., sunny and warm). A site visit will be completed in early May, during the spring emergence period, to document the presence and abundance of turtles around the ponds, which may be indicative of whether the ponds may be providing overwintering habitat. Snake coverboards will be placed on-site in early May, during the spring emergence period. Snake coverboards will be used to attract snakes using the boards for basking or as cover, as a means to improve the detectability and assessment of species presence. Boards will be checked during all site visits. Targeted area searches for snakes will also be completed in suitable habitat. Surveys will be completed in conjunction with other daytime field surveys under appropriate conditions for snake activity and basking (i.e., sunny and warm), and will include an area search in early May (emergence period) and during mid-summer. Habitat Assessments and Documentation of Other Wildlife

6

During all site visits, NRSI biologists will assess wildlife habitats within the subject property. Aquatic habitat assessments will be completed, including assessments of importance of aquatic features as fish habitat. The EIS will address any potential impacts of the proposed development on the on-site stormwater management ponds and Newman Creek, which flows north out of the subject property from the main pond. Recommendations from the Grand River Fisheries Management Plan will be referenced and applied where appropriate. Any features that may be indicative of Significant Wildlife Habitat or habitat for Species at Risk will be documented in detail, photographed, and georeferenced using a hand-held GPS unit. Any incidental observations of all wildlife will be recorded during all field surveys including birds, herpetofauna, butterflies, dragonflies and mammals. In addition to direct observations, any evidence such as dens, tracks, and scat will also be documented. Opportunities and Constraints Analysis. The results of the field surveys will be integrated with the background information to provide a characterization of the physical and biological features and functions of the site. These surveys will serve to confirm or update constraint classifications assigned to the study area natural features within the MESP. Significant biological features will be identified as constraints based on current national, provincial, and regional species and habitat status listings. As well, the sensitivity of species and habitats will be documented based on current ecological trends, research and professional experience/expertise, and input from local agency staff. The suitability of buffers recommended in the MESP will be evaluated based on the site-based constraint analysis, in addition to any other development setbacks that are recommended from protected and retained natural features. Impact Assessment Details of the proposed development (e.g., grading limits, stormwater management plans) will be reviewed and compared to the existing natural features on the subject property. Any areas of conflict between significant features, buffers, etc. and the development will be discussed with the client and options for avoiding or minimizing impacts will be. Potential impacts will be described in detail, with corresponding recommended mitigation measures where impacts cannot be avoided. The assessment of potential development impacts will be divided into:

• Direct impacts associated with disruption or displacement caused by the actual proposed 'footprint' of the building envelope.

• Indirect impacts associated with changes in site conditions such as drainage and

water quantity/quality.

• Induced impacts associated with impacts after the development is constructed such as subsequent demand on the resources created by increased habitation/use of the area and vicinity.

7

• Cumulative impacts associated with the spatial and temporal implications of this proposal in conjunction with other undertakings in the area.

NRSI will refer to the results of other consultant reports to address study requirements concerning potential impacts and mitigations associated with site hydrological and hydrogeological regimes, stormwater management, and geotechnical conditions. Mitigation and Enhancement Recommendations with respect to mitigation of residual impacts will be made and opportunities for ecological enhancement and restoration within the subject property will be highlighted. A Stewardship Plan for the buffers to Core Environmental Features on the subject property will be drafted to demonstrate how buffers will be protected and linkages enhanced. Details will be based on the results of site characterization and may include specific areas of restoration or enhancement, invasive species management, removal of dead or declining trees, and garbage/debris removal. Monitoring Recommendations for the development of a during- and post-construction monitoring program will be developed in conjunction with recommendations made in the MESP. This will include recommendations for monitoring the effectiveness of recommended mitigation measures, restoration/enhancement plantings and other stewardship initiatives. Tree Management Plan A Tree Management Plan will be prepared in accordance with the City of Cambridge Tree Management Policies and Guidelines for New Developments. In accordance with these policies, NRSI will develop a Detailed Vegetation Management Plan. NRSI will describe and summarize all trees inventoried on-site, identify trees to be to be removed, retained or potentially relocated, based on the extent of proposed grading and the tree’s overall health (excellent to poor) and/or potential for structural failure (high to low). All inventoried and assessed trees will be accurately mapped against an overlay of the proposed development plan, identifying those trees requiring removal due to site grading. Opportunities for tree retention, and other recommendations to maintain and protect retained trees during- and post-construction, will also be provided. The location and type of tree protection fencing will also be mapped for the subject property. A mitigation plan and compensation strategy will be prepared in accordance with the City of Cambridge policies to address required tree removals within the property. A Tree Protection Plan report will be prepared providing a summary of tree inventory results and recommendations for tree management, mitigation and compensation. Reporting The findings of the natural features characterization, constraints analysis and the impact assessment with associated mitigation recommendations will be prepared in a written EIS report. Species lists and scanned ELC data sheets will be appended and natural features will be shown on a series of maps including existing conditions, constraints and buffers and the development concept. The Detailed Vegetation Management Plan will

8

be appended to the report including associated tree protection mapping, and will itself include an appended tree inventory table. The report will be submitted to the Region of Waterloo, GRCA and City of Cambridge for review. Following agency review and comment, revisions to the EIS and/or Detailed Vegetation Management Plan will be made where necessary, and the finalized report will be re-distributed to the project team for submission to the relevant review agencies.

9

References Bird Studies Canada. 2009. Marsh Monitoring Program Participant’s Handbook for

Surveying Amphibians. 2009 Edition. Published by Bird Studies Canada in Cooperation with Environment Canada and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 2009.

Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage and A.R. Couturier. 2007. Atlas

of the Breeding Birds of Ontario. Available online at: http://www.birdsontario.org/atlas/index.jsp

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2012.

Canadian Wildlife Species at Risk. Last updated April 4, 2012. http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/sar/index/default_e.cfm (Accessed January 15, 2013).

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

1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02.

Lee, H. T. 2008. Southern Ontario Ecological Land Classification - Vegetation Type

List. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources: London, Ontario. MHBC, MTE, Paradigm, Ecoplans, and LVM. 2013. Cambridge West Master

Environmental Servicing Plan. Final for Council Approval. November 2013. Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas. 2001. Guide for Participants. Atlas Management Board,

Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Don Mills. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2012. Significant Wildlife Habitat Ecoregion

Criteria Schedules: Addendum to Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. MNR, February 2012.

WES TCLIFF WAY

NEWMAN DRIVE

ROS S LINN ROAD

PRINCES S S TREET

BISMARK DRIVE

BLAIR ROAD

HAWTHORNE ROAD

LINNDALE ROAD

RONALD ROAD

HALE CO

URT

ROS ECLIFF COURT

ERINGATE WALK

551800

551800

552000

552000

552200

552200

552400

552400

552600

552600

552800

552800

553000

553000

553200

553200

553400

553400

553600

553600

553800

553800

554000

554000

554200

554200

554400

554400

4801

600

4801

600

4801

800

4801

800

4802

000

4802

000

4802

200

4802

200

4802

400

4802

400

4802

600

4802

600

4802

800

4802

800

4803

000

4803

000

Grandview Hills EIS

LegendS tu dy Are aRa ilwayPrim a ry RoadS e conda ry RoadPe rm a ne nt Wate rcou rseInte rm itte nt Wate rcou rseProvincia lly S ignifica nt We tla nd (PS W)Othe r We tla nds (Non-PS W)

Study Area

Figure 1

0 100 200 300 400 500Metres

Pa th: X:\1502_ Gra ndview_ Hills_ EIS \NRS I_ 1502_ Fig1_ S tu dyAre a _ 7K_2014_05_30_ JO.m xd

Map Produced by Natural Resource Solutions Inc. This m ap is proprie ta rya nd confide ntia l a nd m u st not be du plicate d or distribu te d by a ny m e a nswithou t e xpre ss writte n pe rm ission of NRS I. S ou rce : Da ta provided by MNR ©Copyright: Qu e e n’s Printe r Onta rio. Im a ge ry: First Ba se S olu tions (2010).

´Date: May 30, 2014Project No: 1502

NAD83 - UTM Zone 17Scale 1:7,000

West Hedg erow

Centra l Hedg erow

South Hedg erow

North Hedg erow

WEST CLIFF WAY

NEWMAN DRIVE

ROSSLINN ROAD

PRINCESS ST REET

BISMARK DRIVE

HAWT HORNE ROAD

LINNDALE ROAD

RONALD ROAD

HALE COU

RT

ROSECLIFF COURT

ERINGAT E WALK

DOMM LANE

552600

552600

552800

552800

553000

553000

553200

553200

553400

553400

4802

000

4802

000

4802

200

4802

200

4802

400

4802

400

4802

600

4802

600

Grandview Hills EIS

LegendStudy AreaRa ilwayPrim a ry RoadSeconda ry RoadPerm a nent WatercourseInterm ittent WatercourseProv incia lly Sig nifica nt Wetla nd (PSW)Other Wetla nds (Non-PSW)

Hedgerows

Figure 2

0 100 200Metres

Pa th: X:\1502_Gra ndv iew_Hills_EIS\NRSI_1502_Fig 2_Hedg erow_3K_2014_05_30_JO.m xd

Map Produced by Natural Resource Solutions Inc. T his m a p is proprietarya nd confidentia l a nd m ust not b e duplicated or distrib uted b y a ny m ea nswithout express written perm ission of NRSI. Source: Da ta prov ided by MNR ©Copyrig ht: Queen’s Printer Onta rio. Im a g ery: First Ba se Solutions (2010).

´Date: May 30, 2014Project No: 1502

NAD83 - UTM Zone 17Scale 1:2,500

Subject: RE: Grandview Hills Stage VI - Scoped EIS Dra� Terms of ReferenceFrom: Yve�e Rybensky <[email protected]>Date: 6/11/2014 1:32 PMTo: Ryan Archer <[email protected]>, Tim Van Hinte <[email protected]>, JohnBrum <[email protected]>CC: 'Brandon Flewwelling' <[email protected]>

Ryan: we’ve taken a look at the TOR and are generally fine with them, subject to the adjustmentsthat Tim is requesting. Regards, Yvette. Yve�e Rybensky, B.E.S., M.C.I.P., R.P.P.Senior PlannerPlanning & Development DepartmentCity Of Cambridge

From: Ryan Archer [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 4:15 PMTo: Yvette Rybensky; Tim Van Hinte; John BrumCc: 'Brandon Flewwelling'Subject: Grandview Hills Stage VI - Scoped EIS Draft Terms of Reference

Hi Yvette, Tim and John,

Please find attached the draft Terms of Reference for the scoped EIS being completed for the proposedGrandview Hills Stage VI residential development in west Cambridge. Please advise of any comments orquestions you may have. I understand that these draft Terms of Reference will be reviewed by EEAC andthat we will meet with the committee to discuss their comments.

Regards,Ryan--

This communica�on is confiden�al and may contain informa�on protected by Privacylegisla�on. Unauthorized use is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intendedrecipient or have received this communica�on in error, please no�fy the senderimmediately by telephone.

RE:GrandviewHillsStageVI-ScopedEISDraftTermsofReference

1of1 2/19/20158:59PM

Subject: RE: Grandview Hills Stage VI - Scoped EIS Dra� Terms of ReferenceFrom: Mollie Kuchma <[email protected]>Date: 6/24/2014 4:30 PMTo: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>CC: "Brandon Flewwelling ([email protected])" <[email protected]>, "Chris Gosselin([email protected])" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"<[email protected]>, "Sylvia Rafalski-Misch ([email protected])"<[email protected]>, "Tim Van Hinte ([email protected])"<[email protected]>

HiRyan:GRCAstaffhavenowhadtheopportunitytoreviewtheFreureHomesGrandviewHillsStageIV,Cambridge,DraftTermsofReferencefortheScopedEnvironmentalImpactStudydatedMay30,2014andareabletoofferthefollowingcomments:

· ThedraftTermsofReferenceisacceptable.

· TheTermsofReferenceidenti�iesthattheplannedbirdsurveywilllookathabitatslocatedattheexistingstormwaterponds.Ifpossible,astationshouldbeaddedtolookatthebirduseoftheadjacentBarriesLake-BaumanCreekWetlandComplexontheadjacentrareproperty.

Pleasefeelfreetocontactourof�iceshouldyourequireanyfurtherinformation.Best,Mollie Kuchma, M.Sc. | ResourcePlannerGrandRiverConservationAuthority|519-621-2763ext.2319

From: Tim Van Hinte [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: June-11-14 11:50 AMTo: 'Ryan Archer'Cc: 'Brandon Flewwelling'; Chris Gosselin; Yvette Rybensky ([email protected]); John Brum; SylviaRafalski-MischSubject: RE: Grandview Hills Stage VI - Scoped EIS Draft Terms of Reference

Hi Ryan: Regional environmental staff has reviewed the Terms of Reference for the Scoped Environmental Impact Study –Grandview Hills Stage VI (NRSI, May 30, 2014) and we find it acceptable. Please consider the following advisorycomments:

1. Please note that Devil’s Creek Swamp (ESPA 59) is not within the Blair-Bechtel-Cruickston ESL (ToR le�er,p.1).

2. As discussed on site last week, please ensure that the EIS includes a recommended ESPA boundary that is

ecologically appropriate in the vicinity of the West Hedgerow (NRSI Figure 2). Specifically, please evaluate thelarge Shagbark Hickory that we discussed for inclusion within the ESPA boundary and/or as a retained treewithin the proposed development.

As you may recall from the Region’s pre-submission comments on this applica�on, the proposed development willbe reviewed by EEAC and a subcommi�ee will be established at the next available mee�ng in August or September


1of2 2/19/20158:56PM

2014. Thanks and please let me know if you have any ques�ons, Tim




Regards,Ryan--


2of2 2/19/20158:56PM

Subject: RE: Grandview Hills Stage VI - Scoped EIS Dra� Terms of ReferenceFrom: Tim Van Hinte <[email protected]>Date: 6/11/2014 11:50 AMTo: 'Ryan Archer' <[email protected]>CC: 'Brandon Flewwelling' <[email protected]>, Chris Gosselin<[email protected]>, "Yve�e Rybensky ([email protected])"<[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "Sylvia Rafalski-Misch" <[email protected]>

Hi Ryan: Regional environmental staff has reviewed the Terms of Reference for the Scoped Environmental Impact Study –Grandview Hills Stage VI (NRSI, May 30, 2014) and we find it acceptable. Please consider the following advisorycomments:

1. Please note that Devil’s Creek Swamp (ESPA 59) is not within the Blair-Bechtel-Cruickston ESL (ToR le�er,p.1).

2. As discussed on site last week, please ensure that the EIS includes a recommended ESPA boundary that is

ecologically appropriate in the vicinity of the West Hedgerow (NRSI Figure 2). Specifically, please evaluate thelarge Shagbark Hickory that we discussed for inclusion within the ESPA boundary and/or as a retained treewithin the proposed development.

As you may recall from the Region’s pre-submission comments on this applica�on, the proposed development willbe reviewed by EEAC and a subcommi�ee will be established at the next available mee�ng in August or September2014. Thanks and please let me know if you have any ques�ons, Tim




Regards,Ryan--


1of2 2/19/20158:59PM


APPENDIX III Cambridge West Master Environmental Servicing Plan – Figure 15 Environmental

Setbacks (MHBC et al. 2013)

L:\projects\3308CambridgeWest\Maps\Figures_June2013\CambridgeWest_EnvironmentalSetbacksFig15_Oct2013.mxd 2013\10\03

ROSEVILLE ROAD

BLENHEIM ROAD

BISMARK DRIVE

ROSSLINN ROADWESTCLIFF WAY

BLAIR ROAD

GRAND RIVER

Barrie'sLake

15

Date: August 2013Project No: 333308Figure No:

Cambridge West MESPEnvironmental Setbacks ¯

0 50 100

metres1:6,0002012 Ortho Image, City of Cambridge

LegendDevelopment Study AreaGeneral Study AreaBlair-Bechtel-Cruickston Environmentally Significant Landscape

Survey LinesDriplineWetlandApproximate Dripline (not Surveyed)Approximate Wetland (not Surveyed)

Recommended Setbacks and LinkagesLinkage (approximate)

Approximate Wetland +50mApproximate Dripline +15m

Note: all recommended setbacks and linkages are voluntary, pending landowner participation

Recommended Setbacks and Linkages - DSA

Hedgerow: 5m

PSW Treed Swamp: 30mPSW Marsh/Pond: 50m

Woodland:15m

Recommended Setbacks and Linkages - GSA

PSW Treed Swamp 30mPSW/Pond: 50m

Woodland: 15m


APPENDIX IV ELC Data Forms


APPENDIX V Detailed Vegetation Management Plan (NRSI 2016)

Grandview Hills Stage VI, Cambridge, Ontario Detailed Vegetation Management Plan

Prepared for: Huron Creek Developments PO Box 86 New Dundee, Ontario N0B 2E0 Project No. 1824 ӏ October 2016


Grandview Hills Stage VI, Cambridge, Ontario

Detailed Vegetation Management Plan

Project Team: David Stephenson Ryan Archer

Senior Biologist, Project Advisor Terrestrial & Wetland Biologist, Project Manager

Erin Thompson Terrestrial & Wetland Biologist/Certified Arborist Gerry Schaus GIS Analyst

Report resubmitted on October 19, 2016

___________________________ Ryan Archer Project Manager Terrestrial and Wetland Biologist

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................... 1

1.1 Subject Property ................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Background......................................................................................................... 2

2.0 Tree Inventory and Methodology ............................................................. 3

3.0 Summary of Tree Inventory ...................................................................... 6

3.1 Regionally Sigificant Species ............................................................................ 8

3.2 Provincially Sigificant Species .......................................................................... 8

4.0 Tree Preservation Plan ........................................................................... 10

4.1 Tree Removal and Retention Analysis ............................................................ 10

4.2 Tree Compensation Plan .................................................................................. 11

5.0 Tree Protection Measures and Recommended Mitigation .................. 14

5.1 Prior to Construction and Site Alteration........................................................ 14

5.2 During Construction ......................................................................................... 15

5.3 Post-Construction ............................................................................................ 16

5.4 Mitigation .......................................................................................................... 17

5.4.1 Pre- and During-Construction Activities .................................................... 17

5.4.2 Post-Construction Activities ...................................................................... 17

5.4.3 Landscaping............................................................................................. 17

6.0 References ............................................................................................... 19

List of Tables Table 1. Tree Assessment Criteria ................................................................................................. 5 Table 2. Summary of Inventoried Trees ......................................................................................... 6 Table 3. Overall Condition of Trees Inventoried ............................................................................. 8 Table 4. Summary of Trees to be Removed and Recommended Compensation Plan ............... 12

List of Maps Map 1. Tree Inventory

Map 2. Tree Protection Plan

List of Appendices Appendix I Tree Inventory Data

Appendix II Conditions of Assessment

Natural Resource Solutions Inc. Granview Hills Stage VI – Detailed Vegetation Management Plan 1

1.0 Introduction

Natural Resource Solutions Inc. (NRSI) was retained by Huron Creek Developments to

complete a Detailed Vegetation Management Plan (DVMP) for a proposed residential

subdivision known as “Grandview Hills Stage VI”, also known as the “Newman Lands”.

The proponent is proposing to develop the subject property to accommodate 90

residential lots, a stormwater management facility, a community park and an internal

road network with associated servicing infrastructure. The property is located at the

terminus of Newman Drive, Rosecliff Place and Wilkinson Avenue, west of Westcliff

Way, in the City of Cambridge, Ontario. The City has requested that a DVMP be

prepared as per the City’s Tree Management Policies and Guidelines for New

Developments (City of Cambridge 2002). This report should be read in conjunction with

the scoped Environmental Impact Study (EIS) completed for the subject property by

NRSI.

1.1 Subject Property

The subject property is bordered on the west and north by lands owned by the rare

Charitable Research Reserve, on the east by an existing residential subdivision, and on

the south by active agricultural lands that lie within the Cambridge West MESP’s

development lands (see EIS Map 1). The western subject property boundary represents

the municipal boundary between the City of Cambridge and the Township of North

Dumfries.

The subject property represents a combination of former (fallow) and active agricultural

lands within the north and south halves of the property, respectively, and contains a

stormwater management pond and forebay that services the existing adjacent residential

subdivision. Deciduous hedgerows line the north boundary of the property, portions of

the west boundary, and east-west through the centre of the property. The northwest

property boundary occurs immediately adjacent to rare’s “Hogsback” woodland/wetland

complex, which is known as a regionally important feature maintaining a high level of

biodiversity, significant habitat, and areas approaching old-growth forest characteristics

(MHBC et al. 2013).


The subject property is located adjacent to the Barrie’s Lake-Bauman Creek Provincially

Significant Wetland (PSW) complex and the Cruickston Creek Headwaters ESPA.

Collectively, these Core Environmental Features are contained within the adjacent Blair-

Bechtel-Cruickston Environmentally Sensitive Landscape (ESL). See NRSI’s scoped

EIS for additional information about these adjacent Regionally and Provincially

significant Core Environmental Features.

1.2 Background

NRSI has completed a scoped EIS for the property concurrent with this report.

Information presented in this DVMP has been summarized in the scoped EIS, and meets

the City of Cambridge’s requirements for a General Vegetation Inventory and Analysis

as per their Tree Management Policies and Guidelines for New Developments (City of

Cambridge 2002).

As stated in the pre-consultation meeting minutes of February 19, 2014, a “Tree

Management Plan” is required in support of the Plan of Subdivision, and Official Plan

and Zoning by-law amendments. The following DMVP has been prepared to fulfill the

City’s requirements in accordance with City policy (City of Cambridge 2002).

The City’s Tree Management Policies (City of Cambridge 2002) state that a DVMP is

required for lots or blocks containing existing vegetation that requires further study as

defined in the General Vegetation Inventory and Analysis. Within the Management

Policies, a regulated tree consists of any tree species ≥10cm Diameter at Breast Height

(DBH) and when determining which trees are to be retained, both tree quality and

development constraints should be considered.

This report summarizes the following:

findings of the tree inventory;

assessment of existing health of inventoried trees;

tree retention analysis based on details of the proposed development;

protection measures for trees to be retained; and,

recommended mitigation.


2.0 Tree Inventory and Methodology

A comprehensive inventory and assessment of trees ≥10cm DBH was completed by

NRSI Certified Arborists on July 22, August 19, and September 10, 2014, as well as

September 7, 2016 in accordance with the City of Cambridge’s Tree Management

Policies and Guidelines for New Developments (2002). The inventory included the

tagging and assessment (overall health, potential for structural failure, and location) of all

inventoried trees within the subject property and trees overhanging the subject property

boundary (“boundary trees”), as well as trees located on adjacent properties with the

potential to be impacted by the development. The location of all inventoried trees is

shown on Map 1.

Trees ≥10cm DBH within the subject property were tagged with pre-numbered aluminum

forestry tags and surveyed by NRSI Certified Arborists. Trees located outside the

project boundary were also surveyed but were not tagged. The location of inventoried

trees were surveyed using an SXBlue II GNSS GPS unit by the Certified Arborists. The

following information was recorded for each inventoried tree:

tag number;

species (common and scientific name);

DBH (cm);

crown radius (m);

general health (excellent, good, fair, poor, very poor, snag);

overall condition (i.e. root and trunk structure/health);

tree location; and,

general comments (i.e. disease, aesthetic quality, development constraints,

sensitivity to development).

The general health and potential for structural failure of each tree was assessed based

on the criteria outlined in Table 1. In carrying out this assessment, NRSI has exercised

a reasonable standard of care, skill, and diligence as would be customarily and normally

provided in carrying out this assessment. The assessment has been made using

accepted arboricultural techniques. These include a visual examination of each tree for

structural defects, scars, external indications of decay such as fungal fruiting bodies,


evidence of insect attack, the condition of any visible root structures, the degree and

direction of lean (if any), the general condition of the tree(s) and the surrounding site,

and the current or planned proximity of property and people. None of the trees

examined on the property were dissected, cored, probed, or climbed and detailed root

crown examinations involving excavation were not undertaken.


Table 1. Tree Assessment Criteria

Assessment Criteria Definition

1

Health Rating*

Excellent Represents a tree in near perfect form, health, and vigor. This tree would exhibit no deadwood, no decline, and no visible defects.

Good Represents a tree ranging from a generally healthy tree to a near perfect tree in terms of health, vigor and structure. This tree exhibits a complete, balanced crown structure with little to no deadwood and minimal defects as well as a properly formed root flare.

Fair Represents a tree with minor health, balance or structural issues with minimal to moderate deadwood. Branching structure shows signs of included bark or minor rot within the branch connections or trunk wood. The root flare shows minimal signs of mechanical injury, decay, poor callusing, or girdling roots. Trees in the category require minor remedial actions to improve the vigor and structure of the tree.

Poor Represents a tree that exhibits a poor vigor, reduced crown size (<30% of crown typical of species caused by overcrowding or decline), extreme crown unbalance, or extensive rot in the branching and trunk wood. Fungus could be seen from these rotting areas, suggesting further decay. These trees have extensive crown die back with a large amount of deadwood, and possibly dead sections. These weakened areas can lead to a potential failure of tree sections. Rooting zones show signs of extensive root decay or damage (fruiting bodies or mechanical damage) or girdling roots. Trees in this category require more extensive actions to prevent failure. A tree identified as poor would be a candidate for removal in the near future.

Very Poor Represents a tree that exhibits major health and structural defects. Quite often the defects or diseases affecting this tree will be fatal. Large quantities of fungus, large dead sections with possible cavities and bark falling off all are signs that a tree is in a major state of decline and would be identified as very poor. These trees have a high potential for structural failure. These trees should be identified for removal.

Potential for Structural Failure Rating* Low Trees that show good vigor and structure and show little to no signs of decline or

structural issues.

Medium Trees with some structural issues that are forming which could lead to failure if not addressed and properly treated (i.e. pruned). Symptoms of these structural issues include cavity openings/stem damage <30% of the circumference of the tree, poor branching union within the scaffold branches (signs of canker or decay within branch union), signs of historic branch failure throughout the crown, or advanced signs of included bark within the branch unions throughout the tree (water staining, tight angled branch unions, noticeable gap in branch union).

High Trees with a large number of structural issues (i.e. poor branch union, decay) which could lead to the failure of large scaffold branches or major sections. Major defects include: large cavities within stem or branch wood, historic crown damage of the majority of the canopy, extensive lean due to recent or historic root damage/decay, or large dead crown limbs with fruiting bodies present. If trees identified as a High Potential for Structural Failure are located within striking distance of a target (high traffic place, person, or high value thing), the tree should be identified for removal as soon as possible.

* Trees which are located within dense groupings are evaluated as individual specimens. Trees within these stands quite often have a reduced crown size (<30% of crown typical of species), off balanced crowns, and prioritized upward growth (i.e. low trunk taper and few lateral branches). As such, these trees would be considered to have poor vigour. As well, these trees pose a high potential for structural failure when newly exposed edges or individual trees are isolated through removal of surrounding trees. This is often the case with overstocked plantations. Individual trees which meet the above criteria will be identified as poor or high potential for structural failure.

1Dunster 2009


3.0 Summary of Tree Inventory

In total, 458 trees were inventoried, including 38 species. Of the 458 trees inventoried

and assessed, 372 (81.2%) are native species and 86 (18.8%) are non-native. A

complete list of trees inventoried is provided in Appendix I, and tree locations within and

adjacent to the subject property are shown on Map 1.

Table 2 provides a list of tree species inventoried within or adjacent to the subject

property, whether they are native or non-native and their overall condition.

Table 2. Summary of Inventoried Trees

Common Name

Scientific Name Excellent Good Fair Poor

Very Poor Dead Total

Native Species

American Basswood

Tilia americana

4 13 4

21

Balsam Poplar

Populus balsamifera

1

1

Bitternut Hickory

Carya cordiformis

11 42 4 2

59

Black Cherry

Prunus serotina

7 10 3

20

Black Maple

Acer saccharum ssp. nigrum

1 1

2

Black Walnut

Juglans nigra

1

1 2

Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa

1

1

Butternut Juglans cinerea

6 1

7

Choke Cherry

Prunus virginiana ssp. virginiana

1

1

Common Hackberry

Celtis occidentalis

3 8 1

12

Eastern Cottonwood

Populus deltoides

26 10 2

2 40

Eastern White Cedar

Thuja occidentalis

2

2

Eastern White Pine

Pinus strobus

9 1

10

Freeman's Maple

Acer X freemanii

1 2

3

Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica

1

1


Hawthorn species

Crataegus sp.

1

1

Hop Hornbeam

Ostrya virginiana

5 7

12

Manitoba Maple

Acer negundo

3 9 1

13

Peachleaf Willow

Salix amygdaloides

1 1

2

Red Oak Quercus rubra

2 3 1

6

Shagbark Hickory

Carya ovata var. ovata

1 1

2

Silver Maple

Acer saccharinum

1

1

Sugar Maple

Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum

53 55 7 2

117

White Ash Fraxinus americana

2 4 6 2 4 18

White Elm Ulmus americana

1 1

2

White Oak Quercus alba

1

1

White Spruce

Picea glauca 3 11 1

15

Total 3 139 176 37 10 7 372

Non-Native Species Alaska Yellow Cedar

Cupressus nootkatensis

1

1

Black Locust

Robinia pseudoacacia

9 5

14

Colorado Spruce

Picea pungens 1

3

4

Common Apple

Malus domestica

1

1

Common Pear

Pyrus communis

1

1

Crack Willow

Salix fragilis 15 24 7

46

Norway Maple

Acer platanoides

1 1

2

Saucer Magnolia

Magnolia soulangeana

1

1

Siberian Elm

Ulmus pumila 2

2

White Mulberry

Morus alba 1 2

3

White Willow

Salix alba var. alba

4 4 3

11

Total 1 36 38 11

86

Overall Total 4 175 214 48 10 7 458


Table 3 provides a summary of the overall condition of trees inventoried within and

adjacent to the subject property, along with their structural failure rating. A majority of

the trees inventoried are in fair condition with a low to medium potential for structural

failure.

Table 3. Overall Condition of Trees Inventoried

Potential For Structural Failure Rating

Overall Condition

Total Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor Dead

Low 4 161 52 1 0 0 218 Medium 0 14 156 2 0 0 172 High 0 0 6 45 10 7 68 Total 4 175 214 48 10 7 458

3.1 Regionally Sigificant Species

Several regionally significant tree species were documented within and adjacent to the

subject property, as shown in Table 2, including Eastern Cottonwood (Populus deltoides

ssp. deltoides), Black Walnut (Juglans nigra), and White Spruce (Picea glauca).

However, Black Walnut and White Spruce are of anthropogenic origin and are therefore

not considered significant. Refer to the scoped EIS for more information about

regionally significant vegetation species present on the subject property.

3.2 Provincially Sigificant Species

A total of 7 Butternuts (Juglans cinerea) have been identified within or adjacent to the

subject property, confined to an area within or immediately south of Hedgerow 1 (Map

1a). Butternut is designated as federally and provincially Endangered. This species is

therefore protected under policies of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

The 6 Butternuts inventoried within the subject property have been identified as Tree IDs

225, 233 234, 235, 236 and 237 as shown on Map 1a. A 7th, untagged, Butternut was

observed just north of the subject property boundary during a tree inventory update

completed on September 7, 2016 and has been identified as Tree ID 560 as shown on

Map 1a. Due to the presence of a Butternut on the subject property within the area of

potential distrubance, a Butternut Health Assessment (MNRF 2014) was completed on


July 22, 2014 for the 6 Butternuts that had been inventoried as of that date. A hybridity

field-test was also completed for these trees on August 13, 2014 to determine their

status as pure Butternuts or hybrids. The BHA found that all 6 trees are currently

Category 2 (i.e., “Retainable”) based upon the assessment of their condition. A future

BHA may be completed for the 7th, off-property Butternut prior to site development based

on potential for development impact in conjunction with MNRF guidelines.


4.0 Tree Preservation Plan

4.1 Tree Removal and Retention Analysis

Tree inventory data and mapping has been compared to the preliminary grading plans

prepared by Meritech (September 8, 2016). Map 1 shows the tree inventory data

overlaying the proposed development plan. This plan shows the proposed grading,

layout of the residential development and lot information, road layout, community park

and stormwater management outlets, as well as location of trees tagged and inventoried.

Tree removal and retention was based on two considerations:

1) Trees identified as having a high potential for structural failure or poor condition.

The removal of these trees would be recommended for safety etc., especially if

they are located within striking distance of a component of the proposed

development, or existing off-site sidewalks, roads or buildings. They would be

given a rating of high potential for structural failure. For the purpose of this

report, trees which fall into this category are identified for removal.

2) Trees that require removal based on the extent of proposed site grading. This

was determined by comparing the location of the trees to the location of the

components of the development proposal as shown on Map 1.

Avoidance, mitigation, and protection measures for trees were examined to determine

which trees would be impacted and which could be retained. In the case of trees

requiring removal, replacement plantings or removal is discussed further below.

Of the 458 trees inventoried within or adjacent to the subject property, 258 are

anticipated to be removed, of which 179 are native and 79 are non-native. This includes

71 trees that have been identified as being in poor to very poor condition, and/or dead.

A total of 258 trees require removal based on the extent of the proposed site grading,

which is required to effectively service the lands. This includes trees situated along the

grading limit or in close proximity off-property that may incur root damage as a result of

grading. Most of these trees are in fair to good condition with medium to low potential


for structural failure, and range in size from 10.0cm to 70.3cm DBH. The majority

(69.4%) of these trees are native and are dominated by deciduous species including

Eastern Cottonwood (Populus deltoides, 15.5%), followed by Bitternut Hickory (Carya

cordiformis, 10.1%) and Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum , 9.7%). Non-

native trees are dominated by Crack Willow (Salix fragilis, 17.8%)).

Appendix I provides complete details for inventoried trees and Map 1 identifies trees

proposed to be retained, or removed, in addition to those that have previously been

removed.

4.2 Tree Compensation Plan

A total of 258 trees will require removal due to the proposed Grandview Hills Stage VI

development. This includes trees requiring removal due to safety concerns, as well as

the proposed grading for the installation of roads and services, and residential

development blocks. Trees proposed for removal that have a high potential for structural

failure and/or are in poor to very poor condition (or are dead) have been considered

exempt from compensation due to the hazard they present.

Approximately 225 native and non-native trees were inventoried in excellent to fair

condition with a low or medium potential for structural failure and proposed for removal.

Table 4 provides a summary of the trees inventoried within and adjacent to the subject

property, the total number proposed for removal, and the proposed compensation plan.

It is recommended that trees in excellent to fair condition with a low or medium potential

for structural failure be compensated at a 2:1 ratio. This ensures that woody vegetation

cover within the immediate vicinity of the subject property will be increased relative to

existing conditions, and will represent an important contributor to ecological restoration

efforts on and off the property as described below. A complete list of inventoried trees,

including a determination of whether trees require compensation, is provided in

Appendix I.


Table 4. Summary of Trees to be Removed and Recommended Compensation Plan

Tree Inventory Total

Total number of trees inventoried 458

Total number of trees to be removed 258

→ Non-native trees to be removed (including # fruit trees) 79

→ Native trees to be removed 179

Tree Compensation

Native/Non-native trees in poor to very poor condition and/or have a probable or imminent potential for structural failure (exempt from compensation)

71

Native/Non-native trees in excellent to fair condition to be removed

225

2:1 Compensation for native/non-native trees in excellent to fair condition

774

Detailed landscaping plans will be prepared for the property at the detailed design stage

of development; however, it is anticipated that on-site compensation plantings can be

provided within the area surrounding the stormwater management pond and the

community park. In addition, rare has agreed to accommodate compensation plantings

within their adjacent property, such as immediately north of the subject property. Further

discussion will be held with rare staff to determine appropriate locations for

compensation tree planting with the objective of enhancing specific natural features on

the rare property.

The tree compensation plan is intended to represent an integral component of habitat

enhancement strategies to be implemented on the subject property and on the adjacent

rare lands. Within the subject property, native vegetation species will be planted within

the 15m woodland buffer to enhance the ecological diversity and robustness of the

existing woodland edge, and to provide a more natural transition between the mature

forest community and the adjacent SWM block. The remainder of the SWM block will

also be planted with native woody species to complement the adjacent rare natural

features, increase wildlife habitat and enhance a natural corridor between the rare

Hogsback feature and large coniferous plantation areas to the northeast. As agreed to

with rare staff during previous project team meetings, partial removal of Hedgerow 1 on

the subject property will be compensated for through establishment of increased woody


vegetation cover on the rare property to the immediate north. Please refer to Section 6.6

of the EIS for more information about proposed habitat enhancement measures.

NRSI recommends that the tree compensation plantings comprise tree species native to

Waterloo Region, appropriate to the site conditions and reflective of the existing species

assemblage in adjacent features. These species may include, but are not limited to, the

following:

Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum);

Common Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis);

Butternut (Juglans cinerea) (to be planted in conformance to the policies of O.

Reg. 242/08; see EIS Section 6.3.1.1);

Bitternut Hickory (Carya cordiformis);

Hop Hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana);

Black Cherry (Prunus serotina);

American Basswood (Tilia americana);

Red Oak (Quercus rubra);

Eastern Cottonwood (Populus deltoids);

The tree compensation plan will also include consideration for any required removals of

certain regionally significant trees (e.g., Common Hackberry). Compensation for the

removal of these species will include the planting and seeding of locally-sourced

specimens/seed where appropriate, and in consultation with the Region, rare, and other

stakeholders as required. Compensation for significant tree removal is further discussed

in EIS Section 6.3.1.

Detailed tree compensation plans, including specific species, sizes and planting

locations, will be presented as part of a future vegetation planting plan.


5.0 Tree Protection Measures and Recommended Mitigation

5.1 Prior to Construction and Site Alteration

Temporary tree protection fencing will be situated along the limit of disturbance/grading

as shown on Map 2. A combined sediment and erosion control fence (i.e. silt fence) and

tree protection fence is recommended where trees are situated adjacent to the limit of

disturbance. Tree protection fence locations may be revised at the detailed design stage

to conform to final silt fence locations to be established through the Erosion and

Sediment Control Plan. All forms of tree protection/silt fencing, as described below and

detailed on Map 2, will be maintained by the Developer and/or their agents.

The temporary tree protection fencing will be installed and maintained by the Developer.

Tree protection fencing will be installed along the limit of disturbance prior to any on-site

construction or land alteration activities (i.e. rough grading, vegetation and tree removal)

in accordance with the City of Cambridge’s Tree Management Policies and Guidelines

for New Developments (2002). Tree Protection Fencing will take the form of 1200mm

high heavy-duty paige-wire farm fencing secured to t-bar stakes as per the City’s Tree

Management Policy. Recommended fencing locations are shown on Map 2.

Along the rare woodland edge, it is recommended that tree protection fencing be

installed a minimum of 1m from confirmed dripline to provide adequate root zone

protection. As shown on Maps 1 and 2, small areas of localized grading encroachment

into the dripline will be required, necessitating tree protection fence installation within the

dripline, or within 1m of the dripline. The locations of these adjacent woodland edge

trees have been compared to the proposed activities and potential for damage is

expected to be low for most of the adjacent trees. NRSI recommends that a Certified

Arborist be present to monitor grading activities within these areas. Should unexpected

damage occur to trees that are to be retained, proper arboricultural pruning techniques

will be employed or compensation will be provided as appropriate, in consultation with

the City of Cambridge and rare. These measures will also be taken to ensure that

planted trees within the rear lots of adjacent residential properties are not negatively

impacted, or if impact is unavoidable, are appropriately compensated by the Developer.

NRSI recommends that written communication to this effect be provided to each


adjacent landowner where activities are proposed within 1m of the dripline of off-site or

boundary trees.

Prior to works commencing on-site, fence installation and location is to be inspected by a

“recognized professional in tree management”. It is recommended that this professional

in tree management is a Certified Arborist. Written verification must be submitted by the

Certified Arborist stating that all of the recommended tree protection measures have

been installed in accordance with the DVMP as approved by the City of Cambridge,

Community Services Department, prior to any rough grading. Signage indicating the

purpose of the protection fencing will be attached to the paige-wire fencing a minimum of

every 45m. The signage is to identify that dumping or cutting of trees within the tree

protection area is prohibited. Appendix B within the City’s Tree Management Policy

provides an example of suitable signage. Fencing locations are shown on Map 2.

A number of trees are recommended for removal due to the proximity of their potential

root zones to the area of distrubance, which are located in areas immediately adjacent to

trees that are to be retained. As such, these trees will need to be clearly marked for

removal by a Certified Arborist and then removed prior to installation of the tree

protection fence. The trees should be felled and removed with minimal disturbance to

neighbouring trees. These actions have been proposed to retain off-site trees where

possible, while removing and compensating for those which would incur damage based

on the extent of their potential root zone into the area of grading.

Joint inspections between a representative of the Community Services Department, the

Certified Arborist and the engineering consultant are also required to be held prior to any

stripping of topsoil, grading, or any other construction activity.

5.2 During Construction

The tree protection fencing is to be maintained by the Developer and/or their agents

during the entire construction period to ensure that trees being retained and their root

systems are protected. The Certified Arborist must be on site with a copy of the

approved DVMP during any critical stages of grading and construction to ensure strict

adherence to the recommendations of the Plan. As per the City’s Tree Management


Policy, weekly inspection sheets pertaining to tree removals/maintenance, grading

adjacent to protective areas (i.e. problems identified, progression, successes) should be

forwarded to the Community Services Department, Forestry Technician for review.

Any minimal damage (i.e. damage to limbs or roots) to trees to be retained during

construction must be pruned using proper arboricultural techniques. Should any of the

trees intended to be retained be seriously damaged or die as a result of construction

activities, the City will be consulted and presented with a proposed plan of action (i.e.

treatment or replacement). Replacement species are to be reviewed by a Certified

Ontario Landscape Architect (OALA) or Certified Arborist. Watering and pruning of

newly planted trees will be carried out by the owner/contractor as required during the

maintenance period (three years).

5.3 Post-Construction

In accordance with the City’s Tree Management Policy, a Post-Grading Tree

Maintenance Report is required to be prepared by a “recognized professional in tree

management”, and is intended to document compliance with the tree protection

measures as described within the approved DVMP. The report will identify areas that

have been designated for removal, or where removals have been conducted without

approval, and detail any further recommended tree maintenance measures for retained

trees. In the event that trees to be retained have been damaged or removed, the report

may include providing a dollar value of the damaged trees to be retained (completed by

a qualified Tree Appraiser), and compensation requirements, the removal of damaged

trees, necessary pruning, welling, fertilization/watering, or structural surgery. The Post-

Grading Tree Maintenance Report is to be submitted to the Community Services

Department, Forestry Technician for approval directly following the implementation of all

tree protection measures and the completion of initial site grading. All remedial

measures or tree replacement are required to be approved by the Community Services

Department and satisfactorily implemented prior to occupancy, or by the next planting

season based on seasonal weather/temperature conditions.

It is recommended that the tree protection fencing be removed upon completion of

construction activities associated with the development and that adjacent areas are


stabilized with a vegetative cover to the satisfaction of the Environmental Monitor or

qualified biologist.

5.4 Mitigation

5.4.1 Pre- and During-Construction Activities

To minimize disturbance to vegetation being retained, maintenance and fueling of

machinery during construction is to occur at a designated location away from the tree

protection area. No storage of equipment, materials or fill is to occur within these areas.

The removal of trees within the subject property has the potential to disrupt nesting

birds. The schedule of on-site work must consider the Migratory Birds Convention Act

(MBCA) (Government of Canada 1994) construction window. All tree removal shall

occur outside of the core nesting period for migratory birds as established by the

Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS 2012). This period extends from April 15 through

August 31, or as otherwise recommended by an avian biologist. Every

developer/consultant/contractor, etc. is legally obligated to carry out due diligence to

protect migratory birds from harm during all construction projects.

5.4.2 Post-Construction Activities

Areas of bare soil will be re-vegetated as soon as feasible to prevent erosion of soils. It

is recommended that seeding occur within 30 days of vegetation removal in areas with

no active construction. Disturbed areas are to be seeded with an upland native meadow

seed mix as well as an application of Common Oats (Avena sativa) or other suitable

species to provide soil stabilization and mitigate soil erosion and sedimentation impacts.

A specific species mix appropriate to the site conditions will be developed as part of a

future detailed enhancement planting plan for the subject property.

5.4.3 Landscaping

It is recommended that landscaping plans for the remainder of the site, as well as future

plantings within the residential properties, incorporate trees, shrubs and herbaceous


species that are native are hardy within the urban environment. Plantings should not be

comprised of non-native species that are known to be invasive, such as Norway Maple

(Acer platanoides). Any plantings established adjacent to or in close proximity to the

natural areas should be comprised of native species known to occur in Waterloo Region

where feasible to encourage the enhancement and naturalization of the adjacent natural

areas and provide habitat for local wildlife. The use of hardy species will ensure

successful early establishment.

The following criteria should be considered during the development of landscaping

plans:

trees species that are proposed in close proximity to the road and sidewalks

should be salt tolerant,

plantings in close proximity to any natural areas are to be limited to non-invasive

trees, shrub or herbaceous species indigenous to Waterloo Region that

complement to the surrounding natural features where feasible,

avoid ash (Fraxinus sp.) species due to the risk of Emerald Ash Borer (Agrilus

planipennis),

‘messy’ trees, such as fruiting trees and poplars (Populus spp.), should be

avoided in areas close to parking, roads and sidewalks,

all plant material is to conform to the latest edition of the Canadian Nursery

Trades Association Specifications and Standards,

plantings are to be installed as per specifications outlined on planting plans that

are prepared by an OALA or qualified other,

spacing of plant material is to account for the ultimate size and form of the

selected species, as well as the purpose of the planting (i.e. screening, shade,

buffer enhancement, etc.),

special attention should be paid to the location and height of trees in proximity to

any utilities, and

appropriate soil volumes should be accounted for in all recommended plantings.


6.0 References Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS). 2012. Explanation for the Core Nesting Period

Table. July 2012. https://www.ec.gc.ca/paom-itmb/default.asp?lang=En&n=4F39A78F-1#_06 Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS). 2013. Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA) and

Regulations. May 3, 2013. http://www.ec.gc.ca/nature/default.asp?lang=En&n=7CEBB77D-1

City of Cambridge. 2002. Tree Management Policies and Guidelines for New

Developments. February, 2002. Dunster, J. 2009. Tree Risk Assessment in Urban Areas and the Urban/Rural Interface:

Course Manual. Silverton, Oregon: Pacific Northwest Chapter, International Society of Arboriculture.

International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). 2011. New Tree Planting. International

Society of Arboriculture. May 13, 2015 Meritech. 2016. Grandview Hills Stage VI Lot Grading Plan. Prepared for Huron Creek

Developments. September 8, 2016. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2014. Species at Risk in Ontario

(SARO) List. Last updated August 11, 2014. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/2ColumnSubPage/276722.html (Accessed June 2014).

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2013. Natural Heritage Information

Centre: Biodiversity Explorer. Last updated October 21, 2013. https://www.biodiversityexplorer.mnr.gov.on.ca/nhicWEB/mainSubmit.do (Accessed September 2016).

Natural Resource Solutions Inc. Grandview Hills Stage VI – Detailed Vegetation Management Plan

MAPS

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

! !!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

ROSECLIFF COURT

NEWMAN DRIV E

ROSECLIFF PLACE

WEST CLIFF WAY

1

23

45

67

8

91011

12

131415

1617

18 192021 22

2324

25

2627

28

29 30

31

32

33

34

3536

37

3839

4041

42 4344

45

46

47 48

49 50

5152

53

54

5556

57

58

59 60

6162

63

64

6566

67

6869 70

7172

73 7475 76

7778

79

80

81

82

83 8485

86

87

88

89

90

92

93

9495

9697

98 99100

101

102103

104

105

106

107

108109

110

111

112 113

114115

116117

118119

120

121122

123

124125

126

127

128129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136137

138139

140141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151152 153

154

155

156

157

158

159160

161 162

163

164

165166 167 168

169

170

171

172173

174

175

176 177 178

179

180

200

201202

203

204205

206

207208209

210211

212213214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222223

224 225

226

227

228

229

230231

232233

234

235

236

237

238

239240

241

281

282

283

284

285

286

287 288

289

290291

292293

294

295296

297

301302

303304

305

306

307

308309

310 311

312

313

314

315316

317

318 319

320

321

322323

324

325

326

327328

329

330

331

332333

334

335

336

337338

339

340

341342

343

344 345

346347

348 349350351

352

353

354355356357

358359

360

361

363364

365

366367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377 378

379380

381

382

383384

385

386

387

388389

390 391

392 393

394

395

396397

398

399

400

541

542

543

544

545

546

547

548

549

550

551

552553

554555

556557

558 559

560

561

562563

564

565 566

567

568

569

570

571

572573

574 575

576

577578 579

580

581582

583 584

585

586 587

588

589 590591 592

¯ Key Map

Map Prod uced by Natural Resource Solutions Inc. T h is m ap is proprietary and c onfid entialand m ust not be d uplicated or d istributed by any m eans w ith out express w ritten perm issionof NRSI. Data provid ed by MNRF© Copyrig h t: Queen’s Printer Ontario.

Project: 1824Date: October 13, 2016

NAD83 - UT M Zone 17Size: 24x36"

0 5 10 15 20 Meters

1:300

Grandview Hills Stage VIMap 1A


LegendStudy Area

&[§ T ree to be Retained (Crow n to Scale)[§ T ree to be Rem oved (Crow n to Scale)Wood land DriplineExisting RoadProposed Developm entProposed Grad ing

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!! !

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

WES TCLIFF

WAY

9091

180 181 182

183184

185186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198 199

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250251

252

253

254255256

257258

259260261262263

264

265266

267268

269270

271272

273274

275276277278

279

280281

298

299

300

362

510

511

512

538

539

540

¯ Key Map

Map Prod uced by Natural Resource S olutions Inc. Th is m ap is proprietary and c onfid entialand m ust not be d uplicated or d istributed by any m eans w ith out express w ritten perm issionof NRS I. Data provid ed by MNRF© Copyrig h t: Queen’s Printer Ontario.


NAD83 - U TM Zone 17S ize: 24x36"

0 5 10 15 20 Meters

1:350

Grandview Hills Stage VIMap 1B


LegendS tud y Area

&[§ Tree to be Retained (Crow n to S cale)[§ Tree to be Rem oved (Crow n to S cale)Wood land DriplineExisting RoadProposed Developm entProposed Grad ing

Map 2C


Map Produced by Natural Resource Solutions Inc.

This map is proprietary and confidential and must not be duplicated or distributed by any means

without express written permission of NRSI.

Grandview Hills Stage VIDetailed Vegetation Management Plan

Grandview Hills Stage IV Tree Preservation PlanTree Inventory Data

Tree ID

Tree Number Common Name Scientific Name

Native/ Non-native

DBH (cm)

Stem Count

Crown Radius

(m)

Potential for

Structural Failure Rating

Overall Condition Location

Proposed Action

Rationale for Removal

Compensation Required Comments

1 201 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 11.3 1 4.0 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Reduced and unbalanced crown, otherwise fairly vigorous.2 202 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 24.0 2 4.5 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Reduced crown but fairly vigorous.3 203 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 22.8 1 4.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Reduced crown, grape up stem & impacting health to degree.4 204 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 18.4 1 4.5 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Wounds with good compartmentalization of decay in trees,

reduced crown competing with basswood.5 205 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 21.7 1 4.5 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Grape up stem and crown, some dieback but fairly vigorous.6 206 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 28.4 1 5.5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Dieback and grape up stem and crown, thinning crown, somewhat

vigorous.7 207 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 28.7 1 5.5 Low Fair Offsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Minimal dieback, girdled roots, fairly vigorous.8 208 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 13.7 1 3.0 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Some grape up stem but otherwise fairly vigorous.9 209 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 11.5 1 3.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Competing with other species but vigorous tree.

10 210 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 32.0 1 7.0 Low Good Offsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Minimal dieback, some phototropic growth but otherwise vigorous.

11 211 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 16.6 2 4.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Other stem 12.8cm DBH, dieback, reduced crown, grape up stem, foliage feeding.

12 212 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 29.0 1 6.0 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Some dieback and grape up stem otherwise fairly vigorous.13 213 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 21.1 1 6.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Some dieback, reduced crown and thinning, epicormic growth.14 214 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 12.1 1 5.0 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Reduced crown, foliage feeding, phototropic growth, fairly vigorous.

15 215 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 33.2 1 6.0 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Some dieback and crown thinning, codominant branches with included bark.

16 216 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 45.9 1 8.0 Medium Fair Offsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Thinning crown, history of branch failure, chlorotic, dieback.17 217 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 15.7 1 4.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Mostly one-sided crown, grape up stem and crown, dieback.18 218 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 21.4 1 7.0 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Crown thinning and dieback, codominant branches with included

bark.19 219 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 14.5 1 3.5 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading No Leader dead, staining, codominant branches still with growth.20 220 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 13.4 1 3.0 Low Fair Offsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Mostly one-sided crown, anthracnose on leaves but fairly vigorous.

21 221 Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Native 18.5 1 5.0 Low Good Boundary Remove Proposed Grading Yes History of small branch failure, otherwise vigorous.22 222 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 13.9 1 4.0 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes One-sided crown, phototropic growth, competing with other species

otherwise fairly vigorous.23 223 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 10.7 1 3.0 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Reduced crown, grape up stem but fairly vigorous.24 224 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 15.3 2 3.5 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading No Other stem 14.8cm DBH, grape up stem and crown choking tree,

dieback throughout both stems.25 225 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 27.6 1 7.0 Medium Fair Offsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Grape up stem and crown, crown thinning, fairly vigorous.26 226 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 22.6 1 5.0 Medium Fair Offsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Grape up stem and crown, epicormic growth , some crown

thinning.27 227 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 10.1 1 3.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Competing with other species but otherwise vigorous.28 228 Black Maple Acer saccharum ssp. nigrum Native 16.7 1 6.0 Low Fair Offsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Growing through fence, grape up stem but fairly vigorous.29 229 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 10.8 1 5.0 High Poor Offsite Remove Proposed Grading No Thinned crown & dieback, reduced crown.30 230 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 26.4 1 6.0 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Poor form, grape up stem and crown but fairly vigorous.31 231 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 10.0 1 3.5 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Stress cracks, grape up stem and crown but fairly vigorous.32 232 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 10.4 1 3.5 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Grape up stem and crown but still fairly vigorous.33 233 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 53.4 1 7.0 High Poor Offsite Remove Proposed Grading No Dieback and crown thinning throughout, grape up stem and crown,

old decayed, branch, carpenter ant frass.34 234 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 25.2 1 4.5 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Grape up stem and crown, some chlorotic leaves, but fairly

vigorous.35 235 Black Maple Acer saccharum ssp. nigrum Native 26.3 1 7.5 Low Good Offsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Codominant branches with included bark.36 236 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 31.7 1 7.0 High Poor Offsite Remove Proposed Grading No Dieback and crown thinning throughout, grape up stem and crown,

woodpecker damage.37 237 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 13.3 1 4.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Grape in crown, competing with other species otherwise vigorous.

38 238 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 13.2 1 3.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Minimal dieback otherwise healthy.39 239 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 13.0 1 3.5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Some dieback, grape up stem and crown.40 240 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 35.2 1 5.0 High Very Poor Offsite Remove Proposed Grading No Dieback throughout, borer holes, bark peeling, decay fungi.41 241 Red Oak Quercus rubra Native 31.9 1 5.0 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Grape up stem and crown, some dieback but vigorous.42 242 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 17.5 1 4.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Some damage to root flare otherwise vigorous.43 243 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 23.7 1 5.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Corrected lean, response growth, vigorous.44 244 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 28.3 2 6.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stem 12.5cm DBH, some grape present but vigorous.45 245 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 14.9 1 3.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Grape up stem but vigorous.46 246 Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Native 28.1 2 7.0 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stem 24.9cm DBH, galls on leaves, defoliation, one stem

girdling the other, some thinning but fairly vigorous.47 247 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 18.4 1 4.0 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Codominant branches (one dead), grape in crown, fairly vigorous.48 248 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 10.8 2 6.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stem 6.4cm DBH, grape up stem and crown, phototropic

lean, some dieback.49 249 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 13.2 1 3.0 High Poor Offsite Remove Proposed Grading No One-sided crown, grape throughout choking tree.50 250 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 15.0 1 3.5 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Grape up stem and crown but fairly vigorous.51 251 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 15.0 2 7.0 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stem 8.1cm DBH, competing with other species but fairly

vigorous.52 252 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 17.3 1 5.0 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Some grape up stem and crown but fairly vigorous.53 253 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 11.4 1 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Poor form, old codominant stem removed and decayed, large

wound with compartmentalization of decay, full crown.54 254 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 15.8 1 4.0 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading No Leader snapped off, grape in crown, epicormic growth near

snapped leader.55 255 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 22.3 1 5.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes One-sided crown & some dieback.56 256 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 19.4 1 4.0 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading No Grape up stem and throughout crown.57 257 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 31.3 1 7.0 High Poor Offsite Remove Proposed Grading No Dieback, grape up stem and crown, wound with poor

compartmentalization on lower stem, carpenter ant frass.58 258 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Native 13.6 2 5.0 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Other stem 6.1cm DBH, some grape up stem and crown but fairly

vigorous.59 259 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 21.7 1 6.5 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Grape up stem and crown, some dieback and fairly vigorous.60 260 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 12.6 1 5.0 Medium Fair Offsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Grape throughout crown and stem but some vigor.61 261 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 29.5 1 7.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Grape in lower crown, otherwise vigorous tree.62 262 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 14.0 1 5.0 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Grape up stem and crown but fairly vigorous.63 263 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 12.7 1 2.0 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Grape up stem and crown but fairly vigorous.64 264 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 11.4 1 3.0 Low Fair Boundary Retain No Grape up stem and crown but fairly vigorous.65 265 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 18.4 2 4.0 Low Fair Boundary Retain No Other stem 10.9cm DBH, grape up stem and crown but fairly

vigorous.66 266 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 15.6 1 2.0 High Poor Offsite Retain No Top snapped and hanging, grape up stem.67 267 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 15.9 1 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Several wounds with decay but good compartmentalization of

decay, borer presence, grape up stem but fairly vigorous.68 268 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 11.5 1 2.5 Low Fair Onsite Retain No Grape up stem and crown but fairly vigorous.69 269 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 15.9 1 5.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Grape up stem but vigorous, corrected lean.70 270 Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Native 23.7 1 5.5 Low Good Boundary Retain No History of small branch failure otherwise vigorous, some dieback.71 271 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 43.8 1 8.5 Medium Fair Boundary Retain No History of branch failure, dieback and crown defoliation.72 272 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 12.6 1 4.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Reduced crown as competing with other species otherwise

vigorous.73 273 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 39.5 2 9.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Other stem 30.8cm DBH, codominant stems with included bark,

canker but good compartmentalization of decay.74 274 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 31.0 1 8.5 Low Good Offsite Retain No Shallow roots otherwise vigorous.75 275 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 12.7 1 3.5 Low Good Onsite Retain No Reduced crown as competing with other species, otherwise

vigorous.76 276 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 11.0 1 3.5 High Very Poor Onsite Retain No Top missing, epicormic growth up stem, one live branch.77 277 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 18.5 1 3.0 High Very Poor Onsite Retain No Leader snapped, grape up stem and crown.78 278 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 20.4 1 4.5 Low Fair Onsite Retain No Some thinning in crown, and dieback.79 279 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 17.3 1 5.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Cankers on stem with moderate compartmentalization of decay,

some crown thinning.80 280 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 19.9 1 4.5 Low Fair Boundary Retain No Thinning crown and some dieback.81 281 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 21.0 1 4.0 Low Fair Onsite Retain No Crown thinning and dieback, located on fenceline.82 282 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 10.3 1 3.0 Low Fair Onsite Retain No Some dieback and crown thinning.83 283 Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Native 10.7 1 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Reduced and thinned crown, wound with moderate

compartmentalization of decay.84 284 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 15.4 1 4.0 Low Fair Onsite Retain No Some crown thinning, grape up stem.85 285 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 10.4 1 5.0 Low Fair Onsite Retain No Wounds with decay but show compartmentalization of decay.86 286 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 12.1 1 4.5 Low Good Onsite Retain No Some foliage feeding.87 287 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 13.1 1 6.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Phototropic growth, one-sided crown with some dieback fairly

vigorous, last tree in hedgerow.88 288 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 12.2 1 2.5 Medium Fair Boundary Retain No Competing with other species, some dieback, one-sided crown.89 289 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 23.2 1 6.0 Low Fair Onsite Retain No Wounds with decay but show good compartmentalization of decay.

90 290 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 28.7 1 6.5 Low Good Boundary Remove Proposed Grading Yes Growing through fence.91 291 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 13.5 1 2.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Strong lean, some anthracnose on leaves, fairly vigorous.92 292 Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Native 24.5 2 5.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Other stem 23.3cm DBH, growing around old fence, minimal

woodpecker damage, some dieback.93 293 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Native 25.4 1 3.5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Growing on 45 degree angle, portion of crown draped in grape.94 294 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 13.9 3 3.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No 2 other small stems, slightly unbalanced crown, otherwise

vigorous.95 295 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 16.5 1 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Slightly reduced crown due to competing trees, draped in grape.96 296 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 10.4 1 2.5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Phototrophic lean, reduced crown.97 297 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 18.2 1 4.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Reduced crown due to competing trees, phototrophic lean.98 298 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 22.2 3 5.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No One-sided crown due to competing trees, some lower scaffold

dieback, other stemps 9.7cm, 5.3cm DBH.99 299 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 11.4 1 2.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Reduced crown due to competing trees, otherwise healthy.100 300 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 11.4 1 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Wound on lower stem with some fruiting bodies.101 301 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 13.6 2 2.5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Codominant stems and codominant branches with included bark,

grapevine in lower crown, other stem 8.1cm DBH, competing for sunlight.

102 302 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 12.0 1 2.5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Growing around old fence, reduced crown due to competing trees.

103 303 Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Native 27.0 1 5.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Competing for sunlight, only slightly uneven crown, vigorous tree.104 304 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 18.4 1 4.5 Low Good Onsite Retain No Slightly one-sided crown due to competing trees, otherwise

healthy.105 305 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 14.8 1 4.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Just starting to grow against old fence, slightly one-sided crown

due to competing trees.106 306 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 13.5 2 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Other stem 12.9cm DBH, codominant stems with included bark,

phototropic growth, crown mainly one-sided.107 307 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 15.7 1 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Phototrophic growth, reduced crown due to competing trees, crown

dieback.108 308 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 12.3 1 2.0 High Very Poor Onsite Retain No Phototropic growth, 45 degree lean, leader cracked with decay at

stem joint, codominant branch dead, broken with signs of decay, growing through wire fence.

109 309 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 13.8 2 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Some crown dieback, minimal staining in old limb wound, other stem dead.

110 310 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 20.2 1 4.5 Low Good Onsite Retain No Slightly unbalanced root flare otherwise relatively vigorous, slightly one-sided crown due to competing trees.

111 311 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 13.7 3 3.0 Medium Fair Boundary Retain No Other stems 7.2, 6.4cm DBH, codominant stems, competing for sunlight resulting in slightly uneven crown.

112 312 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 17.0 1 3.5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Phototrophic lean with unbalanced crown due to competing trees, lower scaffold draped in grape.

113 313 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 10.5 1 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Draped in grape, crown growing at 90 degree angle due to competing trees.

114 314 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 10.0 2 2.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Codominant stems with included bark, other stem 3cm DBH (dead), grapevine in lower crown, competing for sunlight.

115 315 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 19.0 1 3.5 Low Good Onsite Retain No Slightly unbalanced root flare, otherwise relatively solid.116 316 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 10.6 2 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Other stem 6cm DBH, codominant stems with included bark, small

stress cracks in both stems.117 317 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 14.1 3 3.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Other stems 13.1cm, 5cm DBH, slightly unbalanced crown due to

competing trees otherwise relatively.118 318 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 14.3 1 3.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Competing for sunlight but vigorous tree.119 319 Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Native 28.9 1 4.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Vigorous tree with very little dieback in scaffold branches.120 320 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 10.9 1 2.5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Girdled roots, 2 small dead branches.121 321 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 13.2 1 3.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No No noticable defects, appears to be in good overall health.122 322 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 12.9 2 2.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Other stems 5.8cm, 4.8cm DBH, codominant stems with included

bark, phototropic growth, grapevine in lower crown.123 323 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 19.0 4 4.5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Other stems 7.3cm, 12.7cm, 8cm DBH, phototrophic growth, 1

stem dead, some woodpecker damage.124 324 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 13.1 3 4.0 High Poor Onsite Retain No Other stems 11.9cm, 7.2cm DBH, phototropic growth with one-

sided crown, codominant stems with included bark, 1 stem S-bends with signs of decay.

125 325 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 12.7 1 3.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Old wire fence around lower stem, vigorous crown.126 326 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 17.1 1 4.5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Small wound on root flare with some rot, phototrophic growth.127 327 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 17.4 3 4.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Other stems 17cm, 12.3cm DBH, codominant stems with included

bark, phototropic growth, growing into wire fence.128 328 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 19.8 2 4.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Other stem 15.8cm DBH, growing around dead elm, some

defoliation, phototrophic growth.129 329 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 18.0 1 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Phototropic growth so tree leans 45 degrees.130 330 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 19.7 1 4.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No One-sided crown due to competing trees, otherwise relatively

vigorous.131 331 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 15.8 2 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Other stem 12.6cm DBH, codominant stems with included bark,

phototropic growth but vigorous.132 332 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 25.0 1 5.5 Low Good Onsite Retain No One-sided crown due to competing trees otherwise relatively

vigorous.133 333 Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Native 14.5 1 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Exposed root flare, reduced crown due to competing trees.134 334 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 18.5 1 6.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Growing incorporating wire fence at root flare, stress cracks in

stem, hanger from other tree.135 335 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 25.0 1 5.0 High Poor Onsite Retain No Wound up main stem with frass & staining, rot.136 336 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 19.5 1 5.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Crown slightly uneven due to phototropic growth, vigorous tree.137 337 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 15.5 1 5.5 High Poor Onsite Retain No Crown growing close to 90 degree angle, crown dieback.138 338 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 32.4 1 5.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Small stress crack on one branch, crown above main canopy,

vigorous.139 339 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 22.7 1 4.5 Low Good Onsite Retain No One-sided crown due to competing trees otherwise relatively

vigorous.140 340 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 15.4 3 4.5 High Poor Onsite Retain No Other stems 13.3cm, 5.3cm, 9cm DBH, some included bark split

on lower stem, crown growing on angle.141 341 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 14.4 2 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Other stem 3.5cm DBH, leader growing around buckthorn branch in

crotch, included bark.142 342 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 10.7 1 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Irregular growth, minimal limb dieback.143 343 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 18.3 1 4.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Included bark, competing for sunlight, crown slightly uneven.144 344 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 21.5 1 5.5 Medium Good Onsite Retain No Potential failure due to included bark in scaffold branch union, one-

sided crown due to competing trees.145 345 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 20.9 1 5.5 Low Good Onsite Retain No Growing immediately adjacent to sugar maple, vigorous crown.146 346 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 20.3 1 4.5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Multiple codominant branches with included bark, competing for

sunlight, crown uneven.147 347 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 10.8 1 2.5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Some stress cracks, old branch wound with some staining.148 348 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 19.6 1 3.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Vigorous tree, crown above main canopy.149 349 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 10.6 1 4.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Slightly unbalanced crown due to competing trees, otherwise

relatively vigorous.150 350 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 12.9 1 4.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Included bark, few lower branches shaded out are dead.151 351 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 17.2 1 3.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Slightly reduced crown due to competing trees, otherwise relatively

vigorous.152 352 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 18.8 4 5.0 Medium Good Onsite Retain No Other stems 8.5cm, 10.1cm, 12.3cm DBH, could benefit from

some pruning to reduce failure.

Tree ID


Native/ Non-native

DBH (cm)

Stem Count

Crown Radius

(m)

Potential for



Proposed Action



153 353 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 15.7 1 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Crown above main canopy, included bark, lowest branch dead.154 354 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 21.7 1 5.5 Low Good Onsite Retain No Slightly unbalanced root flare otherwise relatively vigorous.155 355 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 11.6 1 3.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Vigorous tree, not competing for sunlight.156 356 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 18.8 1 5.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Unbalanced crown due to competing trees, otherwise relatively

vigorous.157 357 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 12.2 1 3.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Some lower leaves browning.158 358 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 10.4 1 2.5 Low Good Onsite Retain No Slightly reduced crown due to competing trees otherwise relatively

vigorous.159 359 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 12.5 1 4.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Not competing for sunlight, vigorous tree.160 360 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 15.0 2 5.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Other stem 15.3cm DBH, codominant with included bark & small

split, crown still relatively vigorous.161 361 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 14.9 3 5.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Other stems 5.2cm, 4cm DBH, codominant stems with included

bark, competing for sunlight, crown uneven.162 362 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 12.1 1 3.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Slightly reduced crown due to competing trees, otherwise relatively


stress cracks in both stems.164 364 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 19.8 2 4.0 High Poor Onsite Retain No Other stem 18.7cm DBH, branch growing into other stem, crown

one-sided,codominant stems with included bark, stress cracks in stems, 1 stem broken at 7m.

165 365 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 11.5 1 1.5 Low Good Onsite Retain No Slightly reduced crown due to competing trees, otherwise relatively vigorous.

166 366 Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Native 11.2 1 5.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Starting to grow into wire fence.167 367 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 12.6 1 4.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Stem gnarled and bent from growing through wire fence but self

corrects.168 368 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 14.5 1 5.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Growing against Sugar Maple, phototrophic growth.169 369 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 17.1 1 3.5 Low Good Onsite Retain No Competing for sunlight, only slightly uneven crown.170 370 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 11.6 1 3.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No One-sided crown due to competing trees, otherwise relatively

vigorous.171 371 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 10.2 1 2.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Codominant branches with included bark, 1 branch dead.172 372 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 12.8 1 2.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Slightly girdling root, anthracnose.173 373 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Native 23.1 3 6.0 High Poor Onsite Retain No Other stems 20.4cm, 17.3cm DBH, 3 other stems dead and

broken, 50% dieback in remaining live stems, 1 stem on 45 degree angle.

174 374 Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Native 16.1 1 6.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Crown growing on 90 degree angle, some defoliation.175 375 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 20.3 1 6.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Wound on lower stem with some rot & frass, crown still relatively

vigorous.176 376 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 29.2 1 7.0 Medium Fair Boundary Retain No Old wound on main stem with some staining, also some

compartmentalization of decay.177 377 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 50.2 3 8.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Other stems 33.2cm, 35.8cm DBH, codominant stems and

branches with included bark, leaf feeding.178 378 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 29.9 3 7.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Other stems 20.7cm, 16.2cm DBH,split between branch union with

some staining, some defoliation.179 379 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 19.0 4 3.0 High Poor Offsite Retain No Other stems 11.1cm, 10.4cm, 4.1cm DBH, codominant stems with

included bark, grapevine throughout crown, 1 stem spirals another.180 380 Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Native 13.7 1 3.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Sharing root flare with Buckthorn, minimal dieback.181 381 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 19.0 2 4.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Other stem 15.6cm DBH, codominant stems with included bark,

lowermost branches dead due to shading by crown.182 382 Shagbark Hickory Carya ovata var. ovata Native 37.0 1 5.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Codominant stems with included bark, leaf feeding in lower

branches.183 383 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 19.9 3 4.0 High Poor Boundary Remove Proposed Grading No Other stems 19.5cm, 14cm DBH, some defoliation, wounds with

some staining, showing signs of compartmentalization.184 385 Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Native 40.5 1 8.5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Minimal defoliation, minimal limb dieback, otherwise relatively

vigorous tree.185 386 White Elm Ulmus americana Native 46.3 1 6.0 Medium Fair Offsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Buckthorn growing from root flare, damage to 1 exposed root,

codominant branches with included bark.186 387 Red Oak Quercus rubra Native 63.8 2 7.0 Medium Fair Offsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stem 50.4cm DBH, codominant stems with included bark, 1

small branch shaded out and dead.187 388 Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Native 70.3 2 7.5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stem 13cm DBH, metal peg from deer stand in main stem,

minimal borer holes, some defoliation.188 389 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 43.0 1 5.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Up against adjacent Hopornbeam, crack compartmentalizing,

codominant branches with included bark.189 390 Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Native 38.1 2 7.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stem 30.2cm DBH, minimal defoliation, otherwise relatively

vigorous.190 391 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 15.7 2 4.0 Medium Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stem 11.8cm DBH, failure due to union between stems,

slightly unbalanced crown due to competing trees.191 392 Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Native 39.6 3 7.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stem 28.5cm DBH, 3rd stem dead, codominant stems with

included bark, small lower branch shaded out and dead.192 393 Choke Cherry Prunus virginiana ssp. virginiana Native 10.2 1 3.0 High Very Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading No Almost dead, crown leaning toward agricultural field.193 394 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 24.3 2 5.0 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading No Other stem 15.3cm DBH, codominant stems with included bark,

50% dieback, premature leaf drop, grapevine in lower crown.194 395 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 54.6 1 7.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Deer stand in tree, old nails in main stem, crown still vigorous,

girdling root.195 396 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 34.5 1 4.5 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading No Wound on root flare with rot & staining, frass, minimal dieback.196 397 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 38.4 1 6.0 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Vigorous tree, dead grapevine around rootflare but breaking apart.197 398 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 50.0 1 4.0 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading No Old 2nd stem dead with advanced rot, crown draped in grape,

some rot & staining on root flare.198 399 Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Native 29.6 1 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Codominant branches with included bark, otherwise vigorous tree,

not competing for sunlight.199 400 Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Native 20.4 2 5.5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stem 14.8cm DBH, codominant stems with included bark,

otherwise vigorous, not competing for sunlight.200 401 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 34.5 1 3.0 High Dead Offsite Retain No Woodpecker damage, galleries present, but likely carpenter ants,

no positive signs of emerald ash borer.201 402 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 11.0 1 2.5 High Dead Boundary Retain No Dead202 403 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 55.7 1 10.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Codominant branches with included bark, small water-filled cavity

with crack & staining.203 404 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 58.4 1 10.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Some light pruning and minimal damage to root flare.204 405 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 15.2 2 5.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No One-sided crown, phototrophic lean, some dieback, other stem

7.4cm DBH.205 406 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 16.5 2 5.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Other stem 14.4cm DBH, phototrophic growth, one-sided crown,

codominant stems with included bark and staining.206 407 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 40.5 2 7.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Other stem 31.9cm DBH, codominant stems with included bark

and active crack partially compartmentalizing, light pruning.207 408 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 26.9 1 5.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No One-sided crown along edge, minimal crown dieback, some

anthracnose spots on leaves.208 409 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 16.5 1 5.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Phototrophic growth along edge, foliage feeding, reduced crown.209 410 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 13.3 1 4.0 High Very Poor Offsite Retain No Phototrophic growth, one remaining scaff branch with active crack,

minimal crown left.210 411 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 79.5 1 10.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Codominant branches with included bark, crack but healed over,

staining & decay along root flare, history of branch failure.211 412 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 33.5 1 5.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Sapsucker feeding, mostly full crown.212 413 Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Native 17.0 1 4.5 Low Good Offsite Retain No Competing with adjacent trees so poor form, otherwise relatively

vigorous, sapsucker feeding, frost crack healed over.213 414 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 32.9 1 4.0 High Very Poor Offsite Retain No Woodpecker damage, bark crack, dieback throughout, no positive

signs of emerald ash borer.214 415 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 36.4 1 5.0 High Dead Offsite Retain No Emerald ash borer exit hole & galleries, woodpecker damage.215 416 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 21.9 1 4.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Some phototrophic lean, otherwise vigorous tree.216 417 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 38.1 1 5.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Grape up stem & lower canopy, otherwise relatively vigorous,

grape may eventually strangle tree and impact health in future.217 418 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 50.5 1 7.0 Low Good Offsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Codominant branches with included bark, full crown.218 419 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 29.8 1 7.5 Low Good Offsite Retain No Galls on leaves, foliage feeding, otherwise vigorous tree.219 420 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 21.5 1 4.5 Low Good Offsite Retain No Galls on leaves, some foliage feeding, otherwise healthy tree.220 421 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 46.1 1 10.0 High Poor Offsite Retain No Vertical cracking, several healed frost cracks, woodpecker damage

one dead scaffold branch, sounds hollow, frass.221 422 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 14.3 1 4.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Healed-over wound with decay, slight unbalanced crown, frass from

wound, otherwise relatively vigorous.222 423 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 21.2 1 4.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Grape up stem and in canopy, reduced crown & dieback, some

epicormic growth and unbalanced crown.223 424 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 44.8 1 8.0 High Poor Offsite Remove Proposed Grading No Woodpecker damage, dieback throughout, live crown very thinned

(~20%).224 425 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 27.1 1 5.0 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Codominant branches with included bark, grape up stem and

canopy, otherwise fairly vigorous.225 426 Butternut Juglans cinerea Native 20.0 3 5.5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stems 17.1cm & 13.9cm DBH, callousing wounds

codominant stems with included bark, sooty cankers on root flare and stem, vigorous crown.

226 427 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Native 17.3 1 4.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Some anthracnose spots on leaves, otherwise vigorous tree.227 428 Freeman's Maple Acer X freemanii Native 21.3 1 4.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Some splits in bark, but healing, otherwise vigorous tree.228 429 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 16.3 1 4.5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Grape up stem and canopy, slight lean, thinned crown, some

foliage feeding.229 430 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 23.5 1 4.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Some dieback in lower canopy, otherwise vigorous tree.230 431 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 15.2 2 6.0 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stem 10cm DBH, codominant stems at base, crown thinned,

some dieback, virginia creeper up 1 stem & lower canopy.231 432 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 20.5 4 6.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stems 19.6cm, 11.8cm ,10.2cm DBH, 2 sets of codominant

stems fused at base with included bark, otherwise vigorous tree.232 433 Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus Native 16.6 1 4.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Aside from grape and virginia creeper up stem, vigorous tree.233 434 Butternut Juglans cinerea Native 10.9 1 4.0 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Crown thinned due to grape up stem and canopy, foliage feeding,

could improve condition by removing grape.234 435 Butternut Juglans cinerea Native 15.1 1 4.5 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Lots of grape up stem and canopy, remove to improve health.235 436 Butternut Juglans cinerea Native 11.3 1 5.0 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Grape up stem and canopy, could remove to improve health,

Butternut canker present.236 437 Butternut Juglans cinerea Native 18.8 1 4.5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Virginia creeper & grape up stem and canopy, unbalanced crown,

located along edge, phototrophic lean.237 438 Butternut Juglans cinerea Native 29.6 1 8.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes History of branch failure, some dieback, codominant branches with

included bark with staining, grape up stem and canopy.238 439 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 17.0 1 4.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes239 440 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 12.2 1 4.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Phototrophic lean otherwise healthy tree.240 441 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 63.6 2 7.0 Medium Fair Offsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stem 23.8cm DBH, history of branch failure, thinned crown,

some dieback, cavity with frass, but healed over, wound, insect defoliation.

241 442 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 11.7 2 4.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Other stem 8.1cm DBH, codominant stems with included bark, wound with compartmentalized decay, full crown, grape but healthy otherwise.

242 501 Hawthorn species Crataegus sp. Native 12.2 2 5.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stem 11.7cm DBH, crown dieback, draped in grape.243 502 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 15.9 2 2.0 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading No Dead 2nd stem 25.3cm DBH, decayed 3rd stem, stress cracks in

all stems.244 503 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 34.3 1 4.5 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading No Rot & frass on lower stem, crown dieback, phototrophic growth.245 504 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 57.8 1 6.0 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading No Codominant branches with included bark, 1 leader missing, frass &

staining, cavity at root flare with decay & frass.246 505 Common Apple Malus domestica Non-Native 33.4 1 3.5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Sapsucker, phototrophic growth, minimal crown dieback.247 506 Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Native 41.7 3 5.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stems 29.8cm, 15.7cm DBH, codominant stems with

included bark, appears to be located in adjacent property.248 507 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 10.2 1 3.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Minimal defoliation.249 508 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 16.4 1 3.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Leaf spot, vigorous tree.250 509 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 17.1 1 2.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Some leaf spot, vigorous crown.251 510 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 12.2 1 2.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Leaf spot, otherwise vigorous crown.252 511 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 11.4 1 2.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes 30% defoliation, leaf spot.253 512 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 35.5 1 5.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Small crack up main stem, draped in virginia creeper, crown still

relatively vigorous.254 513 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 22.4 1 4.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes 1 lower branch shaded out and dead.255 514 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 25.6 1 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Cavity in lower stem with some rot, crown still relatively vigorous.256 515 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 23.0 1 4.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Leaf feeding.257 516 White Willow Salix alba var. alba Non-Native 12.7 2 2.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stem 9.2cm DBH, not fagile & no stipules, minimal

defoliation.258 517 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 13.2 1 3.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Few lower branches shaded out.259 518 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 12.3 1 2.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes 25% defoliation, competing for sunlight in thicket.260 519 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 17.2 1 1.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Vigorous crown with minimal defoliation.261 520 White Willow Salix alba var. alba Non-Native 10.7 1 2.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other tree growing around trunk, competing for sunlight, uneven

crown.262 521 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 15.0 1 2.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Minimal defoliation, otherwise relatively vigorous.263 522 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 27.3 1 3.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Some leaf spot, otherwise relatively vigorous.264 523 White Willow Salix alba var. alba Non-Native 20.7 1 3.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Some lower branches shaded out.265 524 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 11.8 1 1.3 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Soil somewhat high on root flare.266 525 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 17.7 1 4.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Leaf spot.267 526 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 25.8 1 3.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Minimal defoliation & leaf spot, otherwise relatively vigorous.268 527 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 22.9 1 4.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Slight lean but vigorous.269 528 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 30.2 1 5.5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Small wound at base of stem with some staining, small stress

cracks.270 529 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 20.7 1 2.5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Lower branches shaded out, leaf spot.271 530 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 19.9 1 4.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Codominant branches with included bark, leaf spot, 2 shaded out

epicormic shoots.272 531 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Native 13.2 2 3.0 Medium Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stem 8cm DBH, failure due to included bark between stems.

273 532 White Elm Ulmus americana Native 10.5 1 2.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Leaf feeding.274 533 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Native 16.0 1 4.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Some light pruned scaffold branches, minimal defoliation.275 534 Black Walnut Juglans nigra Native 17.4 2 3.5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stem 15.4cm DBH, codominant stems with included bark,

few lower branches shaded out.276 535 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Native 16.2 3 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stems 16.1cm, 10.8cm DBH, some crown dieback, included

bark between stems.277 536 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Native 12.6 9 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Multiple codominant stems with included bark - 5.7cm, 4.5cm,

7cm, 9cm, 11cm, 6.7cm, 5cm, 2.9m DBH, leaf spot.278 537 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Non-Native 11.4 3 4.5 Medium Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stems 10.5cm, 3.6cm DBH, failure due to included bark

between stems, slightly unbalanced crown due to competition for sunglight.

279 538 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Non-Native 21.5 3 4.5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Codominant stems with included bark, lower branches shaded out, leaf spot.

280 539 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Non-Native 19.7 1 4.5 Medium Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Failure as growing on slope with slightly unbalanced crown due to competing trees.

281 540 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 14.0 1 2.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Leaf spot.282 541 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Native 15.8 2 4.0 Medium Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stem 12cm DBH, failure due to included bark between

stems, vigorous crown.283 542 Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Native 13.1 1 2.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Leaf gall, otherwise relatively vigorous.284 544 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Native 11.5 2 4.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stem 6.3cm DBH, potential failure as growing on 45 degree

angle, one-sided crown due to competing trees.285 544 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Native 24.7 7 5.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Codominant stems with included bark - 14.7cm, 9.4cm, 18.3cm,

12.2cm, 12.1cm, 12.9cm DBH, 1 stem rubs against another.286 545 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Native 15.1 1 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes In overall fair condition, no major structural issues.287 546 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Native 30.7 1 5.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Codominant branches with included bark, epicormic shoots, leaf

miner.288 547 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Native 14.1 3 4.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Growing against guard rail, other stems 11.5cm, 12.5cm DBH,

included bark between stems.289 548 Norway Maple Acer platanoides Non-Native 13.4 9 4.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stems 10.1cm, 11cm, 13.1cm, 8.2cm, 8cm, 11.4cm,

10.5cm, 11.3cm DBH, codominant stems with included bark, leaf miner.

290 549 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 20.9 6 4.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other 19.7cm, 20.6cm, 18.7cm, 13.5cm, 18cm DBH, minimal staining, failure due to included bark between stems.

291 550 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 15.2 1 1.5 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading No 75% dieback, leaf spot.292 551 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 23.6 2 3.5 Medium Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stem 21.4cm DBH, failure due to included bark between

stems, minimal dieback in lower scaffold.293 552 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Non-Native 17.0 2 4.0 Medium Fair Boundary Remove Proposed Grading Yes Codominant stems and branches with included bark, leaf spot,

other stem 12.9cm DBH.294 553 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 18.3 1 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Some defoliation, some dieback in lower scaffold branches.295 554 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Non-Native 18.4 1 4.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Codominant branches with included bark, leaf spot, virginia

creeper.296 555 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Non-Native 24.0 1 6.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Some defoliation & virginia creeper in crown.297 556 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Non-Native 21.5 1 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Codominant branches with included bark, 3 branches snapped and

hanging.298 557 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Non-Native 17.4 5 4.5 Medium Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stems 13.2cm, 10.5cm, 8cm, 5cm DBH, failure due to

included bark between stems & number of stem.299 558 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 10.1 1 1.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Small stress crack.300 559 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Non-Native 20.5 2 4.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Heavy seed production, other stem 17.1cm DBH.301 560 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 13.2 1 2.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Leaf spot.302 561 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 23.1 1 4.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Could benefit from pruning in lower scaffold branches, minimal

defoliation.303 562 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 13.0 1 5.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Tussoc moth caterpillars, tree on 45 degree angle.304 563 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 16.8 4 5.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stems 12.6cm, 11.4cm, 12.1cm DBH, growing on edge of

storm water pond, 2 snapped limbs, remaining crown still relatively vigorous.

305 564 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 20.5 3 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stems 11.9cm, 7cm DBH, codominant stems with included bark, leaf feeding, 1 small dead branch.

Tree ID


Native/ Non-native

DBH (cm)

Stem Count

Crown Radius

(m)

Potential for



Proposed Action



306 565 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 13.4 1 2.3 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Defoliation, some rot at base of main stem.307 566 Colorado Spruce Picea pungens Non-Native 12.6 1 2.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Vigorous tree, previously guyed but wire since removed.308 567 White Spruce Picea glauca Native 11.6 1 2.0 Low Excellent Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Planted around storm water management pond.309 568 White Spruce Picea glauca Native 15.4 1 2.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Vigorous tree.310 569 White Spruce Picea glauca Native 12.5 1 2.0 Low Excellent Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Planted around storm water management pond.311 570 White Spruce Picea glauca Native 11.9 1 2.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Vigorous tree.312 571 White Spruce Picea glauca Native 10.5 1 1.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Planted around storm water management pond, minimal dieback

due to light pruning.313 572 White Spruce Picea glauca Native 10.9 1 2.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Vigorous tree.314 573 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 22.5 2 3.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stem 10.9cm DBH, along storm water management berm.315 574 White Willow Salix alba var. alba Non-Native 10.9 2 2.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Codominant stems with included bark, crack in stem, other stem

11.6cm DBH.316 575 White Willow Salix alba var. alba Non-Native 21.2 2 3.0 Medium Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stem 20cm DBH, failure due to included bark between

stems.317 576 White Willow Salix alba var. alba Non-Native 18.8 1 5.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes In berm between ponds.318 577 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 11.5 1 4.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Crown leans on 45 degree angle.319 578 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 11.5 1 1.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Slightly unbalanced crown due to competing trees.320 579 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 16.7 1 2.5 Medium Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Failure due to included bark between branches, some defoliation.321 580 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 14.5 1 2.0 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading No Leaf spot, leaf gall, upper crown dead, leader broken off at 4m.322 581 White Willow Salix alba var. alba Non-Native 16.4 1 1.0 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading No Crown snapped off.323 582 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 11.6 1 3.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Slight lean in top of crown over pond.324 583 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 14.7 1 4.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Slight lean in top of crown only.325 584 White Willow Salix alba var. alba Non-Native 15.7 1 4.0 High Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading No Growing parallel to ground out of storm water management pond.326 585 Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus Native 16.9 1 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Included bark.327 586 Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus Native 12.8 1 2.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Small stress crack.328 587 Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus Native 15.9 1 2.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Some dieback in lower scaffold branches.329 588 Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus Native 16.5 1 2.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Maple sapling at root flare.330 589 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 14.3 2 2.5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stem 10.5cm DBH, included bark between stems, some

staining.331 590 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 20.5 2 5.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stem 8.3cm DBH.332 591 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 16.3 2 1.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stem 6.1cm DBH, crack in stem fully compartmentalizing.333 592 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 31.5 1 4.5 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading No Split up main stem with some rot & staining.334 593 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 17.0 2 4.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stem 7.9cm DBH, codominant stems with included bark, 2nd

stem 50% dieback.335 594 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 18.7 1 3.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Slight unbalanced crown due to competing tree.336 595 Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus Native 12.6 1 3.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Competing for sunlight with Sumac.337 596 Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus Native 14.8 1 3.3 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Minimal dieback in lower scaffold branches.338 597 Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus Native 17.3 1 3.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Virginia creeper starting to go up stem 1m.339 599 Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus Native 15.4 1 4.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Minimal dieback in lower scaffold branches.340 600 Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus Native 14.7 1 3.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Vigorous tree.341 601 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 17.0 3 2.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stems 3.7cm, 3.9cm DBH, codominant stems with included

bark, few lower branches dead.342 602 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 20.2 1 4.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Growing on slight lean toward storm water management pond.343 603 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 11.4 1 1.0 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading No Cracks up main stem with some rot & staining, crown with

phototrophic lean toward storm water management pond.344 604 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 12.6 1 3.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Slight lean over pond.345 605 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 14.6 1 5.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes One-sided crown leans towards storm water pond, small split on

main stem with some staining.346 606 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 20.2 2 2.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stem 20.1cm DBH, codominant stems with included bark,

lower branches dead.347 607 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 13.4 1 1.0 High Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading No Crown on 90 degree angle with lean toward storm water

management pond.348 608 White Willow Salix alba var. alba Non-Native 18.9 1 1.0 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading No 50% dieback.349 609 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 16.4 1 1.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Reduced crown due to competing trees, otherwise relatively

vigorous.350 610 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 15.9 2 4.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stem 7.5cm DBH, codominant stems with included bark,

leans over pond.351 611 Peachleaf Willow Salix amygdaloides Native 11.5 1 2.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Slightly unbalanced crown due to competing trees, otherwise

relatively vigorous.352 612 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 11.4 1 1.0 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading No Epicormic shoots only, leader is dead.353 613 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 20.5 3 2.3 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stems 16.4cm, 17.1cm DBH, 1 stem snapped, minimal

dieback.354 614 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 30.0 1 4.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Vigorous tree.355 615 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 15.8 1 4.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Phototrophic lean due to competing trees.356 616 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 12.3 1 1.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Few epicormic shoots.357 617 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 15.8 1 2.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Crack from root flare up 0.5m compartmentalizing fully.358 618 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 22.3 2 2.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stem 13.1cm DBH, missing crown, remaining crown

relatively vigorous.359 619 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 23.5 3 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stems 14.3cm, 22.2cm DBH.360 620 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 16.5 2 5.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stem 20.6cm DBH, included bark between stems, crown

dieback.361 621 Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Native 15.2 1 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Located at start of woodland.362 No Tag Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa Native 24.9 1 5.0 Low Good Offsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Vigorous tree, not competing for sunlight.363 622 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 23.9 2 5.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stem 7.5cm DBH, some dieback in lower scaffold branches,

cavity on lower main stem with some rot.364 623 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 38.2 1 4.5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Some frass out of old branch, some bark cracks on root flare.365 624 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 23.0 1 5.0 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading No Bark cracks & staining on root flare & main stem, one-sided crown

with lean away from pond.366 625 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 18.8 2 4.0 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading No Other stem 6.2cm DBH, slightly paler & downy beneath, cavity on

lower main stem, some bark cracks with staining.367 626 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 27.6 3 5.0 High Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading No Other stems 8.2cm, 15.7cm DBH, small cavity on lower stem with

rot & fruiting bodies, remaining stems relatively healthy.368 627 White Mulberry Morus alba Non-Native 20.6 2 4.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stem 23.3cm DBH, small cavity between stems, some

staining between stems, crown relatively vigorous.369 628 White Mulberry Morus alba Non-Native 15.2 2 2.3 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stem 5.3cm DBH, minimal staining from 1 small limb,

otherwise relatively vigorous.370 629 White Mulberry Morus alba Non-Native 11.9 2 2.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stem 6cm DBH, some staining between branches, some

lower limb dieback.371 630 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 24.8 1 2.3 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Minimal leaf spot, otherwise relatively vigorous.372 631 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 12.0 1 2.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Minimal dieback in lower scaffold, otherwise relatively vigorous.373 632 Balsam Poplar Populus balsamifera Native 14.1 1 3.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Some leaf spot, otherwise relatively vigorous.374 633 Freeman's Maple Acer X freemanii Native 19.1 1 3.5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Tar spot, included bark in scaffold branch, root flare covered in soil.

375 634 Freeman's Maple Acer X freemanii Native 11.5 1 2.0 High Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading No Being girdled by tree tie, stress cracks, tar spot, crown still relatively vigorous, remove tie & prune to reduce failure.

376 635 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 25.6 2 3.0 High Dead Onsite Remove Proposed Grading No Other stem 25.5cm DBH, on edge of storm water management pond, small hole drilled in each stem by person.

377 636 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 30.5 1 4.5 High Dead Onsite Remove Proposed Grading No Small hole drilled in stem by person, on edge of storm water management pond, girdling root.

378 637 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 21.6 3 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stems 11.6cm, 5cm DBH, 1 stem in poor condition, small amount of staining on lower stem, crown relatively vigorous.

379 638 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 34.7 1 4.0 Medium Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Failure due to slightly unbalanced crown & root flare, crown leaning slightly toward storm water management pond.

380 639 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 22.0 10 4.0 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading No Other stems 16.7cm, 15.2cm, 13.9cm, 18.6cm, 15cm, 15.3cm, 12.5cm, 11.8cm, 14.5cm DBH, main leaders snapped off, included bark with weak branch unions.

381 640 White Willow Salix alba var. alba Non-Native 11.2 2 2.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stem 10.9cm DBH, slightly one-sided crown on both stems.382 641 White Spruce Picea glauca Native 13.4 1 2.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Vigorous tree.383 642 White Spruce Picea glauca Native 12.8 1 2.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Relatively vigorous tree.384 643 White Spruce Picea glauca Native 11.3 1 2.3 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Heavy seed production, slightly chlorotic, some stress cracks.385 644 Red Oak Quercus rubra Native 10.1 1 2.3 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes 2 small wounds on lower stem with some compartmentalization,

main stem covered in lichen, street tree, crown relatively vigorous.386 645 Red Oak Quercus rubra Native 14.5 1 3.3 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Street tree, a few stress cracks on main stem, crown vigorous.387 646 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 13.3 1 2.3 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes <10% crown dieback, wound on root flare, some squirrel damage,

street tree, no emerald ash borer exit holes.388 647 White Spruce Picea glauca Native 16.8 1 2.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Could benefit from lower limb pruning.389 648 Peachleaf Willow Salix amygdaloides Native 14.2 6 3.0 High Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading No Other stems 12.4cm, 10.4cm, 4.8cm, 6.5cm, 11.3cm, 8.9cm DBH,

failure due to irregular growth & leaning, some staining on smaller stem.

390 649 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 20.6 1 3.5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Crack up main stem with some staining, growing on very edge of standing water in storm water management pond.

391 650 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 13.1 1 2.3 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Slightly unbalanced crown due to competing tree.392 651 White Willow Salix alba var. alba Non-Native 24.2 1 5.5 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading No Main leader snapped, wound on main stem with some staining,

staining on root flare.393 652 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 12.6 1 2.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Slightly reduced crown due to competing tree, otherwise relatively

vigorous.394 653 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 14.8 4 3.0 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading No Other stems 11.5cm, 10cm, 6cm DBH, 2 larger stems with

staining, some rot in main stem.395 654 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 21.2 1 4.5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Small crack on lower stem with minimal staining but also some

compartmentalization.396 655 White Spruce Picea glauca Native 16.4 1 2.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Relatively vigorous tree.397 656 White Spruce Picea glauca Native 15.5 1 2.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Relatively vigorous tree.398 657 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 13.3 2 3.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stem 9.7cm DBH, growing on edge of water in storm water

management pond, slight lean in top otherwise relatively vigorous.399 658 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 12.8 1 3.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Slight lean toward storm water management pond, relatively

vigorous crown.400 659 White Spruce Picea glauca Native 14.2 1 3.3 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Vigorous tree.510 769 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Non-Native 13.0 1 5.0 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Codominant branches with included bark, some dieback in lower

scaffold branches.511 770 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Non-Native 17.8 1 4.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Growing out of topsoil mound.512 771 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 12.5 2 2.5 Medium Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stem 11.3cm DBH, failure due to included bark between

stems.538 797 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Non-Native 11.8 1 2.3 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Growing on topsoil stockpile.539 798 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Non-Native 10.6 1 2.0 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Growing on side of topsoil stockpile.540 799 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Non-Native 10.6 2 2.3 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading Yes Other stems 5cm, 7cm DBH, wound in small stem with

compartmentalization.541 No Tag Alaska Yellow Cedar Cupressus nootkatensis Non-Native 14.0 1 2.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Slight defoliation, otherwise good health and form.542 No Tag Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis Native 12.1 2 2.0 Medium Good Offsite Retain No Other stem 7cm DBH, codominant stems with included bark, light

pruning.543 No Tag Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis Native 11.3 1 2.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Unbalanced crown due to competition for sunlight.544 No Tag Saucer Magnolia Magnolia soulangeana Non-Native 14.9 1 4.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Some defoliation, multiple codominant branches, competition for

sunlight on west side.545 No Tag White Spruce Picea glauca Native 26.1 1 3.0 Low Excellent Offsite Retain No Buckthorn sapling growing underneath, vigorous.546 No Tag White Spruce Picea glauca Native 29.8 1 4.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Slight lean but self-corrects.547 No Tag Colorado Spruce Picea pungens Non-Native 34.3 1 3.0 Low Excellent Offsite Retain No Very bushy and vigorous tree.548 No Tag Colorado Spruce Picea pungens Non-Native 45.4 1 3.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Slight bend in leader at 8m but self corrects quickly, minimal light

pruning.549 No Tag Colorado Spruce Picea pungens Non-Native 33.6 1 3.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Light pruning in lower branches.550 No Tag Norway Maple Acer platanoides Non-Native 19.8 1 4.5 Low Good Offsite Retain No Slight lean, codominant branches with included bark.551 No Tag White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 22.0 2 6.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Other stem 20cm DBH, codominant stems with included bark,

some defoliation.552 No Tag Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 20.1 1 5.0 Low Poor Boundary Retain No Sooty wounds, one-sided crown, lean.553 No Tag Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Native 22.2 1 4.0 High Poor Onsite Retain No Lean, 90% canopy dieback, grape vine growing up stem.554 No Tag Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 29.9 3 6.0 Medium Poor Onsite Retain No Other stems 21cm, 10cm DBH, codominant stems with included

bark, girdled roots, codominant branches.555 No Tag American Basswood Tilia americana Native 37.9 1 5.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Leader on slight angle, otherwise vigorous.556 No Tag Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 20.2 1 5.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Growing against fence, few prune cuts healed over.557 No Tag Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 42.7 1 6.0 High Poor Offsite Retain No Wound with staining and bark loss on stem, history of small

branch failure, 20% defoliation.558 No Tag White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 22.8 1 3.0 High Very Poor Offsite Retain No Lean, grape vine throughout canopy, 80% defoliation, leans away

from boundary.559 No Tag Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 41.0 1 5.0 High Very Poor Offsite Retain No Codominant branches with included bark, 90% dieback, growing

into fence.560 No Tag Butternut Juglans cinerea Native 13.4 1 3.0 High Poor Offsite Retain No Open and closed sooty cankers, grapevine throughout canopy,

lean, one-sided crown, 1 scaffold branch broken off, 50% dieback.561 No Tag Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 13.3 1 3.0 High Poor Offsite Retain No Heavy grape vine throughout canopy, previous scaffold branch

broken, lean, 50% dieback.562 No Tag Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 17.8 1 5.0 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Codominant branches, leader growing on angle, competition for

sunlight.563 No Tag Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 11.0 1 4.0 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Grape vine entering canopy, competition for sunlight, leader leans.564 No Tag Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 41.2 1 7.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Grape vine throughout lower branches, codominant branches,

phototropic growth, tree previosly competing with is dead.565 No Tag Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 16.1 1 2.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Sparse crown, S-bend in leader, previously competing with

adjacent Ash.566 No Tag White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 40.1 1 2.0 High Dead Offsite Retain No Emerald ash borer exit holes, some bark loss, decay, scaffold lost.567 No Tag American Basswood Tilia americana Native 59.2 1 6.0 High Fair Offsite Retain No Prune 1 branch with decay to reduce potential for failure,

codominant branches, 10% dieback.568 No Tag Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 31.2 1 2.0 High Very Poor Offsite Retain No Open wound with decay at root flare, growing on 45 degree angle,

epicormic growth, many S-bends.569 No Tag American Basswood Tilia americana Native 25.7 1 5.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Slight competition for sunlight, grape vine just entering crown.570 No Tag Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 14.1 1 3.0 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Uneven crown due to phototropic growth, minimal light pruning.571 No Tag Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 15.0 1 4.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Competition for sunlight, otherwise vigorous.572 No Tag Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 52.4 1 6.0 High Poor Offsite Retain No Wound with fungus above root flare, fence through stem, dead

small branches, small hanger, 15% dieback.573 No Tag White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 19.4 1 5.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Uneven crown due to competition for sunlight, otherwise vigorous.

574 No Tag Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Native 14.5 1 2.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Heavy grapevine on tree, has defoliated lower branches, leans away from property, 20% defoliation.

575 No Tag Black Walnut Juglans nigra Native 17.4 1 2.0 High Dead Offsite Retain No Recently dead, minimal spring leaves visible but have died, leans away from boundary.

576 No Tag Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 21.6 1 4.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No One small dead branch, some grapevine in tree canopy, bark crack healed over.

577 No Tag Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 10.8 1 2.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Bark crack healed over, competition for sunlight.578 No Tag American Basswood Tilia americana Native 20.6 4 4.0 High Poor Offsite Retain No Codominant stems of 15.5cm, 9.1cm, 18.3cm DBH, open wounds

show decay in stems, leaf feeding.579 No Tag American Basswood Tilia americana Native 24.6 4 2.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Other stems 11.2cm, 8cm, 3cm DBH, leader growing on angle,

competition for sunlight.580 No Tag White Oak Quercus alba Native 18.7 2 3.0 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Other stems 15.3cm DBH, grape vine throughout, leader growing

on angle.581 No Tag Shagbark Hickory Carya ovata var. ovata Native 15.9 1 4.0 Low Good Boundary Retain No Has compartmentalized around fence, otherwise vigorous.582 No Tag White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 10.7 1 2.0 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Grape vine throughout canopy, competition for sunlight.583 No Tag Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Native 10.5 11 5.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Other stems 10cm, 10cm, 9cm, 8cm, 7cm, 7cm, 5cm, 6cm, 6cm,

5cm DBH, light pruning, growing through fence, codominant stems.

584 No Tag American Basswood Tilia americana Native 16.6 1 2.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Competition for sunlight, otherwise vigorous.585 No Tag Red Oak Quercus rubra Native 20.6 1 4.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Light pruning, leaf feeding.586 No Tag Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 11.1 1 3.0 Low Fair Onsite Retain No Light pruning, bark loss on stem wound.587 No Tag Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 10.4 1 3.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Small wounds compartmentalizing.588 No Tag Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 10.5 1 4.0 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Codominant branches, one small dead branch.589 No Tag White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 11.0 1 2.5 Low Good Offsite Retain No Competition for sunlight, otherwise vigorous.590 No Tag Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 19.2 1 3.5 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Codominant branches with included bark, slightly sparse crown,

10% defoliation.591 No Tag Common Pear Pyrus communis Non-Native 22.0 1 6.0 Medium Poor Offsite Retain No Large S-bend, cavities and frass through stem, 2 dead branches,

history of small branch failure.592 No Tag Red Oak Quercus rubra Native 46.9 1 6.0 High Poor Offsite Retain No Growth over fence, 3 medium dead branches, fungus on one

branch, remove dead branches to reduce hazard.

[

[ [[

[

[[

[

[

[

[[

[

[

[[ [[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[[ [ [

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[[ [

[

[

[

[

[ [

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[[ [

[

[

[

[[

[[

[

[[

[

[

[[

[

[

[

[

[[

[

[

[

[

[ [

[

[

[[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[[

[[

[

[

[

[

[

[[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[[

[[

[[

[

[

[

[

[

[[

[

[

[ [

[[

[[

[

[

[

[

$J

$J

$J

$J

$J$J

$J

$J

$J

$J

$J

ROSECLIFF COURT

NEWMAN DRIVE

ROSECLIFF PLACE

WESTC

LIFF W

AY

1

2

3

11

17

37

41

58

59

63

64

6566

67

6869 70

7172

73 7475 76

7778

79

80

81

82

83 8485

86

87

88

89

92

93

94

9596

97

98 99100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108109

110

111

112113

114115

116

117

118

119

120

121122

123

124

125

126

127

128129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136137

138139

140

141142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152153

154

155

156

157

158

159160

161 162

163164165

166 167 168

169

170

171

172

173174

175

176 177 178

179

180

200

201202

203

204205

206

207208209

210211

212213214

218

219

220

221

222

241

541

542

543

544

545

546

547

548

549

550

551

552553

554555

556557

558 559

560

561

562563

564

565 566

567

568

569

570

571

572573

574 575

576

577

578579

580

581

582583

584

585

586 587

588

589 590

591

592

¯ Key Map

Map Produced by Natural Resource Solutions Inc. This map is proprietary and confidentialand must not be duplicated or distributed by any means without express written permissionof NRSI. Data provided by MNRF© Copyright: Queen’s Printer Ontario.


NAD83 - UTM Zone 17Size: 24x36"

0 5 10 15 20 Meters

1:300


Map 2A

Tree Preservation Plan

LegendStudy Area

&[§ Tree to be Retained (Crown to Scale)

$J Tree Protection Fencing Signage

Tree Protection Fencing

Woodland Dripline

Existing Road


Proposed Grading

[ [

[

$JWESTCLIFF WAY

180 181182

¯ Key Map

Map Produced by Natural Resource Solutions Inc. This map is proprietary and confidentialand must not be duplicated or distributed by any means without express written permissionof NRSI. Data provided by MNRF© Copyright: Queen’s Printer Ontario.


NAD83 - UTM Zone 17Size: 24x36"

0 5 10 15 20 Meters

1:350


Map 2B

Tree Preservation Plan

LegendStudy Area

&[§ Tree to be Retained (Crown to Scale)

$J Tree Protection Fencing Signage

Tree Protection Fencing

Woodland Dripline

Existing Road


Proposed Grading

Tree ID


Native/ Non-

nativeDBH (cm)

Stem Count

Crown Radius

(m)

Potential for



Proposed Action

Rationale for

RemovalCompensation

Required Comments160 360 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 15.0 2 5.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Other stem 15.3cm DBH, codominant with included bark & small

split, crown still relatively vigorous.161 361 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 14.9 3 5.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Other stems 5.2cm, 4cm DBH, codominant stems with included

bark, competing for sunlight, crown uneven.162 362 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 12.1 1 3.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Slightly reduced crown due to competing trees, otherwise relatively


stress cracks in both stems.164 364 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 19.8 2 4.0 High Poor Onsite Retain No Other stem 18.7cm DBH, branch growing into other stem, crown

one-sided,codominant stems with included bark, stress cracks in stems, 1 stem broken at 7m.

165 365 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 11.5 1 1.5 Low Good Onsite Retain No Slightly reduced crown due to competing trees, otherwise relatively vigorous.

166 366 Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Native 11.2 1 5.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Starting to grow into wire fence.167 367 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 12.6 1 4.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Stem gnarled and bent from growing through wire fence but self

corrects.168 368 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 14.5 1 5.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Growing against Sugar Maple, phototrophic growth.169 369 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 17.1 1 3.5 Low Good Onsite Retain No Competing for sunlight, only slightly uneven crown.170 370 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 11.6 1 3.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No One-sided crown due to competing trees, otherwise relatively

vigorous.171 371 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 10.2 1 2.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Codominant branches with included bark, 1 branch dead.172 372 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 12.8 1 2.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Slightly girdling root, anthracnose.173 373 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Native 23.1 3 6.0 High Poor Onsite Retain No Other stems 20.4cm, 17.3cm DBH, 3 other stems dead and

broken, 50% dieback in remaining live stems, 1 stem on 45 degree angle.

174 374 Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Native 16.1 1 6.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Crown growing on 90 degree angle, some defoliation.175 375 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 20.3 1 6.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Wound on lower stem with some rot & frass, crown still relatively

vigorous.176 376 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 29.2 1 7.0 Medium Fair Boundary Retain No Old wound on main stem with some staining, also some

compartmentalization of decay.177 377 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 50.2 3 8.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Other stems 33.2cm, 35.8cm DBH, codominant stems and

branches with included bark, leaf feeding.178 378 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 29.9 3 7.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Other stems 20.7cm, 16.2cm DBH,split between branch union with

some staining, some defoliation.179 379 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 19.0 4 3.0 High Poor Offsite Retain No Other stems 11.1cm, 10.4cm, 4.1cm DBH, codominant stems with

included bark, grapevine throughout crown, 1 stem spirals another.

180 380 Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Native 13.7 1 3.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Sharing root flare with Buckthorn, minimal dieback.181 381 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 19.0 2 4.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Other stem 15.6cm DBH, codominant stems with included bark,

lowermost branches dead due to shading by crown.182 382 Shagbark Hickory Carya ovata var. ovata Native 37.0 1 5.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Codominant stems with included bark, leaf feeding in lower

branches.200 401 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 34.5 1 3.0 High Dead Offsite Retain No Woodpecker damage, galleries present, but likely carpenter ants,

no positive signs of emerald ash borer.201 402 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 11.0 1 2.5 High Dead Boundary Retain No Dead202 403 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 55.7 1 10.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Codominant branches with included bark, small water-filled cavity

with crack & staining.203 404 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 58.4 1 10.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Some light pruning and minimal damage to root flare.204 405 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 15.2 2 5.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No One-sided crown, phototrophic lean, some dieback, other stem

7.4cm DBH.205 406 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 16.5 2 5.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Other stem 14.4cm DBH, phototrophic growth, one-sided crown,

codominant stems with included bark and staining.206 407 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 40.5 2 7.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Other stem 31.9cm DBH, codominant stems with included bark

and active crack partially compartmentalizing, light pruning.207 408 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 26.9 1 5.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No One-sided crown along edge, minimal crown dieback, some

anthracnose spots on leaves.208 409 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 16.5 1 5.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Phototrophic growth along edge, foliage feeding, reduced crown.209 410 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 13.3 1 4.0 High Very Poor Offsite Retain No Phototrophic growth, one remaining scaff branch with active crack,

minimal crown left.210 411 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 79.5 1 10.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Codominant branches with included bark, crack but healed over,

staining & decay along root flare, history of branch failure.211 412 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 33.5 1 5.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Sapsucker feeding, mostly full crown.212 413 Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Native 17.0 1 4.5 Low Good Offsite Retain No Competing with adjacent trees so poor form, otherwise relatively

vigorous, sapsucker feeding, frost crack healed over.213 414 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 32.9 1 4.0 High Very Poor Offsite Retain No Woodpecker damage, bark crack, dieback throughout, no positive

signs of emerald ash borer.214 415 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 36.4 1 5.0 High Dead Offsite Retain No Emerald ash borer exit hole & galleries, woodpecker damage.218 419 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 29.8 1 7.5 Low Good Offsite Retain No Galls on leaves, foliage feeding, otherwise vigorous tree.219 420 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 21.5 1 4.5 Low Good Offsite Retain No Galls on leaves, some foliage feeding, otherwise healthy tree.220 421 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 46.1 1 10.0 High Poor Offsite Retain No Vertical cracking, several healed frost cracks, woodpecker damage

one dead scaffold branch, sounds hollow, frass.221 422 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 14.3 1 4.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Healed-over wound with decay, slight unbalanced crown, frass from

wound, otherwise relatively vigorous.222 423 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 21.2 1 4.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Grape up stem and in canopy, reduced crown & dieback, some

epicormic growth and unbalanced crown.241 442 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 11.7 2 4.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Other stem 8.1cm DBH, codominant stems with included bark,

wound with compartmentalized decay, full crown, grape but healthy otherwise.

541 No Tag Alaska Yellow Cedar Cupressus nootkatensis Non-Native 14.0 1 2.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Slight defoliation, otherwise good health and form.542 No Tag Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis Native 12.1 2 2.0 Medium Good Offsite Retain No Other stem 7cm DBH, codominant stems with included bark, light

pruning.543 No Tag Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis Native 11.3 1 2.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Unbalanced crown due to competition for sunlight.544 No Tag Saucer Magnolia Magnolia soulangeana Non-Native 14.9 1 4.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Some defoliation, multiple codominant branches, competition for

sunlight on west side.545 No Tag White Spruce Picea glauca Native 26.1 1 3.0 Low Excellent Offsite Retain No Buckthorn sapling growing underneath, vigorous.546 No Tag White Spruce Picea glauca Native 29.8 1 4.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Slight lean but self-corrects.547 No Tag Colorado Spruce Picea pungens Non-Native 34.3 1 3.0 Low Excellent Offsite Retain No Very bushy and vigorous tree.548 No Tag Colorado Spruce Picea pungens Non-Native 45.4 1 3.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Slight bend in leader at 8m but self corrects quickly, minimal light

pruning.549 No Tag Colorado Spruce Picea pungens Non-Native 33.6 1 3.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Light pruning in lower branches.550 No Tag Norway Maple Acer platanoides Non-Native 19.8 1 4.5 Low Good Offsite Retain No Slight lean, codominant branches with included bark.551 No Tag White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 22.0 2 6.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Other stem 20cm DBH, codominant stems with included bark,

some defoliation.552 No Tag Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 20.1 1 5.0 Low Poor Boundary Retain No Sooty wounds, one-sided crown, lean.553 No Tag Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Native 22.2 1 4.0 High Poor Onsite Retain No Lean, 90% canopy dieback, grape vine growing up stem.554 No Tag Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 29.9 3 6.0 Medium Poor Onsite Retain No Other stems 21cm, 10cm DBH, codominant stems with included

bark, girdled roots, codominant branches.555 No Tag American Basswood Tilia americana Native 37.9 1 5.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Leader on slight angle, otherwise vigorous.556 No Tag Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 20.2 1 5.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Growing against fence, few prune cuts healed over.557 No Tag Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 42.7 1 6.0 High Poor Offsite Retain No Wound with staining and bark loss on stem, history of small

branch failure, 20% defoliation.558 No Tag White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 22.8 1 3.0 High Very Poor Offsite Retain No Lean, grape vine throughout canopy, 80% defoliation, leans away

from boundary.559 No Tag Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 41.0 1 5.0 High Very Poor Offsite Retain No Codominant branches with included bark, 90% dieback, growing

into fence.560 No Tag Butternut Juglans cinerea Native 13.4 1 3.0 High Poor Offsite Retain No Open and closed sooty cankers, grapevine throughout canopy,

lean, one-sided crown, 1 scaffold branch broken off, 50% dieback.

561 No Tag Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 13.3 1 3.0 High Poor Offsite Retain No Heavy grape vine throughout canopy, previous scaffold branch broken, lean, 50% dieback.

562 No Tag Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 17.8 1 5.0 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Codominant branches, leader growing on angle, competition for sunlight.

563 No Tag Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 11.0 1 4.0 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Grape vine entering canopy, competition for sunlight, leader leans.

564 No Tag Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 41.2 1 7.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Grape vine throughout lower branches, codominant branches, phototropic growth, tree previosly competing with is dead.

565 No Tag Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 16.1 1 2.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Sparse crown, S-bend in leader, previously competing with adjacent Ash.

566 No Tag White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 40.1 1 2.0 High Dead Offsite Retain No Emerald ash borer exit holes, some bark loss, decay, scaffold lost.

567 No Tag American Basswood Tilia americana Native 59.2 1 6.0 High Fair Offsite Retain No Prune 1 branch with decay to reduce potential for failure, codominant branches, 10% dieback.

568 No Tag Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 31.2 1 2.0 High Very Poor Offsite Retain No Open wound with decay at root flare, growing on 45 degree angle, epicormic growth, many S-bends.

569 No Tag American Basswood Tilia americana Native 25.7 1 5.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Slight competition for sunlight, grape vine just entering crown.570 No Tag Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 14.1 1 3.0 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Uneven crown due to phototropic growth, minimal light pruning.571 No Tag Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 15.0 1 4.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Competition for sunlight, otherwise vigorous.572 No Tag Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 52.4 1 6.0 High Poor Offsite Retain No Wound with fungus above root flare, fence through stem, dead

small branches, small hanger, 15% dieback.573 No Tag White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 19.4 1 5.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Uneven crown due to competition for sunlight, otherwise vigorous.

574 No Tag Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Native 14.5 1 2.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Heavy grapevine on tree, has defoliated lower branches, leans away from property, 20% defoliation.

575 No Tag Black Walnut Juglans nigra Native 17.4 1 2.0 High Dead Offsite Retain No Recently dead, minimal spring leaves visible but have died, leans away from boundary.

576 No Tag Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 21.6 1 4.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No One small dead branch, some grapevine in tree canopy, bark crack healed over.

577 No Tag Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 10.8 1 2.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Bark crack healed over, competition for sunlight.578 No Tag American Basswood Tilia americana Native 20.6 4 4.0 High Poor Offsite Retain No Codominant stems of 15.5cm, 9.1cm, 18.3cm DBH, open wounds

show decay in stems, leaf feeding.579 No Tag American Basswood Tilia americana Native 24.6 4 2.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Other stems 11.2cm, 8cm, 3cm DBH, leader growing on angle,

competition for sunlight.580 No Tag White Oak Quercus alba Native 18.7 2 3.0 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Other stems 15.3cm DBH, grape vine throughout, leader growing

on angle.581 No Tag Shagbark Hickory Carya ovata var. ovata Native 15.9 1 4.0 Low Good Boundary Retain No Has compartmentalized around fence, otherwise vigorous.582 No Tag White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 10.7 1 2.0 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Grape vine throughout canopy, competition for sunlight.583 No Tag Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Native 10.5 11 5.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Other stems 10cm, 10cm, 9cm, 8cm, 7cm, 7cm, 5cm, 6cm, 6cm,

5cm DBH, light pruning, growing through fence, codominant stems.

584 No Tag American Basswood Tilia americana Native 16.6 1 2.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Competition for sunlight, otherwise vigorous.585 No Tag Red Oak Quercus rubra Native 20.6 1 4.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Light pruning, leaf feeding.586 No Tag Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 11.1 1 3.0 Low Fair Onsite Retain No Light pruning, bark loss on stem wound.587 No Tag Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 10.4 1 3.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Small wounds compartmentalizing.588 No Tag Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 10.5 1 4.0 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Codominant branches, one small dead branch.589 No Tag White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 11.0 1 2.5 Low Good Offsite Retain No Competition for sunlight, otherwise vigorous.590 No Tag Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 19.2 1 3.5 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Codominant branches with included bark, slightly sparse crown,

10% defoliation.591 No Tag Common Pear Pyrus communis Non-Native 22.0 1 6.0 Medium Poor Offsite Retain No Large S-bend, cavities and frass through stem, 2 dead branches,

history of small branch failure.592 No Tag Red Oak Quercus rubra Native 46.9 1 6.0 High Poor Offsite Retain No Growth over fence, 3 medium dead branches, fungus on one

branch, remove dead branches to reduce hazard.

Grandview Hills Stage IV Tree Preservation PlanTree Inventory Data

Tree ID


Native/ Non-

nativeDBH (cm)

Stem Count

Crown Radius

(m)

Potential for



Proposed Action

Rationale for

RemovalCompensation

Required Comments1 201 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 11.3 1 4.0 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Reduced and unbalanced crown, otherwise fairly vigorous.2 202 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 24.0 2 4.5 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Reduced crown but fairly vigorous.3 203 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 22.8 1 4.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Reduced crown, grape up stem & impacting health to degree.

11 211 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 16.6 2 4.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Other stem 12.8cm DBH, dieback, reduced crown, grape up stem, foliage feeding.

17 217 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 15.7 1 4.0 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Mostly one-sided crown, grape up stem and crown, dieback.37 237 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 13.3 1 4.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Grape in crown, competing with other species otherwise vigorous.

41 241 Red Oak Quercus rubra Native 31.9 1 5.0 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Grape up stem and crown, some dieback but vigorous.58 258 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Native 13.6 2 5.0 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Other stem 6.1cm DBH, some grape up stem and crown but fairly

vigorous.59 259 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 21.7 1 6.5 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Grape up stem and crown, some dieback and fairly vigorous.63 263 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 12.7 1 2.0 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Grape up stem and crown but fairly vigorous.64 264 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 11.4 1 3.0 Low Fair Boundary Retain No Grape up stem and crown but fairly vigorous.65 265 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 18.4 2 4.0 Low Fair Boundary Retain No Other stem 10.9cm DBH, grape up stem and crown but fairly

vigorous.66 266 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 15.6 1 2.0 High Poor Offsite Retain No Top snapped and hanging, grape up stem.67 267 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 15.9 1 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Several wounds with decay but good compartmentalization of

decay, borer presence, grape up stem but fairly vigorous.68 268 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 11.5 1 2.5 Low Fair Onsite Retain No Grape up stem and crown but fairly vigorous.69 269 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 15.9 1 5.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Grape up stem but vigorous, corrected lean.70 270 Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Native 23.7 1 5.5 Low Good Boundary Retain No History of small branch failure otherwise vigorous, some dieback.71 271 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 43.8 1 8.5 Medium Fair Boundary Retain No History of branch failure, dieback and crown defoliation.72 272 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 12.6 1 4.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Reduced crown as competing with other species otherwise

vigorous.73 273 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 39.5 2 9.0 Low Good Offsite Retain No Other stem 30.8cm DBH, codominant stems with included bark,

canker but good compartmentalization of decay.74 274 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 31.0 1 8.5 Low Good Offsite Retain No Shallow roots otherwise vigorous.75 275 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 12.7 1 3.5 Low Good Onsite Retain No Reduced crown as competing with other species, otherwise

vigorous.76 276 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 11.0 1 3.5 High Very Poor Onsite Retain No Top missing, epicormic growth up stem, one live branch.77 277 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 18.5 1 3.0 High Very Poor Onsite Retain No Leader snapped, grape up stem and crown.78 278 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 20.4 1 4.5 Low Fair Onsite Retain No Some thinning in crown, and dieback.79 279 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 17.3 1 5.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Cankers on stem with moderate compartmentalization of decay,

some crown thinning.80 280 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 19.9 1 4.5 Low Fair Boundary Retain No Thinning crown and some dieback.81 281 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 21.0 1 4.0 Low Fair Onsite Retain No Crown thinning and dieback, located on fenceline.82 282 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 10.3 1 3.0 Low Fair Onsite Retain No Some dieback and crown thinning.83 283 Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Native 10.7 1 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Reduced and thinned crown, wound with moderate

compartmentalization of decay.84 284 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 15.4 1 4.0 Low Fair Onsite Retain No Some crown thinning, grape up stem.85 285 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 10.4 1 5.0 Low Fair Onsite Retain No Wounds with decay but show compartmentalization of decay.86 286 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 12.1 1 4.5 Low Good Onsite Retain No Some foliage feeding.87 287 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 13.1 1 6.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Phototropic growth, one-sided crown with some dieback fairly

vigorous, last tree in hedgerow.88 288 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 12.2 1 2.5 Medium Fair Boundary Retain No Competing with other species, some dieback, one-sided crown.89 289 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 23.2 1 6.0 Low Fair Onsite Retain No Wounds with decay but show good compartmentalization of decay.

92 292 Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Native 24.5 2 5.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Other stem 23.3cm DBH, growing around old fence, minimal woodpecker damage, some dieback.

93 293 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Native 25.4 1 3.5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Growing on 45 degree angle, portion of crown draped in grape.94 294 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 13.9 3 3.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No 2 other small stems, slightly unbalanced crown, otherwise

vigorous.95 295 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 16.5 1 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Slightly reduced crown due to competing trees, draped in grape.96 296 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 10.4 1 2.5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Phototrophic lean, reduced crown.97 297 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 18.2 1 4.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Reduced crown due to competing trees, phototrophic lean.98 298 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 22.2 3 5.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No One-sided crown due to competing trees, some lower scaffold

dieback, other stemps 9.7cm, 5.3cm DBH.99 299 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 11.4 1 2.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Reduced crown due to competing trees, otherwise healthy.100 300 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 11.4 1 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Wound on lower stem with some fruiting bodies.101 301 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 13.6 2 2.5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Codominant stems and codominant branches with included bark,

grapevine in lower crown, other stem 8.1cm DBH, competing for sunlight.

102 302 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 12.0 1 2.5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Growing around old fence, reduced crown due to competing trees.

103 303 Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Native 27.0 1 5.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Competing for sunlight, only slightly uneven crown, vigorous tree.104 304 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 18.4 1 4.5 Low Good Onsite Retain No Slightly one-sided crown due to competing trees, otherwise

healthy.105 305 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 14.8 1 4.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Just starting to grow against old fence, slightly one-sided crown

due to competing trees.106 306 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 13.5 2 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Other stem 12.9cm DBH, codominant stems with included bark,

phototropic growth, crown mainly one-sided.107 307 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 15.7 1 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Phototrophic growth, reduced crown due to competing trees, crown

dieback.108 308 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 12.3 1 2.0 High Very Poor Onsite Retain No Phototropic growth, 45 degree lean, leader cracked with decay at

stem joint, codominant branch dead, broken with signs of decay, growing through wire fence.

109 309 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 13.8 2 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Some crown dieback, minimal staining in old limb wound, other stem dead.

110 310 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 20.2 1 4.5 Low Good Onsite Retain No Slightly unbalanced root flare otherwise relatively vigorous, slightly one-sided crown due to competing trees.

111 311 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 13.7 3 3.0 Medium Fair Boundary Retain No Other stems 7.2, 6.4cm DBH, codominant stems, competing for sunlight resulting in slightly uneven crown.

112 312 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 17.0 1 3.5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Phototrophic lean with unbalanced crown due to competing trees, lower scaffold draped in grape.

113 313 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 10.5 1 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Draped in grape, crown growing at 90 degree angle due to competing trees.

114 314 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 10.0 2 2.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Codominant stems with included bark, other stem 3cm DBH (dead), grapevine in lower crown, competing for sunlight.

115 315 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 19.0 1 3.5 Low Good Onsite Retain No Slightly unbalanced root flare, otherwise relatively solid.116 316 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 10.6 2 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Other stem 6cm DBH, codominant stems with included bark, small

stress cracks in both stems.117 317 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 14.1 3 3.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Other stems 13.1cm, 5cm DBH, slightly unbalanced crown due to

competing trees otherwise relatively.118 318 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 14.3 1 3.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Competing for sunlight but vigorous tree.119 319 Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Native 28.9 1 4.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Vigorous tree with very little dieback in scaffold branches.120 320 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 10.9 1 2.5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Girdled roots, 2 small dead branches.121 321 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 13.2 1 3.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No No noticable defects, appears to be in good overall health.122 322 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 12.9 2 2.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Other stems 5.8cm, 4.8cm DBH, codominant stems with included

bark, phototropic growth, grapevine in lower crown.123 323 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 19.0 4 4.5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Other stems 7.3cm, 12.7cm, 8cm DBH, phototrophic growth, 1

stem dead, some woodpecker damage.124 324 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 13.1 3 4.0 High Poor Onsite Retain No Other stems 11.9cm, 7.2cm DBH, phototropic growth with one-

sided crown, codominant stems with included bark, 1 stem S-bends with signs of decay.

125 325 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 12.7 1 3.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Old wire fence around lower stem, vigorous crown.126 326 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 17.1 1 4.5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Small wound on root flare with some rot, phototrophic growth.127 327 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 17.4 3 4.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Other stems 17cm, 12.3cm DBH, codominant stems with included

bark, phototropic growth, growing into wire fence.128 328 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 19.8 2 4.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Other stem 15.8cm DBH, growing around dead elm, some

defoliation, phototrophic growth.129 329 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 18.0 1 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Phototropic growth so tree leans 45 degrees.130 330 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 19.7 1 4.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No One-sided crown due to competing trees, otherwise relatively


phototropic growth but vigorous.132 332 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 25.0 1 5.5 Low Good Onsite Retain No One-sided crown due to competing trees otherwise relatively

vigorous.133 333 Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Native 14.5 1 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Exposed root flare, reduced crown due to competing trees.134 334 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 18.5 1 6.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Growing incorporating wire fence at root flare, stress cracks in

stem, hanger from other tree.135 335 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 25.0 1 5.0 High Poor Onsite Retain No Wound up main stem with frass & staining, rot.136 336 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 19.5 1 5.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Crown slightly uneven due to phototropic growth, vigorous tree.137 337 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 15.5 1 5.5 High Poor Onsite Retain No Crown growing close to 90 degree angle, crown dieback.138 338 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 32.4 1 5.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Small stress crack on one branch, crown above main canopy,

vigorous.139 339 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 22.7 1 4.5 Low Good Onsite Retain No One-sided crown due to competing trees otherwise relatively

vigorous.140 340 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 15.4 3 4.5 High Poor Onsite Retain No Other stems 13.3cm, 5.3cm, 9cm DBH, some included bark split

on lower stem, crown growing on angle.141 341 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 14.4 2 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Other stem 3.5cm DBH, leader growing around buckthorn branch in

crotch, included bark.142 342 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 10.7 1 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Irregular growth, minimal limb dieback.143 343 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 18.3 1 4.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Included bark, competing for sunlight, crown slightly uneven.144 344 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 21.5 1 5.5 Medium Good Onsite Retain No Potential failure due to included bark in scaffold branch union, one-

sided crown due to competing trees.145 345 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 20.9 1 5.5 Low Good Onsite Retain No Growing immediately adjacent to sugar maple, vigorous crown.146 346 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 20.3 1 4.5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Multiple codominant branches with included bark, competing for

sunlight, crown uneven.147 347 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 10.8 1 2.5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Some stress cracks, old branch wound with some staining.148 348 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 19.6 1 3.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Vigorous tree, crown above main canopy.149 349 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 10.6 1 4.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Slightly unbalanced crown due to competing trees, otherwise

relatively vigorous.150 350 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 12.9 1 4.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Included bark, few lower branches shaded out are dead.151 351 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 17.2 1 3.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Slightly reduced crown due to competing trees, otherwise relatively

vigorous.152 352 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 18.8 4 5.0 Medium Good Onsite Retain No Other stems 8.5cm, 10.1cm, 12.3cm DBH, could benefit from

some pruning to reduce failure.153 353 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 15.7 1 3.0 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Crown above main canopy, included bark, lowest branch dead.154 354 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 21.7 1 5.5 Low Good Onsite Retain No Slightly unbalanced root flare otherwise relatively vigorous.155 355 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 11.6 1 3.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Vigorous tree, not competing for sunlight.156 356 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 18.8 1 5.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Unbalanced crown due to competing trees, otherwise relatively

vigorous.157 357 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 12.2 1 3.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Some lower leaves browning.158 358 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 10.4 1 2.5 Low Good Onsite Retain No Slightly reduced crown due to competing trees otherwise relatively

vigorous.159 359 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Native 12.5 1 4.0 Low Good Onsite Retain No Not competing for sunlight, vigorous tree.


APPENDIX I Tree Inventory Data

Grandview Hills Stage VI, Cambridge Tree Preservation PlanTree Inventory Data

Tree IDTree

Number Common Name Scientific NameNative/ Non-

nativeStem Count DBH (cm)

Crown Radius (m)

Potential for Structural

Failure RatingOverall

Condition LocationProposed

ActionRationale for

RemovalCompensation

Required Comments1 201 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 11.3 4 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Reduced and unbalanced crown, otherwise fairly

vigorous.2 202 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 2 24 4.5 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Reduced crown but fairly vigorous.3 203 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 1 22.8 4 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Reduced crown, grape up stem & impacting health to

degree.4 204 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 18.4 4.5 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Wounds with good compartmentalization of decay in

trees, reduced crown competing with basswood.5 205 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 21.7 4.5 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Grape up stem and crown, some dieback but fairly

vigorous.6 206 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 28.4 5.5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Dieback and grape up stem and crown, thinning crown,

somewhat vigorous.7 207 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 28.7 5.5 Low Fair Offsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Minimal dieback, girdled roots, fairly vigorous.

8 208 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 13.7 3 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Some grape up stem but otherwise fairly vigorous.9 209 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 11.5 3.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Competing with other species but vigorous tree.

10 210 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum

Native 1 32 7 Low Good Offsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Minimal dieback, some phototropic growth but otherwise vigorous.

11 211 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 2 16.6 4 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Other stem 12.8cm DBH, dieback, reduced crown, grape up stem, foliage feeding.

12 212 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 29 6 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Some dieback and grape up stem otherwise fairly vigorous.

13 213 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 21.1 6 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Some dieback, reduced crown and thinning, epicormic growth.


Yes Reduced crown, foliage feeding, phototropic growth, fairly vigorous.


Yes Some dieback and crown thinning, codominant branches with included bark.

16 216 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 45.9 8 Medium Fair Offsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Thinning crown, history of branch failure, chlorotic, dieback.

17 217 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 15.7 4 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Mostly one-sided crown, grape up stem and crown, dieback.


Yes Crown thinning and dieback, codominant branches with included bark.


Native 1 14.5 3.5 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

No Leader dead, staining, codominant branches still with growth.

20 220 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 13.4 3 Low Fair Offsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Mostly one-sided crown, anthracnose on leaves but fairly vigorous.

21 221 Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Native 1 18.5 5 Low Good Boundary Remove Proposed Grading

Yes History of small branch failure, otherwise vigorous.22 222 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 1 13.9 4 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes One-sided crown, phototropic growth, competing with

other species otherwise fairly vigorous.23 223 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 10.7 3 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Reduced crown, grape up stem but fairly vigorous.

24 224 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 2 15.3 3.5 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

No Other stem 14.8cm DBH, grape up stem and crown choking tree, dieback throughout both stems.

25 225 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 1 27.6 7 Medium Fair Offsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Grape up stem and crown, crown thinning, fairly vigorous.

26 226 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 22.6 5 Medium Fair Offsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Grape up stem and crown, epicormic growth , some crown thinning.


Native 1 10.1 3.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Competing with other species but otherwise vigorous.28 228 Black Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

nigrumNative 1 16.7 6 Low Fair Offsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Growing through fence, grape up stem but fairly

vigorous.29 229 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 1 10.8 5 High Poor Offsite Remove Proposed

GradingNo Thinned crown & dieback, reduced crown.

30 230 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 1 26.4 6 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Poor form, grape up stem and crown but fairly vigorous.31 231 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 10 3.5 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Stress cracks, grape up stem and crown but fairly

vigorous.32 232 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 10.4 3.5 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Grape up stem and crown but still fairly vigorous.

33 233 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 1 53.4 7 High Poor Offsite Remove Proposed Grading

No Dieback and crown thinning throughout, grape up stem and crown, old decayed, branch, carpenter ant frass.

Page 1 of 15


Tree IDTree



Crown Radius (m)




ActionRationale for

RemovalCompensation

Required Comments34 234 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 25.2 4.5 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Grape up stem and crown, some chlorotic leaves, but

fairly vigorous.35 235 Black Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

nigrumNative 1 26.3 7.5 Low Good Offsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Codominant branches with included bark.

36 236 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 1 31.7 7 High Poor Offsite Remove Proposed Grading

No Dieback and crown thinning throughout, grape up stem and crown, woodpecker damage.


Native 1 13.3 4 Low Good Offsite Retain No Grape in crown, competing with other species otherwise vigorous.

38 238 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 13.2 3.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Minimal dieback otherwise healthy.39 239 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 13 3.5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Some dieback, grape up stem and crown.

40 240 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 1 35.2 5 High Very Poor Offsite Remove Proposed Grading

No Dieback throughout, borer holes, bark peeling, decay fungi.

41 241 Red Oak Quercus rubra Native 1 31.9 5 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Grape up stem and crown, some dieback but vigorous.42 242 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 17.5 4.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Some damage to root flare otherwise vigorous.


Native 1 23.7 5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Corrected lean, response growth, vigorous.44 244 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 2 28.3 6 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Other stem 12.5cm DBH, some grape present but


saccharumNative 1 14.9 3 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Grape up stem but vigorous.

46 246 Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Native 2 28.1 7 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Other stem 24.9cm DBH, galls on leaves, defoliation, one stem girdling the other, some thinning but fairly


saccharumNative 1 18.4 4 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Codominant branches (one dead), grape in crown, fairly

vigorous.48 248 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 2 10.8 6 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Other stem 6.4cm DBH, grape up stem and crown,

phototropic lean, some dieback.49 249 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 13.2 3 High Poor Offsite Remove Proposed

GradingNo One-sided crown, grape throughout choking tree.

50 250 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 15 3.5 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Grape up stem and crown but fairly vigorous.51 251 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 2 15 7 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Other stem 8.1cm DBH, competing with other species

but fairly vigorous.52 252 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 17.3 5 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Some grape up stem and crown but fairly vigorous.

53 253 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 11.4 3 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Poor form, old codominant stem removed and decayed, large wound with compartmentalization of decay, full

crown.54 254 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 15.8 4 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingNo Leader snapped off, grape in crown, epicormic growth

near snapped leader.55 255 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 22.3 5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes One-sided crown & some dieback.

56 256 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 1 19.4 4 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

No Grape up stem and throughout crown.57 257 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 1 31.3 7 High Poor Offsite Remove Proposed

GradingNo Dieback, grape up stem and crown, wound with poor

compartmentalization on lower stem, carpenter ant frass.58 258 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Native 2 13.6 5 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Other stem 6.1cm DBH, some grape up stem and crown

but fairly vigorous.59 259 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 21.7 6.5 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Grape up stem and crown, some dieback and fairly

vigorous.60 260 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 12.6 5 Medium Fair Offsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Grape throughout crown and stem but some vigor.


Native 1 29.5 7 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Grape in lower crown, otherwise vigorous tree.62 262 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 14 5 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Grape up stem and crown but fairly vigorous.

63 263 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 12.7 2 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Grape up stem and crown but fairly vigorous.64 264 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 11.4 3 Low Fair Boundary Retain No Grape up stem and crown but fairly vigorous.


Native 2 18.4 4 Low Fair Boundary Retain No Other stem 10.9cm DBH, grape up stem and crown but fairly vigorous.

66 266 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 15.6 2 High Poor Offsite Retain No Top snapped and hanging, grape up stem.

Page 2 of 15


Tree IDTree



Crown Radius (m)




ActionRationale for

RemovalCompensation

Required Comments67 267 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 15.9 3 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Several wounds with decay but good

compartmentalization of decay, borer presence, grape up stem but fairly vigorous.

68 268 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 11.5 2.5 Low Fair Onsite Retain No Grape up stem and crown but fairly vigorous.69 269 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 15.9 5 Low Good Offsite Retain No Grape up stem but vigorous, corrected lean.

70 270 Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Native 1 23.7 5.5 Low Good Boundary Retain No History of small branch failure otherwise vigorous, some dieback.

71 271 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 1 43.8 8.5 Medium Fair Boundary Retain No History of branch failure, dieback and crown defoliation.72 272 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 12.6 4 Low Good Offsite Retain No Reduced crown as competing with other species

otherwise vigorous.73 273 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 2 39.5 9 Low Good Offsite Retain No Other stem 30.8cm DBH, codominant stems with

included bark, canker but good compartmentalization of decay.


Native 1 31 8.5 Low Good Offsite Retain No Shallow roots otherwise vigorous.75 275 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 12.7 3.5 Low Good Onsite Retain No Reduced crown as competing with other species,

otherwise vigorous.76 276 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 11 3.5 High Very Poor Onsite Retain No Top missing, epicormic growth up stem, one live branch.77 277 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 18.5 3 High Very Poor Onsite Retain No Leader snapped, grape up stem and crown.78 278 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 20.4 4.5 Low Fair Onsite Retain No Some thinning in crown, and dieback.79 279 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 17.3 5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Cankers on stem with moderate compartmentalization of

decay, some crown thinning.80 280 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 19.9 4.5 Low Fair Boundary Retain No Thinning crown and some dieback.81 281 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 21 4 Low Fair Onsite Retain No Crown thinning and dieback, located on fenceline.82 282 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 10.3 3 Low Fair Onsite Retain No Some dieback and crown thinning.83 283 Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Native 1 10.7 3 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Reduced and thinned crown, wound with moderate

compartmentalization of decay.84 284 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 1 15.4 4 Low Fair Onsite Retain No Some crown thinning, grape up stem.85 285 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 10.4 5 Low Fair Onsite Retain No Wounds with decay but show compartmentalization of

decay.86 286 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 12.1 4.5 Low Good Onsite Retain No Some foliage feeding.

87 287 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 13.1 6 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Phototropic growth, one-sided crown with some dieback fairly vigorous, last tree in hedgerow.


Native 1 12.2 2.5 Medium Fair Boundary Retain No Competing with other species, some dieback, one-sided crown.


Native 1 23.2 6 Low Fair Onsite Retain No Wounds with decay but show good compartmentalization of decay.


Native 1 28.7 6.5 Low Good Boundary Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Growing through fence.91 291 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 13.5 2 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Strong lean, some anthracnose on leaves, fairly

vigorous.92 292 Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Native 2 24.5 5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Other stem 23.3cm DBH, growing around old fence,

minimal woodpecker damage, some dieback.93 293 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Native 1 25.4 3.5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Growing on 45 degree angle, portion of crown draped in

grape.94 294 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 3 13.9 3 Low Good Onsite Retain No 2 other small stems, slightly unbalanced crown,

otherwise vigorous.95 295 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 16.5 3 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Slightly reduced crown due to competing trees, draped in

grape.96 296 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 10.4 2.5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Phototrophic lean, reduced crown.97 297 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 18.2 4 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Reduced crown due to competing trees, phototrophic

lean.98 298 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 3 22.2 5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No One-sided crown due to competing trees, some lower

scaffold dieback, other stemps 9.7cm, 5.3cm DBH.99 299 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 11.4 2 Low Good Onsite Retain No Reduced crown due to competing trees, otherwise

healthy.100 300 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 11.4 3 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Wound on lower stem with some fruiting bodies.


Native 2 13.6 2.5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Codominant stems and codominant branches with included bark, grapevine in lower crown, other stem

8.1cm DBH, competing for sunlight.

Page 3 of 15


Tree IDTree



Crown Radius (m)




ActionRationale for

RemovalCompensation


saccharumNative 1 12 2.5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Growing around old fence, reduced crown due to

competing trees.103 303 Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Native 1 27 5 Low Good Onsite Retain No Competing for sunlight, only slightly uneven crown,

vigorous tree.104 304 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 18.4 4.5 Low Good Onsite Retain No Slightly one-sided crown due to competing trees,

otherwise healthy.105 305 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 14.8 4 Low Good Onsite Retain No Just starting to grow against old fence, slightly one-sided

crown due to competing trees.106 306 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 2 13.5 3 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Other stem 12.9cm DBH, codominant stems with

included bark, phototropic growth, crown mainly one-sided.

107 307 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 15.7 3 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Phototrophic growth, reduced crown due to competing trees, crown dieback.


Native 1 12.3 2 High Very Poor Onsite Retain No Phototropic growth, 45 degree lean, leader cracked with decay at stem joint, codominant branch dead, broken

with signs of decay, growing through wire fence.109 309 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 2 13.8 3 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Some crown dieback, minimal staining in old limb wound,

other stem dead.110 310 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 20.2 4.5 Low Good Onsite Retain No Slightly unbalanced root flare otherwise relatively

vigorous, slightly one-sided crown due to competing trees.


Native 3 13.7 3 Medium Fair Boundary Retain No Other stems 7.2, 6.4cm DBH, codominant stems, competing for sunlight resulting in slightly uneven crown.


Native 1 17 3.5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Phototrophic lean with unbalanced crown due to competing trees, lower scaffold draped in grape.


Native 1 10.5 3 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Draped in grape, crown growing at 90 degree angle due to competing trees.


Native 2 10 2 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Codominant stems with included bark, other stem 3cm DBH (dead), grapevine in lower crown, competing for

sunlight.115 315 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 19 3.5 Low Good Onsite Retain No Slightly unbalanced root flare, otherwise relatively solid.


Native 2 10.6 3 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Other stem 6cm DBH, codominant stems with included bark, small stress cracks in both stems.


Native 3 14.1 3 Low Good Onsite Retain No Other stems 13.1cm, 5cm DBH, slightly unbalanced crown due to competing trees otherwise relatively.

118 318 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 14.3 3 Low Good Onsite Retain No Competing for sunlight but vigorous tree.119 319 Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Native 1 28.9 4 Low Good Onsite Retain No Vigorous tree with very little dieback in scaffold

branches.120 320 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 10.9 2.5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Girdled roots, 2 small dead branches.


Native 1 13.2 3 Low Good Onsite Retain No No noticable defects, appears to be in good overall health.


Native 2 12.9 2 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Other stems 5.8cm, 4.8cm DBH, codominant stems with included bark, phototropic growth, grapevine in lower

crown.123 323 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 4 19 4.5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Other stems 7.3cm, 12.7cm, 8cm DBH, phototrophic

growth, 1 stem dead, some woodpecker damage.124 324 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 3 13.1 4 High Poor Onsite Retain No Other stems 11.9cm, 7.2cm DBH, phototropic growth

with one-sided crown, codominant stems with included bark, 1 stem S-bends with signs of decay.

125 325 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 12.7 3 Low Good Onsite Retain No Old wire fence around lower stem, vigorous crown.126 326 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 1 17.1 4.5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Small wound on root flare with some rot, phototrophic

growth.127 327 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 3 17.4 4 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Other stems 17cm, 12.3cm DBH, codominant stems with

included bark, phototropic growth, growing into wire fence.

128 328 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 2 19.8 4 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Other stem 15.8cm DBH, growing around dead elm, some defoliation, phototrophic growth.

129 329 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 1 18 3 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Phototropic growth so tree leans 45 degrees.130 330 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 19.7 4 Low Good Onsite Retain No One-sided crown due to competing trees, otherwise

relatively vigorous.131 331 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 2 15.8 3 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Other stem 12.6cm DBH, codominant stems with

included bark, phototropic growth but vigorous.

Page 4 of 15


Tree IDTree



Crown Radius (m)




ActionRationale for

RemovalCompensation


saccharumNative 1 25 5.5 Low Good Onsite Retain No One-sided crown due to competing trees otherwise

relatively vigorous.133 333 Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Native 1 14.5 3 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Exposed root flare, reduced crown due to competing

trees.134 334 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 18.5 6 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Growing incorporating wire fence at root flare, stress

cracks in stem, hanger from other tree.135 335 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 25 5 High Poor Onsite Retain No Wound up main stem with frass & staining, rot.

136 336 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 1 19.5 5 Low Good Onsite Retain No Crown slightly uneven due to phototropic growth, vigorous tree.

137 337 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 1 15.5 5.5 High Poor Onsite Retain No Crown growing close to 90 degree angle, crown dieback.138 338 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 32.4 5 Low Good Onsite Retain No Small stress crack on one branch, crown above main

canopy, vigorous.139 339 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 22.7 4.5 Low Good Onsite Retain No One-sided crown due to competing trees otherwise

relatively vigorous.140 340 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 3 15.4 4.5 High Poor Onsite Retain No Other stems 13.3cm, 5.3cm, 9cm DBH, some included

bark split on lower stem, crown growing on angle.141 341 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 2 14.4 3 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Other stem 3.5cm DBH, leader growing around

buckthorn branch in crotch, included bark.142 342 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 10.7 3 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Irregular growth, minimal limb dieback.


Native 1 18.3 4 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Included bark, competing for sunlight, crown slightly uneven.


Native 1 21.5 5.5 Medium Good Onsite Retain No Potential failure due to included bark in scaffold branch union, one-sided crown due to competing trees.

145 345 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 20.9 5.5 Low Good Onsite Retain No Growing immediately adjacent to sugar maple, vigorous crown.


Native 1 20.3 4.5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Multiple codominant branches with included bark, competing for sunlight, crown uneven.


Native 1 10.8 2.5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Some stress cracks, old branch wound with some staining.

148 348 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 19.6 3 Low Good Onsite Retain No Vigorous tree, crown above main canopy.149 349 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 10.6 4 Low Good Onsite Retain No Slightly unbalanced crown due to competing trees,

otherwise relatively vigorous.150 350 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 12.9 4 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Included bark, few lower branches shaded out are dead.


Native 1 17.2 3 Low Good Onsite Retain No Slightly reduced crown due to competing trees, otherwise relatively vigorous.


Native 4 18.8 5 Medium Good Onsite Retain No Other stems 8.5cm, 10.1cm, 12.3cm DBH, could benefit from some pruning to reduce failure.


Native 1 15.7 3 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Crown above main canopy, included bark, lowest branch dead.


Native 1 21.7 5.5 Low Good Onsite Retain No Slightly unbalanced root flare otherwise relatively vigorous.


Native 1 11.6 3 Low Good Onsite Retain No Vigorous tree, not competing for sunlight.156 356 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 18.8 5 Low Good Onsite Retain No Unbalanced crown due to competing trees, otherwise


saccharumNative 1 12.2 3 Low Good Onsite Retain No Some lower leaves browning.


Native 1 10.4 2.5 Low Good Onsite Retain No Slightly reduced crown due to competing trees otherwise relatively vigorous.


Native 1 12.5 4 Low Good Onsite Retain No Not competing for sunlight, vigorous tree.160 360 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 2 15 5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Other stem 15.3cm DBH, codominant with included bark

& small split, crown still relatively vigorous.161 361 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 3 14.9 5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Other stems 5.2cm, 4cm DBH, codominant stems with

included bark, competing for sunlight, crown uneven.162 362 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 12.1 3 Low Good Onsite Retain No Slightly reduced crown due to competing trees, otherwise


saccharumNative 2 10.8 4 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Other stem 8.9cm DBH, codominant stems with included

bark, stress cracks in both stems.

Page 5 of 15


Tree IDTree



Crown Radius (m)




ActionRationale for

RemovalCompensation


saccharumNative 2 19.8 4 High Poor Onsite Retain No Other stem 18.7cm DBH, branch growing into other

stem, crown one-sided,codominant stems with included bark, stress cracks in stems, 1 stem broken at 7m.


Native 1 11.5 1.5 Low Good Onsite Retain No Slightly reduced crown due to competing trees, otherwise relatively vigorous.

166 366 Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Native 1 11.2 5 Low Good Onsite Retain No Starting to grow into wire fence.167 367 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 12.6 4 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Stem gnarled and bent from growing through wire fence

but self corrects.168 368 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 14.5 5 Low Good Onsite Retain No Growing against Sugar Maple, phototrophic growth.169 369 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 17.1 3.5 Low Good Onsite Retain No Competing for sunlight, only slightly uneven crown.


Native 1 11.6 3 Low Good Onsite Retain No One-sided crown due to competing trees, otherwise relatively vigorous.


Native 1 10.2 2 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Codominant branches with included bark, 1 branch dead.172 372 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 12.8 2 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Slightly girdling root, anthracnose.

173 373 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Native 3 23.1 6 High Poor Onsite Retain No Other stems 20.4cm, 17.3cm DBH, 3 other stems dead and broken, 50% dieback in remaining live stems, 1

stem on 45 degree angle.174 374 Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Native 1 16.1 6 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Crown growing on 90 degree angle, some defoliation.175 375 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 20.3 6 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Wound on lower stem with some rot & frass, crown still


saccharumNative 1 29.2 7 Medium Fair Boundary Retain No Old wound on main stem with some staining, also some

compartmentalization of decay.177 377 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 3 50.2 8 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Other stems 33.2cm, 35.8cm DBH, codominant stems

and branches with included bark, leaf feeding.178 378 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 3 29.9 7 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Other stems 20.7cm, 16.2cm DBH,split between branch

union with some staining, some defoliation.179 379 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 4 19 3 High Poor Offsite Retain No Other stems 11.1cm, 10.4cm, 4.1cm DBH, codominant

stems with included bark, grapevine throughout crown, 1 stem spirals another.

180 380 Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Native 1 13.7 3 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Sharing root flare with Buckthorn, minimal dieback.181 381 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 2 19 4 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Other stem 15.6cm DBH, codominant stems with

included bark, lowermost branches dead due to shading by crown.

182 382 Shagbark Hickory Carya ovata var. ovata Native 1 37 5 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Codominant stems with included bark, leaf feeding in lower branches.

183 383 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 3 19.9 4 High Poor Boundary Remove Proposed Grading

No Other stems 19.5cm, 14cm DBH, some defoliation, wounds with some staining, showing signs of

compartmentalization.184 385 Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Native 1 40.5 8.5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Minimal defoliation, minimal limb dieback, otherwise

relatively vigorous tree.185 386 White Elm Ulmus americana Native 1 46.3 6 Medium Fair Offsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Buckthorn growing from root flare, damage to 1 exposed

root, codominant branches with included bark.186 387 Red Oak Quercus rubra Native 2 63.8 7 Medium Fair Offsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Other stem 50.4cm DBH, codominant stems with

included bark, 1 small branch shaded out and dead.187 388 Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Native 2 70.3 7.5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Other stem 13cm DBH, metal peg from deer stand in

main stem, minimal borer holes, some defoliation.188 389 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 43 5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Up against adjacent Hopornbeam, crack

compartmentalizing, codominant branches with included bark.

189 390 Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Native 2 38.1 7 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Other stem 30.2cm DBH, minimal defoliation, otherwise relatively vigorous.


Native 2 15.7 4 Medium Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Other stem 11.8cm DBH, failure due to union between stems, slightly unbalanced crown due to competing

trees.191 392 Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Native 3 39.6 7 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Other stem 28.5cm DBH, 3rd stem dead, codominant

stems with included bark, small lower branch shaded out and dead.

192 393 Choke Cherry Prunus virginiana ssp. virginiana

Native 1 10.2 3 High Very Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

No Almost dead, crown leaning toward agricultural field.

Page 6 of 15


Tree IDTree



Crown Radius (m)




ActionRationale for

RemovalCompensation

Required Comments193 394 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 2 24.3 5 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingNo Other stem 15.3cm DBH, codominant stems with

included bark, 50% dieback, premature leaf drop, grapevine in lower crown.


Native 1 54.6 7 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Deer stand in tree, old nails in main stem, crown still vigorous, girdling root.


No Wound on root flare with rot & staining, frass, minimal dieback.


Native 1 38.4 6 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Vigorous tree, dead grapevine around rootflare but breaking apart.

197 398 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 1 50 4 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

No Old 2nd stem dead with advanced rot, crown draped in grape, some rot & staining on root flare.

198 399 Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Native 1 29.6 3 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Codominant branches with included bark, otherwise vigorous tree, not competing for sunlight.

199 400 Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Native 2 20.4 5.5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Other stem 14.8cm DBH, codominant stems with included bark, otherwise vigorous, not competing for

sunlight.200 401 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 1 34.5 3 High Dead Offsite Retain No Woodpecker damage, galleries present, but likely

carpenter ants, no positive signs of emerald ash borer.201 402 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 1 11 2.5 High Dead Boundary Retain No Dead202 403 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 55.7 10 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Codominant branches with included bark, small water-

filled cavity with crack & staining.203 404 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 58.4 10 Low Good Offsite Retain No Some light pruning and minimal damage to root flare.204 405 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 2 15.2 5 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No One-sided crown, phototrophic lean, some dieback, other

stem 7.4cm DBH.205 406 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 2 16.5 5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Other stem 14.4cm DBH, phototrophic growth, one-sided

crown, codominant stems with included bark and staining.


Native 2 40.5 7 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Other stem 31.9cm DBH, codominant stems with included bark and active crack partially

compartmentalizing, light pruning.207 408 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 26.9 5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No One-sided crown along edge, minimal crown dieback,

some anthracnose spots on leaves.208 409 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 16.5 5 Medium Fair Onsite Retain No Phototrophic growth along edge, foliage feeding,

reduced crown.209 410 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 13.3 4 High Very Poor Offsite Retain No Phototrophic growth, one remaining scaff branch with

active crack, minimal crown left.210 411 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 79.5 10 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Codominant branches with included bark, crack but

healed over, staining & decay along root flare, history of branch failure.


Native 1 33.5 5 Low Good Offsite Retain No Sapsucker feeding, mostly full crown.212 413 Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Native 1 17 4.5 Low Good Offsite Retain No Competing with adjacent trees so poor form, otherwise

relatively vigorous, sapsucker feeding, frost crack healed over.

213 414 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 1 32.9 4 High Very Poor Offsite Retain No Woodpecker damage, bark crack, dieback throughout, no positive signs of emerald ash borer.

214 415 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 1 36.4 5 High Dead Offsite Retain No Emerald ash borer exit hole & galleries, woodpecker damage.

215 416 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 21.9 4.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Some phototrophic lean, otherwise vigorous tree.216 417 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 38.1 5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Grape up stem & lower canopy, otherwise relatively

vigorous, grape may eventually strangle tree and impact health in future.


Native 1 50.5 7 Low Good Offsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Codominant branches with included bark, full crown.218 419 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 29.8 7.5 Low Good Offsite Retain No Galls on leaves, foliage feeding, otherwise vigorous tree.


Native 1 21.5 4.5 Low Good Offsite Retain No Galls on leaves, some foliage feeding, otherwise healthy tree.

220 421 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 1 46.1 10 High Poor Offsite Retain No Vertical cracking, several healed frost cracks, woodpecker damage one dead scaffold branch, sounds

hollow, frass.221 422 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 1 14.3 4 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Healed-over wound with decay, slight unbalanced crown,

frass from wound, otherwise relatively vigorous.

Page 7 of 15


Tree IDTree



Crown Radius (m)




ActionRationale for

RemovalCompensation

Required Comments222 423 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 21.2 4 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Grape up stem and in canopy, reduced crown & dieback,

some epicormic growth and unbalanced crown.223 424 White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 1 44.8 8 High Poor Offsite Remove Proposed

GradingNo Woodpecker damage, dieback throughout, live crown

very thinned (~20%).224 425 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 27.1 5 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Codominant branches with included bark, grape up stem

and canopy, otherwise fairly vigorous.225 426 Butternut Juglans cinerea Native 3 20 5.5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Other stems 17.1cm & 13.9cm DBH, callousing wounds

codominant stems with included bark, sooty cankers on root flare and stem, vigorous crown.

226 427 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Native 1 17.3 4.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Some anthracnose spots on leaves, otherwise vigorous tree.

227 428 Freeman's Maple Acer X freemanii Native 1 21.3 4 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Some splits in bark, but healing, otherwise vigorous tree.228 429 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 1 16.3 4.5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Grape up stem and canopy, slight lean, thinned crown,

some foliage feeding.229 430 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 1 23.5 4 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Some dieback in lower canopy, otherwise vigorous tree.

230 431 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 2 15.2 6 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Other stem 10cm DBH, codominant stems at base, crown thinned, some dieback, virginia creeper up 1 stem

& lower canopy.231 432 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 4 20.5 6 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Other stems 19.6cm, 11.8cm ,10.2cm DBH, 2 sets of

codominant stems fused at base with included bark, otherwise vigorous tree.

232 433 Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus Native 1 16.6 4 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Aside from grape and virginia creeper up stem, vigorous tree.

233 434 Butternut Juglans cinerea Native 1 10.9 4 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Crown thinned due to grape up stem and canopy, foliage feeding, could improve condition by removing grape.

234 435 Butternut Juglans cinerea Native 1 15.1 4.5 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Lots of grape up stem and canopy, remove to improve health.

235 436 Butternut Juglans cinerea Native 1 11.3 5 Low Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Grape up stem and canopy, could remove to improve health, Butternut canker present.

236 437 Butternut Juglans cinerea Native 1 18.8 4.5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Virginia creeper & grape up stem and canopy, unbalanced crown, located along edge, phototrophic

lean.237 438 Butternut Juglans cinerea Native 1 29.6 8 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes History of branch failure, some dieback, codominant

branches with included bark with staining, grape up stem and canopy.


Native 1 17 4 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes239 440 Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 12.2 4 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Phototrophic lean otherwise healthy tree.

240 441 American Basswood Tilia americana Native 2 63.6 7 Medium Fair Offsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Other stem 23.8cm DBH, history of branch failure, thinned crown, some dieback, cavity with frass, but

healed over, wound, insect defoliation.241 442 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 2 11.7 4 Low Good Offsite Retain No Other stem 8.1cm DBH, codominant stems with included

bark, wound with compartmentalized decay, full crown, grape but healthy otherwise.

242 501 Hawthorn species Crataegus sp. Native 2 12.2 5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Other stem 11.7cm DBH, crown dieback, draped in grape.

243 502 Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 2 15.9 2 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

No Dead 2nd stem 25.3cm DBH, decayed 3rd stem, stress cracks in all stems.


No Rot & frass on lower stem, crown dieback, phototrophic growth.


Native 1 57.8 6 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

No Codominant branches with included bark, 1 leader missing, frass & staining, cavity at root flare with decay &

frass.246 505 Common Apple Malus domestica Non-Native 1 33.4 3.5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Sapsucker, phototrophic growth, minimal crown dieback.

247 506 Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Native 3 41.7 5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Other stems 29.8cm, 15.7cm DBH, codominant stems with included bark, appears to be located in adjacent

property.248 507 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 1 10.2 3 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Minimal defoliation.

Page 8 of 15


Tree IDTree



Crown Radius (m)




ActionRationale for

RemovalCompensation

Required Comments249 508 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 1 16.4 3 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Leaf spot, vigorous tree.

250 509 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 1 17.1 2 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Some leaf spot, vigorous crown.251 510 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 1 12.2 2.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Leaf spot, otherwise vigorous crown.

252 511 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 1 11.4 2 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes 30% defoliation, leaf spot.253 512 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 1 35.5 5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Small crack up main stem, draped in virginia creeper,

crown still relatively vigorous.254 513 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 1 22.4 4 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes 1 lower branch shaded out and dead.


Yes Cavity in lower stem with some rot, crown still relatively vigorous.

256 515 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 1 23 4 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Leaf feeding.257 516 White Willow Salix alba var. alba Non-Native 2 12.7 2 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Other stem 9.2cm DBH, not fagile & no stipules, minimal

defoliation.258 517 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 1 13.2 3 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Few lower branches shaded out.


Yes 25% defoliation, competing for sunlight in thicket.260 519 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 1 17.2 1.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Vigorous crown with minimal defoliation.

261 520 White Willow Salix alba var. alba Non-Native 1 10.7 2 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Other tree growing around trunk, competing for sunlight, uneven crown.

262 521 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 1 15 2.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Minimal defoliation, otherwise relatively vigorous.263 522 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 1 27.3 3 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Some leaf spot, otherwise relatively vigorous.

264 523 White Willow Salix alba var. alba Non-Native 1 20.7 3 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Some lower branches shaded out.265 524 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 1 11.8 1.3 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Soil somewhat high on root flare.


Yes Leaf spot.267 526 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 1 25.8 3 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Minimal defoliation & leaf spot, otherwise relatively

vigorous.268 527 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 1 22.9 4 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Slight lean but vigorous.

269 528 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 1 30.2 5.5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Small wound at base of stem with some staining, small stress cracks.


Yes Lower branches shaded out, leaf spot.271 530 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 1 19.9 4 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Codominant branches with included bark, leaf spot, 2

shaded out epicormic shoots.272 531 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Native 2 13.2 3 Medium Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Other stem 8cm DBH, failure due to included bark

between stems.273 532 White Elm Ulmus americana Native 1 10.5 2.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Leaf feeding.

274 533 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Native 1 16 4 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Some light pruned scaffold branches, minimal defoliation.

275 534 Black Walnut Juglans nigra Native 2 17.4 3.5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Other stem 15.4cm DBH, codominant stems with included bark, few lower branches shaded out.

276 535 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Native 3 16.2 3 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Other stems 16.1cm, 10.8cm DBH, some crown dieback, included bark between stems.


Yes Multiple codominant stems with included bark - 5.7cm, 4.5cm, 7cm, 9cm, 11cm, 6.7cm, 5cm, 2.9m DBH, leaf

spot.278 537 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Non-Native 3 11.4 4.5 Medium Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Other stems 10.5cm, 3.6cm DBH, failure due to included

bark between stems, slightly unbalanced crown due to competition for sunglight.

279 538 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Non-Native 3 21.5 4.5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Codominant stems with included bark, lower branches shaded out, leaf spot.

280 539 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Non-Native 1 19.7 4.5 Medium Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Failure as growing on slope with slightly unbalanced crown due to competing trees.

Page 9 of 15


Tree IDTree



Crown Radius (m)




ActionRationale for

RemovalCompensation

Required Comments281 540 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 1 14 2 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Leaf spot.

282 541 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Native 2 15.8 4 Medium Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Other stem 12cm DBH, failure due to included bark between stems, vigorous crown.

283 542 Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Native 1 13.1 2.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Leaf gall, otherwise relatively vigorous.284 544 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Native 2 11.5 4 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Other stem 6.3cm DBH, potential failure as growing on

45 degree angle, one-sided crown due to competing trees.


Yes Codominant stems with included bark - 14.7cm, 9.4cm, 18.3cm, 12.2cm, 12.1cm, 12.9cm DBH, 1 stem rubs

against another.286 545 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo Native 1 15.1 3 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes In overall fair condition, no major structural issues.


Yes Codominant branches with included bark, epicormic shoots, leaf miner.


Yes Growing against guard rail, other stems 11.5cm, 12.5cm DBH, included bark between stems.

289 548 Norway Maple Acer platanoides Non-Native 9 13.4 4 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Other stems 10.1cm, 11cm, 13.1cm, 8.2cm, 8cm, 11.4cm, 10.5cm, 11.3cm DBH, codominant stems with

included bark, leaf miner.290 549 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 6 20.9 4 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Other 19.7cm, 20.6cm, 18.7cm, 13.5cm, 18cm DBH,

minimal staining, failure due to included bark between stems.

291 550 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 1 15.2 1.5 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

No 75% dieback, leaf spot.292 551 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 2 23.6 3.5 Medium Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Other stem 21.4cm DBH, failure due to included bark

between stems, minimal dieback in lower scaffold.293 552 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Non-Native 2 17 4 Medium Fair Boundary Remove Proposed

GradingYes Codominant stems and branches with included bark, leaf

spot, other stem 12.9cm DBH.294 553 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 1 18.3 3 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Some defoliation, some dieback in lower scaffold

branches.295 554 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Non-Native 1 18.4 4 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Codominant branches with included bark, leaf spot,

virginia creeper.296 555 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Non-Native 1 24 6 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Some defoliation & virginia creeper in crown.

297 556 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Non-Native 1 21.5 3 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Codominant branches with included bark, 3 branches snapped and hanging.

298 557 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Non-Native 5 17.4 4.5 Medium Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Other stems 13.2cm, 10.5cm, 8cm, 5cm DBH, failure due to included bark between stems & number of stem.

299 558 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila Non-Native 1 10.1 1.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Small stress crack.300 559 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Non-Native 2 20.5 4 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Heavy seed production, other stem 17.1cm DBH.


Yes Leaf spot.302 561 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 1 23.1 4.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Could benefit from pruning in lower scaffold branches,

minimal defoliation.303 562 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 1 13 5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Tussoc moth caterpillars, tree on 45 degree angle.

304 563 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 4 16.8 5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Other stems 12.6cm, 11.4cm, 12.1cm DBH, growing on edge of storm water pond, 2 snapped limbs, remaining

crown still relatively vigorous.305 564 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 3 20.5 3 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Other stems 11.9cm, 7cm DBH, codominant stems with

included bark, leaf feeding, 1 small dead branch.306 565 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 1 13.4 2.3 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Defoliation, some rot at base of main stem.

307 566 Colorado Spruce Picea pungens Non-Native 1 12.6 2 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Vigorous tree, previously guyed but wire since removed.308 567 White Spruce Picea glauca Native 1 11.6 2 Low Excellent Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Planted around storm water management pond.

309 568 White Spruce Picea glauca Native 1 15.4 2 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Vigorous tree.310 569 White Spruce Picea glauca Native 1 12.5 2 Low Excellent Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Planted around storm water management pond.

Page 10 of 15


Tree IDTree



Crown Radius (m)




ActionRationale for

RemovalCompensation

Required Comments311 570 White Spruce Picea glauca Native 1 11.9 2 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Vigorous tree.

312 571 White Spruce Picea glauca Native 1 10.5 1.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Planted around storm water management pond, minimal dieback due to light pruning.


Yes Vigorous tree.314 573 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 2 22.5 3.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Other stem 10.9cm DBH, along storm water

management berm.315 574 White Willow Salix alba var. alba Non-Native 2 10.9 2 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Codominant stems with included bark, crack in stem,

other stem 11.6cm DBH.316 575 White Willow Salix alba var. alba Non-Native 2 21.2 3 Medium Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Other stem 20cm DBH, failure due to included bark

between stems.317 576 White Willow Salix alba var. alba Non-Native 1 18.8 5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes In berm between ponds.


Yes Crown leans on 45 degree angle.319 578 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 1 11.5 1.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Slightly unbalanced crown due to competing trees.

320 579 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 1 16.7 2.5 Medium Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Failure due to included bark between branches, some defoliation.

321 580 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 1 14.5 2 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

No Leaf spot, leaf gall, upper crown dead, leader broken off at 4m.

322 581 White Willow Salix alba var. alba Non-Native 1 16.4 1 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

No Crown snapped off.323 582 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 1 11.6 3 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Slight lean in top of crown over pond.

324 583 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 1 14.7 4 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Slight lean in top of crown only.325 584 White Willow Salix alba var. alba Non-Native 1 15.7 4 High Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingNo Growing parallel to ground out of storm water

management pond.326 585 Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus Native 1 16.9 3 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Included bark.


Yes Small stress crack.328 587 Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus Native 1 15.9 2 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Some dieback in lower scaffold branches.


Yes Maple sapling at root flare.330 589 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 2 14.3 2.5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Other stem 10.5cm DBH, included bark between stems,

some staining.331 590 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 2 20.5 5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Other stem 8.3cm DBH.


Yes Other stem 6.1cm DBH, crack in stem fully compartmentalizing.

333 592 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 1 31.5 4.5 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

No Split up main stem with some rot & staining.334 593 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 2 17 4 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Other stem 7.9cm DBH, codominant stems with included

bark, 2nd stem 50% dieback.335 594 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 1 18.7 3 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Slight unbalanced crown due to competing tree.


Yes Competing for sunlight with Sumac.337 596 Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus Native 1 14.8 3.3 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Minimal dieback in lower scaffold branches.

338 597 Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus Native 1 17.3 3.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Virginia creeper starting to go up stem 1m.339 599 Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus Native 1 15.4 4 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Minimal dieback in lower scaffold branches.


Yes Vigorous tree.341 601 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 3 17 2 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Other stems 3.7cm, 3.9cm DBH, codominant stems with

included bark, few lower branches dead.342 602 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 1 20.2 4 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Growing on slight lean toward storm water management

pond.

Page 11 of 15


Tree IDTree



Crown Radius (m)




ActionRationale for

RemovalCompensation

Required Comments343 603 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 1 11.4 1 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingNo Cracks up main stem with some rot & staining, crown

with phototrophic lean toward storm water management pond.


Yes Slight lean over pond.345 605 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 1 14.6 5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes One-sided crown leans towards storm water pond, small

split on main stem with some staining.346 606 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 2 20.2 2 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Other stem 20.1cm DBH, codominant stems with

included bark, lower branches dead.347 607 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 1 13.4 1 High Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingNo Crown on 90 degree angle with lean toward storm water

management pond.348 608 White Willow Salix alba var. alba Non-Native 1 18.9 1 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingNo 50% dieback.


Yes Reduced crown due to competing trees, otherwise relatively vigorous.


Yes Other stem 7.5cm DBH, codominant stems with included bark, leans over pond.

351 611 Peachleaf Willow Salix amygdaloides Native 1 11.5 2.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Slightly unbalanced crown due to competing trees, otherwise relatively vigorous.

352 612 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 1 11.4 1 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

No Epicormic shoots only, leader is dead.353 613 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 3 20.5 2.3 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Other stems 16.4cm, 17.1cm DBH, 1 stem snapped,

minimal dieback.354 614 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 1 30 4 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Vigorous tree.


Yes Phototrophic lean due to competing trees.356 616 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 1 12.3 1 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Few epicormic shoots.


Yes Crack from root flare up 0.5m compartmentalizing fully.358 618 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 2 22.3 2 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Other stem 13.1cm DBH, missing crown, remaining

crown relatively vigorous.359 619 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 3 23.5 3 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Other stems 14.3cm, 22.2cm DBH.


Yes Other stem 20.6cm DBH, included bark between stems, crown dieback.

361 621 Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Native 1 15.2 3 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Located at start of woodland.362 No Tag Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa Native 1 24.9 5 Low Good Offsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Vigorous tree, not competing for sunlight.


Yes Other stem 7.5cm DBH, some dieback in lower scaffold branches, cavity on lower main stem with some rot.


Yes Some frass out of old branch, some bark cracks on root flare.

365 624 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 1 23 5 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

No Bark cracks & staining on root flare & main stem, one-sided crown with lean away from pond.

366 625 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 2 18.8 4 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

No Other stem 6.2cm DBH, slightly paler & downy beneath, cavity on lower main stem, some bark cracks with

staining.367 626 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 3 27.6 5 High Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingNo Other stems 8.2cm, 15.7cm DBH, small cavity on lower

stem with rot & fruiting bodies, remaining stems relatively healthy.

368 627 White Mulberry Morus alba Non-Native 2 20.6 4 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Other stem 23.3cm DBH, small cavity between stems, some staining between stems, crown relatively vigorous.

369 628 White Mulberry Morus alba Non-Native 2 15.2 2.3 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Other stem 5.3cm DBH, minimal staining from 1 small limb, otherwise relatively vigorous.

370 629 White Mulberry Morus alba Non-Native 2 11.9 2 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Other stem 6cm DBH, some staining between branches, some lower limb dieback.

371 630 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 1 24.8 2.3 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Minimal leaf spot, otherwise relatively vigorous.372 631 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 1 12 2.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Minimal dieback in lower scaffold, otherwise relatively

vigorous.

Page 12 of 15


Tree IDTree



Crown Radius (m)




ActionRationale for

RemovalCompensation

Required Comments373 632 Balsam Poplar Populus balsamifera Native 1 14.1 3 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Some leaf spot, otherwise relatively vigorous.

374 633 Freeman's Maple Acer X freemanii Native 1 19.1 3.5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Tar spot, included bark in scaffold branch, root flare covered in soil.

375 634 Freeman's Maple Acer X freemanii Native 1 11.5 2 High Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

No Being girdled by tree tie, stress cracks, tar spot, crown still relatively vigorous, remove tie & prune to reduce

failure.376 635 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 2 25.6 3 High Dead Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingNo Other stem 25.5cm DBH, on edge of storm water

management pond, small hole drilled in each stem by person.

377 636 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 1 30.5 4.5 High Dead Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

No Small hole drilled in stem by person, on edge of storm water management pond, girdling root.


Yes Other stems 11.6cm, 5cm DBH, 1 stem in poor condition, small amount of staining on lower stem, crown relatively

vigorous.379 638 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 1 34.7 4 Medium Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Failure due to slightly unbalanced crown & root flare,

crown leaning slightly toward storm water management pond.

380 639 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 10 22 4 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

No Other stems 16.7cm, 15.2cm, 13.9cm, 18.6cm, 15cm, 15.3cm, 12.5cm, 11.8cm, 14.5cm DBH, main leaders snapped off, included bark with weak branch unions.

381 640 White Willow Salix alba var. alba Non-Native 2 11.2 2 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Other stem 10.9cm DBH, slightly one-sided crown on both stems.


Yes Vigorous tree.383 642 White Spruce Picea glauca Native 1 12.8 2.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Relatively vigorous tree.

384 643 White Spruce Picea glauca Native 1 11.3 2.3 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Heavy seed production, slightly chlorotic, some stress cracks.

385 644 Red Oak Quercus rubra Native 1 10.1 2.3 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes 2 small wounds on lower stem with some compartmentalization, main stem covered in lichen,

street tree, crown relatively vigorous.386 645 Red Oak Quercus rubra Native 1 14.5 3.3 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Street tree, a few stress cracks on main stem, crown

vigorous.387 646 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Native 1 13.3 2.3 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes <10% crown dieback, wound on root flare, some squirrel

damage, street tree, no emerald ash borer exit holes.388 647 White Spruce Picea glauca Native 1 16.8 2.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Could benefit from lower limb pruning.

389 648 Peachleaf Willow Salix amygdaloides Native 6 14.2 3 High Fair Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

No Other stems 12.4cm, 10.4cm, 4.8cm, 6.5cm, 11.3cm, 8.9cm DBH, failure due to irregular growth & leaning,

some staining on smaller stem.390 649 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 1 20.6 3.5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Crack up main stem with some staining, growing on very

edge of standing water in storm water management pond.

391 650 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 1 13.1 2.3 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Slightly unbalanced crown due to competing tree.392 651 White Willow Salix alba var. alba Non-Native 1 24.2 5.5 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingNo Main leader snapped, wound on main stem with some

staining, staining on root flare.393 652 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 1 12.6 2.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Slightly reduced crown due to competing tree, otherwise

relatively vigorous.394 653 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 4 14.8 3 High Poor Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingNo Other stems 11.5cm, 10cm, 6cm DBH, 2 larger stems

with staining, some rot in main stem.395 654 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 1 21.2 4.5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Small crack on lower stem with minimal staining but also

some compartmentalization.396 655 White Spruce Picea glauca Native 1 16.4 2 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Relatively vigorous tree.


Yes Relatively vigorous tree.398 657 Crack Willow Salix fragilis Non-Native 2 13.3 3 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Other stem 9.7cm DBH, growing on edge of water in

storm water management pond, slight lean in top otherwise relatively vigorous.


Yes Slight lean toward storm water management pond, relatively vigorous crown.


Yes Vigorous tree.

Page 13 of 15


Tree IDTree



Crown Radius (m)




ActionRationale for

RemovalCompensation

Required Comments510 769 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Non-Native 1 13 5 Medium Fair Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Codominant branches with included bark, some dieback

in lower scaffold branches.511 770 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Non-Native 1 17.8 4.5 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Growing out of topsoil mound.

512 771 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides Native 2 12.5 2.5 Medium Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Other stem 11.3cm DBH, failure due to included bark between stems.

538 797 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Non-Native 1 11.8 2.3 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Growing on topsoil stockpile.539 798 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Non-Native 1 10.6 2 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed

GradingYes Growing on side of topsoil stockpile.

540 799 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Non-Native 2 10.6 2.3 Low Good Onsite Remove Proposed Grading

Yes Other stems 5cm, 7cm DBH, wound in small stem with compartmentalization.

541 No Tag Alaska Yellow Cedar Cupressus nootkatensis Non-Native 1 14 2 Low Good Offsite Retain No Slight defoliation, otherwise good health and form.542 No Tag Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis Native 2 12.1 2 Medium Good Offsite Retain No Other stem 7cm DBH, codominant stems with included

bark, light pruning.543 No Tag Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis Native 1 11.3 2 Low Good Offsite Retain No Unbalanced crown due to competition for sunlight.544 No Tag Saucer Magnolia Magnolia soulangeana Non-Native 1 14.9 4 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Some defoliation, multiple codominant branches,

competition for sunlight on west side.545 No Tag White Spruce Picea glauca Native 1 26.1 3 Low Excellent Offsite Retain No Buckthorn sapling growing underneath, vigorous.546 No Tag White Spruce Picea glauca Native 1 29.8 4 Low Good Offsite Retain No Slight lean but self-corrects.547 No Tag Colorado Spruce Picea pungens Non-Native 1 34.3 3 Low Excellent Offsite Retain No Very bushy and vigorous tree.548 No Tag Colorado Spruce Picea pungens Non-Native 1 45.4 3 Low Good Offsite Retain No Slight bend in leader at 8m but self corrects quickly,

minimal light pruning.549 No Tag Colorado Spruce Picea pungens Non-Native 1 33.6 3 Low Good Offsite Retain No Light pruning in lower branches.550 No Tag Norway Maple Acer platanoides Non-Native 1 19.8 4.5 Low Good Offsite Retain No Slight lean, codominant branches with included bark.551 No Tag White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 2 22 6 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Other stem 20cm DBH, codominant stems with included

bark, some defoliation.552 No Tag Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 20.1 5 Low Poor Boundary Retain No Sooty wounds, one-sided crown, lean.553 No Tag Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Native 1 22.2 4 High Poor Onsite Retain No Lean, 90% canopy dieback, grape vine growing up stem.554 No Tag Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 3 29.9 6 Medium Poor Onsite Retain No Other stems 21cm, 10cm DBH, codominant stems with

included bark, girdled roots, codominant branches.555 No Tag American Basswood Tilia americana Native 1 37.9 5 Low Good Offsite Retain No Leader on slight angle, otherwise vigorous.556 No Tag Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 20.2 5 Low Good Offsite Retain No Growing against fence, few prune cuts healed over.

557 No Tag Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 1 42.7 6 High Poor Offsite Retain No Wound with staining and bark loss on stem, history of small branch failure, 20% defoliation.

558 No Tag White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 1 22.8 3 High Very Poor Offsite Retain No Lean, grape vine throughout canopy, 80% defoliation, leans away from boundary.

559 No Tag Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 1 41 5 High Very Poor Offsite Retain No Codominant branches with included bark, 90% dieback, growing into fence.

560 No Tag Butternut Juglans cinerea Native 1 13.4 3 High Poor Offsite Retain No Open and closed sooty cankers, grapevine throughout canopy, lean, one-sided crown, 1 scaffold branch broken

off, 50% dieback.561 No Tag Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 13.3 3 High Poor Offsite Retain No Heavy grape vine throughout canopy, previous scaffold

branch broken, lean, 50% dieback.562 No Tag Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 17.8 5 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Codominant branches, leader growing on angle,

competition for sunlight.563 No Tag Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 11 4 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Grape vine entering canopy, competition for sunlight,

leader leans.564 No Tag Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 1 41.2 7 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Grape vine throughout lower branches, codominant

branches, phototropic growth, tree previosly competing with is dead.

565 No Tag Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 1 16.1 2 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Sparse crown, S-bend in leader, previously competing with adjacent Ash.

566 No Tag White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 1 40.1 2 High Dead Offsite Retain No Emerald ash borer exit holes, some bark loss, decay, scaffold lost.

567 No Tag American Basswood Tilia americana Native 1 59.2 6 High Fair Offsite Retain No Prune 1 branch with decay to reduce potential for failure, codominant branches, 10% dieback.

568 No Tag Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 1 31.2 2 High Very Poor Offsite Retain No Open wound with decay at root flare, growing on 45 degree angle, epicormic growth, many S-bends.

569 No Tag American Basswood Tilia americana Native 1 25.7 5 Low Good Offsite Retain No Slight competition for sunlight, grape vine just entering crown.

570 No Tag Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 14.1 3 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Uneven crown due to phototropic growth, minimal light pruning.

Page 14 of 15


Tree IDTree



Crown Radius (m)




ActionRationale for

RemovalCompensation

Required Comments571 No Tag Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis Native 1 15 4 Low Good Offsite Retain No Competition for sunlight, otherwise vigorous.572 No Tag Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 52.4 6 High Poor Offsite Retain No Wound with fungus above root flare, fence through stem,

dead small branches, small hanger, 15% dieback.573 No Tag White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 1 19.4 5 Low Good Offsite Retain No Uneven crown due to competition for sunlight, otherwise

vigorous.574 No Tag Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Native 1 14.5 2 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Heavy grapevine on tree, has defoliated lower branches,

leans away from property, 20% defoliation.575 No Tag Black Walnut Juglans nigra Native 1 17.4 2 High Dead Offsite Retain No Recently dead, minimal spring leaves visible but have

died, leans away from boundary.576 No Tag Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 21.6 4 Low Good Offsite Retain No One small dead branch, some grapevine in tree canopy,

bark crack healed over.577 No Tag Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 10.8 2 Low Good Offsite Retain No Bark crack healed over, competition for sunlight.

578 No Tag American Basswood Tilia americana Native 4 20.6 4 High Poor Offsite Retain No Codominant stems of 15.5cm, 9.1cm, 18.3cm DBH, open wounds show decay in stems, leaf feeding.

579 No Tag American Basswood Tilia americana Native 4 24.6 2 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Other stems 11.2cm, 8cm, 3cm DBH, leader growing on angle, competition for sunlight.

580 No Tag White Oak Quercus alba Native 2 18.7 3 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Other stems 15.3cm DBH, grape vine throughout, leader growing on angle.

581 No Tag Shagbark Hickory Carya ovata var. ovata Native 1 15.9 4 Low Good Boundary Retain No Has compartmentalized around fence, otherwise vigorous.

582 No Tag White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 1 10.7 2 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Grape vine throughout canopy, competition for sunlight.583 No Tag Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Native 11 10.5 5 Medium Fair Offsite Retain No Other stems 10cm, 10cm, 9cm, 8cm, 7cm, 7cm, 5cm,

6cm, 6cm, 5cm DBH, light pruning, growing through fence, codominant stems.

584 No Tag American Basswood Tilia americana Native 1 16.6 2 Low Good Offsite Retain No Competition for sunlight, otherwise vigorous.585 No Tag Red Oak Quercus rubra Native 1 20.6 4 Low Good Offsite Retain No Light pruning, leaf feeding.586 No Tag Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp.

saccharumNative 1 11.1 3 Low Fair Onsite Retain No Light pruning, bark loss on stem wound.

587 No Tag Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum

Native 1 10.4 3 Low Good Onsite Retain No Small wounds compartmentalizing.588 No Tag Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 1 10.5 4 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Codominant branches, one small dead branch.589 No Tag White Ash Fraxinus americana Native 1 11 2.5 Low Good Offsite Retain No Competition for sunlight, otherwise vigorous.590 No Tag Black Cherry Prunus serotina Native 1 19.2 3.5 Low Fair Offsite Retain No Codominant branches with included bark, slightly sparse

crown, 10% defoliation.591 No Tag Common Pear Pyrus communis Non-Native 1 22 6 Medium Poor Offsite Retain No Large S-bend, cavities and frass through stem, 2 dead

branches, history of small branch failure.592 No Tag Red Oak Quercus rubra Native 1 46.9 6 High Poor Offsite Retain No Growth over fence, 3 medium dead branches, fungus on

one branch, remove dead branches to reduce hazard.

Page 15 of 15


APPENDIX II Conditions of Assessment


Conditions of Tree Assessment

Limitations This tree inventory and assessment is based on the circumstances and observations as they existed at the time of the site inspection of the Client’s Property, referred to as the site of the proposed Grandview Hills Stage VI (“Newman Lands”) residential development, and the trees situated thereon by NRSI and upon information provided by the Client to NRSI. The opinions in this assessment are given based on observations made and using generally accepted professional judgment; however, as trees are living organisms and are subject to change, damage and disease, the results, observations, recommendations, and analysis as set out in this assessment are valid only at the date any such observations and analysis took place. No guarantee, warranty, representation or opinion is offered or made by NRSI as to the length of the validity of the results, observations, recommendations and analysis contained within this assessment. As a result, the Client shall not rely upon this assessment, save and except for representing the circumstances and observations, analysis and recommendations that were made as at the date of such inspections. It is recommended that the trees discussed in this assessment should be re-assessed periodically, where required (i.e. within 1 year). Further Services Neither NRSI, nor any assessor employed or retained by NRSI (the "Assessor") for the purpose of preparing or assisting in the preparation of this assessment shall be required to provide any further consultation or services to the Client, save and except as already carried out in the preparation of this assessment and including, without limitation, to act as an expert witness or witness in any court in any jurisdiction unless the Client has first made specific arrangements with respect to such further services, including, without limitation, providing the payment of the Assessor’s regular hourly billing fees. NRSI accepts no responsibility for the implementation of all or any part of the assessment, unless specifically requested to examine the implementation of such activities recommended herein. In the event that inspection or supervision of all or part of the implementation is requested, that request shall be in writing and the details agreed to in writing by both parties.


Assumptions The Client is hereby notified and does hereby acknowledge and agree that where any of the facts and information set out and referenced in this assessment are based on assumptions, facts or information provided to NRSI, the Client and/or third parties and unless otherwise set out within this assessment, NRSI will in no way be responsible for the veracity or accuracy of any such information and further, the Client acknowledges and agrees that NRSI has, for the purposes of preparing their assessment, assumed that the Property, which is the subject of this assessment is in full compliance with all applicable federal, provincial, municipal and local statutes, regulations, by-laws, guidelines and other related laws. NRSI explicitly denies any legal liability for any and all issues with respect to non-compliance with any of the above-referenced statutes, regulations, by-laws, guidelines and laws as it may pertain to or affect the Property to which this assessment applies. Restriction of Assessment The assessment carried out was restricted to the Property and adjacent trees as identified within this report. No assessment of any other trees has been undertaken by NRSI, except where specifically noted in the assessment. NRSI is not legally liable for any other trees on the Property except those expressly discussed herein. The conclusions of this assessment do not apply to any areas, trees, or any other property not covered or referenced in this assessment. Professional Responsibility In carrying out this assessment, NRSI and any Assessor appointed for and on behalf of NRSI to perform and carry out the assessment has exercised a reasonable standard of care, skill and diligence as would be customarily and normally provided in carrying out this assessment. The assessment has been made using accepted arboricultural techniques. These include a visual examination of each tree for structural defects, scars, external indications of decay such as fungal fruiting bodies, evidence of insect attack, discolored foliage (during the leaf-on period), the condition of any visible root structures, the degree and direction of lean (if any), the general condition of the tree(s) and the surrounding site, and the current or planned proximity of property and people. Except where specifically noted in the assessment, none of the trees examined on the


property were dissected, cored, probed, or climbed and detailed root crown examinations involving excavation were not undertaken. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the trees recommended for retention are healthy, no guarantees are offered, or implied, that these trees, or all parts of them will remain standing. It is professionally impossible to predict with absolute certainty the behaviour of any single tree or group of trees, or all their component parts, in all given circumstances. Inevitably, a standing tree will always pose some risk. Most trees have the potential to fall, lean, or otherwise pose a danger to property and persons in the event of adverse weather conditions, and this risk can only be eliminated if the tree is removed. Without limiting the foregoing, no liability is assumed by NRSI or its directors, officers, employers, contractors, agents or Assessors for:

a) any legal description provided with respect to the Property; b) issues of title and or ownership respect to the Property; c) the accuracy of the Property line locations or boundaries with respect to the

Property; d) the accuracy of any other information provided to NRSI by the Client or third

parties; e) any consequential loss, injury or damages suffered by the Client or any third

parties, including but not limited to replacement costs, loss of use, earnings and business interruption; and

f) the unauthorized distribution of the assessment. Third Party Liability This assessment was prepared by NRSI exclusively for the Client. The contents reflect NRSI’s best assessment of the trees situated on the Property in light of the information available to it at the time of preparation of this assessment. Any use which a third party makes of this assessment, or any reliance on or decisions made based upon this assessment, are made at the sole risk of any such third parties. NRSI accepts no responsibility for any damages or loss suffered by any third party or by the Client as a


result of decisions made or actions based upon the use or reliance of this assessment by any such party. General Any plans and/or illustrations in this assessment are included only to help the Client visualize the issues in this assessment and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose. This report shall be considered as a whole, no sections are severable, and the assessment shall be considered incomplete if any pages are missing.


APPENDIX VI Plant Species Recorded Within the Study Area

Vascular Flora Reported from the Study Area

Scientific Name Common Name CC CW Weed SRANK1 OMNR2 COSEWIC3SARA

Schedule4Waterloo Region5

NHIC Data1

NRSI Observed

Pteridophytes Ferns & AlliesDryopteridaceae Wood Fern FamilyPolystichum acrostichoides Christmas Fern 5 5 S5 XEquisetaceae Horsetail FamilyEquisetum arvense Field Horsetail 0 0 S5 XEquisetum hyemale ssp. affine Scouring-rush 2 -2 S5 XGymnosperms ConifersCupressaceae Cypress FamilyJuniperus virginiana Eastern Red Cedar 4 3 S5 XThuja occidentalis White Cedar 4 -3 S5 XPinaceae Pine FamilyPicea glauca White Spruce 6 3 S5 R+ XPicea pungens Colorado Spruce NA SE1 XPinus strobus Eastern White Pine 4 3 S5 XDicotyledons DicotsAceraceae Maple FamilyAcer negundo Manitoba Maple 0 -2 S5 XAcer saccharum ssp. nigrum Black Maple 7 3 S4? XAcer rubrum Red Maple 4 0 S5 XAcer platanoides Norway Maple 5 -3 SE5 XAcer saccharinum Silver Maple 5 -3 S5 XAcer saccharum ssp. saccharum Sugar Maple 4 3 S5 XAcer X freemanii Freeman's Maple XAmaranthaceae Amaranth FamilyAmaranthus retroflexus Green Amaranth 2 -1 SE5 XAnacardiaceae Sumac or Cashew FamilyRhus hirta Staghorn Sumac 1 5 S5 XToxicodendron rydbergii Poison-ivy 0 0 S5 XAnnonaceae Custard-apple FamilyAsimina triloba Paw Paw 10 0 S3 R+ XApiaceae Carrot or Parsley FamilyDaucus carota Wild Carrot 5 -2 SE5 XErigenia bulbosa Harbinger-of-spring 9 5 S3? R XSanicula canadensis var. grandis Long-styled Canada Snakeroot7 2 S2 R XApocynaceae Dogbane FamilyApocynum androsaemifolium ssp. androsaemifoliumSpreading Dogbane 3 5 S5 XAraliaceae Ginseng FamilyAralia nudicaulis Wild Sarsaparilla 4 3 S5 XAsclepiadaceae Milkweed FamilyAsclepias syriaca Common Milkweed 0 5 S5 XCynanchum rossicum Swallow-wort SE5 XAsteraceae Composite or Aster FamilyAchillea millefolium ssp. millefolium Common Yarrow 3 -1 SE? XAmbrosia artemisiifolia Common Ragweed 0 3 S5 XAmbrosia trifida Giant Ragweed 0 -1 S5 XArctium minus ssp. minus Common Burdock 5 -2 SE5 XCichorium intybus Chicory 5 -1 SE5 XCirsium arvense Canada Thistle 3 -1 SE5 XCirsium vulgare Bull Thistle 4 -1 SE5 XConyza canadensis Horseweed 0 1 S5 XErigeron annuus Daisy Fleabane 0 1 S5 XEupatorium perfoliatum Perfoliate Thoroughwort 2 -4 S5 XEupatorium maculatum ssp. maculatum Spotted Joe-pye-weed 3 -5 S5 XEuthamia graminifolia Flat-topped Bushy Goldenrod 2 -2 S5 XHelianthus tuberosus Jerusalem Artichoke 0 -1 SE5 XLeucanthemum vulgare Ox-eye Daisy 5 -1 SE5 XOnopordum acanthium Scotch Thistle SE4 XSolidago altissima var. altissima Tall Goldenrod 1 3 S5 XSolidago caesia Blue-stem Goldenrod 5 3 S5 XSolidago canadensis Canada Goldenrod 1 3 S5 XSolidago gigantea Giant Goldenrod 4 -3 S5 XSolidago nemoralis ssp. nemoralis Gray Goldenrod 2 5 S5 XSonchus arvensis ssp. arvensis Field Sow-thistle SE5 XSymphyotrichum ericoides var. ericoides White Heath Aster S5 XSymphyotrichum lanceolatum var. lanceolatum Tall White Aster 3 -3 S5 XSymphyotrichum novae-angliae New England Aster 2 -3 S5 XSymphyotrichum pilosum var. pilosum Hairy Aster 4 2 S5 XSymphyotrichum puniceum var. puniceum Purple-stemmed Aster S5 X



NHIC Data1

NRSI Observed

Tanacetum vulgare Common Tansy 5 -1 SE5 XTaraxacum officinale Common Dandelion 3 -2 SE5 XTragopogon pratensis ssp. pratensis Meadow Goat's-beard 5 -1 SE5 XTussilago farfara Coltsfoot 3 -2 SE5 XBalsaminaceae Touch-me-not FamilyImpatiens capensis Spotted Touch-me-not 4 -3 S5 XBerberidaceae Barberry FamilyBerberis vulgaris Common Barberry 3 -2 SE5 XCaulophyllum thalictroides Blue Cohosh 6 5 S5 XPodophyllum peltatum May-apple 5 3 S5 XBetulaceae Birch FamilyOstrya virginiana Hop Hornbeam 4 4 S5 XBoraginaceae Borage FamilyMyosotis species Forget-me-not species XOnosmodium molle ssp. hispidissimum Soft Hairy False Gromwell 8 5 S2 R XPulmonaria officinalis Lungwort SE1 XBrassicaceae Mustard FamilyAlliaria petiolata Garlic Mustard 0 -3 SE5 XArmoracia rusticana Horseradish 0 -1 SE4 XBarbarea vulgaris Yellow Rocket 0 -1 SE5 XBerteroa incana Hoary Alyssum 5 -3 SE5 XHesperis matronalis Dame's Rocket 5 -3 SE5 XThlaspi arvense Field Penny-cress 5 -1 SE5 XCaprifoliaceae Honeysuckle FamilyLonicera tatarica Tartarian Honeysuckle 3 -3 SE5 XSambucus canadensis Common Elderberry 5 -2 S5 XViburnum lentago Nannyberry 4 -1 S5 XCaryophyllaceae Pink FamilySilene latifolia Bladder Campion SE5 XSilene noctiflora Night-flowering Catchfly 5 -1 SE5 XCelastraceae Staff-tree FamilyCelastrus scandens Climbing Bittersweet 3 3 S5 XEuonymus atropurpurea var. atropurpurea Burning Bush 8 1 S3 R XChenopodiaceae Goosefoot FamilyChenopodium album var. album Lamb's-quarters 1 -1 SE5 XConvolvulaceae Morning-glory FamilyConvolvulus arvensis Field Bindweed 5 -1 SE5 XCornaceae Dogwood FamilyCornus alternifolia Alternate-leaved Dogwood 6 5 S5 XCornus amomum ssp. obliqua Silky Dogwood 5 -4 S5 XCornus foemina ssp. racemosa Red Panicled Dogwood 2 -2 S5 XCornus stolonifera Red-osier Dogwood 2 -3 S5 XCrassulaceae Stonecrop FamilySedum species Sedum species XDipsacaceae Teasel FamilyDipsacus fullonum ssp. sylvestris Wild Teasel 5 -1 SE5 XFabaceae Pea FamilyCoronilla varia Variable Crown-vetch 5 -2 SE5 XGlycyrrhiza lepidota Wild Licorice 8 4 S3 R XLotus corniculatus Bird's-foot Trefoil 1 -2 SE5 XMedicago lupulina Black Medick 1 -1 SE5 XMedicago sativa ssp. sativa Alfalfa 5 -1 SE5 XMelilotus officinalis Yellow Sweet-clover 3 -1 SE5 XRobinia pseudo-acacia Black Locust 4 -3 SE5 XTrifolium hybridum ssp. elegans Alsike Clover 1 -1 SE5 XTrifolium pratense Red Clover 2 -2 SE5 XFagaceae Beech FamilyFagus grandifolia American Beech 6 3 S5 XQuercus macrocarpa Bur Oak 5 1 S5 XQuercus rubra Red Oak 6 3 S5 XGentianaceae Gentian FamilyGentianella quinquefolia ssp. quinquefolia Stiff Gentian S2 R XGeranium robertianum Herb Robert 5 -2 SE5 XHypericum perforatum Common St. John's-wort 5 -3 SE5 XJuglandaceae Walnut FamilyCarya cordiformis Bitternut hickory 6 0 S5 X



NHIC Data1

NRSI Observed

Carya glabra Pignut Hickory 9 3 S3 R* XCarya ovata var. ovata Shagbark Hickory 6 3 S5 XJuglans cinerea Butternut 6 2 S3? END E Schedule 1 XJuglans nigra Black Walnut 5 3 S4 R+* X



NHIC Data1

NRSI Observed

Lamiaceae Mint FamilyClinopodium vulgare Wild Basil 4 5 S5 XGlechoma hederacea Creeping Charlie 5 -2 SE5 XLeonurus cardiaca ssp. cardiaca Common Motherwort 5 -2 SE5 XLycopus americanus Cut-leaved Water-horehound 4 -5 S5 XMonarda didyma Oswego-tea 8 3 S3 R+ XNepeta cataria Catnip 1 -2 SE5 XLinaceae Flax FamilyLinum virginianum Wild Yellow Flax 10 -3 S2 R XLythraceae Loosestrife FamilyLythrum salicaria Purple Loosestrife -5 -3 SE5 XMalvaceae Mallow FamilyAbutilon theophrasti Velvet-leaf 4 -1 SE5 XMalva neglecta Cheeses 5 -1 SE5 XMoraceae Mulberry FamilyMorus alba White Mulberry 0 -3 SE5 XOleaceae Olive FamilyFraxinus americana White Ash 4 3 S5 XFraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 3 -3 S5 XLigustrum vulgare Common Privet 1 -2 SE5 XOnagraceae Evening-primrose FamilyCircaea lutetiana ssp. canadensis Yellowish Enchanter's Nightshade3 3 S5 XOenothera biennis Common Evening-primrose 0 3 S5 XPapaveraceae Poppy FamilyChelidonium majus Celandine 5 -3 SE5 XSanguinaria canadensis Bloodroot 5 4 S5 XPlantaginaceae Plantain FamilyPlantago lanceolata Ribgrass 0 -1 SE5 XPhlox subulata ssp. brittonii Britton's Phlox 10 5 S1? XPolygonaceae Smartweed FamilyPolygonum sp. XRheum rhabarbarum Rhubarb 5 -1 SE2 XRumex crispus Curly-leaf Dock -1 -2 SE5 XRanunculaceae Buttercup FamilyActaea rubra Red Baneberry 5 5 S5 XAnemone canadensis Canada Anemone 3 -3 S5 XAnemone quinquefolia var. quinquefolia Wood Anemone 7 0 S5 XRanunculus abortivus Kidney-leaf Buttercup 2 -2 S5 XRanunculus acris Tall Buttercup -2 -2 SE5 XThalictrum dioicum Early Meadow-rue 5 2 S5 XRhamnaceae Buckthorn FamilyRhamnus cathartica Common Buckthorn 3 -3 SE5 XFrangula alnus Glossy Buckthorn -1 -3 SE5 XRosaceae Rose FamilyAmelanchier arborea Downy Juneberry 3 S5 XAmelanchier laevis Smooth Juneberry 5 5 S5 XCrataegus crus-galli Cockspur Thorn 4 0 S5 R XCrataegus monogyna English Hawthorn 5 -1 SE5 XCrataegus pruinosa var. dissona Northern Hawthorn S3 XGeum aleppicum Yellow Avens 2 -1 S5 XMalus domestica Apple XPotentilla recta Rough-fruited Cinquefoil 5 -2 SE5 XPotentilla simplex Old-field (Common) Cinquefoil3 4 S5 XPrunus serotina Black Cherry 3 3 S5 XPrunus virginiana ssp. virginiana Choke Cherry 2 1 S5 XPyrus communis Common Pear 5 -1 SE4 XRosa rubiginosa Sweetbrier Rose 5 -1 SE4 XRubus idaeus ssp. melanolasius Wild Red Raspberry 0 -2 S5 XRubus occidentalis Thimble-berry 2 5 S5 XRubiaceae Madder FamilyGalium mollugo White Bedstraw 5 -2 SE5 X



NHIC Data1

NRSI Observed

Salicaceae Willow FamilyPopulus balsamifera ssp. balsamifera Balsam Poplar 4 -3 S5 XPopulus deltoides ssp. deltoides Eastern Cottonwood 4 -1 SU R+ XPopulus tremuloides Trembling Aspen 2 0 S5 XSalix alba var. alba White Willow -2 SE4 XSalix amygdaloides Peach-leaved Willow 6 -3 S5 XSalix exigua Sandbar Willow 3 -5 S5 XSalix fragilis Crack Willow -1 -3 SE5 XSalix petiolaris Slender Willow 3 -4 S5 XScrophulariaceae Figwort FamilyAureolaria virginica Smooth Yellow False Foxglove10 5 S1 R XLinaria vulgaris Butter-and-eggs 5 -1 SE5 XVerbascum blattaria Moth Mullein 4 -1 SE5 XVerbascum thapsus Common Mullein 5 -2 SE5 XSolanaceae Nightshade FamilySolanum dulcamara Bitter Nightshade 0 -2 SE5 XTiliaceae Linden FamilyTilia americana American Basswood 4 3 S5 XUlmaceae Elm FamilyCeltis occidentalis Common Hackberry 8 1 S4 R* XUlmus americana White Elm 3 -2 S5 XUlmus pumila Siberian Elm 5 -1 SE3 XUrticaceae Nettle FamilyUrtica dioica ssp. gracilis American Stinging Nettle 2 -1 S5 XValeriana edulis ssp. ciliata Taprooted Valerian 10 -5 S1 R XVerbenaceae Vervain FamilyVerbena hastata Blue Vervain 4 -4 S5 XVitaceae Grape FamilyParthenocissus vitacea Woodbine 3 3 S5 XParthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia-creeper 6 1 S4? R+ XVitis riparia Riverbank Grape 0 -2 S5 XMonocotyledons MonocotsCyperaceae Sedge FamilyCarex bebbii Bebb's Sedge 3 -5 S5 XCarex blanda Woodland Sedge 3 0 S5 XCarex gracillima Graceful Sedge 4 3 S5 XCarex lupuliformis Hop-like Sedge 10 -4 S1 END E Schedule 1 R XCarex pensylvanica Pennsylvania Sedge 5 5 S5 XCarex radiata Radiate Sedge 4 5 S5 XCarex retrorsa Retrorse Sedge 5 -5 S5 XCarex rosea Stellate Sedge 5 5 S5 XCarex stricta Tussock Sedge 4 -5 S5 XCarex vulpinoidea Fox Sedge 3 -5 S5 XSchoenoplectus smithii Smith's Club-rush 10 -5 S3 R XScirpus atrovirens Dark-green Bulrush 3 -5 S5 XJuncus acuminatus Sharp-fruited Rush 6 -5 S3 R XJuncus tenuis Path Rush 0 0 S5 XLiliaceae Lily FamilyAllium giganteum Ornamental onion XAllium schoenoprasum var. schoenoprasum Chives -1 -1 SE2 XMaianthemum racemosum ssp. racemosum False Solomon's Seal 4 3 S5 XTrillium grandiflorum White Trillium 5 5 S5 XOrchidaceae Orchid FamilyAplectrum hyemale Putty-root 10 S2 R XCypripedium arietinum Ram's-head Lady's Slipper 10 -4 S3 R XEpipactis helleborine Common Helleborine 5 -2 SE5 X



NHIC Data1

NRSI Observed

Poaceae Grass FamilyBromus inermis ssp. inermis Awnless Brome 5 -3 SE5 XDactylis glomerata Orchard Grass 3 -1 SE5 XEchinochloa crusgalli Common Barnyard Grass -3 -1 SE5 XElymus hystrix Bottle-brush Grass 5 5 S5 XLeersia oryzoides Rice Cut Grass 3 -5 S5 XMuhlenbergia tenuiflora var. tenuiflora Slender Satin Grass 9 5 S2 R XPanicum capillare Witch Grass 0 0 S5 XPhalaris arundinacea Reed Canary Grass 0 -4 S5 XPhragmites australis ssp. australis European Common Reed SNA XPoa pratensis ssp. pratensis Kentucky Bluegrass 0 1 S5 XSetaria viridis Green Foxtail -1 SE5 XSmilacaceae Catbrier FamilySmilax herbacea Herbaceous Carrion Flower 5 0 S4 XTyphaceae Cattail FamilyTypha angustifolia Narrow-leaved Cattail 3 -5 S5 XTypha latifolia Broad-leaved Cattail 3 -5 S5 X

Total 26 20 1901MNRF 2014; 2MNRF 2016a; 3COSEWIC 2016; 4Government of Canada 2016; 5Richardson and Martin 1999

LEGENDSRANKS1 Critically ImperiledS2 ImperiledS3 VulnerableS4 Apparently SecureS5 Secure SNA Rank Not ApplicableSE Exotic SpeciesCOSSARO / COSEWICEND/E EndangeredSARA ScheduleSchedule 1 Officially Protected under SARARegion of Waterloo StatusR RareR* Rare, but further study may prove otherwise R+ Significant only if demonstrably indigenousR# Known Regional reports treated as hypothetical


APPENDIX VII Bird Species Reported From the Study Area and Vicinity

Bird Species Reported From the Study Area

OBBA6

17NJ50

Anatidae Ducks, Geese & Swans

Branta canadensis Canada Goose S5 AE X

Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter Swan S4 NAR NAR FY

Aix sponsa Wood Duck S5 √* AE P

Anas platyrhynchos Mallard S5 FY X

Anas discors Blue-winged Teal S4 P

Anas crecca Green-winged Teal S4 √ P

Lophodytes cucullatus Hooded Merganser S5B, S5N √ H

Mergus merganser Common Merganser S5B, S5N √ P X

Phasianidae Partridges, Grouse & Turkeys

Bonasa umbellus Ruffed Grouse S4 DD

Meleagris gallopavo Wild Turkey S5 DD

Podicipediformes Grebes

Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed Grebe S4B, S4N √ FY

Ardeidae Herons & Bitterns

Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron S4B √ NY H

Butorides virescens Green Heron S4B √ FY X

Cathartidae Vultures

Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture S5B √ H X

Accipitridae Hawks, Kites, Eagles & Allies

Pandion haliaetus Osprey S5B √ P

Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned Hawk S5 NAR √ CF

Accipiter cooperii Cooper's Hawk S4 NAR NAR √ FY

Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk S5 NAR NAR AE X

Rallidae Railes, Gallinules & Coots

Rallus limicola Virginia Rail S5B √ T

Porzana carolina Sora S4B √ T

Fulica americana American Coot S4B NAR NAR √ T

Gruidae Cranes

Grus canadensis Sandhill Crane S5B √ FY X

Charadriidae Plovers

Charadrius vociferus Killdeer S5B, S5N DD S

Scolopacidae Sandpipers, Phalaropes & Allies

Actitis macularia Spotted Sandpiper S5 FY

Scolopax minor American Woodcock S4B FY

Columbidae Pigeons & Doves

Columba livia Rock Pigeon SNA FY X

Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove S5 AE X

Cuculiformes Cuckoos & Anis

Coccyzus americanus Yellow-billed Cuckoo S4B √ AE

Coccyzus erythropthalmus Black-billed Cuckoo S5B √ AE

Strigidae Typical Owls

Megascops asio Eastern Screech-Owl S4 NAR NAR AE

Bubo virgianus Great Horned Owl S4 AE

Aegolius acadicus Northern Saw-whet Owl S4 √ T

Caprimulgidae Goatsuckers

Chordeiles minor Common Nighthawk S4B SC T Schedule 1 √* T

Apodidae Swifts

Chaetura pelagica Chimney Swift S4B, S4N THR T Schedule 1 FY

Trochilidae Hummingbirds

Archilochus colubris Ruby-throated Hummingbird S5B √ D

Alcedinidae Kingfishers

Megaceryle alcyon Belted Kingfisher S4B √ AE

Picidae Woodpeckers

Melanerpes carolinus Red-bellied Woodpecker S4 √ AE

Picoides pubescens Downy Woodpecker S5 NY S

Picoides villosus Hairy Woodpecker S5 CF

Colaptes auratus Northern Flicker S4B NY P

Dryocopus pileatus Pileated Woodpecker S5 √ FY

Falconidae Caracaras & Falcons

Falco sparverius American Kestrel S4 CF

Tyrannidae Tyrant Flycathers

Contopus virens Eastern Wood-Pewee S4B SC SC FY S

Empidonax alnorum Alder Flycatcher S5B √ T

Empidonax traillii Willow Flycatcher S5B AE

Empidonax minimus Least Flycatcher S4B √ T

Sayornis phoebe Eastern Phoebe S5B NY

Myiarchus crinitus Great Crested Flycatcher S4B A S

Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern Kingbird S4B AE S

Scientific Name Common Name SRANK1 OMNR2 NHIC Data1NRSI

Observed

Region of

Waterloo

Status5COSEWIC3

SARA

Schedule4

OBBA6

17NJ50Scientific Name Common Name SRANK1 OMNR2 NHIC Data1NRSI

Observed

Region of

Waterloo

Status5COSEWIC3

SARA

Schedule4

Vireonidae Vireos

Vireo gilvis Warbling Vireo S5B FY S

Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo S5B NE S

Corvidae Crows & Jays

Cyanocitta cristata Blue Jay S5 FY H

Corvus brachyrhynchos American Crow S5B NY S

Alaudidae Larks

Eremophila alpestris Horned Lark S5B FY S

Hirundinidae Swallows

Progne subis Purple Martin S4B √* H

Tachycineta bicolor Tree Swallow S4B NY H

Stelgidopteryx serripennis Northern Rough-winged Swallow S4B AE X

Riparia riparia Bank Swallow S4B THR T AE

Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Cliff Swallow S4B √* AE

Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow S4B THR T AE H

Paridae Chickadees & Titmice

Poecile atricapillus Black-capped Chickadee S5 AE S

Sittidae Nuthatches

Sitta canadensis Red-breasted Nuthatch S5 √ S

Sitta carolinensis White-breasted Nuthatch S5 FY

Certhiidae Creepers

Certhia americana Brown Creeper S5B √ FY

Troglodytidae Wrens

Thryothorus ludovicianus Carolina Wren S4 √ T

Troglodytes aedon House Wren S5B NY A

Troglodytes hiemalis Winter Wren S5B √ T

Cistothorus palustris Marsh Wren S4B √ T

Regulidae Kinglets

Regulus satrapa Golden-crowned Kinglet S5B √ FY

Turdidae Thrushes

Sialia sialis Eastern Bluebird S5B NAR NAR √ FY

Catharus fuscescens Veery S4B √ T

Hylocichla mustelina Wood Thrush S4B SC T A

Turdus migratorius American Robin S5B NY FY

Mimidae Mockingbirds, Thrashers & Allies

Dumetella carolinensis Gray Catbird S4B FY S

Toxostoma rufum Brown Thrasher S4B √ A H

Sturnidae Starlings

Sturnus vulgaris European Starling SNA AE

Bombycillidae Waxwings

Bombycilla cedrorum Cedar Waxwing S5B AE P

Parulidae Wood Warblers

Seiurus aurocapillus Ovenbird S4B √ DD

Parkesia noveboracensis Northern Waterthrush S5B √ A

Vermivora chrysoptera Golden-winged Warbler S4B SC T Schedule 1 √ S

Vermivora cyanoptera Blue-winged Warbler S4B √ AE

Mniotilta varia Black-and-white Warbler S5B √ S

Geothylpis philadelphia Mourning Warbler S4B √ A

Geothylpis trichas Common Yellowthroat S5B CF S

Setophaga ruticilla American Redstart S5B √ FY

Setophaga cerulea Cerulean Warbler S3B THR E Schedule 1 √ X

Setophaga magnolia Magnolia Warbler S5B √ T

Setophaga petechia Yellow Warbler S5B FY S

Setophaga pensylvanica Chestnut-sided Warbler S5B √ T

Setophaga pinus Pine Warbler S5B √ FY

Setophaga coronata Yellow-rumped Warbler S5B √ H

Setophaga virens Black-throated Green Warbler S5B √ T

Cardellina canadensis Canada Warbler S4B SC T Schedule 1 √ T

Emberizidae New World Sparrows & Allies

Pipilo erythrophthalmus Eastern Towhee S4B A

Spizella passerina Chipping Sparrow S5B CF S

Spizella pallida Clay-colored Sparrow S4B √ T

Spizella pusilla Field Sparrow S4B FY

Pooecetes gramineus Vesper Sparrow S4B √ FY

Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah Sparrow S4B FY

Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow S5B CF A

Melospiza georgiana Swamp Sparrow S5B CF

Zonotrichia albicollis White-throated Sparrow S5B √ A

Cardinalidae Cardinals, Grosbeaks & Allies

Piranga olivacea Scarlet Tanager S4B √ T S

Cardinalis cardinalis Northern Cardinal S5 NY P

Pheucticus ludovicianus Rose-breasted Grosbeak S4B FY

Passerina cyanea Indigo Bunting S4B CF S

OBBA6

17NJ50Scientific Name Common Name SRANK1 OMNR2 NHIC Data1NRSI

Observed

Region of

Waterloo

Status5COSEWIC3

SARA

Schedule4

Icteridae Blackbirds

Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink S4B THR T No Schedule FY

Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird S4 CF CF

Sturnella magna Eastern Meadowlark S4B THR T FS

Quiscalus quiscula Common Grackle S5B CF P

Molothrus ater Brown-headed Cowbird S4B FY P

Icterus spurius Orchard Oriole S4B √ AE P

Icterus galbula Baltimore Oriole S4B FY CF

Fringillidae Finches & Allies

Carpodacus mexicanus House Finch SNA AE

Spinus tristis American Goldfinch S5B FY P

Passeridae Old World Sparrows

Passer domesticus House Sparrow SNA AE P

Total 193 1 451MNRF 2014a; 2MNRF 2016a; 3COSEWIC 2016; 4Government of Canada 2016; 5Martin 1996; 6BSC et al. 2008

LEGEND

SRANK

S4 Apparently Secure

S5 Secure

SU Unrankable

SNA Unranked

B Rank applicable to Breeding

Population

N Rank applicable to Non-

breeding Pop.

COSSARO / COSEWIC

SC/SC Special Concern

THR/T Threatened

END/E Endangered

NAR/NAR Not at Risk

SARA Schedule

Schedule 1 Officially Protected

under SARASchedule 3 Special concern;

may be reassessed for

consideration for inclusion to

Schedule 1


APPENDIX VIII Herpetofauna Species Reported From the Study Area and Vicinity

Herpetofauna Reported From the Study Area

Scientific Name Common Name SRANK1 OMNR2 COSEWIC3SARA

Schedule4

Region of Waterloo Status5

Ontario Reptile and Amphibian

Atlas6NHIC Data1

NRSI Observed

TurtlesChelydra serpentina serpentina Snapping Turtle S3 SC SC Schedule 1 C XChrysemys picta marginata Midland Painted Turtle S5 C X XEmydoidea blandingii Blanding's Turtle (Great Lakes/St Lawrence pop. ) S3 THR T Schedule 1 √ XSnakesLampropeltis taylori triangulum Eastern Milksnake S3 SC SC Schedule 1 √ XOpheodrys vernalis Smooth Greensnake S4 √ XRegina septemvittata Queensnake S2 END E Schedule 1 √ XStoreria dekayi dekayi Northern Brownsnake S5 NAR NAR C* X XStoreria occipitomaculata occipitomaculata Northern Red-bellied Snake S5 C* XThamnophis sauritus septentrionalis Eastern Ribbonsnake S3 SC SC Schedule 1 √ XThamnophis sirtalis sirtalis Eastern Gartersnake S5 C X XSalamandersAmbystoma jeffersonianum Jefferson Salamander S2 END E Schedule 1 √ XAmbystoma hybrid pop. 1 Jefferson x Blue-spotted Salamander; Jefferson

genome dominates S2 √ X XAmbystoma hybrid pop. 2 Jefferson x Blue-spotted Salamander; Blue-spotted

genome dominates S2 XAmbystoma hybrid pop. 3 Jefferson/Blue-spotted Salamander Complex S2 √ XAmbystoma laterale Blue-spotted Salamander S4 C XAmbystoma maculatum Spotted Salamander S4 √ XNecturus maculosus Mudpuppy S4 NAR NAR √ XNotophthalmus viridescens viridescens Red-spotted Newt S5 √ XPlethodon cinereus Eastern Red-backed Salamander S5 C XToads and FrogsAnaxyrus americanus American Toad S5 C X XHyla versicolor Tetraploid Gray Treefrog S5 C X XPseudacris triseriata pop. 2 Western Chorus Frog (Great Lakes/St. Lawrence -

Canadian Shield Pop.) S3 NAR T Schedule 1 XPseudacris crucifer Spring Peeper S5 C X XLithobates catesbeiana American Bullfrog S4 √ X XLithobates clamitans melanota Northern Green Frog S5 C X XLithobates palustris Pickerel Frog S4 NAR NAR √ XLithobates pipiens Northern Leopard Frog S5 NAR NAR C X XLithobates sylvatica Wood Frog S5 C X

Total 30 28 1 91MNRF 2014; 2MNRF 2016a; 3COSEWIC 2016; 4Government of Canada 2016; 5Regional Municipality of Waterloo 1985; 6Ontario Nature 2015LegendSRANKS2 ImperiledS3 VulnerableS4 Apparently SecureS5 Secure COSSARO / COSEWICEND/E EndangeredTHR/T ThreatenedSC/SC Special ConcernNAR Not at RiskSARA ScheduleSchedule 1 Officially Protected under SARARegion of Waterloo StatusC CommonC* Common, requires further study√ Significant


APPENDIX IX 2015 Snake Emergence Survey Results

Appendix IX: 2015 Snake Emergence Survey Results

Table 1. Survey Conditions

Survey DateSurvey Time (24hr)

No. of Searchers

Total No. Person Hours of

SearchingAir Temp (°C) Wind

SpeedWind

Direction (from)

Cloud Cover (%) Precipitation Cloud

Height VisibilityNo. of Eastern Gartersnake

ObservedNo. of Northern

Brownsnake Observed

April 15, 2015 - 2 - 16 4 N 10 None High High 13 0April 25, 2015 15:17-

16:29 1 1.25 8.5 2 SE 10 None High High 4 0May 01,2015 11:45-

13:00 1 1.25 18 3 NW 50 None High High 9 1May 05,2015 9:05-

10:40 2 3.5 9 1 S 100 None Medium High 17 043 1

Table 2. 2015 Snake Cover Board Survey Results Table 3. 2015 Snake Area Search Survey Results

Easting Northing

001 553023 4802065 0 0 Easting Northing002 552904 4802044 0 0 552893 4802294 1003 552772 4802318 0 0 552887 4802295 1004 552869 4802292 0 0 552862 4802283 2005 552743 4802421 2 1 552841 4802279 2006 552771 4802512 0 0 552824 4802364 1007 552822 4802290 0 0 552886 4802323 1008 552810 4802293 0 0 552899 4802300 1009 552805 4802296 6 0 552854 4802327 1010 55287 4802313 2 0 552853 4802309 4

10 1 552744 4802445 2552744 4802450 1552762 4802541 1552872 4802295 1552823 4802290 1552815 4802301 1552814 4802337 1552815 4802301 2552829 4802364 7552813 4802296 2552812 4802301 1552815 4802298 2552832 4802357 2552861 4802290 1552861 4802286 1552841 4802280 3

TOTAL 43

Totals

Observation LocationNo. of Eastern Gartersnake

ObservedUTM

Totals

Wind speed (Beaufort): 0=calm; 1=smoke drifts; 2=wind felt on face; 3=leaves move; 4=sm.branches move; 6=lrg.branches move; 7=lrg.trees move; 8=twigs break off, hard to walk; 9=light structural damage; 10=trees uprooted

Cover Board Reference No.

UTMNo. of Eastern Gartersnake

ObservedNo. of Northern

Brownsnake Observed


APPENDIX X Mammal Species Reported From the Study Area and Vicinity

Mammals Reported from the Study Area

Scientific Name Common Name SRANK1 OMNR2 COSEWIC3SARA

Schedule4

Region of Waterloo Status5

Ontario Mammal

Atlas6NRSI

ObservedDidelphimorphia OpossumsDidelphis virginiana Virginia Opossum S4 R XInsectivora Shrews and MolesBlarina brevicauda Northern Short-tailed Shrew S5 XCondylura cristata Star-nosed Mole S5 XSorex cinereus Masked Shrew S5 G XSorex fumeus Smoky Shrew S5 R XChiroptera BatsEptesicus fuscus Big Brown Bat S5 XLasiurus cinereus Hoary Bat S4 XMyotis lucifugus Little Brown Myotis S4 END E XMyotis septentrionalis Northern Myotis S3 END E XPerimyotis subflavus Tri-colored Bat S3? END E Schedule 1 XLagomorpha Rabbits and HaresLepus americanus Snowshoe Hare S5 S XLepus europaeus European Hare SNA XSylvilagus floridanus Eastern Cottontail S5 X XRodentia RodentsCastor canadensis Beaver S5 S XErethizon dorsatum Porcupine S5 S XMarmota monax Woodchuck S5 X XMicrotus pennsylvanicus Meadow Vole S5 X XMus musculus House Mouse SNA XOndatra zibethicus Muskrat S5 X XPeromyscus leucopus White-footed Mouse S5 XPeromyscus maniculatus Deer Mouse S5 XRattus norvegicus Norway Rat SNA XSciurus carolinensis Eastern Gray Squirrel S5 XTamiasciurus hudsonicus Red Squirrel S5 XTamias striatus Eastern Chipmunk S5 X XZapus hudsonius Meadow Jumping Mouse S5 XCarnivora CarnivoresCanis latrans Coyote S5 S XMephitis mephitis Striped Skunk S5 XMustela erminea Ermine S5 XMustela frenata Long-tailed Weasel S4 S XMustela vison American Mink S4 S XProcyon lotor Northern Raccoon S5 X XTaxidea taxus jacksoni American Badger S2 END E Schedule 1 XVulpes vulpes Red Fox S5 XArtiodactyla Deer and BisonOdocoileus virginianus White-tailed Deer S5 X X

Total 35 7¹MNRF 2014; ²MNRF 2016a ³COSEWIC 2016; ⁴Government of Canada 2016; 5Regional Municipality of Waterloo 1985; 6Dobbyn 1994

LEGENDSRANKS3 VulnerableS4 Apparently SecureS5 Secure SNA UnrankedCOSSARO / COSEWICSC/SC Special ConcernTHR/T ThreatenedEND/E EndangeredNAR/NAR Not at RiskRegion of Waterloo StatusR RareO OccasionalG GeneralS Scarce

1 of 1


APPENDIX XI Butterfly Species Reported From the Study Area and Vicinity

Scientific Name Common Name SRANK¹ OMNR² COSEWIC³SARA

Schedule⁴Region of Waterloo Status5 TEA Atlas6

NHIC Data1

NRSI Observed

Hesperiidae SkippersAnatrytone logan Delaware Skipper S4 C XAncyloxypha numitor Least Skipper S5 UC XCarterocephalus palaemon Arctic Skipper S5 R XEpargyreus clarus Silver-spotted Skipper S4 UC XErynnis baptisiae Wild Indigo Duskywing S4 UK XErynnis icelus Dreamy Duskywing S5 R XErynnis juvenalis Juvenal’s Duskywing S5 R XErynnis lucilius Columbine Duskywing S4 R XEuphyes conspicua Black Dash S3 UC XEuphyes dion Dion Skipper S3 R XEuphyes vestris Dun Skipper S5 VC XPholisora catullus Common Sootywing S3 R XPoanes hobomok Hobomok Skipper S5 C XPoanes massasoit Mulberry Wing S4 R XPoanes viator Broad-winged Skipper S4 C XPolites mystic Long Dash Skipper S5 UC XPolites origenes Crossline Skipper S4 R XPolites peckius Peck’s Skipper S5 VC XPolites themistocles Tawny-edged Skipper S5 C XPompeius verna Little Glassywing S4 UC XThorybes pylades Northern Cloudywing S5 R XThymelicus lineola European Skipper SNA VC XWallengrenia egeremet Northern Broken Dash S5 C XPapilionidae SwallowtailsPapilio cresphontes Giant Swallowtail S3 UC XPapilio glaucus Eastern Tiger Swallowtail S5 VC X XPapilio polyxenes Black Swallowtail S5 VC X XPapilio troilus Spicebush Swallowtail S4 XPieridae Whites and SulphursColias eurytheme Orange Sulphur S5 VC XColias philodice Clouded Sulphur S5 XPieris oleracea Mustard White S4 PE X

Butterfly Species Reported From the Study Area

1 of 3



NHIC Data1

NRSI Observed

Pieris rapae Cabbage White SNA VC X XPontia protodice Checkered White SNA R XPyrisitia lisa Little Yellow SNA R XLycaenidae Harvesters, Coppers, Celastrina ladon Spring Azure S5 C XCelastrina neglecta Summer Azure S5 VC X XCupido comyntas Eastern Tailed Blue S5 UC XFeniseca tarquinius Harvester S4 R XGlaucopsyche lygdamus Silvery Blue S5 XLycaena hyllus Bronze Copper S5 VC XSatyrium acadica Acadian Hairstreak S4 UC XSatyrium calanus Banded Hairstreak S4 UC XSatyrium caryaevorus Hickory Hairstreak S3 R XSatyrium edwardsii Edwards’ Hairstreak S4 R XSatyrium liparops Striped Hairstreak S5 UC XSatyrium titus Coral Hairstreak S5 UC XNymphalidae Brush-footed ButterfliesAglais milberti Milbert’s Tortoiseshell S5 UC XAsterocampa clyton Tawny Emperor S2S3 UC X XBoloria bellona Meadow Fritillary S5 VC XBoloria selene Silver-bordered Fritillary S5 R XCercyonis pegala Common Wood-Nymph S5 VC X XChlosyne nycteis Silvery Checkerspot S5 R XCoenonympha tullia Common Ringlet S5 C XDanaus plexippus Monarch S2N, S4B SC SC Schedule 1 VC XEnodia anthedon Northern Pearly-Eye S5 C XEuphydryas phaeton Baltimore Checkerspot S4 R XEuptoieta claudia Variegated Fritillary SNA R XJunonia coenia Common Buckeye SNA UC XLethe appalachia Appalachian Brown S4 UC XLethe eurydice Eyed Brown / Northern Eyed Brown S5 VC XLibytheana carinenta American Snout SNA R XLimenitis archippus Viceroy S5 VC X XLimenitis arthemis arthemis White Admiral/Banded Purple S5 C XLimentis arthemis astyanax Red-spotted Purple S5 C X

2 of 3



NHIC Data1

NRSI Observed

Megisto cymela Little Wood-Satyr S5 VC XNymphalis antiopa Mourning Cloak S5 VC XPhyciodes cocyta Northern Crescent S5 UC XPhyciodes tharos Pearl Crescent S4 C XPolygonia comma Eastern Comma S5 VC XPolygonia interrogationis Question Mark S5 VC XPolygonia progne Grey Comma S5 UC XSpeyeria cybele Great Spangled Fritillary S5 VC XVanessa atalanta Red Admiral S5 VC XVanessa cardui Painted Lady S5 C XVanessa virginiensis American Lady S5 C X¹MNRF 2014; ²MNRF 2016a; ³COSEWIC 2016; ⁴Government of Canada 2016; 5Regional Municipality of Total 74 1 6Waterloo 1985; 6MacNaughton et al. 2016LEGENDSRANKS2 ImperiledS3 VulnerableS4 Apparently SecureS5 Secure SNA UnrankedCOSSAROSC Special ConcernCOSEWICSC Special ConcernSARA ScheduleSchedule 1 Officially Protected under SARARegion of Waterloo StatusC CommonG GeneralO OccasionalS ScarceR Rare√ Significant

3 of 3


APPENDIX XII Odonate Species Reported From the Study Area and Vicinity

Dragonfly and Damselfly Species Reported From the Study Area


Schedule⁴Waterloo Status⁵

NHIC Data1

NRSI Observed

Calopterygidae Broadwinged DamselfliesCalopteryx aequabilis River Jewelwing S5 XCalopteryx maculata Ebony Jewelwing S5 XHetaerina americana American Rubyspot S4 XHetaerina titia Smoky Rubyspot S2 PossibleLestidae SpreadwingsArchilestes grandis Great Spreadwing S1 PossibleLestes congener Spotted Spreadwing S5 ExpectedLestes disjunctus Common Spreadwing S5 ExpectedLestes dryas Emerald Spreadwing S5 XLestes eurinus Amber-winged Spreadwing S3 ExpectedLestes forcipatus Sweetflag Spreadwing S4 XLestes inaequalis Elegant Spreadwing S4 ExpectedLestes rectangularis Slender Spreadwing S5 XLestes unguiculatus Lyre-tipped Spreadwing S5 XLestes vigilax Swamp Spreadwing S5 XCoenagrionidae Narrow-winged DamselfliesAmphiagrion saucium Eastern Red Damsel S4 XArgia apicalis Blue-fronted Dancer S4 XArgia fumipennis violacea Violet Dancer S5 XArgia moesta Powdered Dancer S5 XArgia tibialis Blue-tipped Dancer S3 ExpectedArgia translata Dusky Dancer S2 PossibleChromagrion conditum Aurora Damsel S5 XCoenagrion resolutum Taiga Bluet S5 XEnallagma anna River Bluet S2 XEnallagma annexum Northern Bluet S4 ExpectedEnallagma antennatum Rainbow Bluet S4 XEnallagma aspersum Azure Bluet S3 ExpectedEnallagma basidens Double-striped Bluet S3 PossibleEnallagma boreale Boreal Bluet S5 XEnallagma carunculatum Tule Bluet S5 XEnallagma civile Familiar Bluet S5 XEnallagma ebrium Marsh Bluet S5 XEnallagma exsulans Stream Bluet S5 XEnallagma geminatum Skimming Bluet S4 XEnallagma hageni Hagen's Bluet S5 X

1 of 4



NHIC Data1

NRSI Observed

Enallagma signatum Orange Bluet S4 XEnallagma traviatum Slender Bluet S1 PossibleEnallagma vernale Spring Northern Bluet S4 ExpectedEnallagma vesperum Vesper Bluet S4 ExpectedIschnura hastata Citrine Forktail SNA PossibleIschnura posita Fragile Forktail S4 XIschnura verticalis Eastern Forktail S5 XNehalennia gracilis Sphagnum Sprite S4 PossibleNehalennia irene Sedge Sprite S5 XAeshnidae DarnersAeshna canadensis Canada Darner S5 XAeshna clepsydra Mottled Darner S3 ExpectedAeshna constricta Lance-tipped Darner S5 ExpectedAeshna interrupta Variable Darner S5 PossibleAeshna tuberculifera Black-tipped Darner S4 XAeshna umbrosa Shadow Darner S5 XAeshna verticalis Green-striped Darner S3 ExpectedAnax junius Common Green Darner S5 XAnax longipes Comet Darner SNA PossibleBasiaeschna janata Springtime Darner S5 ExpectedBoyeria vinosa Fawn Darner S5 ExpectedEpiaeschna heros Swamp Darner S2S3 X XNasiaeschna pentacantha Cyrano Darner S3 PossibleRhionaeschna mutata Spatterdock Darner S1 X XGomphidae ClubtailsArigomphus furcifer Lilypad Clubtail S3 PossibleArigomphus villosipes Unicorn Clubtail S2S3 XDromogomphus spinosus Black-shouldered Spinyleg S5 ExpectedGomphus descriptus Harpoon Clubtail S3 PossibleGomphus exilis Lancet Clubtail S5 XGomphus fraternus Midland Clubtail S4 PossibleGomphus graslinellus Pronghorn Clubtail S3 ExpectedGomphus lividus Ashy Clubtail S4 ExpectedGomphus quadricolor Rapids Clubtail S1 END E Schedule 1 PossibleGomphus spicatus Dusky Clubtail S5 XGomphus viridifrons Green-faced Clubtail S1 PossibleHagenius brevistylus Dragonhunter S5 ExpectedOphiogomphus rupinsulensis Rusty Snaketail S4 XStylurus scudderi Zebra Clubtail S4 Possible

2 of 4



NHIC Data1

NRSI Observed

Stylurus spiniceps Arrow Clubtail S2 PossibleCordulegasteridae SpiketailsCordulegaster diastatops Delta-spotted Spiketail S4 PossibleCordulegaster maculata Twin-spotted Spiketail S4 XCordulegaster obliqua Arrowhead Spiketail S2 PossibleCorduliidae EmeraldsCordulia shurtleffii American Emerald S5 ExpectedDorocordulia libera Racket-tailed Emerald S5 XEpitheca canis Beaverpond Baskettail S5 ExpectedEpitheca cynosura Common Baskettail S5 XEpitheca pinceps Prince Baskettail S5 XEpitheca spinigera Spiny Baskettail S5 XNeurocordulia yamaskanensis Stygian Shadowdragon S4 ExpectedSomatochlora forcipata Forcipate Emerald S3 PossibleSomatochlora kennedyi Kennedy's Emerald S4 PossibleSomatochlora linearis Mocha Emerald S1 PossibleSomatochlora minor Ocellated Emerald S4 PossibleSomatochlora tenebrosa Clamp-tipped Emerald S2S3 ExpectedSomatochlora walshii Brush-tipped Emerald S4 XSomatochlora williamsoni Williamson's Emerald S4 ExpectedLibellulidae SkimmersCelithemis elisa Calico Pennant S5 ExpectedCelithemis eponina Halloween Pennant S4 XDidymops transversa Stream Cruiser S4 ExpectedErythemis simplicicollis Eastern Pondhawk S5 XLadona julia Chalk-fronted Corporal S5 XLeucorrhinia frigida Frosted Whiteface S5 XLeucorrhinia glacialis Crimson-ringed Whiteface S4 PossibleLeucorrhinia hudsonica Hudsonian Whiteface S5 PossibleLeucorrhinia intacta Dot-tailed Whiteface S5 XLeucorrhinia proxima Red-waisted (Belted) Whiteface S5 XLibellula incesta Slaty Skimmer S4 ExpectedLibellula luctuosa Widow Skimmer S5 XLibellula pulchella Twelve-spotted Skimmer S5 XLibellula quadrimaculata Four-spotted Skimmer S5 XLibellula semifasciata Painted Skimmer S2 ExpectedMacromia illinoiensis Illinois (Swift) River Cruiser S4 ExpectedNannothemis bella Elfin Skimmer S4 X

3 of 4



NHIC Data1

NRSI Observed

Pachydiplax longipennis Blue Dasher S5 XPantala flavescens Wandering Glider S4 ExpectedPantala hymenaea Spot-winged Glider S4 ExpectedPerithemis tenera Eastern Amberwing S4 ExpectedPlathemis lydia Common Whitetail S5 XSympetrum corruptum Variegated Meadowhawk S3 PossibleSympetrum costiferum Saffron-bordered Meadowhawk S4 PossibleSympetrum internum Cherry-faced Meadowhawk S5 XSympetrum obtrusum White-faced Meadowhawk S5 XSympetrum rubicundulum Ruby Meadowhawk S5 XSympetrum semicinctum Band-winged Meadowhawk S4 XSympetrum vicinum Yellow-legged (Banded) Meadowhawk S5 XTramea carolina Carolina Saddlebags SNA PossibleTramea lacerata Black Saddlebags S4 XTramea onusta Red Saddlebags SNA Possible¹MNRF 2014; ²MNRF 2016a; ³COSEWIC 2016; ⁴Government of Canada 2016; ⁵Regional Municipality Total 121 2 0of Waterloo 1985LEGENDSRANKS1 Critically ImperiledS2 ImperiledS3 VulnerableS4 Apparently SecureS5 Secure SNA UnrankedCOSSAROEND EndangeredCOSEWICE EndangeredSARA ScheduleSchedule 1 Officially Protected under SARA

4 of 4


APPENDIX XIII Butternut Health Assessment Report

of 5, BHA Report Number: 1502-1

Links:

Endangered Species Act, 2007: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_07e06_e.htm Ontario Regulation 242/08 (refer to section 23.7): http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_080242_e.htm Summary of changes related to Butternut: http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/butternut-trees-your-property MNR office locations: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/ContactUs/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_179002.html

Pamela Hammer BHA #0465 225 Labrador Drive, Unit 1 Waterloo, Ontario N2K 4M8 519-725-2227 [email protected] Harold Freure 1021269 Ontario Limited – c/o Freure Homes 501 Krug Street, Suite 201 Kitchener, Ontario N2B 1L3 519-578-7771 [email protected] September 4, 2014 RE: City of Cambridge, Newman Drive, Concession 12, Part Sub. Lot 2 W.G.R., RP58R-9677, Part 4 of 4 BHA Report Number: 1502-1 Date(s) of Butternut health assessment: July 22, 2014 Dear Mr. Freure, This letter is in regard to my assessment of the Butternut trees on your property. Please read this letter carefully as it contains important information about the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA). Butternut is listed as an endangered species on the Species at Risk in Ontario List, and as such, it is protected under the ESA from being killed, harmed, or removed. If you are planning to undertake an activity that may affect Butternut, you may be eligible to follow the requirements set out in section 23.7 of Ontario Regulation 242/08 under the ESA, or you may need to seek an authorization under the ESA (e.g., a permit). Please visit e-laws at the link provided below for the legal requirements of eligible activities under section 23.7 of Ontario Regulation 242/08 and conditions that must be fulfilled. Information about Butternut is also available at: http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/butternut-trees-your-property. If you are eligible to kill, harm or take Butternut under section 23.7 of the regulation, your first step is to submit the BHA Report and the original data forms enclosed in this package to the local MNR District Manager. Note that the MNR will not accept photocopies. The BHA Report must be submitted at least 30 days prior to registering to kill, harm, or remove a Butternut tree. During this 30 day period, no Butternut trees (of any


category) may be killed, harmed, or removed, and MNR may contact you for an opportunity to examine the trees. If MNR chooses to examine the trees, a representative of the MNR will contact you using the information you supplied when you submitted the BHA Report. After the examination has been completed, MNR will notify you if the examination results change whether you are eligible for the regulation. If you are eligible to follow the rules in regulation under section 23.7, you may register your activity using the “Notice of Butternut Impact” form on the MNR Registry after the 30 day period has elapsed. If you are not eligible to follow the rules in regulation under section 23.7, please contact the local Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) office to determine whether you will need to seek a permit. A link to the directory of MNR offices is provided in the text box on the previous page. As a designated Butternut Health Assessor (BHA), I am providing the following Butternut Health Assessor’s Report for the trees located at the above noted property, for which I completed an assessment during the site visit on the above noted date. If there are other Butternut trees at the site that may be affected by the activity and they are not identified in this report, they too must be assessed by a BHA. Note that municipal by-laws and legislation other than the ESA may also be applicable to the removal or harming of trees. Please retain this letter and a copy of the BHA Report for your records, along with any other documentation you may receive from the MNR should an examination of the trees occur. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or your local MNR district office. Sincerely, Pamela Hammer

Enclosures:

1. Butternut Health Assessor’s Report 2. Original data forms 3. Electronic and printed copies of the Excel data spreadsheet (BHA Tree Analysis)


Butternut Health Assessor’s Report Pamela Hammer BHA #0465 225 Labrador Drive, Unit 1 Waterloo, Ontario N2K 4M8 519-725-2227 [email protected] Harold Freure 1021269 Ontario Limited – c/o Freure Homes 501 Krug Street, Suite 201 Kitchener, Ontario N2B 1L3 519-578-7771 [email protected] Property description: City of Cambridge, Newman Drive, Concession 12, Part Sub. Lot 2 W.G.R., RP58R-9677, Part 4 of 4 BHA Report Number: 1502-1 Date(s) of Butternut health assessment: July 22, 2014 Date BHA Report prepared: September 4, 2014 Map datum used: NAD83 WGS84 Total number of trees assessed in this BHA Report: 6 The assessed trees were numbered on-site using tree tags, and were included as part of the on-site tree inventory. The numbers at the site correspond to the tree numbers used in this report. This BHA Report includes the following tables:

• Table 1: Butternut trees proposed to be killed, harmed, or taken • Table 2: Summary of Assessment Results

Table 1: Butternut trees proposed to be killed, harmed, or taken

Tree # UTM coordinates

Cat

egor

y1

(1, 2

, or

32)

dbh3

(cm

)

Cul

tivat

ed?

(Y/N

)

Pro

pose

d to

be

: (en

ter

one:

kill

ed,

harm

ed o

r ta

ken)

Reason tree is proposed to be killed, harmed or taken:

426 17T 552796 4802557 2 20 N Taken Residential development requiring grading.

434 17T 552784 4802554 2 11 N Taken Residential development requiring

1 The extent to which the tree is affected by Butternut Canker is presented in the Excel document titled, “BHA

Tree Analysis” that accompanies this BHA Report. 2 The rules in regulation under section 23.7 of O. Reg. 242/08 are not applicable to Category 3 trees. 3 dbh: diameter at breast height, rounded to nearest cm (if tree is shorter than breast height, enter zero)


Tree # UTM coordinates

Cat

egor

y1

(1, 2

, or

32)

dbh3

(cm

)

Cul

tivat

ed?

(Y/N

)

Pro

pose

d to

be

: (en

ter

one:

kill

ed,

harm

ed o

r ta

ken)

Reason tree is proposed to be killed, harmed or taken:

grading.





Table 2: Summary of Assessment Results

Result: Total #: Important information for persons planning activiti es that may affect Butternut:

Category 1

0 • A Category 1 tree is one that is affected by butternut canker to such an advanced degree that retaining the tree would not support the protection or recovery of butternut in the area in which the tree is located; and is considered “non-retainable”.

• During the 30 day period that follows your submission of this BHA Report to the MNR District Manager, no Butternut trees (of Category 1, 2, or 3) may be killed, harmed, or taken, and MNR may contact you for an opportunity to examine the trees.

• Category 1 trees may be killed, harmed or taken after the 30 day period that follows submission of this BHA Report to the MNR District Manager, unless the results of an MNR examination indicate that the assessment has not been conducted in accordance with the document entitled “Butternut Assessment Guidelines: Assessment of Butternut Tree Health for the Purposes of the Endangered Species Act, 2007”.

Category 2

6 • A Category 2 tree is one that is not affected by Butternut Canker, or is affected by Butternut Canker but the degree to which it is affected is not too advanced and retaining the tree could support the protection or recovery of butternut in the area in which the tree is located, and is considered “retainable”.

• During the 30 day period that follows your submission of this BHA Report to the MNR District Manager, no Butternut trees (of Category 1, 2, or 3) may be killed, harmed, or taken, and MNR may contact you for an opportunity to examine the trees.

• Activities that may kill, harm or take up to a maximum of ten (10) Category 2 trees may be eligible to follow the rules in section 23.7 of Ontario Regulation 242/08, in accordance with the conditions and requirements set out in the regulation.

• Refer to e-Laws for the legal requirements of eligible activities under section 23.7 of Ontario Regulation 242/08 and conditions that must be fulfilled: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_080242_e.htm

Category 3

0 • A Category 3 tree is one that may be useful in determining sources of resistance to Butternut Canker, and is considered “archivable”.

• Category 3 trees are not eligible to be killed, harmed or taken under section 23.7 of Ontario Regulation 242/08.

• Visit the MNR website using the link below for information on how to seek an ESA authorization, or consider an alternative that will avoid killing, harming or taking any Category 3 trees:


Result: Total #: Important information for persons planning activiti es that may affect Butternut:

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/2ColumnSubPage/MNR_SAR_HOW_DO_GET_PER_EN.html

Cultivated 0 • An activity that involves killing, harming, or taking a cultivated Butternut tree that was not

required to be planted to fulfill a condition of an ESA permit or a condition of a regulation, may be eligible for the exemption provided by subsection 23.7 (11) of O. Reg. 242/08.

• Prior to undertaking the activity, the owner or occupier of the land on which the Butternut is located (or person acting on their behalf) will need to determine whether the exemption for cultivated trees is applicable by determining whether or not the tree was cultivated as a result of the requirements for an exemption under O. Reg. 242/08 or a condition of a permit issued under the ESA. This information can be accessed by contacting the local MNR district office: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/ContactUs/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_179002.html

• The owner or occupier of the land on which the Butternut is located (or person acting on their behalf) is encouraged to append the details regarding whether the tree was planted to satisfy a requirement (e.g., the permit number or registration number) to this BHA Report for their records.

Hybrid 0 • Hybrid Butternut trees are not protected under the ESA, but their removal may be subject to

municipal by-laws and other legislation.

NOTE: This concludes the summary of the BHA Report. A complete BHA Report must include the original (hard copy) data forms (i.e., all completed sets of Form 1 and Form 2), an electronic copy of the Excel data analysis spreadsheet, and one printed copy of the Excel data analysis spreadsheet.


APPENDIX XIV Significant Wildlife Habitat Assessment

Significant Wildlife Habitat Assessment Tables

Table 1. Characteristics of Seasonal Concentration Areas for Ecoregion 6E.

Wildlife Species1Confirmed SWH Study Area

ELC Ecosite Codes1 Habitat Criteria and Information Sources1 Defining Criteria1Assessment Details

Rationale:

Habitat important to migrating

waterfowl.

American Black Duck

Wood Duck

Green-winged Teal

Blue-winged Teal

Mallard

Northern Pintail

Northern Shoveler

American Wigeon

Gadwall

CUM1

CUT1

- Plus evidence of annual

spring flooding from melt

water or run-off within

these Ecosites.

Fields with sheet water during Spring (mid March to

May).

• Fields flooding during spring melt and run-off provide

important invertebrate foraging habitat for migrating

waterfowl.

• Agricultural fields with waste grains are commonly

used by waterfowl, these are not considered SWH

unless they have spring sheet water availableexlviii.

Information Sources

• Anecdotal information from the landowner, adjacent

landowners or local naturalist clubs may be good

information in determining occurrence.

• Reports and other information available from

Conservation Authorities (CAs)

• Sites documented through waterfowl planning

processes (eg. EHJV implementation plan)

• Field Naturalist Clubs

• Ducks Unlimited Canada

• Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC)

Waterfowl Concentration Area

Studies carried out and verified presence of an

annual concentration of any listed species,

evaluation methods to follow “Bird and Bird

Habitats: Guidelines for Wind Power

Projects”ccxi

• Any mixed species aggregations of 100 or

more individuals required.

• The area of the flooded field ecosite habitat

plus a 100-300m radius buffer dependent on

local site conditions and adjacent land use is

the significant wildlife habitatcxlviii.

• Annual use of habitat is documented from

information sources or field studies (annual use

can be based on studies or determined by past

surveys with species numbers and dates).

• SWHMiSTcxlix Index #7 provides development

effects and mitigation measures.

Suitable habitat not present

within the study area.

Not SWH

Rationale:

Important for local and migrant

waterfowl populations during the

spring or fall migration or both

periods combined. Sites identified

are usually only one of a few in the

eco-district.

Canada Goose

Cackling Goose

Snow Goose

American Black Duck

Northern Pintail

Northern Shoveler

American Wigeon

Gadwall

Green-winged Teal

Blue-winged Teal

Hooded Merganser

Common Merganser

Lesser Scaup

Greater Scaup

Long-tailed Duck

Surf Scoter

White-winged Scoter

Black Scoter

Ring-necked Duck

Common Goldeneye

Bufflehead

Redhead

Ruddy Duck

Red-breasted Merganser

Brant

Canvasback

MAS1

MAS2

MAS3

SAS1

SAM1

SAF1

SWD1

SWD2

SWD3

SWD4

SWD5

SWD6

SWD7

• Ponds, marshes, lakes, bays, coastal inlets, and

watercourses used during migration. Sewage treatment

ponds and storm water ponds do not qualify as a SWH,

however a reservoir managed as a large wetland or

pond/lake does qualify.

• These habitats have an abundant food supply (mostly

aquatic invertebrates and vegetation in shallow water).

Information Sources

• Environment Canada

• Naturalist clubs often are aware of staging/stopover

areas.

• OMNRF Wetland Evaluations indicate presence of

locally and regionally significant waterfowl staging.

• Sites documented through waterfowl planning

processes (eg. EHJV implementation plan)

• Ducks Unlimited projects

• Element occurrence specification by Nature Serve:

http://www.natureserve.org

• Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC)

Waterfowl Concentration Area

Studies carried out and verified presence of:

• Aggregations of 100Í or more of listed

species for 7 daysÍ, results in > 700 waterfowl

use days.

• Areas with annual staging of ruddy ducks,

canvasbacks, and redheads are SWHcxlix

• The combined area of the ELC ecosites and

a 100m radius area is the SWHcxlviii

• Wetland area and shorelines associated with

sites identified within the SWHTGcxlviii Appendix

Kcxlix are significant wildlife habitat.

• Evaluation methods to follow “Bird and Bird


Projects”ccxi

• Annual Use of Habitat is Documented from

Information Sources or Field Studies (Annual

can be based on completed studies or

determined from past surveys with species

numbers and dates recorded).





Not SWH

Candidate SWH

Wildlife Habitat: Waterfowl Stopover and Staging Areas (Aquatic)

Wildlife Habitat: Waterfowl Stopover and Staging Areas (Terrestrial)




Candidate SWH

Rationale:

High quality shorebird stopover

habitat is extremely rare and

typically has a long history of use.

Greater Yellowlegs

Lesser Yellowlegs

Marbled Godwit

Hudsonian Godwit

Black-bellied Plover

American Golden-Plover

Semipalmated Plover

Solitary Sandpiper

Spotted Sandpiper

Semipalmated Sandpiper

Pectoral Sandpiper

White-rumped Sandpiper

Baird’s Sandpiper

Least Sandpiper

Purple Sandpiper

Stilt Sandpiper

Short-billed Dowitcher

Red-necked Phalarope Whimbrel

Ruddy Turnstone

Sanderling

Dunlin

Whimbrel

BBO1

BBO2

BBS1

BBS2

BBT1

BBT2

SDO1

SDS2

SDT1

MAM1

MAM2

MAM3

MAM4

MAM5

Shorelines of lakes, rivers and wetlands, including

beach areas, bars and seasonally flooded, muddy and

un-vegetated shoreline habitats. Great Lakes coastal

shorelines, including groynes and other forms of

armour rock lakeshores, are extremely important for

migratory shorebirds in May to mid-June and early July

to October. Sewage treatment ponds and storm water

ponds do not qualify as a SWH.

Information Sources

• Western hemisphere shorebird reserve network.

• Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) Ontario Shorebird

Survey.

• Bird Studies Canada

• Ontario Nature

• Local birders and naturalist clubs

• Natural Heritage Information Center (NHIC) Shorebird

Migratory Concentration Area

Studies confirming:

• Presence of 3 or more of listed species and >

1000 shorebird use days during spring or fall

migration period. (shorebird use days are the

accumulated number of shorebirds counted per

day over the course of the fall or spring

migration period)

• Whimbrel stop briefly (<24hrs) during spring

migration, any site with >100 Whimbrel used

for 3 years or more is significant.

• The area of significant shorebird habitat

includes the mapped ELC shoreline ecosites

plus a 100m radius areacxlviii



Projects”ccxi



Suitable habitat not present in

the study area.

Not SWH

Rational:

Sites used by multiple species, a

high number of individuals and

used annually are most significant

Rough-legged Hawk

Red-tailed Hawk

Northern Harrier

American Kestrel

Snowy Owl

Special Concern:

Short-eared Owl

Bald Eagle

Hawks/Owls:

Combination of ELC

Community Series; need to

have present one

Community Series from

each land class:

Forest:

FOD, FOM, FOC

Upland:

CUM, CUT, CUS, CUW

The habitat provides a combination of fields and

woodlands that provide roosting, foraging and resting

habitats for wintering raptors.

Raptor wintering sites need to be > 20 hacxlviii, cxlix with a

combination of forest and upland.xvi, xvii, xviii, xix, xx, xxi.

Least disturbed sites, idle/fallow or lightly grazed

field/meadow (>15ha) with adjacent woodlandscxlix

Field area of the habitat is to be wind swept with limited

snow depth or accumulation.

Eagle sites have open water, large trees and snags

available for roosting

Information Sources

• OMNRF Ecologist or Biologist

• Field Natural Clubs

• Natural Heritage Information Center (NHIC) Raptor

Winter Concentration Area

• Data from Bird Studies Canada

• Reports and other information available from

Conservation Authorities CAs.

Studies confirm the use of these habitats by:

• One or more Short-eared Owls or; One or

more Bald Eagles or; At least 10 individuals

and two listed hawk/owl species

• To be significant a site must be used

regularly (3 in 5 years)cxlix for a minimum of 20

days by the above number of birds

• The habitat area for an Eagle winter site is

the shoreline forest ecosites directly adjacent

to the prime hunting area



Projects”ccxi

• SWHMiSTcxlix Index #10 and #11 provides

development effects and mitigation measures.



Not SWH

Wildlife Habitat: Shorebird Migratory Stopover Area

Wildlife Habitat: Raptor Wintering Area




Candidate SWH

Rationale

Bat hibernacula are rare habitats in

Ontario landscapes.

Big Brown Bat

Tri-coloured Bat

Bat Hibernacula may be

found in these ecosites:

CCR1

CCR2

CCA1

CCA2

(Note: buildings are not

considered to be SWH)

• Hibernacula may be found in caves, mine shafts,

underground foundations and Karsts.

• Active mine sites should not be considered as SWH

• The locations of bat hibernacula are relatively poorly

known.

Information Sources

• OMNRF for possible locations and contact for local

experts

• Natural Heritage Information Center (NHIC) Bat

Hibernaculum

• Ministry of Northern Development and Mines for

location of mine shafts.

• Clubs that explore caves (eg. Sierra Club)

• University Biology Departments with bat experts.

• All sites with confirmed hibernating bats are

SWH.

• The habitat area includes a 200m radius

around the entrance of the hibernaculumcxlviii,

ccvii for most.

• Studies are to be conducted during the peak

swarming period (Aug. – Sept.). Surveys

should be conducted following methods

outlined in the "Bats and Bat Habitats:

Guidelines for Wind Power Projects"ccv

• SWHMiSTcxlix Index #1 provides



the study area.

Not SWH

Wildlife Habitat: Bat Maternity ColoniesRationale:

Known locations of forested bat

maternity colonies is extremely

rare in all Ontario landscapes.

Big Brown Bat

Silver-haired Bat

Maternity colonies

considered SWH are found

in forested Ecosites.

All ELC Ecosites in ELC

Community Series:

FOD

FOM

SWD

SWM

Maternity colonies can be found in tree cavities,

vegetation and often in buildingsxxii, xxv, xxvi, xxvii, xxxi

(buildings are not considered to be SWH).

• Maternity roosts are not found in caves and mines in

Ontarioxxii

• Maternity colonies located in Mature deciduous or

mixed forest standsccix, ccx with >10/ha large diameter

(>25cm dbh) wildlife treesccvii

• Female Bats prefer wildlife tree (snags) in early

stages of decay, class 1-3ccxiv or class 1 or 2ccxii

• Silver-haired Bats prefer older mixed or deciduous

forest and form maternity colonies in tree cavities and

small hollows. Older forest areas with at least 21

snags/ha are preferredccx

Information Sources

• OMNRF for possible locations and contact for local

experts

• University Biology Departments with bat experts.

• Maternity Colonies with confirmed use by:

• >10 Big Brown Bats

• >5 Adult Female Silver-haired Bats

• The area of the habitat includes the entire

woodland or a forest stand ELC Ecosite or an

Ecoelement containing the maternity colonies.

• Evaluation methods for maternity colonies

should be conducted following methods

outlined in the "Bats and Bat Habitats:

Guidelines for wind Power Projectsccv

• SWHMiS Tcxlix Index #12 provides


The subject property contains

deciduous forest that may

provide suitable bat maternity

colony habitat.

Candidate SWH

Wildlife Habitat: Bat Hibernacula




Candidate SWH

Wildlife Habitat: Bat Migratory Stopover AreaHoary Bat

Eastern Red Bat

Silver-haired Bat

No specified ELC types. Long distance migratory bats typically migrate during

late summer and early fall from summer breeding

habitats throughout Ontario to southern wintering

areas. Their annual fall migrations concentrate these

species of bats at stopover areas. The location and

characteristics of stopover habitats are generally

unknown.

Information Sources

• OMNR for possible locations and contact for local

experts

• University of Waterloo, Biology Department

Long Point has been identified as a significant

stopover habitat for fall migrating Silver-haired

Bats, due to significant increases in

abundance, activity and feeding that was

documented during fall migrationccxv

• The confirmation criteria and habitat areas for

this SWH are still being determined.

• SWHDSScxlix Index #38 provides

development effects and mitigation measures

Criteria unavailable to assess

significance of habitat in study

area.

Wildlife Habitat: Turtle Wintering AreaRationale:

Generally sites are the only known

sites in the area. Sites with the

highest number of individuals are

most significant

Midland Painted Turtle

Special Concern:

Northern Map Turtle

Snapping Turtle

Snapping and Midland

Painted Turtles -

ELC Community Classes:

SW, MA, OA and SA;

ELC Community Series:

FEO and BOO

Northern Map Turtle - Open

Water areas such as

deeper rivers or streams

and lakes with current can

also be used as over-

wintering habitat.

For most turtles, wintering areas are in the same

general area as their core habitat. Water has to be

deep enough not to freeze and have soft mud

substrates.

• Over-wintering sites are permanent water bodies,

large wetlands, and bogs or fens with adequate

Dissolved Oxygencix, cx, cxi, cxviii.

• Man-made ponds such as sewage lagoons or storm

water ponds should not be considered SWH.

Information Sources

• EIS studies carried out by Conservation Authorities.

• Local field naturalists and experts, as well as

university herpetologists may also know where to find

some of these sites.

• OMNRF ecologist or biologist

• Natural Heritage Information Center (NHIC)

• Presence of 5 over-wintering Midland Painted

Turtles is significant.

• One or more Northern Map Turtle or

Snapping Turtle over-wintering within a wetland

is significant.

• The mapped ELC ecosite area with the over

wintering turtles is the SWH. If the hibernation

site is within a stream or river, the deep-water

pool where the turtles are over wintering is the

SWH.

• Over wintering areas may be identified by

searching for congregations (Basking Areas) of

turtles on warm, sunny days during the fall

(Sept. – Oct.) or spring (Mar. – May)cvii

• Congregation of turtles is more common

where wintering areas are limited and therefore

significantcix, cx, cxi, cxii.



for turtle wintering habitat.

The stormwater management

pond may provide

overwintering habitat.

Candidate SWH




Candidate SWH

Wildlife Habitat: Snake HibernaculumRationale:

Generally sites are the only known

sites in the area. Sites with the

highest number of individuals are

most significant

Snakes:

Eastern Gartersnake

Northern Watersnake

Northern Red-bellied Snake

Northern Brownsnake

Smooth Green Snake

Northern Ring-necked Snake

Special Concern:

Milksnake

Eastern Ribbonsnake

Lizard:

Special Concern (Southern Shield

population):

Five-lined Skink

For all snakes, habitat may

be found in any ecosite

other than very wet ones.

Talus, Rock Barren,

Crevice and Cave, and

Alvar sites may be directly

related to these habitats.

Observations of

congregations of snakes on

sunny warm days in the

spring or fall is a good

indicator.

For Five-lined Skink, ELC

Community Series of FOD

and FOM and Ecosites:

FOC1

FOC3

• For snakes, hibernation takes place in sites located

below frost lines in burrows, rock crevices and other

natural locations. The existence of features that go

below the frost line; such as rock piles or slopes, old

stone fences, and abandoned crumbling foundations

assist in identifying candidate SWH.

• Areas of broken and fissured rock are particularly

valuable since they provide access to subterranean

sites below the frost linexliv, l, li, lii, cxii.

• Wetlands can also be important over-wintering habitat

in conifer or shrub swamps and swales, poor fens, or

depressions in bedrock terrain with sparse trees or

shrubs with sphagnum moss or sedge hummock

ground cover.

• Five-lined skink prefer mixed forests with rock outcrop

openings providing cover rock overlaying granite

bedrock with fissures cciii.

Information Sources

• In spring, local residents or landowners may have

observed the emergence of snakes on their property

(e.g. old dug wells).

• Reports and other information from CAs.

• Local Field naturalists and experts, as well as

university herpetologists may also know where to find

some of these sites. clubs


• OMNRF ecologist or biologist may be aware of

locations of wintering skinks

Studies confirming:

• Presence of snake hibernacula used by a

minimum of five individuals of a snake sp. or;

individuals of two or more snake spp.

• Congregations of a minimum of five

individuals of a snake sp. or; individuals of two

or more snake spp. near potential hibernacula

(eg. foundation or rocky slope) on sunny warm

days in Spring (Apr/May) and Fall (Sept/Oct).

• Note: If there are Special Concern Species

present, then site is SWH

• Note: Sites for hibernation possess specific

habitat parameters (e.g. temperature, humidity,

etc.) and consequently are used annually, often

by many of the same individuals of a local

population [i.e. strong hibernation site fidelity].

Other critical life processes (e.g. mating) often

take place in close proximity to hibernacula.

The feature in which the hibernacula is located

plus a 30m buffer is the SWHÍ



for snake hibernacula.

• Presence of any active hibernaculum for

skink is significant.



for five-lined skink wintering habitat.

Suitable hibernaculum

features may occur within the

study area.

Candidate SWH

Wildlife Habitat: Colonially - Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Bank and Cliff)Rationale:

Historical use and number of nests

in a colony make this habitat

significant. An identified colony can

be very important to local

populations. All swallow

populations are declining in

Ontario.

Cliff Swallow

Northern Rough-winged Swallow

(this species is not colonial but can

be found in Cliff Swallow colonies)

Eroding banks, sandy hills,

borrow pits, steep slopes,

and sand piles

Cliff faces, bridge

abutments, silos, barns

Habitat found in the

following ecosites:

CUM1 CUT1

CUS1 BLO1

BLS1 BLT1

CLO1 CLS1

CLT1

• Any site or areas with exposed soil banks,

undisturbed or naturally eroding that is not a

licensed/permitted aggregate area.

• Does not include man-made structures (bridges or

buildings) or recently (2 years) disturbed soil areas,

such as berms, embankments, soil or aggregate

stockpiles.

• Does not include a licensed/permitted Mineral

Aggregate Operation.

Information Sources

• Reports and other information available from CAs

• Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas ccv

• Bird Studies Canada; NatureCounts

http://www.birdscanada.org/birdmon/

• Field Naturalist clubs

Studies confirming:

• Presence of 1 or more nesting sites with 8cxlvix

or more cliff swallow pairs and/or rough-winged

swallow pairs during the breeding season.

• A colony identified as SWH will include a 50m

radius habitat area from the peripheral nestsccvii

• Field surveys to observe and count swallow

nests are to be completed during the breeding

season Evaluation methods to follow “Bird and

Bird Habitats: Guidelines for Wind Power

Projects”ccxi


effects and mitigation measures


the study area.

Not SWH




Candidate SWH

Rationale:

Large Colonies are important to

local bird population, typically sites

are only known colony in area and

are used annually.

Great Blue Heron

Black-crowned Night-heron

Great Egret

Green Heron

SWM2 SWM3

SWM5 SWM6

SWD1 SWD2

SWD3 SWD4

SWD5 SWD6

SWD7 FET1

• Nests in live or dead standing trees in wetlands,

lakes, islands, and peninsulas. Shrubs and occasionally

emergent vegetation may also be used.

• Most nests in trees are 11 to 15m from ground, near

the top of the tree.

Information Sources

• Ontario Breeding Bird Atlasccv, colonial nest records.

• Ontario Heronry Inventory 1991 available from Bird

Studies Canada or NHIC (OMNR).

• NHIC Mixed Wader Nesting Colony

• Aerial photographs can help identify large heronries


• MNRF District Offices

• Local naturalist clubs

Studies confirming:

• Presence of 5Í or more active nests of Great

Blue Heron or other listed species.

• The habitat extends from the edge of the

colony and a minimum 300m radius or extent

of the Forest Ecosite containing the colony or

any island <15.0ha with a colony is the SWH cc,

ccvii

• Confirmation of active heronries are to be

achieved through site visits conducted during

the nesting season (April to August) or by

evidence such as the presence of fresh guano,

dead young and/or eggshells



The study area contains

mixed swamp which may

provide suitable habitat

conditions.

Candidate SWH

Rationale:

Colonies are important to local bird

populations, typically sites are only

known colony in area and are used

annually.

Herring Gull

Great Black-backed Gull

Little Gull

Ring-billed Gull

Common Tern

Caspian Tern

Brewer’s Blackbird

Any rocky island or

peninsula (natural or

artificial) within a lake or

large river (two-lined on a

1:50,000 NTS map).

Close proximity to

watercourses in open fields

or pastures with scattered

trees or shrubs (Brewer’s

Blackbird)

MAM1 – 6

MAS1 – 3

CUM

CUT

CUS

• Nesting colonies of gulls and terns are on islands or

peninsulas associated with open water or in marshy

areas.

• Brewers Blackbird colonies are found loosely on the

ground in or in low bushes in close proximity to streams

and irrigation ditches within farmlands.

Information Sources

• Ontario Breeding Bird Atlasccv, rare/colonial species

records.

• Canadian Wildlife Service


• Natural Heritage Information Center (NHIC) Colonial

Waterbird Nesting Area


• Field naturalist clubs

Studies confirming:

• Presence of >25 active nests for Herring

Gulls or Ring-billed Gulls, >5 active nests for

Common Tern or >2 active nests for Caspian

TernÍ.

• Presence of 5 or more pairs for Brewer’s

Blackbird.

• Any active nesting colony of one or more

Little Gull, and Great Black-backed Gull is

significant.

• The edge of the colony and a minimum 150m

area of habitat, or the extent of the ELC

ecosites containing the colony or any island

<3.0ha with a colony is the SWHcc, ccvii

• Studies would be done during May/June when

actively nesting. Evaluation methods to follow

“Bird and Bird Habitats: Guidelines for Wind

Power Projects”ccxi




within the subject property.

Not SWH

Wildlife Habitat: Colonially - Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Ground)

Wildlife Habitat: Colonially - Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Tree/Shrubs)




Candidate SWH

Rationale:

Butterfly stopovers areas are

extremely rare habitats and are

biologically important for butterfly

species that migrate south for the

winter.

Painted Lady

Red Admiral

Special Concern:

Monarch

Combination of ELC

Community Series:

Need to have present one

Community Series from

each landclass:

Field:

CUM CUS

CUT

Forest:

FOC FOM

FOD CUP

Anecdotally, a candidate

sight for butterfly stopover

will have a history of

butterflies being observed.

A butterfly stopover area will be a minimum of 10 ha in

size with a combination of field and forest habitat

present, and will be located within 5 km of Lake

Ontariocxlix.

• The habitat is typically a combination of field and

forest, and provides the butterflies with a location to

rest prior to their long migration southxxxii, xxxiii, xxxiv, xxxv,

xxxvi.

• The habitat should not be disturbed, fields/meadows

with an abundance of preferred nectar plants and

woodland edge providing shelter are requirements for

this habitat cxlviii, cxlix.

• Staging areas usually provide protection from the

elements and are often spits of land or areas with the

shortest distance to cross the Great Lakesxxxvii, xxxviii, xxxix,

xl, xli.

Information Sources

• OMNRF (NHIC)

• Agriculture Canada in Ottawa may have list of

butterfly experts.

• Field Naturalist Clubs

• Toronto Entomologists Association

• Conservation Authorities

Studies confirm:

• The presence of Monarch Use Days (MUD)

during fall migration (Aug/Oct)xliii. MUD is

based on the number of days a site is used by

Monarchs, multiplied by the number of

individuals using the site. Numbers of

butterflies can range from 100-500/dayxxxvii,

significant variation can occur between years

and multiple years of sampling should occur xl,

xlii.

• Observational studies are to be completed

and need to be done frequently during the

migration period to estimate MUD

• MUD of >5000 or >3000 with the presence of

Painted Ladies or Red Admiral’s is to be

considered significant.



The subject property is not

within 5 km of Lake Ontario.

Not SWH

Rationale:

Sites with a high diversity of

species as well as high number are

most significant

All migratory songbirds.

Canadian Wildlife Service Ontario

website:

http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/wildlife_e.ht

ml

All migrant raptors species:

Ontario Ministry of Natural

Resources:

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act,

1997. Schedule 7: Specially

Protected Birds (Raptors)

All Ecosites associated

with these ELC Community

Series:

FOC

FOM

FOD

SWC

SWM

SWD

Woodlots need to be >10 haÍ in size and within 5km iv, v,

vi, vii, viii, ix, x, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xv of Lake Ontario.

• If multiple woodlands are located along the shoreline,

those woodlands <2km from Lake Ontario are more

significantcxlix

• Sites have a variety of habitats; forest, grassland and

wetland complexescxlix.

• The largest sites are more significantcxlix

• Woodlots and forest fragments are important habitats

to migrating birdsccxviii, these features located along the

shore and located within 5km of Lake Ontario are

Candidate SWHcxlviii.

Information Sources

• Bird Studies Canada

• Ontario Nature

• Local birders and naturalist club

• Ontario Important Bird Areas

(IBA) Program

Studies confirm:

• Use of the woodlot by >200 birds/day and

with >35 spp. with at least 10 bird spp.

recorded on at least 5 different survey dates.

This abundance and diversity of migrant bird

species is considered above average and

significant.

• Studies should be completed during spring

(Apr/May) and fall (Aug/Oct) migration using

standardized assessment techniques.

Evaluation methods to follow “Bird and Bird


Projects”ccxi



The subject property is not

within 5 km of Lake Ontario.

Not SWH

Wildlife Habitat: Migratory Butterfly Stopover Areas

Wildlife Habitat: Landbird Migratory Stopover Areas




Candidate SWH

Rationale:

Winter habitat for deer is

considered to be the main factor

for northern deer populations. In

winter, deer congregate in "yards"

to survive severe winter conditions.

Deer yards typically have a long

history of annual use by deer,

yards typically represent 10-15% of

an areas summer range.

White-tailed Deer Note: OMNRF to determine

this habitat.

ELC Community Series

providing a thermal cover

component for a deer yard

would include:

FOM, FOC, SWM and

SWC.

Or these ELC Ecosites:

CUP2 CUP3

FOD3 CUT

• Deer yarding areas or winter concentration areas

(yards) are areas deer move to in response to the

onset of winter snow and cold. This is a behavioural

response and deer will establish traditional use areas.

The yard is composed of two areas referred to as

Stratum I and Stratum II. Stratum II covers the entire

winter yard area and is usually a mixed or deciduous

forest with plenty of browse available for food.

Agricultural lands can also be included in this area.

Deer move to these areas in early winter and generally,

when snow depths reach 20cm, most of the deer will

have moved here. If the snow is light and fluffy, deer

may continue to use this area until 30cm snow depth.

In mild winters, deer may remain in the Stratum II area

the entire winter.

• The Core of a deer yard (Stratum I) is located within

the Stratum II area and is critical for deer survival in

areas where winters become severe. It is primarily

composed of coniferous trees (pine, hemlock, cedar,

spruce) with a canopy cover of more than 60%cxciv.

• OMNRF determines deer yards following methods

outlined in “Selected Wildlife and Habitat Features:

Inventory Manual"cxcv

• Woodlots with high densities of deer due to artificial

feeding are not significant.

No Studies Required:

• Snow depth and temperature are the greatest

influence on deer use of winter yards. Snow

depths > 40cm for more than 60 days in a

typically winter are minimum criteria for a deer

yard to be considered as SWHlvi, lvii, lviii, lix, lx, Í.

• Deer Yards are mapped by OMNRF District

offices. Locations of Core or Stratum 1 and

Stratum 2 Deer yards considered significant by

OMNRF will be available at local MNRF offices

or via Land Information Ontario (LIO).

• Field investigations that record deer tracks in

winter are done to confirm use (best done from

an aircraft). Preferably, this is done over a

series of winters to establish the boundary of

the Stratum I and Stratum II yard in an

"average" winter. MNRF will complete these

field investigationscxcv.

• If a SWH is determined for Deer Wintering

Area or if a proposed development is within

Stratum II yarding area then Movement

Corridors are to be considered as outlined in

Table 1.4.1 of this Schedule.



MNR has not mapped deer

overwintering habitat in the

immediate vicinity.

Not SWH

Rationale:

Deer movement during winter in

the southern areas of Ecoregion

6E are not constrained by snow

depth, however deer will annually

congregate in large numbers in

suitable woodlands to reduce or

avoid the impacts of winter

conditionsexlviii

White-tailed Deer All Forested Ecosites with

these ELC Community

Series:

FOC

FOM

FOD

SWC

SWM

SWD

Conifer plantations much

smaller than 50ha may also

be used.

• Woodlots will typically be >100 ha in size. Woodlots

<100ha may be considered as significant based on

MNRF studies or assessment.

• Deer movement during winter in the southern areas of

Eco-region 6E are not constrained by snow depth,

however deer will annually congregate in large

numbers in suitable woodlandscxlviii.

• If deer are constrained by snow depth refer to the

Deer Yarding Area habitat within Table 1.1 of this

Schedule.

• Large woodlots > 100ha and up to 1500 ha are known

to be used annually by densities of deer that range

from 0.1-1.5 deer/haccxxiv.

• Woodlots with high densities of deer due to artificial

feeding are not significant.

Information Sources


• LIO/NRVIS

Studies confirm:

• Deer management is an MNRF responsibility,

deer winter congregation areas considered

significant will be mapped by MNRFcxlviii.

• Use of the woodlot by white-tailed deer will be

determined by MNRF, all woodlots exceeding

the area criteria are significant, unless

determined not to be significant by MNRÍ.

• Studies should be completed during winter

(Jan/Feb) when >20cm of snow is on the

ground using aerial survey techniquesccxxiv ,

ground or road surveys, or a pellet count deer

density surveyccxxv.

• If a SWH is determined for Deer Wintering

Area of if a proposed development is within

Stratum II yarding area then Movement

Corridors are to be considered as outlined in

Table 1.4.1 of this Schedule.



MNR has not mapped deer

overwintering habitat in the

immediate vicinity.

Not SWH

Wildlife Habitat: Deer Winter Congregation Areas

Wildlife Habitat: Deer Yarding Areas


Table 2. Characteristics of Rare Vegetation Communities for Ecoregion 6E.

Rare Vegetation Community1

Confirmed SWH Study Area

ELC Ecosite Codes1

Habitat Description1

Detailed Information and Sources1

Defining Criteria1

Assessment Details

Rationale:

Cliffs and Talus Slopes are extremely

rare habitats in Ontario.

Any ELC Ecosite within

Community Series:

TAO CLO

TAS CLS

TAT CLT

A Cliff is vertical to near vertical

bedrock >3m in height.

A Talus Slope is rock rubble at

the base of a cliff made up of

coarse rocky debris.

Most cliff and talus slopes occur along the

Niagara Escarpment.

Information Sources

• The Niagara Escarpment Commission has

detailed information on location of these

habitats.

• OMNRF District


has location information on their website

• Local naturalist clubs


• Confirm any ELC Vegetation

Type for Cliffs or Talus

Slopeslxxviii

• SWHMiSTcxlix Index #21

provides development effects

and mitigation measures.

Vegetation community not

present within the study area.

Not SWH

Rationale:

Sand barrens are rare in Ontario and

support rare species. Most Sand

Barrens have been lost due to cottage

development and forestry.

ELC Ecosites:

SBO1

SBS1

SBT1

Vegetation cover varies

from patchy and barren to

continuous meadow

(SBO1), thicket-like

(SBS1), or more closed

and treed (SBT1). Tree

cover always <60%.

Sand Barrens typically are

exposed sand, generally

sparsely vegetated and caused

by lack of moisture, periodic

fires and erosion. They have

little or no soil and the

underlying rock protrudes

through the surface. Usually

located within other types of

natural habitat such as forest

or savannah. Vegetation can

vary from patchy and barren to

tree covered but less than

60%.

Any sand barren area, >0.5ha in size.

Information Sources

• OMNRF Districts.





• Confirm any ELC Vegetation

Type for Sand Barrenslxxviii

• Site must not be dominated by

exotic or introduced species

(<50% vegetative cover

exotics)Í.






Not SWH

Rationale:

Alvars are extremely rare habitats in

Ecoregion 6E. Most alvars in Ontario

are in Ecoregion 6E and 7E. Alvars in

6E are small and highly localized just

north of the Palaeozoic-Precambrian

contact.

ALO1

ALS1

ALT1

FOC1

FOC2

CUM2

CUS2

CUT2-1

CUW2

Five Alvar

Indicator Species:

1) Carex crawei

2) Panicum

philadelphicum

3) Eleochairs compressa

4) Scutellaria parvula

5) Trichostema

branchiatum

These indicator species

are very specific to Alvars

within Ecoregion 6E

An alvar is typically a level,

mostly unfractured calcareous

bedrock feature with a mosaic

of rock pavements and

bedrock overlain by a thin

veneer of soil. The hydrology of

alvars is complex, with

alternating periods of

inundation and drought.

Vegetation cover varies from

sparse lichen-moss

associations to grasslands and

shrublands and comprising a

number of characteristic or

indicator plant. Undisturbed

alvars can be phyto- and zoo

geographically diverse,

supporting many uncommon or

are relict plant and animals

species. Vegetation cover

varies from patchy to barren

with a less than 60% tree

coverlxxviii

.

An Alvar site > 0.5 ha in sizelxxv.

Information Sources

• Alvars of Ontario (2000), Federation of Ontario

Naturalistslxxvi.

• Ontario Nature – Conserving Great Lakes

Alvarsccviii

.



• Field Naturalist clubs


Field studies identify four of the

five Alvar indicator specieslxxv,

cxlix at a Candidate Alvar site is

Significant.



(<50% vegetative cover are

exotics sp.).

• The alvar must be in excellent

condition and fit in with

surrounding landscape with few

conflicting land useslxxv.






Not SWH

Candidate SWH

Cliff and Talus Slopes

Sand Barrens

Alvar




ELC Ecosite Codes1 Habitat Description1 Detailed Information and Sources1 Defining Criteria1Assessment Details

Candidate SWH

Rationale:

Due to historic logging practices,

extensive old growth forest is rare in the

Ecoregion. Interior habitat provided by

old growth forests is required by many

wildlife species.

Forest Community Series:

FOD

FOC

FOM

SWD

SWC

SWM

Old Growth forests are

characterized by heavy

mortality or turnover of over-

storey trees resulting in a

mosaic of gaps that encourage

development of a multi-layered

canopy and an abundance of

snags and downed woody

debris.

Woodland Stands areas 30ha or greater in size

or with at least 10 ha interior habitat assuming

100m buffer at edge of forest Í.

Information Sources

• OMNRF Forest Resource Inventory mapping

• OMNRF Forester, Ecologist or Biologist

• Field Local naturalist clubs


• Sustainable Forestry License (SFL) companies

will possibly know locations through field

operations.

• Municipal forestry departments

Field Studies will determine:

• If dominant trees species of

the ecosite are >140 years old,

then stand is Significant Wildlife

Habitatcxlviii

• The stand will have

experienced no recognizable

forestry activitiescxlviii

• The area of Forest Ecosites

combined to make up the stand

is the SWH.

• Determine ELC Vegetation

Type for forest standlxxviii

• SWHDSScxlix Index #23



Based on MESP, adjacent

deciduous forest stand in the

rare Hogsback feature does

not meet criteria for Old

Growth Forest significance.

However, smaller groupings of

trees within this stand are

considered old growth under

1999 criteria (i.e.

approximately 100 years old).

This is not typical for southern

Ontario forests.

Not SWH

Rationale:

Savannahs are extremely rare habitats

in Ontario.

TPS1

TPS2

TPW1

TPW2

CUS2

A Savannah is a tallgrass

prairie habitat that has tree

cover between 25 – 60%.

• No minimum size to site

Site must be restored or a natural site.

Remnant sites such as railway right of ways are

not considered to be SWH.

Information Sources



• OMNRF Ecologists

• Field naturalists clubs


Field studies confirm one or

more of the Savannah indicator

species listed inlxxv Appendix N

should be present. Note:

Savannah plant spp. list from

Ecoregion 6E should be

usedcxlviii.

• Area of the ELC Ecosite is the

SWH.



(<50% vegetative cover exotics

sp.).






Not SWH

Rationale:

Tallgrass Prairies are extremely rare

habitats in Ontario.

TPO1

TPO2

A Tallgrass Prairie has ground

cover dominated by prairie

grasses. An open Tallgrass

Prairie habitat has < 25% tree

cover.

• No minimum size to site

Site must be restored or a natural site.

Remnant sites such as railway right of ways are

not considered to be SWH.

Information Sources

• OMNR Districts


has location information available on their

website



Field studies confirm one or

more of the Prairie indicator

species listed inlxxv

Appendix N

should be present. Note: Prairie

plant spp. list from Ecoregion

6E should be usedcxlviii

.

• Area of the ELC Ecosite is the

SWH



(<50% vegetative cover

exotics).






Not SWH

Savannah

Tallgrass Prairie

Old Growth Forest




ELC Ecosite Codes1 Habitat Description1 Detailed Information and Sources1 Defining Criteria1Assessment Details

Candidate SWH

Rationale:

Plant communities that often contain

rare species which depend on the

habitat for survival.

Provincially Rare S1, S2

and S3 vegetation

communities are listed in

Appendix M of the

SWHTGcxlviii

. Any ELC

Ecosite Code that has a

possible ELC Vegetation

Type that is Provincially

Rare is Candidate SWH.

Rare Vegetation Communities

may include beaches, fens,

forest, marsh, barrens, dunes

and swamps.

ELC Ecosite codes that have the potential to be

a rare ELC Vegetation Type as outlined in

appendix Mcxlviii

The OMNR/NHIC will have up to date listing for

rare vegetation communities.

Information Sources


has location information available on their

website

• OMNRF Districts



Field studies should confirm if

an ELC Vegetation Type is a

rare vegetation community

based on listing within Appendix

M of SWHTGcxlviii

.

• Area of the ELC Vegetation

Type polygon is the SWH.






Not SWH

Other Rare Vegetation Communities


Table 3. Characteristics of Specialized Wildlife Habitat for Ecoregion 6E.

Wildlife Species1


ELC Ecosite Codes1

Habitat Criteria and Information Sources1

Defining Criteria1

Assessment Details

Wildlife Habitat: Waterfowl Nesting AreaRationale:

Important to local

waterfowl

populations, sites

with greatest

number of

species and

highest number

of individuals are

significant.

American Black Duck

Northern Pintail

Northern Shoveler

Gadwall

Blue-winged Teal

Green-winged Teal

Wood Duck

Hooded Merganser

Mallard

All upland habitats located

adjacent to these wetland

ELC Ecosites are Candidate

SWH:

MAS1 MAS2

MAS3 SAS1

SAM1 SAF1

MAM1 MAM2

MAM3 MAM4

MAM5 MAM6

SWT1 SWT2

SWD1 SWD2

SWD3 SWD4

Note: includes adjacency to

Provincially Significant

Wetlands

A waterfowl nesting area extends

120mcxlix

from a wetland (> 0.5 ha) or a wetland

(>0.5ha) and any small wetlands (0.5ha) within 120m or

a cluster of 3 or more small (<0.5 ha) wetlands within

120m of each individual wetland where waterfowl

nesting is known to occurcxlix.

• Upland areas should be at least 120m wide so that

predators such as raccoons, skunks, and foxes have

difficulty finding nests.

• Wood Ducks and Hooded Mergansers utilize large

diameter trees (>40cm dbh) in woodlands for cavity

nest sites.

Information Sources

• Ducks Unlimited staff may know the locations of

particularly productive nesting sites.

• OMNRF Wetland Evaluations for indication of

significant waterfowl nesting habitat.


Studies confirmed:

• Presence of 3 or more nesting pairs for listed

species excluding Mallards, or

• Presence of 10 or more nesting pairs for listed

species including Mallards.

• Any active nesting site of an American Black Duck

is considered significant.

• Nesting studies should be completed during the

spring breeding season (April - June). Evaluation

methods to follow “Bird and Bird Habitats:

Guidelines for Wind Power Projects”ccxi

• A field study confirming waterfowl nesting habitat

will determine the boundary of the waterfowl nesting

habitat for the SWH, this may be greater or less

than 120mcxlviii from the wetland and will provide

enough habitat for waterfowl to successfully nest.

• SWHMiSTcxlix

Index #25 provides development




Not SWH

Rationale:

Nest sites are

fairly uncommon

in Eco-region 6E

are used annually

by these species.

Many suitable

nesting locations

may be lost due

to increasing

shoreline

development

pressures and

scarcity of

habitat.

Osprey

Special Concern:

Bald Eagle

ELC Forest Community

Series: FOD, FOM, FOC,

SWD, SWM and SWC

directly adjacent to riparian

areas – rivers, lakes, ponds

and wetlands

• Nests are associated with lakes, ponds, rivers or

wetlands along forested shorelines, islands, or on

structures over water.

• Osprey nests are usually at the top a tree whereas

Bald Eagle nests are typically in super canopy trees in a

notch within the tree’s canopy.

• Nests located on man-made objects are not to be

included as SWH (e.g. telephone poles and

constructed nesting platforms).

Information Sources

• Natural Heritage Information Center (NHIC) compiles

all known nesting sites for Bald Eagles in Ontario.

• MNRF values information (LIO/NRVIS) will list known

nesting locations. Note: data from NRVIS is provided as

a point and does not represent all the habitat.

• Nature Counts, Ontario Nest Records Scheme data.

• OMNRF Districts

• Sustainable Forestry License (SFL) companies will

identify additional nesting locations through field

operations.

• Check the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlasccv

or Rare

Breeding Birds in Ontario for species documented

• Reports and other information available from CAs.


Studies confirm the use of these nests by:

• One or more active Osprey or Bald Eagle nests in

an areacxlviii

.

• Some species have more than one nest in a given

area and priority is given to the primary nest with

alternate nests included within the area of the

SWH.

• For an Osprey, the active nest and a 300m radius

around the nest or the contiguous woodland stand

is the SWHccvii, maintaining undisturbed

shorelines with large trees within this area is

importantcxlviii

.

• For a Bald Eagle the active nest and a 400-800m

radius around the nest is the SWHcvi, ccvii. Area of

the habitat from 400-800m is dependent on site

lines from the nest to the development and

inclusion of perching and foraging habitatcvi.

• To be significant a site must be used annually.

When found inactive, the site must be known to be

inactive for >3 years or suspected of not being used

for >5 years before being considered not

significantccvii

• Observational studies to determine nest site use,

perching sites and foraging areas need to be done

from mid March to mid August.


Habitats: Guidelines for Wind Power Projects”ccxi



Osprey known from the study

area vicinity.

The study area contains

mixed swamp and deciduous

forest within the rare

Hogsback feature. These

habitats are located within 1

km of the Grand River. At

least as much suitable habitat

occurs in much closer

proximity to the river.

Not SWH

Candidate SWH

Wildlife Habitat: Bald Eagle and Osprey Nesting, Foraging and Perching Habitat


Wildlife Species1



Candidate SWH

Rationale:

Nests sites for

these species are

rarely identified;

these area

sensitive habitats

and are often

used annually by

these species.

Northern Goshawk

Cooper’s Hawk

Sharp-shinned Hawk

Red-shouldered Hawk

Barred Owl

Broad-winged Hawk

May be found in all forested

ELC Ecosites.

May also be found in SWC,

SWM, SWD and CUP3.

All natural or conifer plantation woodland/forest stands

>30ha with >10ha of interior habitatlxxxviiii, lxxxix, xc, xci, xciii, xciv,

xcv, xcvi, cxxxiii. Interior habitat determined with a 200m

buffercxlviii

.

• Stick nests found in a variety of intermediate-aged to

mature conifer, deciduous or mixed forests within tops

or crotches of trees. Species such as Cooper's hawk

nest along forest edges sometimes on peninsulas or

small off-shore islands.

• In disturbed sites, nests may be used again, or a new

nest will be in close proximity to old nest.

Information Sources

• OMNRF

• Check the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlasccv or Rare

Breeding Birds in Ontario for species documented.

• Check data from Bird Studies Canada


Studies confirm:

• Presence of 1 or more active nests from species

list is considered significantcxlviii.

• Red-shouldered Hawk and Northern Goshawk – a

400m radius around the nest or 28ha area of

habitat is the SWHccvii.

• Barred Owl – a 200m radius around the nest is the

SWHccvii

.

• Broad-winged Hawk and Coopers Hawk – a 100m

radius around the nest is the SWHccvii.

• Sharp-shinned Hawk – a 50m radius around the

nest is the SWHccvii.

• Conduct field investigations from mid-March to

end of May. The use of call broadcasts can help in

locating territorial (courting/nesting) raptors and

facilitate the discovery of nests by narrowing down

the search area.



Suitable habitat may occur

within the rare Hogsback

woodland/wetland feature.

Candidate SWH

Rationale:

These habitats

are rare and

when identified

will often be the

only breeding site

for local

populations of

turtles

Midland Painted Turtle

Special Concern:

Northern Map Turtle

Snapping Turtle

Exposed mineral soil (sand

or gravel) areas adjacent

(<100m)cxlviii or within the

following ELC Ecosites:

MAS1

MAS2

MAS3

SAS1

SAM1

SAF1

BOO1

FEO1

• Best nesting habitat for turtles are close to water and

away from roads and sites less prone to loss of eggs by

predation from skunks, raccoons or other animals.

• For an area to function as a turtle-nesting area, it must

provide sand and gravel that turtles are able to dig in

and are located in open, sunny areas. Nesting areas on

the sides of municipal or provincial road embankments

and shoulders are not SWH.

• Sand and gravel beaches adjacent to undisturbed

shallow weedy areas of marshes, lakes, and rivers are

most frequently used.

Information Sources

• Use Ontario Soil Survey reports and maps to help find

suitable substrate for nesting turtles (well-drained sands

and fine gravels).

• Check the Ontario Herpetofaunal Summary Atlas

records or other similar atlases for uncommon turtles;

location information may help to find potential nesting

habitat for them.


• Field Naturalist clubs and landowners

Studies confirm:

• Presence of 5 or more nesting Midland Painted

Turtles

• One or more Northern Map Turtle or Snapping

Turtle nesting is a SWHÍ

• The area or collection of sites within an area of

exposed mineral soils where the turtles nest, plus a

radius of 30-100m around the nesting area

dependent on slope, riparian vegetation and

adjacent land use is the SWHcxlviii

.

• Travel routes from wetland to nesting area are to

be considered within the SWHcxlix.

• Field investigations should be conducted in prime

nesting season typically late spring to early

summer. Observational studies observing the

turtles nesting is a recommended method.


effects and mitigation measures for turtle nesting

habitat.

Small areas of exposed sandy

soil are present within the

subject property, associated

with areas of fill deposition.

Candidate SWH

Wildlife Habitat: Woodland Raptor Nesting Habitat

Wildlife Habitat: Turtle Nesting Area


Wildlife Species1



Candidate SWH

Rationale:

Seeps/Springs

are typical of

headwater areas

and are often at

the source of

coldwater

streams.

Wild Turkey

Ruffed Grouse

Spruce Grouse

White-tailed Deer

Salamander spp.

Seeps/Springs are areas

where ground water comes

to the surface. Often they

are found within headwater

areas within forested

habitats. Any forested

Ecosite within the headwater

areas of a stream could

have seeps/springs.

Any forested area (with <25% meadow/field/pasture)

within the headwaters of a stream or river systemcxvii,

cxlix.

• Seeps and springs are important feeding and drinking

areas especially in the winter will typically support a

variety of plant and animal speciescxix, cxx, cxxi, cxxii, cxiii, cxiv

Information Sources

• Topographical Map

• Thermography

• Hydrological surveys conducted by CAs and MOE

• Field naturalists clubs and landowners

• Municipalities and Conservation Authorities may have

drainage maps and headwater areas mapped.

Field Studies confirm:

• Presence of a site with 2 or more seeps/springs

should be considered SWH.

• The area of a ELC forest ecosite containing the

seeps/springs is the SWH. The protection of the

recharge area considering the slope, vegetation,

height of trees and groundwater condition need to

be considered in delineation the habitatcxlviii



Seeps and springs may occur

within the on-site forested

areas.

The Hogsback feature was

identified as containing

seepages in the MESP.

Candidate SWH

Rationale:

These habitats

are extremely

important to

amphibian

biodiversity within

a landscape and

often represent

the only breeding

habitat for local

amphibian

populations.

Eastern Newt

Blue-spotted Salamander

Spotted Salamander

Gray Treefrog

Spring Peeper

Western Chorus Frog

Wood Frog

All Ecosites associated with

these ELC Community

Series:

FOC

FOM

FOD

SWC

SWM

SWD

Breeding pools within the

woodland or the shortest

distance from forest habitat

are more significant

because they are more likely

to be used due to reduced

risk to migrating amphibians.

• Presence of a wetland, pond or woodland pool

(including vernal pools) >500m2 (about 25m diameter) ccvii

within or adjacent (within 120m) to a woodland (no

minimum size)clxxxii, lxiii, lxv, lxvi, lxvii, lxviii, lxix, lxx Some small

wetlands may not be mapped and may be important

breeding pools for amphibians.

• Woodlands with permanent ponds or those containing

water in most years until mid-July are more likely to be

used as breeding habitatcxlviii

Information Sources

• Ontario Herpetofaunal Summary Atlas (or other similar

atlases) for records

• Local landowners may also provide assistance as

they may hear spring-time choruses of amphibians on

their property.

• OMNRF District

• OMNRF wetland evaluations


• Canadian Wildlife Service Amphibian Road Call

Survey

• Ontario Vernal Pool Association:

http://www.ontariovernalpools.org

Studies confirm:

• Presence of breeding population of 1 or more of

the listed newt/salamander species or 2 or more of

the listed frog species with at least 20 individuals

(adults or eggs masses)lxxi

or 2 or more of the listed

frog species with Call Level Codes of 3.

• A combination of observational study and call

count surveyscviii will be required during the spring

March-June when amphibians are concentrated

around suitable breeding habitat within or near the

woodland/wetlands.

• The habitat is the woodland area plus a 230m

radius of woodland arealxiii,lxv, lxvi, lxvii, lxviii, lxix, lxx, lxxi

if a

wetland area is adjacent to a woodland, a travel

corridor connecting the wetland to the woodland is

the be included in the habitat.

• SWHMiSTcxlix



The subject property contains

stormwater management

ponds that may provide

significant breeding habitat.

The rare Hogsback feature

contains PSW swamp habitat.

Candidate SWH

Wildlife Habitat: Seeps and Springs

Wildlife Habitat: Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Woodland)


Wildlife Species1



Candidate SWH

Rationale:

These habitats

are extremely

important to

amphibian

biodiversity within

a landscape and

often represent

the only breeding

habitat for local

amphibian

populations

Eastern Newt

American Toad

Spotted Salamander

Four-toed Salamander

Blue-spotted Salamander

Gray Tree frog

Western Chorus Frog

Northern Leopard Frog

Pickerel Frog

Green Frog

Mink Frog

Bullfrog

ELC Community Classes

SW, MA, FE, BO, OA and

SA.

Typically these wetland

ecosites will be isolated

(>120m) from woodland

ecosites, however larger

wetlands containing

predominantly aquatic

species (e.g. Bull Frog) may

be adjacent to woodlands.

• Wetlands >500m2 (about 25m diameter)ccvii

supporting high species diversity are significant; some

small or ephemeral habitats may not be identified on

MNRF mapping and could be important amphibian

breeding habitatsclxxxiv

.

• Presence of shrubs and logs increase significance of

pond for some amphibian species because of available

structure for calling, foraging, escape and concealment

from predators.

• Bullfrogs require permanent water bodies with

abundant emergent vegetation.

Information Sources

• Ontario Herpetofaunal Summary Atlas (or other similar

atlases)

• Canadian Wildlife Service Amphibian Road Surveys

and Backyard Amphibian Call Count.

• OMNRF Districts and wetland evaluations


Studies confirm:

• Presence of breeding population of 1 or more of

the listed newt/salamander species or 2 or more of

the listed frog/toad species and with at least 20

individuals (adults or eggs masses)lxxi, lxxiii

, or 2 or

more of the listed frog/toad species with Call Level

Codes of 3. or; Wetland with confirmed breeding

Bullfrogs are significant.

• The ELC ecosite wetland area and the shoreline

are the SWH.

• A combination of observational study and call

count surveyscviii will be required during spring

March to June) when amphibians are concentrated

around suitable breeding habitat within or near the

wetlands.

• If a SWH is determined for Amphibian Breeding

Habitat (Wetlands) then Movement Corridors are to

be considered as outlined in Table 1.4.1 of this

Schedule.

• SWHMiSTcxlix




the study area.

Not SWH

Rationale:

Large, natural

blocks of mature

woodland habitat

within the settled

areas of Southern

Ontario are

important habitats

for area sensitive

interior forest

song birds.

Yellow-Bellied Sapsucker

Red-breasted Nuthatch Veery

Blue-headed Vireo

Northern Parula

Black-throated Green Warbler

Blackburnian Warbler

Black-throated Blue Warbler

Ovenbird

Scarlet Tanager

Winter Wren

Special Concern:

Cerulean Warbler

Canada Warbler

All Ecosites associated with

these ELC Community

Series:

FOC

FOM

FOD

SWC

SWM

SWD

• Habitats where interior forest breeding birds are

breeding, typically large mature (>60 yrs old) forest

stands or woodlots >30 ha.cv, cxxxi, cxxxii, cxxxiii, cxxxiv, cxxv, cxxvi,

cxxxvii, cxxxviii, cxxxix, cxl, cxli, cxlii, cxliii, cxliv, cxlv, cxlvi, cl, cli, clii, cliii, cliv, clv,

clvii, clviii, clix

• Interior forest habitats are at least 200m from forest

edge habitat.

Information Sources

• Local bird clubs

• Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) for the location of

forest bird monitoring.

• Bird studies Canada conducted a 3-year study of 287

woodlands to determine the effects of forest

fragmentation on forest birds and to greatest value to

interior species


• Presence of nesting or breeding pairs of 3 or more

of the listed wildlife species.

• Note: any site with breeding Cerulean Warblers or

Canada Warblers is to be considered SWH.

• Conduct field investigations in spring and early

summer when birds are singing and defending their

territories.


Habitats:

Guidelines for Wind Power Projects”ccxi

• SWHMiSTcxlix



Suitable habitat may occur

within the rare Hogsback

woodland/wetland feature.

Candidate SWH

Woodland Area-Sensitive Bird Breeding Habitat

Wildlife Habitat: Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Wetland)


Table 4. Characteristics of Habitat for Species of Conservation Concern for Ecoregion 6E.



Rationale:

Wetlands for these bird

species are typically

productive and fairly rare

in Southern Ontario

landscapes.

American Bittern

Virginia Rail

Sora

Common Gallinule

American Coot

Pied-billed Grebe

Marsh Wren

Sedge Wren

Common Loon

Sandhill Crane

Green Heron

Trumpeter Swan

Special Concern:

Black Tern

Yellow Rail

MAM1

MAM2

MAM3

MAM4

MAM5

MAM6

SAS1

SAM1

SAF1

FEO1

BOO1

For Green Heron:

All SW, MA and CUM1

sites.

• Nesting occurs in wetlands

• All wetland habitat is to be considered as long as

there is shallow water with emergent aquatic

vegetation presentcxxiv.

• For Green Heron, habitat is at the edge of water

such as sluggish streams, ponds and marshes

sheltered by shrubs and trees. Less frequently, it may

be found in upland shrubs or forest a considerable

distance from water.

Information Sources

• Contact OMNRF, wetland evaluations are a good

source of information.


• Natural Heritage Information Center (NHIC) Records


• Ontario Breeding Bird Atlasccv

Studies confirm:

• Presence of 5 or more nesting pairs of

Sedge Wren or Marsh Wren or 1 pair of

Sandhill Cranes; or breeding by any

combination of 5 or more of the listed

speciesÍ.

• Note: any wetland with breeding of 1 or

more Black Terns, Trumpeter Swan, Green

Heron or Yellow Rail is SWHÍ.

• Area of the ELC ecosite is the SWH

• Breeding surveys should be done in

May/June when these species are actively

nesting in wetland habitats.

• Evaluation methods to follow “Bird and


Projects”ccxi.


development effects and mitigation

measures

The stormwater

management ponds contain

fringing marsh habitat.

Candidate SWH

Rationale:

This wildlife habitat is

declining throughout

Ontario and North

America. Species such as

the Upland Sandpiper

have declined

significantly the past 40

years based on CWS

(2004) trend records.

Upland Sandpiper

Grasshopper Sparrow

Vesper Sparrow

Northern Harrier

Savannah Sparrow

Special Concern:

Short-eared Owl

CUM1

CUM2

Large grassland areas (includes natural and cultural

fields and meadows) >30 ha clx, clxi, clxii, clxiii, clxiv, clxv, clxvi,

clxvii, clxviii, clxix. Grasslands not Class 1 or 2 agricultural

lands, and not being actively used for farming (i.e. no

row cropping or intensive hay or livestock pasturing in

the last 5 years)Í.

Grassland sites considered significant should have a

history of longevity, either abandoned fields, mature

hayfields and pasturelands that are at least 5 years or

older.

The Indicator bird species are area sensitive requiring

larger grassland areas than the common grassland

species.

Information Sources

• Agricultural land classification maps, Ministry of

Agriculture.

• Ask local birders




• Presence of nesting or breeding of 2 or

more of the listed species.

• A field with 1 or more breeding Short-

eared Owl is to be considered SWH.

• The area of SWH is the contiguous ELC

ecosite field areas.

• Conduct field investigations of the most

likely areas in spring and early summer

when birds are singing and defending their

territories.



Projects”ccxi.



measures.

Open land areas (e.g.,

cultural meadow) are too

small to provide significant

habitat.

Not SWH

Wildlife Habitat: Marsh Bird Breeding Habitat

Candidate SWH

Wildlife Habitat: Open Country Bird Breeding Habitat




Candidate SWH

Rationale:

This wildlife habitat is

declining throughout

Ontario and North

America. The Brown

Thrasher has declined

significantly over the past

40 years based on CWS

(2004) trend records

cxcix.

Indicator spp.:

Brown Thrasher

Clay-coloured Sparrow

Common spp.:

Field Sparrow

Black-billed Cuckoo

Eastern Towhee

Willow Flycatcher

Special Concern:

Yellow-breasted Chat

Golden-winged Warbler

CUT1

CUT2

CUS1

CUS2

CUW1

CUW2

Patches of shrub ecosites

can be complexed into a

larger habitat for some bird

species.

Large field areas succeeding to shrub and thicket

habitats>10haclxiv in size.

• Shrub land or early successional fields, not class 1

or 2 agricultural lands, not being actively used for

farming (i.e. no row-cropping, haying or live-stock

pasturing in the last 5 years)Í.

Shrub thicket habitats (>10 ha) are most likely to

support and sustain a diversity of these species clxxiii.

Shrub and thicket habitat sites considered significant

should have a history of longevity, either abandoned

fields or pasturelands.

Information Sources

• Agricultural land classification maps Ministry of

Agriculture

Local bird clubs




• Presence of nesting or breeding of 1 of

the indicator species and at least 2 of the

common speciesÍ.

• A field with breeding Yellow-breasted

Chat or Golden-winged Warbler is to be

considered as Significant Wildlife Habitat.

• The area of the SWH is the contiguous

ELC ecosite field/thicket area.

• Conduct field investigations of the most

likely areas in spring and early summer

when birds are singing and defending their

territories



Projects”ccxi



measures.



Not SWH

Rationale:

Terrestrial Crayfish are

only found within SW

Ontario in Canada and

their habitats are very

rare. ccii

Chimney or Digger Crayfish:

(Fallicambarus fodiens )

Devil Crawfish or Meadow

Crayfish: (Cambarus Diogenes )

MAM1

MAM2

MAM3

MAM4

MAM5

MAM6

MAS1

MAS2

MAS3

SWD

SWT

SWM

Wet meadow and edges of shallow marshes (no

minimum size) identified should be surveyed for

terrestrial crayfish.

• Constructs burrows in marshes, mudflats,

meadows, the ground can’t be too moist. Can often

be found far from water.

• Both species are a semi-terrestrial burrower which

spends most of its life within burrows consisting of a

network of tunnels. Usually the soil is not too moist so

that the tunnel is well formed.

Information Sources

• Information sources from “Conservation Status of

Freshwater Crayfishes” by Dr. Premek Hamr for the

WWF and CNF March 1998

Studies Confirm:

• Presence of 1 or more individuals of

species listed or their chimneys (burrows)

in suitable marsh meadow or terrestrial

sitescci

• Area of ELC Ecosite or an ecoelement

area of meadow marsh or swamp within

the larger ecosite area is the SWH

• Surveys should be done April to August

during in temporary or permanent water

Note the presence of burrows or chemistry

are often the only indicator of presence,

observance or collection of individuals is

very difficultcci



measures.

Suitable habitat may occur in

association with the PSW

swamp habitat within the

rare Hogsback feature.

Candidate SWH

Wildlife Habitat: Shrub/Early Successional Bird Breeding Habitat

Wildlife Habitat: Terrestrial Crayfish




Candidate SWH

Rationale:

These species are quite

rare or have experienced

significant population

declines in Ontario.

All Special Concern and

Provincially Rare (S1-S3, SH)

plant and animal species. Lists of

these species are tracked by the

Natural Heritage Information

Centre.

All plant and animal

element occurrences (EO)

within a 1 or 10km grid.

Older element occurrences

were recorded prior to GPS

being available, therefore

location information may

lack accuracy.

When an element occurrence is identified within a 1

or 10 km grid for a Special Concern or provincially

Rare species; linking candidate habitat on the site

needs to be completed to ELC Ecositeslxxviii.

Information Sources

• Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) will have

the Special Concern and Provincially Rare (S1-S3,

SH) species lists with element occurrences data.

• NHIC Website: "Get Information":

http://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca


• Expert advice should be sought as many of the rare

spp. have little information available about their

requirements.

Studies Confirm:

• Assessment/inventory of the site for the

identified special concern or rare species

needs to be completed during the time of

year when the species is present or easily

identifiable.

• The area of the habitat to the finest ELC

scale that protects the habitat form and

function is the SWH, this must be

delineated through detailed field studies.

The habitat needs to be easily mapped and

cover an important life stage component

for a species e.g. specific nesting habitat or

foraging habitat.



measures.

The SCC Eastern Wood-

Pewee was confirmed to

maintain breeding habitat

within the adjacent

Hogsback feature.

Confirmed SWH

Wildlife Habitat: Special Concern and Rare Wildlife Species


Table 5. Characteristics of Animal Movement Corridors for Ecoregion 6E.



Rationale:

Movement corridors for amphibians moving from their terrestrial habitat to breeding habitat can be extremely important for local populations.

Eastern NewtBlue-spotted SalamanderSpotted SalamanderGray TreefrogSpring PeeperWestern Chorus FrogNorthern Leopard FrogPickerel FrogGreen FrogMink FrogBullfrog

Corridors may be found in all ecosites associated with water.• Corridors will be determined based on identifying the significant breeding habitat for these species in Table 1.1.

Movement corridors between breeding habitat and

summer habitat clxxiv, clxxv, clxxvi, clxxvii, clxxviii, clxxix, clxxx, clxxxi.

Movement corridors must be determined when Amphibian breeding habitat is confirmed as SWH from Table 1.2.2 (Amphibian Breeding Habitat –

Wetland) of this ScheduleÍ.

Information Sources• MNRF District Office• Natural Heritage Information Center NHIC• Reports and other information available from CAs• Field Naturalist Clubs

• Field Studies must be conducted at the time of year when species are expected to be migrating or entering breeding sites.• Corridors should consist of native vegetation, with several layers of vegetation. Cooridors unbroken by roads, waterways or bodies, and undeveloped areas are most

significantcxlix.• Corridors should have at least 15m of

vegetation on both sides of waterway cxlix or

be up to 200m widecxlix of woodland habitat

and with gaps <20m cxlix. • Shorter corridors are more significant than longer corridors, however amphibians must be able to get to and from their summer and

breeding habitatcxlix.

• SWHMiSTcxlix Index #40 provides development effects and mitigation measures.

No suitable vegetated corridors occur on the subject property.

Potential amphibian corridors occur within the rare Hogsback feature.

Candidate SWH

Rationale:Corridors important for all species to be able to access seasonally important life-cycle habitats or to access new habitat for dispersing individuals by minimizing their vulnerability while travelling.

White-tailed Deer Corridors may be found in all forested ecosites.

A Project Proposal in Stratum II Deer Wintering Area has potential to contain corridors.

Movement corridor must be determined when Deer Wintering Habitat is confirmed as SWH from Table

1.1 of this scheduleÍ. • A deer wintering habitat identified by the OMNRF as SWH in Table 1.1 of this Schedule will have corridors that the deer use during fall migration and

spring dispersion clxxxii, clxxxiii, cxlix, cxciv. • Corridors typically follow riparian areas, woodlots, areas of physical geography (ravines, or ridges).

Information Sources• MNRF District Office• Natural Heritage Information Center (NHIC)• Reports and other information available from CAs• Field Naturalist Clubs

• Studies must be conducted at the time of year when deer are migrating or moving to and from winter concentration areas.• Corridors that lead to a deer wintering yard should be unbroken by roads and residential areas.

• Corridors should be at least 200m widecxlix

with gaps <20mcxlix and if following riparian area with at least 15m of vegetation on both

sides of waterwaycxlix . Shorter corridors are

more significant than longer corridorscxlix

• SWHMiSTcxlix Index #39 provides development effects and mitigation measures.

No suitable vegetated corridors occur on the subject property.

No significant deer movement corridors located within the study area, as determined in the MESP.

Not SWH

Candidate SWH

Wildlife Habitat: Amphibian Movement Corridors

Wildlife Habitat: Deer Movement Corridors


APPENDIX XV Draft Plan of Subdivision (GSP Group 2016) and Preliminary Grading Plan (Meritech

2016)

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

XXXXX

XXXXX

XXXXXX

XXXXX

XXXXXX

XXXXX

XXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

XX

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

XX

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

XX

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

XX

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

XX

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

XX

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

XX

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

XX

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXX

XXXXX

XXXXX

XXXXX

XXXXX

XXXXX

XXXXX

XXXXX

XXXXX

XXXXXX

XXXXX

XXXXX

XXXXX

XXXXX

XXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

XX

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

XX

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

XX

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

XX

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

XX

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

W

e

s

tc

liffe

W

a

y

P

r

i

n

c

e

s

s

S

t

r

e

e

t

R

o

s

e

c

l

i

f

f

C

o

u

r

t

N

e

w

m

a

n

D

r

.

OWNER'S CERTIFICATE

SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE

KEY PLAN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

(UNDER SECTION 51(17) OF THE PLANNING ACT)INFORMATION REQUIRED BY CLAUSES a,b,c,d,e,f,g,j and l ARE AS SHOWN ON DRAFT PLAN.h) Municipal water supplyi) Sandy clay loam, sand & gravelk) All sanitary and storm sewers as required

LAND USE SCHEDULE

LOTS/BLKS.DESCRIPTION UNITS AREA (ha.)

I CERTIFY THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LAND TO BE SUBDIVIDED AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO THE ADJACENT LANDS ARE CORRECTLY SHOWN.

I AUTHORIZE THE GSP GROUP INC. TO PREPARE AND SUBMIT THIS DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION TO THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO.

OWNER DATE

ROD LORD, O.L.S. DATE

DRAFT PLAN

OF SUBDIVISION

Part of Lot 2, Concession 102

West of the Grand River

City of Cambridge

Regional Municipality of Waterloo

N.T.S.

Project No.: 16104.40

Drawn By: S.Loughran

Scale: 1:1000 metric

Date: August 22, 2016

REVISIONS

Dwg. File Name: dp16104a.dwg

GSPgroup

PLANNING I URBAN DESIGN I LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

gspgroup.ca

(Formerly in the City of Galt)

SUBJECT

PROPERTY

Existing Residential

Existing Residential

Future Residential

Agricultural

Agricultural

Open Space

New

man D

rive

Wilkinson Avenue

Rosecliff Pl

1

5

8

2

3

4

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

192021

22

23

55 54 53 52

24 25 26 27 2829

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

414243444546

47 48 49 50 51

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66 67 68 69 70 71 72

73

74

75

76

77

78

828384858687888990

81

80

79

Block 91

Park

0.36ha.

Block 92

Stormwater Management

1.66ha.

Street A

Park

Single Detached Residential

Stormwater Management

91

0.3m Reserve

Roads

Total

1-90

93

92 1.66

90

90

4.48

0.36

0.00

1.80

8.30

MacDonald Tamblyn Lord Surveying Limited

Huron Creek Developments

0.3m Reserve

Block 93

Patio

Pool

S

h

e

d

Pool

Shed

X

X

Lot 12

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

XX

X

Lot 13

Lot 14

Lot 15

Lot 16

Lot 17

Lot 18

Lot 19

Lot 20

Lot 21

Lot 22

Lot 23

Lot 11

Lot 10

Lot 9

Lot 8

Lot 24

Lot 25

Lot 23

L

o

t

2

5

L

o

t

2

4

Lot 26

Lot 27

X

X

X

B

o

a

r

d

F

e

n

c

e

B

o

a

r

d

F

e

n

c

e

B

o

a

r

d

F

e

n

c

e

D

e

c

k

W

o

o

d

D

e

c

k

W

o

o

d

C

o

n

c

r

e

t

e

W

o

o

d

D

e

c

k

D

e

c

k

W

o

o

d

D

e

c

k

W

o

o

d

C

o

n

c

r

e

t

e

P

a

d

B

r

ic

k

P

a

t

io

X

R

e

t

.

W

a

ll

C

h

a

in

lin

k

F

e

n

c

e

B

o

a

r

d

F

e

n

c

e

B

o

a

r

d

F

e

n

c

e

B

o

a

r

d

F

e

n

c

e

B

o

a

r

d

F

e

n

c

e

W

ood Post

B

o

a

r

d

F

e

n

c

e

Guard Rail

C

o

n

c

.

P

a

d

B

r

ic

k

P

a

t

io

X

"

P

V

C

"

F

e

n

c

e

D

e

c

k

W

o

o

d

P

a

t

io

B

r

ic

k

G

a

r

d

e

n

S

h

e

d

S

h

e

d

S

h

e

d

P

a

t

i

o

C

o

n

c

.

W

o

o

d

D

e

c

k

C

h

a

i

n

l

i

n

k

F

e

n

c

e

D

e

c

k

W

o

o

d

C

h

a

i

n

l

i

n

k

F

e

n

c

e

S

i

d

e

w

a

l

k

S

i

d

e

w

a

l

k

X

Sign

Sign

W

o

o

d

D

e

c

k

T

v

P

e

d

W

o

o

d

D

e

c

k

X

X

X

B

o

a

r

d

F

e

n

c

e

C

h

a

i

n

l

i

n

k

F

e

n

c

e

G

a

r

d

e

n

C

o

n

c

r

e

t

e

P

a

v

e

r

s

Gazebo

X

W

o

o

d

D

e

c

k

X

B

o

t

t

o

m

O

f

F

i

l

l

B

o

t

t

o

m

O

f

F

ill

Mon W

ell

Mon W

ell

Ground

X

X

X

X

XX

XXX

B

o

tto

m

O

f S

lo

p

e

D

e

c

k

W

o

o

d

W

o

o

d

D

e

c

k

P

o

n

d

S

h

e

d

Lot 8

Lot 7

Lot 6

Lot 5

Lot 4

Lot 3

Lot 2

X

X

X

B

o

a

r

d

F

e

n

c

e

N

5

5

°

1

2

'

2

5

"

W

3

2

.

0

5

9

B

o

a

r

d

F

e

n

c

e

B

o

a

r

d

F

e

n

c

e

N

5

5

°

1

2

'

1

0

"

W

4

5

.

0

0

0

2

S

t

y

.

B

r

i

c

k

2

S

t

y

.

B

r

i

c

k

A

n

d

S

i

d

i

n

g

A

n

d

S

i

d

i

n

g

2

S

t

y

.

B

r

i

c

k

C

o

n

c

r

e

t

e

A

n

d

S

i

d

i

n

g

2

S

t

y

.

B

r

i

c

k

A

n

d

S

i

d

i

n

g

2

S

t

y

.

B

r

i

c

k

A

n

d

S

i

d

i

n

g

2

S

t

y

.

B

r

i

c

k

Lot 7

Lot 6

Lot 5

Lot 4

2

S

t

y

.

B

r

i

c

k

1

S

t

y

.

B

r

i

c

k

N

5

3

°

0

0

'

2

5

"

W

2

4

.

1

8

6

N

4

8

°

1

1

'

2

0

"

W

2

0

.

0

0

0

N

4

3

°

0

5

'

0

0

"

W

2

6

.

4

4

3

1

S

t

y

.

B

r

i

c

k

2

S

t

y

.

B

r

i

c

k

N

3

6

°

5

5

'

5

0

"

W

3

4

.

2

3

2

1

S

t

y

.

B

r

i

c

k

1

S

t

y

.

B

r

ic

k

1

S

t

y

.

B

r

ic

k

N

2

9

°

1

2

'1

0

"

W

1

2

1

.

5

3

5

1

S

t

y

.

B

r

ic

k

1

S

t

y

.

B

r

ic

k

A

n

d

S

id

in

g

2

S

t

y

.

B

r

ic

k

0

.

5

H

e

d

g

e

2

S

t

y

.

B

r

ic

k

1

S

t

y

.

B

r

ic

k

1

S

t

y

.

B

r

ic

k

1

S

t

y

.

B

r

i

c

k

1

S

t

y

.

B

r

i

c

k

A

n

d

S

i

d

i

n

g

2

S

t

y

.

B

r

i

c

k

A

n

d

S

i

d

i

n

g

2

S

t

y

.

B

r

i

c

k

N

3

5

°

5

4

'

5

5

"

W

2

6

.

9

7

4

N

4

7

°

2

4

'

4

0

"

W

3

0

.

8

9

9

C

h

a

i

n

l

i

n

k

S

t

o

n

e

W

a

l

l

C

h

a

i

n

l

i

n

k

F

e

n

c

e

N

5

6

°

5

6

'

4

0

"

W

1

8

.

0

0

2

B

o

a

r

d

F

e

n

c

e

2

S

t

y

.

B

r

i

c

k

A

n

d

S

i

d

i

n

g

N

6

3

°

1

7

'

1

0

"

W

8

3

.

6

5

6

1

S

t

y

.

B

r

i

c

k

1

S

t

y

.

B

r

i

c

k

1

S

t

y

.

B

r

i

c

k

L

o

t

1

L

o

t

2

L

o

t

3

N76°21'05"E

261.119

N77°06'55"E

11.732

D

rip

L

in

e

Drip Line

N17°13'45"W

63.892

146.819

210.711

N16°35'20"W

116.580

N16°25'25"W

233.913

Post And W

ire Fence

N75°59'00"E

17.670

137.242

P

o

s

t

A

n

d

W

i

r

e

F

e

n

c

e

N

2

6

°

4

2

'

5

0

"

E

1

0

6

.

3

5

2

X

X

X

C

h

a

i

n

L

i

n

k

F

e

n

c

e

N

6

3

°

1

7

'

0

5

"

W

4

6

.

0

0

0

B

e

l

l

B

o

x

L

i

g

h

t

S

t

d

B

e

l

l

B

o

x

N

2

6

°

4

2

'

5

5

"

E

8

9

.

7

0

7

Mon W

ell

B

o

a

r

d

F

e

n

c

e

B

o

t

t

o

m

O

f

F

i

l

l

U

t

i

l

i

t

y

B

o

x

3:1 Max

3:1 Max

3:1 Max

3:1 Max

5:1 Max

3:1

Max

3:1 M

ax

3

:

1

M

a

x

3:1 M

ax

3:1 Max

3:1 Max

3:1 Max

3:1 Max

5:1 Max

0

+

9

5

0

0

+

9

6

0

0

+

9

8

0

1

+

0

0

0

1

+

0

2

0

1

+

0

4

0

1

+

0

6

0

1

+

0

8

0

1

+

1

0

0

1

+

1

2

0

1

+

1

4

0

1

+

1

6

0

1

+

1

8

0

1+

200

1+

220

1+

240

1+

260

1+

280

1+

300

1+

320

1+

340

1+

360

1+

380

1

+

4

0

0

1

+

4

2

0

1

+

4

4

0

1

+

4

6

0

1

+

4

7

1

.6

9

3

1

4

.6

6

?

?

?

?

?

?

3

0

8

.

0

7

3

0

8

.

0

2

3

0

8

.

0

2

3

0

8

.

0

7

3

0

8

.

1

6

3

0

8

.

2

9

3

0

8

.

4

6

3

0

8

.

6

6

3

0

8

.

9

1

3

0

9

.

1

9

3

0

9

.

5

1

3

0

9

.

8

3

3

1

0

.

1

5

3

1

0

.

4

7

3

1

0

.

7

9

3

1

1

.

0

9

3

1

1

.

3

6

3

1

1

.

5

9

3

1

1

.

8

0

3

1

1

.

9

7

3

1

2

.

1

1

3

1

2

.2

3

312.34

312.44

312.55

312.66

312.77

312.87

312.98

313.09

313.19

313.30

313.41

313.52

313.62

313.73

313.84

313.95

314.05

314.16

314.27

314.37

3

1

4

.4

8

3

1

4

.5

9

3

1

4

.7

0

3

1

4

.7

8

3

1

4

.8

3

3

1

4

.8

3

3

1

4

.7

9

3

1

4

.7

3

3

1

4

.6

7

0

+

9

7

0

0

+

9

9

0

1

+

0

1

0

1

+

0

3

0

1

+

0

5

0

1

+

0

7

0

1

+

0

9

0

1

+

1

1

0

1

+

1

3

0

1

+

1

5

0

1

+

1

7

0

1+190

1+

210

1+

230

1+

250

1+

270

1+

290

1+

310

1+

330

1+

350

1+

370

1+

3

9

0

1

+

4

1

0

1

+

4

3

0

1

+

4

5

0

1

+

4

7

0

1+020

1+040

1

+

0

6

0

1

+

0

8

0

1

+

1

0

0

1

+

1

2

0

1

+

1

4

0

3

1

1

.

1

2

311.0

7

311.1

0

311.1

5

311.2

0

3

1

1

.2

5

3

1

1

.

3

0

3

1

1

.

2

3

3

1

1

.

0

2

3

1

0

.

8

1

3

1

0

.

6

2

3

1

0

.

4

2

3

1

0

.

2

2

3

1

0

.

0

3

1

+

0

1

0

1+030

1+050

1

+

0

7

0

1

+

0

9

0

1

+

1

1

0

1

+

1

3

0

1+020

1+040

1+060

1+0

80

1

+

1

0

0

1

+

1

2

0

1

+

1

4

0

1

+

1

6

0

1

+

1

8

0

1+200

1+2

20

1+240

1+260

1+280

1+3

00

312.4

8

312.4

3

312.4

6

312.5

9

312.7

3

312.8

6

312.9

9

313.1

3

313.2

6

3

1

3

.

3

9

3

1

3

.

5

2

3

1

3

.

6

6

3

1

3

.

7

9

3

1

3

.

9

2

3

1

4

.

0

5

3

1

4

.

1

9

3

1

4

.

3

2

3

1

4

.

4

5

3

1

4

.

5

9

314.4

9

314.3

5

314.2

1

314.0

7

313.9

3

313.7

9

313.6

6

313.5

2

313.3

8

313.4

3

313.5

1

1+010

1+030

1+050

1+0

70

1+090

1

+

1

1

0

1

+

1

3

0

1

+

1

5

0

1

+

1

7

0

1

+

1

9

0

1+2

10

1+230

1+250

1+270

1+2

90

1+020

1+040

1+060

1+0

80

1+100

1+120

1

+

1

4

0

1

+

1

6

0

1

+

1

8

0

1

+

2

0

0

1

+

2

2

0

1

+

2

4

0

314.3

7

314.3

4

314.3

9

314.4

4

314.4

9

314.5

4

314.5

9

314.6

4

314.6

9

314.7

4

314.5

6

314.3

7

3

1

4

.1

8

3

1

3

.

9

9

3

1

3

.

8

0

3

1

3

.

6

2

3

1

3

.

4

3

3

1

3

.

2

4

3

1

3

.

0

5

3

1

2

.

8

6

3

1

2

.

7

2

3

1

2

.

6

2

3

1

2

.

5

2

3

1

2

.

4

4

3

1

2

.

5

3

1+010

1+030

1+050

1+070

1+0

90

1+110

1

+

1

3

0

1

+

1

5

0

1

+

1

7

0

1

+

1

9

0

1

+

2

1

0

1

+

2

3

0

1

+

2

5

0

3

1

4

.

6

1

3

1

2

.

1

8

3

1

2

.

9

5

3

1

2

.

9

5

3

1

0

.0

7

3

1

0

.1

6

310.24

309.95

314.59

313.18

315.5

3

312.0

3

313.45

312.17

314.10

312.76

313.31

311.53

313.21

312.42

313.45

312.02

314.32

312.94

313.18

311.54

313.34

311.86

313.04

311.97

313.08

310.89

312.0

4

314.0

6

312.1

8

312.6

5

313.74

312.41

313.91

312.22

313.79

311.97

314.07

312.17

313.96

311.87

314.23

312.09

314.13

312.16

314.39

311.52

314.12

312.51

313.79

311.96

312.95

311.64

313.96

311.93

313.12

312.76

314.13

312.26

313.29

313.44

3

0

6

.

8

8

3

0

6

.

8

8

3

0

6

.

7

5

3

0

4

.

5

4

3

0

6

.

7

5

3

0

4

.

5

3

3

0

7

.

5

0

3

0

7

.

0

9

3

1

7

.

0

2

3

1

7

.

0

2

3

1

3

.

6

6

3

1

3

.

4

7

314.6

4

313.6

5

315.4

8

313.0

6

314.6

9

313.6

4

315.5

3

313.0

4

314.7

5

314.1

3

315.5

9

312.7

1

314.8

1

314.2

8

315.6

5

312.2

2

314.6

3

314.2

3

3

1

2

.9

0

3

1

2

.9

0

3

1

0

.

2

4

3

1

1

.

1

7

311.36

313.25

3

1

0

.6

5

3

1

1

.6

2

3

1

1

.6

4

3

1

2

.5

0

3

1

0

.

1

5

3

1

2

.

3

5

3

1

1

.

0

6

3

1

1

.

8

2

3

1

6

.

5

8

3

1

6

.

5

8

3

1

4

.

0

8

3

1

7

.

0

3

3

1

7

.

0

7

3

1

7

.

0

7

3

1

3

.

8

8

3

1

5

.

2

6

3

1

0

.

0

2

3

1

0

.

0

2

3

0

6

.

7

5

3

0

4

.

5

7

3

0

8

.

2

0

3

0

8

.

1

4

3

0

8

.

1

4

3

0

7

.

9

1

3

0

8

.

1

2

3

0

7

.

8

5

3

0

6

.

7

5

3

0

4

.

5

2

3

0

8

.

1

8

3

0

7

.

7

2

3

0

6

.

7

5

3

0

4

.

4

9

3

0

8

.

2

8

3

0

7

.

8

3

3

0

7

.

2

5

3

0

4

.

9

1

3

0

8

.

4

3

3

0

7

.

4

0

3

0

7

.

2

5

3

0

6

.

3

5

3

0

8

.

6

3

3

0

7

.

8

7

3

0

7

.

5

0

3

0

7

.

3

8

3

0

8

.

8

9

3

0

8

.

6

5

312.1

0

313.3

5

311.2

9

313.8

2

311.2

3

314.8

5

312.8

3

313.3

0

311.1

7

313.4

1

312.2

4

312.3

5

313.3

4

313.4

8

313.1

8

313.6

3

312.1

4

312.9

0

313.0

3

312.8

8

312.1

2

313.8

9

312.8

8

312.2

1

314.25

313.79

314.74

313.39

314.39

314.04

315.05

313.72

314.12

313.55

314.45

312.93

313.98

313.05

314.13

312.50

3

1

5

.

0

3

3

1

2

.

1

0

3

1

3

.

7

8

3

1

2

.

7

2

3

1

4

.

3

8

3

1

2

.

1

2

3

1

3

.

5

5

3

1

2

.

5

8

3

1

4

.

1

5

3

1

1

.

7

0

3

1

3

.

3

2

3

1

2

.

5

6

3

1

3

.

9

2

3

1

1

.

6

2

3

1

3

.

0

9

3

1

2

.

6

3

315.7

5

315.7

5

314.5

0

315.2

6

315.4

2

315.4

2

314.5

6

317.1

8

316.4

8

316.4

8

314.6

2

318.5

7

316.6

2

316.6

2

314.6

8

319.1

8

315.8

9

315.8

9

314.7

5

319.9

4

315.7

8

315.7

8

314.8

1

320.3

9

315.3

8

315.3

8

314.8

5

320.4

6

315.4

8

315.4

8

314.6

2

320.6

1

315.88

315.88

314.41

320.82

3

1

6

.

2

2

3

1

6

.

2

2

3

1

4

.

2

5

3

1

8

.

9

3

312.32

312.52

312.89

313.54

3

0

9

.

4

2

3

1

0

.

9

4

312.1

7

312.6

9

311.3

4

313.8

2

3

1

2

.

2

5

3

1

2

.

2

6

3

1

1

.

3

8

3

1

3

.

3

0

3

1

2

.

4

0

3

1

3

.

0

0

3

1

1

.

2

3

3

1

2

.

3

3

3

1

4

.

1

8

3

1

3

.

9

6

314.8

5

314.2

1

315.6

9

312.1

3

3

1

2

.

5

1

3

1

2

.

5

1

3

1

4

.

3

1

3

1

2

.

1

7

3

1

1

.

9

1

3

1

1

.

9

1

3

1

4

.

1

6

3

1

2

.

9

5

3

1

1

.

4

2

3

1

1

.

4

2

3

1

4

.

0

1

3

1

3

.

5

2

312.7

2

311.7

1

3

1

2

.5

8

3

1

2

.5

8

3

1

3

.4

7

3

1

3

.4

8

3

1

3

.

5

4

3

1

3

.

5

9

3

1

2

.

9

5

3

1

2

.

9

5

3

1

3

.

6

2

3

1

3

.

7

7

3

1

2

.

3

0

3

1

2

.

3

0

3

1

3

.

7

0

3

1

3

.

9

4

3

1

1

.

6

3

3

1

1

.

6

3

3

1

3

.

8

5

3

1

4

.

0

8

3

1

2

.

6

6

3

1

2

.

6

6

3

1

4

.

4

6

3

1

1

.

3

5

3

1

2

.8

4

3

1

2

.8

4

3

1

4

.5

4

3

1

0

.9

8

3

1

4

.

4

4

3

1

2

.

2

6

3

1

4

.

7

0

3

1

2

.

0

5

3

1

5

.

5

4

3

1

2

.

0

6

3

1

4

.

6

6

3

1

2

.

2

7

315.6

9

312.1

5

314.5

5

312.1

3

315.6

5

312.3

6

314.3

9

312.0

8

315.6

0

312.8

1

314.2

3

312.0

2

315.5

4

313.0

5

314.0

7

312.0

4

315.4

8

313.0

7

313.9

1

312.0

3

314.58

313.89

3

1

4

.

6

2

3

1

1

.

4

5

313.7

5

312.2

3

3

1

1

.

4

3

3

1

2

.

8

3

3

1

2

.

4

1

3

1

2

.

7

7

312.78

310.84

312.48

311.48

313.14

313.47

3

1

1

.

3

1

3

1

2

.

0

9

3

1

0

.

9

1

3

1

0

.

6

6

3

1

4

.

0

1

3

1

3

.

0

9

3

1

2

.

8

8

3

1

2

.

7

5

3

1

4

.

0

1

3

1

6

.

3

2

3

1

2

.

8

8

3

1

3

.

0

0

311.18

313.57

311.32

313.67

3

1

5

.1

2

3

1

5

.1

9

3

1

4

.7

6

3

1

5

.2

4

314.46

320.78

312.68

311.16

313.44

313.46

314.60

312.19

313.81

312.73

3

1

4

.5

7

3

1

4

.7

9

314.55

314.19

314.46

314.37

313.44

313.84

312.88

311.75

313.62

312.45

314.60

311.65

3

1

4

.

4

6

3

1

1

.

2

5

3

1

3

.

7

0

3

1

3

.

9

6

311.67

311.43

311.32

314.05

3

1

0

.

9

1

3

1

1

.

3

2

3

0

8

.

2

2

3

0

8

.

9

3

3

0

8

.

9

5

3

0

8

.

9

3

3

1

2

.

0

6

3

1

1

.

8

9

3

1

0

.

9

4

3

1

0

.

2

9

312.49

311.56

312.80

312.75

314.38

314.09

3

1

2

.

0

6

3

1

2

.

4

8

3

1

0

.

9

4

3

1

3

.

6

6

315.13

315.10

314.95

314.95

313.34

313.34

3

1

4

.

0

3

3

1

4

.

0

3

3

1

3

.

9

7

3

1

3

.

9

7

3

1

2

.

9

9

3

1

2

.

9

9

3

1

2

.

7

2

3

1

2

.

7

2

3

1

2

.

9

1

3

1

2

.

9

1

3

1

2

.

5

7

3

1

2

.

5

7

3

0

8

.

3

2

3

0

8

.

3

2

3

0

6

.

2

6

3

0

6

.

2

6

309.54

309.54

303.94

303.94

314.36

313.99

312.81

312.77

311.14

311.14

309.87

309.87

309.90

309.90

313.37

313.37

313.52

313.77

313.64

314.72

314.56

314.40

314.24

315.12

314.83

314.53

3

1

4

.

9

5

3

1

4

.8

7

3

1

4

.

8

0

3

1

4

.

6

5

3

1

4

.

4

9

3

1

4

.

3

4

3

1

4

.

1

8

3

1

4

.

0

3

3

1

3

.

9

5

3

1

3

.

8

7

3

1

3

.8

0

313.5

2

313.3

6

313.2

1

313.0

6

3

1

5

.

0

3

3

0

8

.

6

5

3

0

8

.

5

3

3

0

8

.

4

7

3

0

8

.

4

5

3

0

8

.

5

1

3

0

8

.

6

1

3

0

8

.

7

6

3

0

8

.

9

6

3

0

9

.

2

2

313.6

1

Filenam

e: K:\projects\3023\cad\design\3023.M

odel.dw

g, Review

-- Plotted: Septem

ber 8, 2016 7:43 AM

, Jeffl

KEY MAP:

grandview hills stage vi, cambridge, ontario environmental

Documents