ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ADDENDUM – REVISION 2

2175 Cornwall Road, Oakville, Ontario

Project No.: 0CP-19-0498

Prepared for:

H&R REIT

Prepared by:

McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd.

1329 Gardiners Road

Kingston, Ontario

K0A 1L0

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ADDENDUM – REVISION 2

2175 CORNWALL ROAD, OAKVILLE, ONTARIO

Prepared for:

H&R REIT

Prepared by:

McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd.

1329 Gardiners Road

Kingston, Ontario

K0A 1L0

March 19, 2021

___________________________ Author: Christian Lyon, B. Sc. Environmental Scientist McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd.

_____________________________ Quality Review: Kenneth Jobity Manager, Natural Sciences McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd.

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

McIntosh Perry Consulting Engineers Ltd (McIntosh Perry) has prepared the following Addendum to address

comments and questions raised by the Town of Oakville, Conservation Halton, and Halton Region regarding

the original Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) completed for HR REIT by McIntosh Perry, dated January

17, 2020. The location that this EIA Addendum is based on is 2175 Cornwall Road, Oakville, Ontario (the site;

Appendix A: Figure 1).

This Addendum intends to supplement information from the original EIA. The following topics will be

discussed in further detail below:

• Tree Compensation Plan and Vegetation Removal

• Regional Natural Heritage System

• Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) Correspondence

• Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) Criteria Schedules for Ecoregion 7E

• Stormwater Management Pond, Pipe and New Driveway

• Wetland Significance

• Recommendations & Mitigation Measures

• Revised EIA Conclusion

Please note that at the time of submission of the original EIA, the property boundary shown on supporting

figures was displayed as an approximate limit. The property boundary has since been surveyed and adjusted

to a more accurate portrayal. The Regional Natural Heritage System (RNHS) component, Joshua’s Creek, is

now adjacent to the site as opposed to within it. Consequently, the size of the significant woodlands within

the site has been reduced marginally.

2.0 TREE COMPENSATION PLAN AND VEGETATION REMOVAL

Requested by: The Town of Oakville

The tree compensation plan below has been prepared for review and approval from the Town of Oakville. The

details of the plan are as follows:

• According to the Town of Oakville’s guidance for tree removal on private property (https://www.oakville.ca/residents/private-tree-protection.html), one (1) compensation tree per ten (10) cm DBH (diameter at breast height) tree removed is required.

• The property contains 406 ten (10) cm+ DBH trees. 61 of these trees will be retained.

• In total, 345 ten (10) cm+ DBH trees are to be removed as outlined in the Landscape Plan prepared by Adesso Design Inc (Tree Protection Plan; Page L-3).

▪ Vegetation unit 3, which accounts for 16 of the trees to be removed, is dominated by sparse non-native tree species with understory dominated by common buckthorn. Dominant tree species include white mulberry and Douglas fir. The health conditions for this vegetation unit range from fair-poor to good.

▪ Vegetation unit 4, which accounts for 295 of the trees to be removed, is dominated by non-native tree species with understory dominated by common buckthorn and honey suckle.

2175 Cornwall Road, Oakville Environmental Impact Assessment Addendum 0CP-190498-00

2

Dominant tees species include Siberian elm, Scots pine, black locust, Manitoba maple, black pine, black walnut, and white cedar. The health conditions for this vegetation unit range from poor to good.

▪ The remaining 34 trees being removed consist of the following tree species: Colorado spruce, red maple, Norway maple, white spruce, red oak, Norway spruce, little leaf linden, black locust, Siberian elm, Russia Olive, and Manitoba maple. These trees are all considered to be in fair-good health, aside from the black locust, which is considered to be in poor health.

• The proposed landscape plan includes the planting of approximately 167, 60 mm caliper trees within the property boundary.

• The following outlines the existing trees on the property, those that are being retained, removed, planted, and the remaining trees that require compensation:

▪ 406 trees within the property; ▪ 61 trees to be retained; ▪ 345 trees being removed; ▪ 167 trees being planted; and ▪ 178 remaining trees that will be removed will require compensation in the form of cash in-lieu,

paid to the Town of Oakville (rate to be determined). A possibility of the Town of Oakville obtaining some of these remaining trees was discussed on May 28, 2020 and followed up on June 18, 2020 and August 13, 2020 via email. A response has yet to be received as of the date of this report.

• Most of the proposed tree species are native and are representative of trees found in southern Ontario (no invasive species will be used).

• The new trees will be distributed on the property as closely as possible to what their naturally occurring environment would be.

• Eight (8) native tree species (also non-invasive) that are widely used in parking lots throughout the Greater Toronto Area and are fairly typical species that do well in parking lot developments, will be used in the design of the new parking lot area. These species include American sycamore, American elm, hackberry, bur oak, basswood, red maple, tulip tree, and shagbark hickory.

• Three (3) non-native tree species (also non-invasive) that are salt-tolerant and tolerant to urban conditions will be used in the parking lot areas where native tree species are not appropriate. These species include Tilia cordata, maidenhair tree, and thornless honeylocust.

• A large proportion of trees proposed to be removed are invasive species, therefore by removing these species and planting new native species throughout the site, the property’s environmental features will be enhanced.

It was requested by the Town of Oakville to explore the possibility of transplanting and relocating the Kentucky-

Coffee Trees within the site. After further review and consideration, it is our professional opinion, and that of

the Arborist (Appendix B) that it is not a feasible option to attempt this. The process required to attempt the

relocation is difficult to achieve and there is a very low chance of success for survival of the species.

There are 58 Kentucky Coffee-trees within the property, all of which are located in one stand north of vegetation

unit 4. They range in DBH from 1 to 19 cm and grow in an area of approximately 200 square metres. All trees are

considered to be in fair health. Please see the Arborist Report (Appendix C) for more information. McIntosh

Perry is currently completing an Overall Benefit Permit application for MECP approval to remove the Kentucky

Coffee-trees on-site and provide compensation to the species off-site.

Vegetation removal was recommended in the original EIA to remove invasive species (phragmites and

buckthorn) in various areas of the site. This approach has since been revised as the RNHS is now outside the site

2175 Cornwall Road, Oakville Environmental Impact Assessment Addendum 0CP-190498-00

3

property boundary and is no longer considered an area for revegetation efforts or vegetation management

actions.

The buckthorn that is apparent in the understory of Vegetation Community 4 (Dry-Fresh Deciduous Forest

(FOD4-1)) could possibly be removed to enhance the woodland canopy structure. However, this can be a

difficult, multi-year, task to complete as it requires a significant effort to remove buckthorn, which may not end

up being a successful endeavour. As the location of the buckthorn is within the significant woodlands of

Vegetation Community 4, there will be no treatment of the buckthorn. In addition, the significant woodlands will

be protected by a 10 m buffer during the construction of the newly installed second driveway on the site

(Appendix A: Figure 2). The 10 m buffer will also be revegetated with a variety of native trees and shrubs from

local stock and seed zones.

3.0 REGIONAL NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM

Requested by: The Town of Oakville; Conservation Halton; Halton Region

Additional data outlining the location of the RNHS, significant woodlands and its associated 10 m buffer was

requested to be added to Figure 2. This has been updated and can be found in Appendix A. The 10 m buffer is a

protection measure to the significant woodlands. The buffer will be temporarily fenced off with silt fencing

during construction to visually delineate and adequately protect the significant woodlands. In addition to this, to

help protect and enhance the RNHS and the significant woodlands, vegetative plantings (native shrubs are

recommended) will be established within the 10 m buffer. The 10 m buffer is an adequate buffer width to

protect the RNHS features (significant woodlands), as no construction equipment, or activities will take place

near the RNHS feature, thus maintaining its integrity and importance. This will result in no negative impacts to

the RNHS or its ecological function. Additional measures include implementing an Erosion and Sediment Control

(ESC) Plan for the construction area.

4.0 MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, CONSERVATION AND PARKS CORRESPONDENCE

Requested by: The Town of Oakville; Conservation Halton; Halton Region

The MECP was consulted to discuss the potential of the Kentucky-coffee Trees being landscape trees for

which the provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) may not apply. As there was no apparent

mechanism to allow MECP to provide guidance on the removal of the trees without contravening the ESA, it

was decided that an application for an Overall Benefit Permit be completed. No tree removal or habitat

alteration will take place before a permit is obtained. Orange snow fence has already been erected in the

site to physically delineate and protect this species and provide a buffer (Appendix A, Figure 2; “Tree

Protection Zone”). See Appendix D for correspondence with MECP.

Please note that the current site plan will be updated once an Overall Benefit Permit is obtained. An

amendment will be provided at that time.

2175 Cornwall Road, Oakville Environmental Impact Assessment Addendum 0CP-190498-00

4

5.0 SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT CRITERIA SCHEDULES FOR ECOREGION 7E

Requested by: Conservation Halton

A Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) table has been prepared with a desktop analysis of all SWH categories

for Ecoregion 7E. The details can be found in Appendix E.

6.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT POND, PIPE AND NEW DRIVEWAY

Requested by: Conservation Halton; Halton Region

The overall stormwater management approach for the site makes use of both proposed and existing

infrastructure to capture, collect, treat, and convey flows to Joshua’s Creek, which flows adjacent to the site.

Within the new parking area to the northeast of the existing building, a new series of catchbasins and

stormwater pipes are proposed to capture and convey runoff. A new stormwater pipe is proposed to convey

runoff south and west across the site where it will drain into the existing stormwater management pond

(Appendix A, Figure 2; also seen on Sediment & Erosion Control Plan Dwg. C103). Care has been taken to

maintain separation from the proposed pipe to the significant woodland buffer near the southern limit of

the property. It is not anticipated that the construction will have any adverse impacts of the woodlands

provided that mitigation measures, such as the installation of silt fencing, are followed during construction.

Additionally, no physical changes are proposed to any part of the existing stormwater management pond

(Vegetation Community 6), which will also eliminate any disruption to the significant woodlands. For more

information, please see the updated Civil Plans (C101-C103).

The area where the new stormwater pipe will be installed (along the south side of the existing building) will

be restored to the existing vegetation after it is installed. The new stormwater pipe will respect the 10 m

buffer adjacent to the significant woodlands other than where it is already disturbed by the existing parking

lot.

A second driveway to the site is going to be installed just north of the significant woodland buffer (Appendix

A, Figure 2). It will be installed approximately 10 to 20 m from the 10 m buffer outside the significant

woodlands (Vegetation Community 4). The new driveway is setback sufficiently as to not negatively impact

the RNHS (including significant woodlands and associated buffer). This applies to both construction activities

and operations once the site is operational.

2175 Cornwall Road, Oakville Environmental Impact Assessment Addendum 0CP-190498-00

5

7.0 WETLAND SIGNIFICANCE

Requested by: Halton Region

Vegetation Community 3, as seen in Appendix A, Figure 2 (Cultural Meadow/Mineral Meadow Marsh

(CUM1/MAM2)), located along the north-east property boundary of the site, was assessed against Sections 268

and 276.5 of the Halton Region Official Plan, 2018. Details regarding the assessment are outlined below.

Section 268

“Provincially Significant Wetlands means wetlands so classified by the Ministry of Natural Resources and

Forestry based on the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System 2013 Southern Manual, as amended from time

to time.”

McIntosh Perry did not complete a formal OWES classification on Vegetation Community 3, as in our opinion, it

did not meet the criteria of a wetland that would then require evaluation. The presence of wetlands was

determined based on the OWES “50% Wetland Vegetation Rule” (Ontario Wetland Evaluation System Southern

Manual Southern Manual 3rd Edition, Version 3.3, 2014), where half or more of the vegetation, as judged by

relative abundance, should be wetland plants as opposed to terrestrial plants. The 0.5 ha minimum size

requirement for ELC polygons was also used to identify wetland communities. Vegetation Community 3 did not

meet either of these requirements. OWES scores wetlands based on four (4) main criteria: Biological

Component, Social Component, Hydrological Component, and Special Features Component. As a feature with

less than 0.4 ha ELC polygon size composed entirely of an invasive species (phragmites) that is inedible, poor

habitat structure and common on the landscape, the value of this wetland is mostly hydrological serving as local-

scale flood attenuation to the property.

Section 276.5

“Significant Wetlands means:

1) For lands within the Niagara Escarpment Plan Area, Provincially Significant Wetlands and wetlands as

defined in the Niagara Escarpment Plan that make an important ecological contribution to the RNHS:

2) For lands within the Greenbelt Plan Area but outside the Niagara Escarpment Area, Provincially

Significant Wetlands and wetlands as defined in the Greenbelt Plan;

3) For lands within the RNHS but outside the Greenbelt Plan Area, Provincially Significant Wetlands and

wetlands that make an important ecological contribution to the RNHS; and

4) Outside the RNHS, Provincially Significant Wetlands.”

McIntosh Perry’s assessment against this section is as follows:

1) The site is not within the Niagara Escarpment Plan Area;

2) The site is not within the Greenbelt Plan Area;

3) The feature that will be removed, Vegetation Community 3, is over 500 m from the RNHS (Joshua’s

Creek) and significant woodlands (Vegetation Community 4). Due to grade differences and separation, this

feature is not considered to be part of, or make an important ecological contribution, to Joshua’s Creek or

the RNHS; and

4) The feature is not recognized already as a Provincially Significant Wetland.

2175 Cornwall Road, Oakville Environmental Impact Assessment Addendum 0CP-190498-00

6

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS & MITIGATION MEASURES

Due diligence for the RNHS features, as well as the rest of the natural environment within the site, should

include general mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potential negative effects. These general

mitigation measures should be applied to the design and construction activities of the proposed

development.

For the Town of Oakville’s Tree By-laws, the following applies:

• An agreement in place with the Town of Oakville for the tree compensation plan outlined in this

Addendum.

• Where possible, trees to be planted should consist of native trees from local stock and seed zones.

• Trees should be planted at a ratio of 1 sugar maple: 1 oak: 1 associate tree. These trees should be

planted in canopy gaps no closer than 3 m apart.

The remaining recommendations and mitigation measures apply to policies outlined in the Halton Region

Official Plan and industry-accepted best practices.

• A 10 m vegetative buffer should be fenced off with silt fencing and maintained along Vegetation

Community 4 adjacent to the construction of the new driveway. This will protect the RNHS feature

from possible interactions during construction and operations. The fence can be removed after

construction, and appropriate native shrub vegetative plantings and trees from local stock and seed

zones will be implemented in the buffer to help maintain, enhance, and protect the significant

woodlands.

• To manage potential hydrological impacts of the proposed removal of Vegetation Community 3,

parking design will require ditching or infiltration trenches dug no less than the amount that is filled.

• The area disturbed from the installation of the stormwater management pipe should be restored to

its pre-disturbance condition.

• Prepare a tree protection plan and clearly delineate/demarcate work areas to avoid encroachment

and incidental damage to native trees and areas of natural vegetation to be retained.

• Educate workers on the requirements for and importance of staying outside of the demarcated area

with all equipment, vehicles, and materials.

• Inspectors should ensure construction vehicles and personnel stay within the construction envelope,

thereby limiting the disturbance of natural vegetation.

• In the event of accidental damage to trees that are being retained, or unexpected vegetation

removal, vegetation should be replaced/restored with native species.

2175 Cornwall Road, Oakville Environmental Impact Assessment Addendum 0CP-190498-00

7

• To prevent the introduction and spread of invasive plant species into the site, equipment utilized

during construction should be inspected and cleaned in accordance with the Clean Equipment

Protocol for Industry.

• Vegetation removal should be minimized to only what is required for the proposed works.

• Exposed soils should be revegetated as soon as possible using a seed mix composed of native species,

native trees and shrubs, which are appropriate for the site conditions.

• An ESC Plan should be prepared specific to site conditions.

• Revegetation should consist of vegetation native to the area.

• Before commencing any site alterations, visually inspect the work area for wildlife presence.

• Do not feed any wildlife or leave food out that may attract wildlife.

• If wildlife is encountered within the work area, keep distance and allow the animal to exit the work

area.

• The Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA) provides legal protection of migratory birds and their

nests in Canada. The loss of migratory bird nests, eggs and or nestlings due to tree cutting or other

vegetation clearing can be avoided by limiting clearing of vegetation to outside of the general nesting

period for migratory birds in this region as identified by Environment Canada (i.e., between late

March and late August). If work must be performed within this window, a survey for active nests or

breeding should be conducted by a qualified biologist before work commences and additional

mitigation measures (e.g., implementation of avoidance distances during construction) employed if

required.

• All maintenance activities, vehicle refuelling or washing, as well as the storage of chemical and

construction equipment, should be located >30 m from natural areas, including Joshua’s Creek.

• Drip pans shall be placed under all stationary equipment to prevent leaks of fuel, lubricants and other

potentially deleterious substances.

• In the event of an accidental spill, the Ontario Spills Action Centre (1-800-268-6060) should be

contacted, and emergency spill procedures implemented immediately.

• Install, monitor, and maintain proper muffling and maintenance of machinery and equipment.

9.0 REVISED EIA CONCLUSION

Requested by: Halton Region

Based on this EIA Addendum, provided the recommendations and mitigation strategies contained herein are

implemented in full, the proposed redevelopment of 2175 Cornwall Road will result in no overall negative

2175 Cornwall Road, Oakville Environmental Impact Assessment Addendum 0CP-190498-00

8

impacts on the functions and features of the RNHS within the site. There will be removal of vegetation as

described in the Arborist Report, and compensation requirements must still be arranged with the Town of

Oakville to be compliant with municipal tree protection bylaws.

APPENDIX A – Figure 1 (Study Area Location) and Figure 2 (Vegetation

Communities)

Lake Ontario

8TH LINE

TRAFALGAR ROAD6TH

LINE

LEIGHLANDAV

ENUE

LAKESHORE ROAD WEST

CORNWALLROAD

DORVAL DRIVE

ERIN MILLS PARKWAY

9TH LINE

FORD DRIVE

LAKESHORE ROAD EAST

UPPER MIDDLEROAD EAST

SOUTHDOWN ROADEGLIN

TON

AVENUE WEST

QUEE

NEL

IZ ABE

THW

AY

DUNDAS STREET E

AST

CHARTWELL ROAD

BURNHAMTHORPE ROAD EAST

LEGEND

STUDY AREA LOCATION

1FIGURE:

Apr., 16, 2020LCCL

TITLE:

CLIENT:

PROJECT:

U:\O

ttawa

\01 P

rojec

t - Pr

opos

als\20

19 Jo

bs\C

P\0C

P-Pr

ojects

\0CP-

19-04

98 H

&R R

EIT_

2175

Corn

wall A

venu

e\GIS\

mxd\E

nviro

nmen

tal\C

P-19

-0498

_01_

SiteL

ocati

on_8

x11.m

xd

REFERENCE

Study AreaLocal RoadMajor Road

WatercourseWaterbodyWooded Area

GIS data provided by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, 2020.

PROJECT NO: DateGISChecked By

CP-19-0498

Metres

2,000 0 2,0001,000

Scale 1:55,000

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT2175 CORNWALL ROAD

H&R REIT

115 Walgreen Road, RR3, Carp, ON K0A1L0Tel: 613-836-2184 Fax: 613-836-3742

www.mcintoshperry.com

FORD

DRIVE

LEGEND

REFERENCE

GIS data provided by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, 2021.

TITLE:

CLIENT:

FIGURE:

PROJECT:

PROJECT NO:

Date

GIS

Checked By

115 Walgreen Road, RR3, Carp, ON K0A1L0Tel: 613-836-2184 Fax: 613-836-3742

www.mcintoshperry.com

Metres

100 0 10050

Scale 1:3,500

2

VEGETATION COMMUNITIES(ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT2175 CORNWALL ROAD

H&R REIT

Mar., 19, 2021

EU

CL

C:\U

sers

\e.u

ngun

\McI

ntos

h P

erry

\GIS

- D

ocum

ents

\Pro

ject

s\20

19\C

P\C

P-1

9-04

98 H

&R

RE

IT_2

175

Cor

nwal

l Ave

nue\

Apr

x\E

nv\C

P-1

9-04

98_V

eget

atio

nCom

mun

ities

\CP

-19-

0498

_Veg

etat

ionC

omm

uniti

es.a

prx

CP-19-0498

5

1

3

2

2

1

5

6

1

4

New Stormwater Pipe

Existing Stormwater Pipe

Property Boundary

WatercourseSignificant Woodlands

10m Buffer

Existing Disturbance

Regional Natural Heritage System

Vegetation Community 1: Mineral Cultural Meadow (CUM1)

Vegetation Community 2: Cultural Meadow (CUM)

Vegetation Community 3: Cultural Meadow/Mineral MeadowMarsh (CUM1/MAM2)

Vegetation Community 4: Dry-Fresh Deciduous Forest(FOD4-1)

Vegetation Community 5: Dry-Fresh Deciduous Forest(FOD4)

Vegetation Community 6: Cattail Mineral Shallow Marsh(MAS2-1)

Excavation Area For Stormwater Pipe

Existing Building

Proposed Site Layout

Tree Protection Zone

Noise Barrier

ROYAL WINDSOR DRIVE

CO

RN

WA

LL R

OAD

APPENDIX B – Arborist Memo

Nate Torenvliet – ISA Certified Arborist ISA# ON-1782A June 22, 2020

ATT: Mario Patitucci adesso design inc.

218 Locke Street, 2nd floor Hamilton, ON L8P 4B4

Re: Gymnocladus dioicus transplanting at 2175 Cornwall Road, Oakville

Mario,

This letter is a summary and review of the Kentucky Coffeetrees (Gymnocladus dioicus) found on the

above-mentioned site, with special thought given toward the value and feasibility of transplanting select

individuals as has been recently discussed.

Kentucky Coffeetree is usually dioecious, meaning that each tree is either male or female, and

uncommon or rare wherever it occurs throughout its natural range and listed as a Species at Risk in

Ontario. The species has a strong clumping tendency through root suckering thereby cloning itself

densely in areas where it occurs, and as a result many sites where it is known consist entirely of single-

sex clones derived by root suckers from a single parent. It is possible that each tree in a stand originated

from one individual and therefore genetically identical to every other tree in the stand – even being of the

same gender.

Sheet L-3a, as prepared by Adesso Design Inc provides the locations and sizes of the 58 Kentucky

Coffeetrees found on site. The trees range in size from 1 – 19cm DBH and grow in an area of

approximately 200 square meters. The trees are generally in fair condition.

The value and viability of transplanting Kentucky Coffeetrees from this site behooves consideration of the

following points:

- The cloning-by-suckering habit of the species would suggest that most or all the Kentucky

Coffeetrees on this site are root sprouts of either the larger individuals still growing, or of now-

gone individuals that were harvested by Sheridan Nurseries over thirty years ago. Digging and

severing a root-sprouted-tree growing from a common root system is unlikely to survive

transplanting.

- Considering that this site is known for its historical commercial nursery practices, and since

Kentucky Coffeetree is a Species at Risk in Ontario, not naturally occurring within 150km of this

site, these trees are almost certainly not genetically indigenous to the province. The species is

also commonly available at local nurseries and commonly planted as street trees. For these

reasons, these trees warrant no special consideration that might come to them through their

Species at Risk status.

Since these trees are unlikely to survive transplanting, and not linked genetically or geographically to

naturally occurring Kentucky Coffeetrees in Ontario I would recommend against efforts to transplant

them.

If you have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact me.

Submitted by:

Nate Torenvliet

ISA Certified Arborist ON-1782A

Environmental Design Landscape Contractors Ltd

APPENDIX C – Arborist Report

Nate Torenvliet – ISA Certified Arborist ISA# ON-1782A March 18, 2021

ATT: Mario Patitucci adesso design inc.

218 Locke Street, 2nd floor Hamilton, ON L8P 4B4

Subject: 2175 Cornwall Road Tree Preservation Plan

Mario,

This letter is to confirm that I have undertaken the field work and assessment for the existing vegetation

on the abovementioned property. The assessment included all vegetation on site and within 6 meters of

the property line measuring 15cm or greater Diameter at Breast Height (DBH). The evaluation has taken

into consideration and documented the DBH, Canopy Spread, Health, and structural condition of all of

the trees and the potential impact of the proposed development. I have also recommended to adesso

design inc. the appropriate Tree Protection Zones (TPZ).

The information provided to adesso design inc. complies with the following Town of Oakville Bylaws and

Guidelines:

▪ Town of Oakville By-law # 2009-025 as amended, tree protection policy # EN-TRE-001 and

tree protection during construction procedure #EN-TRE-001-001.

▪ Town of Oakville Private Tree Protection By-Law 2017-035

The assessment presented for use on the Tree Protection Plan is only valid at the time of inspection.

Tree risk assessments rely on identifying and assessing the structural condition of trees to determine

weak points and failure potential. Assessment and management of tree risk is based on the science of

biomechanics — the way trees grow for structural support and biological function. It must be

understood that trees are dynamic, living organisms that are subject to internal and external changes

over time.

Similarly, tree management relies on forecasting potential construction impacts and the ability of trees to

withstand stresses due to compaction, excavation, filling and mechanical damage. The success of tree

protection requires adherence to minimum standards as set forth by the municipality and best

management practices by the contractor. The willingness of the owner to comply is also a mitigating

factor.

We have made reasonable efforts to assess the overall condition of the trees on or adjacent to the

subject property. No guarantee or warranty is offered, expressed or implied, that these trees or any of

their parts will remain intact or in stable condition. We cannot predict or be held responsible for the

behaviour of any tree regardless of its condition at the time of assessment.

To reduce risk to trees, human life or property we recommend ongoing inspections and evaluations

during construction. Post construction evaluation and remediation should also be considered to

promote the long term health of trees.

Submitted by:

Nate Torenvliet

ISA Certified Arborist ON-1782A

Environmental Design Landscape Contractors Ltd

Oakville Licence No. 20-144082

ARBORIST REPORT

2175 Cornwall Road

Town of Oakville, Ontario

December 13, 2019

Revised March 18, 2021

Prepared For:

adesso design inc.

218 Locke Street South, 2nd Floor

Hamilton, ON L8P 4B4

Prepared By:

Environmental Design Landscape Contractors Ltd

License No. 19-113528 / 20-144082

ISA Certified Arborist - ON-1782A

Table of Contents

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

Method of Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 1

Discussion ....................................................................................................................................... 2

Proposed Works ......................................................................................................................... 2

Tree Ownership ........................................................................................................................... 2

Tree Removals ............................................................................................................................ 2

Tree Preservation ........................................................................................................................ 2

Tree Risk ...................................................................................................................................... 2

Permit Requirements .................................................................................................................. 2

Tree Protection Zones (TPZ’s) .................................................................................................... 2

Figure 2, Tree Protection Signage .......................................................................................... 3

Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 3

General Limitations of Tree Assessment ........................................................................................ 4

Appendix 1 – Tree Inventory Chart

Appendix 2 – Site Photographs

Appendix 3 – Tree Protection Plans L-1 – L-3a

1

Introduction

Adesso Design Inc., the project landscape architect, has requested the preparation of this

arborist report for the planned site alterations at the site at 2175 Cornwall Road in Oakville,

Ontario. The owners of the site, H&R Reit (c/o 2121 Cornwall Road Portfolio Inc.) are intending

to renovate the existing building and parking area to accommodate a commercial application.

This report provides an inventory and assessment of the 95 trees and 4 units on and relating to

the subject site and outlines their removal and preservation requirements based on the site

plans provided by Adesso Design Inc and in accordance with the current Town of Oakville

private and town tree By-laws.

This report is supplemental and should be understood in conjunction with related project plans

prepared by Adesso Design Inc.

Method of Evaluation

Site observations were made on December 10, 2019 to evaluate and inventory all trees on site.

All trees on Town land, and all trees >/=15cm dbh on private property were inventoried. The

trees were visually assessed in this evaluation for overall health, structure and vigor, as well as

confirming their locations in relation to planned site alterations and ownership.

Tree inventory, as included in Appendix 1 is outlined according to the following categories:

• Species – botanical and common names are provided for each tree;

• DBH – ‘diameter at breast height’ (1.37 m above grade) for each tree in centimeters;

• Crown Class – dominant, codominant, or intermediate canopy.

• Canopy Width (CW) – an estimation of the average diameter of the tree canopy in

meters;

• Condition – an assessment of the overall health and quality of the tree rated on an

ascending scale of poor-fair-good;

• TPZ requirements – width of the Tree Protection Zone, in meters, as required by the

Town of Oakville in Procedure No. EN-TRE-001-001 for the protection of trees during

construction. TPZ is based on DBH and may vary according to existing site conditions;

• Ownership – indicates whether the tree is public, private, or shared ownership;

• Recommendation – comments about specific site observations, and/or whether the

tree is preserved or removed.

2

Discussion

Proposed Works

The owners of the site, H&R Reit (c/o 2121 Cornwall Road Portfolio Inc.), are intending to

renovate the existing building and parking area to accommodate a commercial application.

Some trees on site will be affected by the proposed site alterations and will require either

removal or protection measures for the proposed development to occur.

Tree Ownership

All but one of the subject trees are privately owned on both the subject site and adjoining

property. Tree #87 is a town-owned little leaf linden located in the Town ROW.

Tree Removals

Due to conflicts with the proposed site plan, 34 individual trees, 16 trees in Unit #3, and 295

trees in Unit #4 (=/>10cm DBH) should be removed prior to the beginning of on-site

construction.

Trees: 2, 3, 4, 11, 14-16, 59-64, 67-72, 80-86, 88-95, and Units 3 and 4.

Tree Preservation

Sixty-one (61) trees and two vegetation units should be preserved. Due to their proximity to the

planned site alterations the following trees require TPZ measures according to the Town of

Oakville’s guidelines, as prescribed in Appendix 1 and shown in Appendix 3:

Trees 1, 5-10, 12, 13, 17-58, 65, 66, 73-79, 87, and Units 1 and 2.

Spring 2020 Update:

During the tree inventory and preservation field work in spring 2020, a contractor working on

site transplanted 9 Colorado Spruce trees from the area of the temporary access to a protected

area N/W of Unit 2. The transplanting appears to have been done with care and the trees are

establishing well. Sheet L-1a by Adesso Design shows these changes.

Tree Risk

No trees on the site posed any unacceptable level of risk at time of assessment.

Permit Requirements

Pursuant to Town by-law 2017-038 Section 5. (f), private tree removals on this site are subject

to the conditions and approvals as required for a site plan.

3

Tree Protection Zones (TPZ’s)

Prior to issuance of the Tree Permit and Site Alteration Permit, tree protection measures for all

retained trees must be in place and must remain in place during the entire construction period.

These protection measures must be in accordance with Town standards.

Trees within or adjacent to a construction site must be protected during construction by means

of a barrier installed in accordance with Town standards and meet the following specifications;

• No unauthorized activities may take place within the TPZ of a tree covered under any

municipal permit process or agreement;

• If fill or excavated material must be temporarily located near the TPZ, a wooden barrier

shall be used to ensure no material enters the TPZ;

• TPZ fencing shall consist of framed construction or snow fencing, and be supported by

solid wood framing;

• All TPZ locations should be clearly marked on site project plans;

• An informational sign should be mounted on TPZ hoarding and remain throughout the

duration of the project. Example below.

Trees and TPZs should be monitored regularly by a consulting arborist throughout the duration

of the project.

Figure 2, Tree Protection Signage

Recommendations

Included here are general recommendations and suggested measures that will help ensure the

health and survival of the preserved trees during and, most importantly, after the construction

process is complete;

TREE PROTECTION ZONE

No grade change, storage of materials or equipment is permitted within this area.

This tree protection barrier must not be removed without the written authorization of the Town of Oakville.

Report any contraventions to;

Contact: _______________

Tel No.: _______________

Unauthorized removal of the tree protection barrier or other contraventions may result in prosecution.

4

• TPZ’s are suggested minimums, and as such it is recommended to keep all equipment

and vehicular movement as far away from existing trees as possible;

• Any tree work such as trimming and branch removals should be carried out according

to sound arboricultural practices, and should be performed by a certified arborist;

• All excavation near existing trees should be carried out in a sensitive manner – that is

with keen attention to tree roots and soil movement. Large roots should be removed

with a saw and by a certified arborist to minimize the damage to the tree as much as

possible.

General Limitations of Tree Assessment

The assessment presented in this report is only valid at the time of inspection.

Tree risk assessments rely on identifying and assessing the structural condition of trees to

determine weak points and failure potential. Assessment and management of tree risk is based

on the science of biomechanics — the way trees grow for structural support and biological

function. It must be understood that trees are dynamic, living organisms that are subject to

internal and external changes over time.

Similarly, tree management relies on forecasting potential construction impacts and the ability

of trees to withstand stresses due to compaction, excavation, filling and mechanical damage.

The success of tree protection requires adherence to minimum standards as set forth by the

municipality and best management practices by the contractor. The willingness of the owner to

comply is also a mitigating factor.

We have made reasonable efforts to assess the overall condition of the trees on or adjacent to

the subject property. No guarantee or warranty is offered, expressed or implied, that these

trees or any of their parts will remain intact or in stable condition. We cannot predict or be held

responsible for the behaviour of any tree regardless of its condition at the time of assessment.

To reduce risk to trees, human life or property we recommend ongoing inspections and

evaluations during construction. Post construction evaluation and remediation should also be

considered to promote the long-term health of trees.

Submitted by:

Nate Torenvliet

ISA Certified Arborist ON-1782A

Environmental Design Landscape Contractors Ltd.

5

Tree/Unit

# Owner Common Name Botanical Name DB

H (

cm)

Can

op

y (m

)

Condition Comments Recommendation

Unit 1Subject

site

Norway Maple, Black

Walnut, Manitoba

Maple, White Cedar,

Linden, Russian Olive,

Buckthorn, Bur Oak,

White Ash, Sumac

Acer platanoides, Juglans

nigra, Acer negundo, Thuja

occidentalis, Tilia cordata,

Elaeagnus angustifolia,

Rhamnus cathartica, Quercus

macrocarpa, Fraxinus

americana, Rhus typhina

10-45 NAPoor-

Good

Low quality disturbed treed area.

Many dead ash trees, as well as

invasive exotic species such as

Buckthorn. For further information

please review the EIA completed by

Will Barbour, Dec 23rd, 2019.

Preserve with 3.0m TPZ

Unit 2Subject

site

Colorado Spruce,

Manitoba Maple, Red

Oak

Picea pungens, Acer

negundo, Quercus rubra10-30 NA

Poor-

Good

Low quality disturbed treed area

with understory of invasive exotic

species such as Buckthorn. For

further information please review

the EIA completed by Will Barbour,

Dec 23rd, 2019.

Preserve with 2.4m TPZ

Unit 3Subject

site

Douglas Fir, Norway

Maple, Manitoba

Maple, White

Mulberry, Buckthorn,

Russian Olive

Pseudotsuga menzieseii,

Acer platanoides, Acer

negundo, Morus alba,

Rhamnus cathartica,

Elaegnus angustifolia

10-50 NAPoor-

Good

Small treed area with older planted

exotic trees as well as self-seeded

low value species. For further

information please review the EIA

completed by Will Barbour, Dec 23rd,

2019.

Remove due to conflics

with proposed

development.

Unit 4Subject

site

Siberian Elm, Scots

Pine, Black Locust,

Black Pine, White

Pine, Manitoba

Maple, White

Mulberry, Black

Walnut, Buckthorn,

White Cedar, Aspen,

Sugar Maple, Eastern

Cottonwood, Norway

Spruce, Russian Olive,

Honey Suckle, White

Ash, Tree of Heaven,

Ginkgo, Apple, Amur

Cork Tree, Kentucky

Coffee Tree

Ulmus pumila, Pinus

sylvestris, Robinia sp., Pinus

nigra, Pinus strobus, Acer

negundo, Morus alba,

Juglans nigra, Rhamnus

cathartica, Thuja

occidentalis, Populus

tremuloides, Acer

saccharum, Populus sp.,

Picea abies, Elaeagnus

angustifolia, Lonicera sp.,

Fraxinus sp., Ailanthus sp.,

Ginkgo sp., Malus sp.,

Phellodendron amurense,

Gymnocladus dioicus

10-67 NAPoor-

Good

Low quality disturbed treed area -

probably formerly a tree nursery due

to row plantings and diversity of

species. For further information

please review the EIA completed by

Will Barbour, Dec 23rd, 2019.

Remove due to conflics

with proposed

development.

1Subject

siteDouglas Fir Pseudotsuga menzieseii 22 5 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve with 2.4m TPZ

2Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 15 2 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.

Remove due to conflics

with proposed

development.

3Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 15 2 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.

Remove due to conflics

with proposed

development.

4Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 15 2 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.

Remove due to conflics

with proposed

development.

5Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 15 2 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

6Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 15 2 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

7Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 17 2 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

8Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 15 2 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

9Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 15 4 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

Appendix 1: Tree Inventory Chart

6

10Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 15 2 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

11Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 15 4 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.

Remove due to conflics

with proposed

development.

12Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 15 4 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

13Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 15 4 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

14Subject

siteRed Maple Acer rubrum 16 4 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.

Remove due to conflics

with proposed

development.

15Subject

siteRed Maple Acer rubrum 15 4 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.

Remove due to conflics

with proposed

development.

16Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 15 3 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.

Remove due to conflics

with proposed

development.

17Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 15 2 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve with 2.4m TPZ

18Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 15 2 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve with 2.4m TPZ

19Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 15 2 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

20Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 19 2 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

21Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 15 2 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

22Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 17 2 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

23Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 16 3 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve with 2.4m TPZ

24Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 16 3 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

25Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 18 3 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

26Subject

siteDouglas Fir Pseudostuga mensiesii 19 6 Poor

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

27Subject

siteDouglas Fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 15 2 Fair

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

28Subject

siteRed Maple Acer rubrum 15 4 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

29Subject

siteRed Maple Acer rubrum 18 5 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

30Subject

siteRed Maple Acer rubrum 20 5 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

31Subject

siteWhite Fir Abies concolor 17 3.5 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

32Subject

siteDouglas Fir Pseudostuga mensiesii 15 4 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

33Subject

siteRed Maple Acer rubrum 15 4 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

34Subject

siteRed Maple Acer rubrum 15 4 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

35Subject

siteWhite Fir Abies concolor 28 4 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

36Subject

siteWhite Spruce Picea glauca 17 4 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

37Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 16 3 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

38Subject

siteNorway Spruce Picea abies 17 3 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

39Subject

siteNorway Maple Acer platanoides 18 4 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

40Subject

siteRed Maple Acer rubrum 17 3 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

7

41Subject

siteRed Oak Quercus rubra 21 6 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

42Subject

siteWhite Spruce Picea glauca 17 3.5 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

43Subject

siteWhite Spruce Picea glauca 20 4 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

44Subject

siteRed Maple Acer rubrum 16 4 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

45Subject

siteBlack Walnut Juglans nigra 17 3.5 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

46Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 16 2 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

47Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 16 3 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

48Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 16 3 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

49Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 16 3 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

50Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 18 3 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

51Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 18 2.5 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

52Subject

siteNorway Maple Acer platanoides 19 4.5 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

53Subject

siteLittle Leaf Linden Tilia cordata 18 5 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

54Subject

siteLittle Leaf Linden Tilia cordata 17 4 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

55Subject

siteLittle Leaf Linden Tilia cordata 16 4 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

56Subject

siteWhite Fir Abies concolor 17 3 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

57Subject

siteWhite Fir Abies concolor 16 2.5 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

58Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 15 2 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

59Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 19 2 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.

Remove due to conflics

with proposed

development.

60Subject

siteNorway Maple Acer platanoides 16 2 Fair

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.

Remove due to conflics

with proposed

development.

61Subject

siteRed Maple Acer rubrum 16 3.5 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.

Remove due to conflics

with proposed

development.

62Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 16 2 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.

Remove due to conflics

with proposed

development.

63Subject

siteWhite Spruce Picea glauca 22 3 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.

Remove due to conflics

with proposed

development.

64Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 18 3 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.

Remove due to conflics

with proposed

development.

65Subject

siteOrnamental Pear Pyrus sp. 20 4 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

66Subject

siteOrnamental Pear Pyrus sp. 16 4 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.Preserve

67Subject

siteRed Oak Quercus rubra 15 6 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.

Remove due to conflics

with proposed

development.

68Subject

siteRed Oak Quercus rubra 15 6 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.

Remove due to conflics

with proposed

development.

69Subject

siteRed Oak Quercus rubra 15 6 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.

Remove due to conflics

with proposed

development.

70Subject

siteRed Oak Quercus rubra 16 6 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.

Remove due to conflics

with proposed

development.

8

71Subject

siteRed Oak Quercus rubra 18 5 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.

Remove due to conflics

with proposed

development.

72Subject

siteRed Oak Quercus rubra 21 6 Good

Ornamental tree, part of buffer

planting.

Remove due to conflics

with proposed

development.

73Subject

siteWhite Mulberry Morus alba 40 6 Good Self-seeded hedgerow tree. Preserve

74Subject

siteManitoba Maple Acer negundo 23, 27 4 Good Self-seeded hedgerow tree. Preserve

75Subject

siteSiberian Elm Ulmus pumila 43 4 Good Self-seeded hedgerow tree. Preserve

76Subject

siteSiberian Elm Ulmus pumila

10,15,

184 Good Self-seeded hedgerow tree. Preserve

77Subject

siteBlack Pine Pinus nigra 42 5 Good Self-seeded hedgerow tree. Preserve

78Subject

siteBlack Pine Pinus nigra 36 5 Good Self-seeded hedgerow tree. Preserve

79Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 20 3 Good Ornamental landscape tree. Preserve

80Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 20 3 Good Ornamental landscape tree.

Remove due to conflics

with proposed

development.

81Subject

siteNorway Spruce Picea abies 56 10 Good Old landscape/nursery tree.

Remove due to conflics

with proposed

development.

82Subject

siteNorway Spruce Picea abies 64 12 Good Old landscape/nursery tree.

Remove due to conflics

with proposed

development.

83Subject

siteLittle Leaf Linden Tilia cordata 23 6 Good Old landscape/nursery tree.

Remove due to conflics

with proposed

development.

84Subject

siteLittle Leaf Linden Tilia cordata

15,16,

246 Good Old landscape/nursery tree.

Remove due to conflics

with proposed

development.

85Subject

siteBlack Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 16,24 6 Poor Self-seeded escapee tree.

Remove due to conflics

with proposed

development.

86Subject

siteSiberian Elm Ulmus pumila 18 4 Good Self-seeded escapee tree.

Remove due to conflics

with proposed

development.

87Town of

OakvilleLittle Leaf Linden Tilia cordata 13 3 Good Roadside/bouldevard tree. Preserve with 2.4m TPZ

88Subject

siteBlack Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 13,25 5 Good Self-seeded escapee tree.

Remove due to conflics

with proposed

development.

89Subject

siteRussian Olive Elaeagnus angustifolia 15 3.5 Good Self-seeded invasive tree.

Remove due to conflics

with proposed

development.

90Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 25 4 Good Ornamental landscape tree.

Remove due to conflics

with proposed

development.

91Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 23 3 Good Ornamental landscape tree.

Remove due to conflics

with proposed

development.

92Subject

siteColorado Spruce Picea pungens 35 5 Good Ornamental landscape tree.

Remove due to conflics

with proposed

development.

93Subject

siteManitoba Maple Acer negundo 40 8 Good Self-seeded escapee tree.

Remove due to conflics

with proposed

development.

94Subject

siteSiberian Elm Ulmus pumila 18 3.5 Good Self-seeded invasive tree.

Remove due to conflics

with proposed

development.

95Subject

siteRussian Olive Elaeagnus angustifolia 18 5 Good Self-seeded invasive tree.

Remove due to conflics

with proposed

development.

9

Appendix 2: Site Photographs

1. View of Unit 1 from Cornwall Road. 2. West view into Unit 2.

3. Typical buffer planting along Cornwall Rd. 4. East view toward Unit 3.

5. North view inside Unit 4. 6. Typical view of easternmost trees.

10

7. Typical view of rear of building area. 8. View east of building toward Units 3 and 4.

98.00

98.00

98.50

98.5098.2598.25

98.25

98.25

98.25

98.50

99.00

98.25

98.75

99.00

99.50100.0010

0.5010

1.0010

1.50

99.50

100.00

100.50

101.00

101.50

99.00

99.50

100.00

99.25

99.75

100.25

99.00

99.50

100.00

100.5099.25

99.75

100.25

100.00

100.00

99.75

99.75

99.50

99.75

99.25

99.0099.

0099.00

99.00

99.50

99.50

99.50

99.25

99.25

99.00

99.25

99.00

99.50

100.00

99.25

99.75

99.00

99.25

99.00

99.00

99.00

99.50

100.00

99.75

100.25

98.50

99.00

98.25

98.25

98.25

98.75

99.25

99.75

100.50

101.00

101.50

102.00

102.50

100.25

100.75

101.25

101.75

102.25

102.75

102.75

102.75

100.00

100.50

99.75

100.25

100.75

99.00

99.50

98.75

99.25

99.25

100.25

100.50

101.00

101.50

102.00

100.75

101.25

101.75

100.0

0100.50

101.00101.50

102.00

99.75100.25

100.75101.25

101.75

100.50101.00101.50102.00

100.25100.75101.25101.75

100.00

100.00

100.25

100.00

99.75

100.25

100.25

100.50

101.00

101.50

100.75

101.25

101.75

100.00100.50

101.00101.50100.50

101.00

101.50

100.25

100.75

101.25

99.0099.50100.00100.50

99.00

98.75

98.75

99.50

100.00

100.50

101.00

101.50

97.00

97.50

98.00

98.50

96.75

97.25

97.75

98.25

98.75

97.0097.50 96.7597.25

97.75

99.00

99.50100.00

99.25

99.75

99.75

98.50

99.00

99.50

96.50

97.0097.

5098.0

098.5

0

99.00

99.50100

.00100.50101

.00101.50102.

00102.50

99.00

99.50

100.00

100.50

101.00

101.50

102.00

102.50

100.50

101.00

101.50

102.00

102.50

100.00100.50

101.00

99.50

100.00

99.75

99.50

99.50

99.50

99.25

99.00

99.25

98.75

98.50

<15cmDBH

2.40

2.40

2.40

2.40

2.40

2.40

2.40

2.40

2.40

2.40

2.40 2.4

0

2.40

2.40

2.40

2.40

2.40 2.4

0

2.40

2.40

2.40

2.40

2.40

2.40

2.40

2.40

2.40

2.40

1.80

1.80

1.80

1.80

1.80

1.80

1.80

1.80

1.80

100.

22HP 100.

25

99.2

0

99.3

1

100.

02 100.

05

T/G 100.26OGS

T/G 100.30MH112

T/G 100.29MH113

T/G

100.

91

MH1

14

HEADWALL

T/G 100.28MH101A

77.45m - 200mmØ SAN @ 1.00%

T/G

100.

22

MH1

15

98.97

99.25

99.37

99.51

99.35

99.37

99.20

90.25m - 900mmØ STM @ 0.15%

39.65m - 900mmØ STM @ 0.15%

68.35m - 900mmØ STM @ 0.15%

84.00m - 900mmØ STM @ 0.15%

52.4

5m -

900m

mØ

STM

@ 0

.15%

INV 96.41

99.67

99.49

99.13

99.11

99.12

99.13

100.02

99.89

100.17

99.85

99.40

T/G 100.28MH102A

3.70m - 200mmØ

SAN @ 1.00%

INV 98.70

99.13

98.96

100.29

99.00

99.89HP

99.75

99.40

98.9899.03

<15cmDBH

<15cmDBH

<15cmDBH

<15cmDBH

<15cmDBH

<15cmDBH

<15cmDBH

<15cmDBH<15cm

DBH

<15cmDBH

<15cmDBH<15cm

DBH

<15cmDBH

<15cmDBH <15cm

DBH <15cmDBH

<15cmDBH

<15cmDBH

100.50

101.00

100.75

100.65

EXISTING WAREHOUSE

1 STOREY

100.36

T/G

100.

91

MH1

14

100.88

101.07

100.75

101.24

99.79

99.38

99.28

99.5399.97

100.35

101.00

77.45m - 200mmØ SAN @ 1.00%

100.42

100.42

100.96

B/F 100.57HYD

100.17

100.25

100.23

100.96

100.52

100.52

100.52

T/G

100.

22

MH1

15

99.05

100.12

100.16

100.26

100.24

100.33

100.25

100.46

100.63

100.57

99.84

99.72

99.35

99.21

99.31

98.97

99.37

99.67

100.06

100.51

99.25

99.37

99.51

99.35

99.37

99.20

100.22

100.35

100.30

100.2

7

100.10

100.66

99.67

99.49

99.13

99.23

99.11

99.12

99.13

100.02

99.89

100.17

99.85

99.40

3.70m - 200mmØ

SAN @ 1.00%

INV 98.70

99.13

100.31

98.96

100.29

99.00

100.28

99.04

99.66

99.68

98.9899.03

FILE

:Z:\

Proj

ect_

files

\Pro

ject

s_20

19\1

9-17

4_21

75 C

ornw

all R

d_O

akvi

lle\0

1-C

urre

nt_D

raw

ings

\19-

174L

.dw

g L

AYO

UT:1

_TPP

LAST

SA

VED

BY:

Stat

ion0

7, M

arch

17,

202

1 9:

01:5

5 PM

PLO

TTED

BY:

Stat

ion0

7 M

arch

17,

202

1 9:

02:4

1 PM

vegetation unit (refer to chart)

existing tree number (refer to chart)

existing vegetation to remain

existing elevations

L-1Tree Protection Plan

tree protection fence (with silt fence)

TREE PROTECTION FENCE(with silt fence)- SEE DETAIL D1, L-3

north

existing vegetation to be removed

adesso design inc.landscape architecture

Hamilton, ON L8P 4B4t. 905.526.8876

218 Locke Street South, 2nd Floor

www.adessodesigninc.ca

H&R REIT (c/o 2121 Cornwall RoadPortfolio Inc.)

Town of Oakville

Amazon Distribution Centre2175 Cornwall Rd

SP.1604.006/01

1 2020-01-15 Issued for submission2 2020-04-17 Issued for second submission3 2020-06-12 Issued for review4 2020-06-23 Issued for review5 2020-07-28 Issued for re-submission review6 2020-10-27 Issued for re-submission review7 2020-11-03 Issued for third submission8 2021-03-17 Issued for review

REVISIONS/ SUBMISSIONS

STAMP

CLIENT

PROJECT

SHEET

MUNICIPAL FILE NUMBER

# DATE DESCRIPTION

MUNICIPALITY

proj

ect #

: 19

-174

KEY MAP - N.T.S.

Ford Dr

Roya

l Win

dsor

Dr

Cornw

all R

dCon

stanc

e Dr Joshua's

Valley Park

SITE

OAKVILLE

north

Dunedin

Rd

AspenForest Park

LEGEND

property line

north

5 0 5 20

1:500

10

(m)

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONISSUED FOR REVIEW & COMMENTS ONLY

TREE PROTECTION FENCE(with silt fence)- SEE DETAIL D1, L-3

minimum tree protection zone (tpz)- as per Town of Oakville guidelines

NOTE:Vegetation inventory undertaken on 2019-12-10 and2020-05-29 by Nate Torenvliet, ISA Certified Arborist(ON-1782A) with Environmental Design LandscapeContractors Ltd. - Arborist License No. 19-113528 inTown of Oakville.

UNIT 2

2

KEY MAPSCALE NTS

ENLARGEMENT 'A'

ENLA

RGEM

ENT 'A

'

ENLA

RGEM

ENT 'B'

UNIT 1

UNIT 2

1

2

3

14

15

16

11 17 18

19

20

21

22

2423 25 27

26

5049 51 54 5532 36 37 38

28

29

30

31

33

34 35 39 40 41

43 44 45 46 47 48 52 535756

58

ENLA

RGEM

ENT 'A

'

ENLA

RGEM

ENT 'B'

7

6

8

5

9

1210

13 7942

proposed elevations

4

TREE #79 TO BETRANSPLANTED AS SHOWN.FOR ORIGINAL LOCATIONREFER TO L-2

96

97 98

99 100 101

103

102 104

105106

107

108 109 110

<15cmDBH existing <15cm DBH tree to be removed

EXISTING WAREHOUSE

1 STOREY

100.36

T/G

100.

91

MH1

14

100.88

101.07

100.75

101.24

99.79

99.38

99.28

99.5399.97

100.35

101.00

77.45m - 200mmØ SAN @ 1.00%

100.42

100.42

100.96

B/F 100.57HYD

100.17

100.25

100.23

100.96

100.52

100.52

100.52

T/G

100.

22

MH1

15

99.05

100.12

100.16

100.26

100.24

100.33

100.25

100.46

100.63

100.57

99.84

99.72

99.35

99.21

99.31

98.97

99.37

99.67

100.06

100.51

99.25

99.37

99.51

99.35

99.37

99.20

100.22

100.35

100.30

100.2

7

100.10

100.66

99.67

99.49

99.13

99.23

99.11

99.12

99.13

100.02

99.89

100.17

99.85

99.40

3.70m - 200mmØ

SAN @ 1.00%

INV 98.70

99.13

100.31

98.96

100.29

99.00

100.28

99.04

99.66

99.68

98.9899.03

99.00

98.75

99.00

99.50100.0010

0.5010

1.0010

1.50

99.50

100.00

100.50

101.00

101.50

99.00

99.50

100.00

99.25

99.75

100.25

100.50

100.25

100.00

100.00

99.75

99.75

99.50

99.75

100.25

99.75

99.25

100.50

101.00

101.50

100.25

100.75

101.25

99.0099.50100.00100.50

99.00

98.75

98.75

99.50

100.00

100.50

101.00

101.50

99.00

99.50100.00

99.25

99.75

99.75

99.50

99.25

99.00

99.25

98.75

2.40

2.40

2.40

2.40

2.40

2.40

2.40

2.40

1.80

OHW

100.

22HP 100.

25

99.2

0

99.3

1

100.

02 100.

05

T/G

100.

91

MH1

14

T/G

100.

22

MH1

15

68.35m - 900mmØ STM @ 0.15%

84.00m - 900mmØ STM @ 0.15%

52.4

5m -

900m

mØ

STM

@ 0

.15%

100.02

99.89

100.17

99.85

98.9899.03

<15cmDBH

100.50

101.00

100.75

100.65

FILE

:Z:\

Proj

ect_

files

\Pro

ject

s_20

19\1

9-17

4_21

75 C

ornw

all R

d_O

akvi

lle\0

1-C

urre

nt_D

raw

ings

\19-

174L

.dw

g L

AYO

UT:1

a_TP

PLA

ST S

AV

ED B

Y:St

atio

n07,

Mar

ch 1

7, 2

021

9:05

:19

PM P

LOTT

ED B

Y:St

atio

n07

Mar

ch 1

7, 2

021

9:05

:44

PM

vegetation unit (refer to chart)

existing tree number (refer to chart)

existing vegetation to remain

existing elevations

L-1aTree Protection PlanAddendum(Engineering Permit Application)

UNIT 2

2

tree protection fence (with silt fence)

TREE PROTECTION FENCE(with silt fence)- SEE DETAIL D1, L-1a

north

existing vegetation to be removed

adesso design inc.landscape architecture

Hamilton, ON L8P 4B4t. 905.526.8876

218 Locke Street South, 2nd Floor

www.adessodesigninc.ca

H&R REIT (c/o 2121 Cornwall RoadPortfolio Inc.)

Town of Oakville

Amazon Distribution Centre2175 Cornwall Rd

SP.1604.006/01

1 2020-03-30 Issued for Engineering Permit Application

REVISIONS/ SUBMISSIONS

STAMP

CLIENT

PROJECT

SHEET

MUNICIPAL FILE NUMBER

# DATE DESCRIPTION

MUNICIPALITY

proj

ect #

: 19

-174

KEY MAP - N.T.S.

Ford Dr

Roya

l Win

dsor

Dr

Cornw

all R

dCon

stanc

e Dr Joshua's

Valley Park

SITE

OAKVILLE

north

Dunedin

Rd

AspenForest Park

LEGEND

property line

north

0 5 10

1:250

3

(m)

KEY MAPSCALE NTS

ENLARGEMENT 'A-1'

UNIT 1

UNIT 2

1

2

ENLARGEMENT 'A.1'

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONISSUED FOR REVIEW & COMMENTS ONLY

TREE PROTECTION FENCE(with silt fence)- SEE DETAIL D1, L-1a

Colorado Spruce, ManitobaMaple, Red Oak

Picea glauca, Acer negundo, Quercus rubra

TREE/UNITNO.

SPECIES (COMMON NAME) SPECIES (BOTANICAL NAME)

On property SAVENone.Good22 D

D, C, I<5 - 30

DBH (cm) CROWNCLASS*

CONDITION VEGETATION VALUE& PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS

POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM CONSTRUCTION OWNERSHIP RECOMMENDATION

Pseudotsuga menziesii

UNIT 2 SAVE

Douglas Fir1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

On propertymetal tag #618Good15 DPicea pungensColorado Spruce

On propertymetal tag #617Good15 D

On propertymetal tag #616Good15 D

Good15 D

Good15 D

Good17 D

Good15 D

Good15 C

Good15 C

On propertyGood15 C11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

On propertyGood15 C

On propertyGood15 C

On propertyGood16 DAcer rubrumRed Maple

On propertyGood15 D

On propertyGood15 D

On property SAVENoneGood15 D

On property SAVENoneGood15 D

23 On property SAVENone.Good16 D

CANOPYDIA. (m)

5

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

4

2

4

4

4

4

4

3

2

2

3

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Acer rubrumRed Maple

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

metal tag #614

metal tag #613

metal tag #612

metal tag #611

metal tag #610

metal tag #608

metal tag #606

metal tag #609

metal tag #607

metal tag #629

metal tag #627

metal tag #628

.

.

REMOVEConflict with proposed entrance and associated berm grading

REMOVEConflict with proposed entrance and associated berm grading

REMOVEConflict with proposed entrance and associated berm grading

REMOVEConflict with proposed entrance and associated berm grading

Transplanted as shownNo longer a conflict with proposed entrance and associated berm grading

REMOVEConflict with proposed entrance and associated berm grading

REMOVEConflict with proposed entrance and associated berm grading

NA On PropertyMinimal grading within root zone.

EXISTING VEGETATION IDENTIFICATION TABLE

3

7

6

8

45

9

12

10

13

11

14 15

16

17 18 19

21 22

20

23

24 25

27

26

28

1. The Owner and Contractor must be aware of the Migratory BirdsConvention Act, 1994 - specifically;

· No tree removal or construction activity shall contravene theAct.

· Construction activities with the potential to harm migratory birdsor their nest should be restricted from March 15 to August 31.

· If work must occur during the migratory bird breeding season, anest survey should be taken by a qualified avian biologist.

· A mitigation plan (showing active nests and appropriatebuffers) may be required for review and approval by theCanadian Wildlife Services.

* CROWN CLASSDominant- (D) Emergent canopy (receives full sunlight)Co-dominant - (C) Not fully emergent (top of canopy receives sunlight)Intermediate - (I) Sub-canopy tree (receives partial sunlight)

** CONDITION - consideration of trunk integrity, crown structure and crown vigorGood - few or no issues related to trunk integrity, crown structure or crown vigorFair - minor issues related to trunk integrity, crown structure (form, some dead ordamged branches) or crown vigor (20-80% healthy foliage)Poor - issues with trunk integrity such as cavities or exposed dead wood, poorcrown structure (poor form, no clear leader, significant dead or damagedbranches) or poor crown vigor (<20% healthy foliage)

MIGRATORY BIRDS AND NESTS:

1. No trees shall be removed prior to municipal approvals of the TreeManagement/Tree Preservation Plan.

TREE REMOVAL:

* CONDITION OF TREESThe decision to remove or retain a tree is subject to the forecasted developmentimpacts, the structural condition of the tree (e.g. cracks, cavities, decay, weakbranching, leaning, hazard potential), the biological condition of the tree (e.g.pest or disease concerns, overall health) and the suitability of the tree in itslocation (e.g. hardiness, soil conditions, salt tolerance, visual obstruction, availablesoil volume)

Tree Protection Fencing - Town of Oakville 1D

SCALE: NTS

EXISTING BUILDINGTO REMAIN

minimum tree protection zone (tpz)- as per Town of Oakville guidelines

1. For full Tree Protection Plan, see Landscape Set,Municipal File #SP.1604.006 01

2. For Arborist Addendum Report, see documentprepared by Nate Torenvliet on March 18, 2020

NOTES:

Conflict with proposed entrance and associated berm grading REMOVE

2 2020-04-17 Issued for second submission

NOTE:Vegetation inventory undertaken on 2019-12-10 and2020-05-29 by Nate Torenvliet, ISA Certified Arborist(ON-1782A) with Environmental Design LandscapeContractors Ltd. - Arborist License No. 19-113528 inTown of Oakville.

79

Transplanted as shownNo longer a conflict with proposed entrance and associated berm grading

Transplanted as shownNo longer a conflict with proposed entrance and associated berm grading

Transplanted as shownNo longer a conflict with proposed entrance and associated berm grading

Transplanted as shownNo longer a conflict with proposed entrance and associated berm grading

Transplanted as shownNo longer a conflict with proposed entrance and associated berm grading

Transplanted as shownNo longer a conflict with proposed entrance and associated berm grading

Transplanted as shownNo longer a conflict with proposed entrance and associated berm grading

On property

On property

On property

On property

On property

On property

79 On property.Good20 D3Picea pungensColorado Spruce No longer a conflict with proposed parking lot Transplanted as shown

proposed elevations

3 2020-06-23 Issued for review4 2020-07-28 Issued for re-submission review5 2020-10-27 Issued for re-submission review6 2021-03-17 Issued for review

TREE #79 TO BE TRANSPLANTED AS SHOWN.FOR ORIGINAL LOCATION REFER TO L-2

96

<15cmDBH existing <15cm DBH tree to be removed

99.50

100.0099.75

100.25100.25

100.25

99.00

99.25

100.50

100.25

101.00

101.25

101.00

101.50

102.00

102.50

101.25

101.75

102.25

99.50

100.00

100.50

101.00

101.50

102.00

99.25

99.75

100.25

100.75

101.25

101.75

102.25

99.50

100.00

100.50

99.75

100.25

100.00

100.50

101.00

101.50

101.50

101.50

102.00

100.25

100.75

101.25

101.75

102.25

99.50

99.50

99.50

99.25

99.25

100.50

101.00

101.50

102.00

100.25

100.75

101.25

101.75

99.50

100.00

100.50

101.00

101.50

102.00

99.75

100.25

100.75

101.25

101.75

99.50

100.00

100.00

100.50

100.50

99.75

100.25

100.25

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.50100.50100.50

100.25100.50

100.75

101.00

100.75

101.00

101.50

102.00

101.25

101.75

102.25

101.00

101.50

100.75

101.25

101.75

99.0099.25

99.25

99.50

99.75

100.00

100.50

100.25100.75

100.75

100.00

99.75

100.00

99.75

100.25

100.25

100.25

100.25

100.0

0100.50

101.00

99.75100.25

100.75

100.50101.00101.50

100.25100.75101.25

100.00

100.00

100.25

<15cmDBH

100.50HP

100.27HP

100.

58HP

100.

58HP

102.70

102.70

102.70

100.

55

100.50

101.

28

100.42

100.36

100.57

101.40

100.38

100.

68

100.53

100.37

T/G 100.33

CBMH107

T/G 100.33

CBMH105

T/G 100.33

CBMH106

T/G 100.33

CBMH102

T/G 100.79

CBMH100

T/G 100.26OGS

100.

53

102.70

101.18

100.65

100.78

T/G 100.25

CB11

100.58HP

100.88

101.07

100.75

101.24

99.79

99.38

99.28

99.5399.97

100.35

101.00

T/G

100.

32CB

12

T/G 100.28MH101A

100.33

100.42

100.48

100.48HP

100.37

100.42

T/G 100.23CB101

100.35

100.37

100.6

7

T/G

100.

33CB

14

100.70

100.96

B/F 100.57HYD

100.17

100.27100.25

100.36

100.23

100.96

100.62

100.50101.00

100.52

100.52

100.52

100.61

100.48HP

100.40

100.55

100.

58HP

100.

65

100.

48HP

100.

65

100.

48HP

100.

65

100.

48HP

100.

58

100.

58

100.

58

102.70

102.70

102.

70

100.

65

100.

48HP

100.

65

100.

48HP

100.

65

100.

58HP

100.

71

100.

72

100.61

100.

65

100.

94

100.66100.79

101.00

100.62

101.07

100.

72

100.90

101.17

101.34

100.70100.78

T/G 100.33

CB16

T/G 100.33

CB17

T/G 100.33

CB18

T/G 100.33

CB19

T/G 100.33

CB15

T/G 100.33

CBMH103

T/G 100.33

CBMH104

99.05

100.12

100.16

100.26

100.24

100.33

100.25

100.46

100.46

100.63

100.55

100.57

99.84

99.72

99.35

99.21

99.31

102.70

102.70

100.38

98.97

99.37

99.67

100.06

100.51

100.56

100.66

100.88

100.97

100.

85

101.

05

101.30

100.98

100.

49

100.

58HP

100.39100.

57

100.42

100.49

100.65

100.45

100.43

100.

51

100.

60

100.47100.44

100.47

100.44

100.

65

100.

49

100.38

100.39

100.

48100.

51

100.58

100.40

100.96

101.

02

101.

01

100.80

100.

62

101.21

100.29

100.32 100.35

100.

47

100.40

100.31

100.37

100.22

100.35

100.30

100.2

7

100.10

100.47100.52

100.48

100.

47

100.66

99.23

99.11

99.13

100.31

98.96

100.29

100.

48HP

100.

58HP

100.

58HP

100.63

100.38

100.63

100.38

100.63

100.38

100.63

100.38

100.

52

100.44

100.5210

0.70

100.

58

100.47100.63

100.63

100.39

100.

65

100.55

100.65

100.54

100.43

100.50HP

100.38

100.29

100.44

99.00

100.

32

100.44

100.29

100.31

100.31

100.31

100.31

100.29

100.17

99.69

99.89HP

99.75

100.29HP

99.40

100.28

100.25

100.31

99.04

100.3

0

100.13

100.64

99.70

100.25

100.55

99.89

100.4

9

100.32100.45

100.75

100.83

100.72

100.60

100.69

100.68

102.70

102.70

99.66

102.70

99.68

102.70

102.70

100.91

100.84

100.55

T/G 100.33

CB10<15cm

<15cmDBH

<15cm

<15cmDBH

<15cmDBH

<15cmDBH

<15cmDBH

<15cmDBH

<15cmDBH

<15cmDBH

<15cmDBH

<15cmDBH

<15cmDBH

<15cmDBH <15cm

DBH <15cmDBH

<15cmDBH

<15cmDBH

<15cmDBH

<15cmDBH

<15cmDBH

<15cmDBH

<15cmDBH

<15cmDBH

<15cmDBH

<15cmDBH

<15cmDBH

<15cmDBH

<15cmDBH

<15cmDBH

<15cmDBH<15cm

DBH

<15cmDBH

<15cmDBH

<15cmDBH

100.50

101.00

100.75

100.65

FILE

:Z:\

Proj

ect_

files

\Pro

ject

s_20

19\1

9-17

4_21

75 C

ornw

all R

d_O

akvi

lle\0

1-C

urre

nt_D

raw

ings

\19-

174L

.dw

g L

AYO

UT:2

_TPP

LAST

SA

VED

BY:

Stat

ion0

7, M

arch

17,

202

1 9:

07:1

0 PM

PLO

TTED

BY:

Stat

ion0

7 M

arch

17,

202

1 9:

07:3

6 PM

vegetation unit (refer to chart)

existing tree number (refer to chart)

existing vegetation to remain

existing elevations

L-2Tree Protection Plan

tree protection fence (with silt fence)

TREE PROTECTION FENCE(with silt fence)- SEE DETAIL D1, L-3

existing vegetation to be removed

adesso design inc.landscape architecture

Hamilton, ON L8P 4B4t. 905.526.8876

218 Locke Street South, 2nd Floor

www.adessodesigninc.ca

H&R REIT (c/o 2121 Cornwall RoadPortfolio Inc.)

Town of Oakville

Amazon Distribution Centre2175 Cornwall Rd

SP.1604.006/01

1 2020-01-15 Issued for submission2 2020-04-17 Issued for second submission3 2020-06-12 Issued for review4 2020-06-23 Issued for review5 2020-07-28 Issued for re-submission review6 2020-10-27 Issued for re-submission review7 2020-11-03 Issued for third submission8 2021-03-17 Issued for review

REVISIONS/ SUBMISSIONS

STAMP

CLIENT

PROJECT

SHEET

MUNICIPAL FILE NUMBER

# DATE DESCRIPTION

MUNICIPALITY

proj

ect #

: 19

-174

KEY MAP - N.T.S.

Ford Dr

Roya

l Win

dsor

Dr

Cornw

all R

dCon

stanc

e Dr Joshua's

Valley Park

SITE

OAKVILLE

north

Dunedin

Rd

AspenForest Park

LEGEND

property line

north

5 0 5 20

1:500

10

(m)

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONISSUED FOR REVIEW & COMMENTS ONLY

CORNWALL ROAD

proposed elevations

EXISTING PIPELINEEASEMENT

HAND GRADING REQUIRED WITHINROOT ZONES of NOTED 11 TREES (<15cmDBH) ALONG CORNWALL ROADDURING GRADING ACTIVITIES

minimum tree protection zone (tpz)- as per Town of Oakville guidelines

NOTE:Vegetation inventory undertaken on 2019-12-10 and2020-05-29 by Nate Torenvliet, ISA Certified Arborist(ON-1782A) with Environmental Design LandscapeContractors Ltd. - Arborist License No. 19-113528 inTown of Oakville.

FOR EXISTING KENTUCKYCOFFEE TREE INVENTORY- SEE DRAWING L-3a

UNIT 2

2

ENLARGEMENT 'B'

ENLA

RGEM

ENT 'A

'

ENLA

RGEM

ENT 'B'

UNIT 3

67

72

6665

68

69

70

71

62 63 64

6160

73 757476

77

78

81 82

UNIT 4

UNIT 4

84

83

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

94

93

5756 58

59

95

25.0m BUFFER FORKENTUCKY COFFEE TREES- REFER TO SITE PLAN

HAND GRADING REQUIRED WITHINROOT ZONES of NOTED TREES 65 & 66DURING GRADING ACTIVITIES

79 80TREE #79 TO BETRANSPLANTED AS SHOWNON L-1.

109 110 111 112

113

114 115 116

117 118

119 122

120 121

123B

123

126

124125

127

128130129

131132

133

134135

136137

138139

140

<15cmDBH existing <15cm DBH tree to be removed

1. The Owner and Contractor must be aware of the Migratory BirdsConvention Act, 1994 - specifically;

· No tree removal or construction activity shall contravene theAct.

· Construction activities with the potential to harm migratory birdsor their nest should be restricted from March 15 to August 31.

· If work must occur during the migratory bird breeding season, anest survey should be taken by a qualified avian biologist.

· A mitigation plan (showing active nests and appropriatebuffers) may be required for review and approval by theCanadian Wildlife Services.

* CROWN CLASSDominant- (D) Emergent canopy (receives full sunlight)Co-dominant - (C) Not fully emergent (top of canopy receives sunlight)Intermediate - (I) Sub-canopy tree (receives partial sunlight)

** CONDITION - consideration of trunk integrity, crown structure and crown vigorGood - few or no issues related to trunk integrity, crown structure or crown vigorFair - minor issues related to trunk integrity, crown structure (form, some dead ordamged branches) or crown vigor (20-80% healthy foliage)Poor - issues with trunk integrity such as cavities or exposed dead wood, poorcrown structure (poor form, no clear leader, significant dead or damagedbranches) or poor crown vigor (<20% healthy foliage)

FILE

:Z:\

Proj

ect_

files

\Pro

ject

s_20

19\1

9-17

4_21

75 C

ornw

all R

d_O

akvi

lle\0

1-C

urre

nt_D

raw

ings

\19-

174L

.dw

g L

AYO

UT:3

_TPP

cha

rtLA

ST S

AV

ED B

Y:St

atio

n07,

Mar

ch 1

7, 2

021

9:11

:10

PM P

LOTT

ED B

Y:St

atio

n07

Mar

ch 1

7, 2

021

9:11

:29

PM

L-3Tree Protection PlanMIGRATORY BIRDS AND NESTS:

1. No trees shall be removed prior to municipal approvals of the TreeManagement/Tree Preservation Plan.

TREE REMOVAL:

* CONDITION OF TREESThe decision to remove or retain a tree is subject to the forecasted developmentimpacts, the structural condition of the tree (e.g. cracks, cavities, decay, weakbranching, leaning, hazard potential), the biological condition of the tree (e.g.pest or disease concerns, overall health) and the suitability of the tree in itslocation (e.g. hardiness, soil conditions, salt tolerance, visual obstruction, availablesoil volume)

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONISSUED FOR REVIEW & COMMENTS ONLY

adesso design inc.landscape architecture

Hamilton, ON L8P 4B4t. 905.526.8876

218 Locke Street South, 2nd Floor

www.adessodesigninc.ca

1 2020-01-15 Issued for submission2 2020-04-17 Issued for second submission

REVISIONS/ SUBMISSIONS

STAMP

CLIENT

PROJECT

SHEET

MUNICIPAL FILE NUMBER

# DATE DESCRIPTION

MUNICIPALITY

proj

ect #

: 19

-174

H&R REIT (c/o 2121 Cornwall RoadPortfolio Inc.)

Town of Oakville

Amazon Distribution Centre2175 Cornwall Rd

SP.1604.006/01

Colorado Spruce, ManitobaMaple, Red Oak

Norway Maple, Black Walnut, ManitobaMaple, Eastern White Cedar, Little LeafLinden, Russian Olive, Buckthorn, Bur Oak,Dead Ash Trees, Sumac

Picea glauca, Acer negundo, Quercus rubra

Acer platanoides, Juglans nigra, Acer negundo,Thuja occidentalis, Tilia cordata, Elaeagnusangustifolia, Rhamnus cathartica, Quercusmacrocarpa, Fraxinus sp., Rhus typhina

TREE/UNITNO.

SPECIES (COMMON NAME) SPECIES (BOTANICAL NAME)

On Property

On property SAVE

Conflict with proposed parking lot

None.

.

Good22 D

Good -Dead

<5 - 45

D, C, I

D, C, I<5 - 30

11 - 50

10 - 67

DBH (cm) CROWNCLASS*

CONDITION VEGETATION VALUE& PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS

POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM CONSTRUCTION OWNERSHIP RECOMMENDATION

Pseudotsuga menziesii

UNIT 1

UNIT 2

UNIT 3

UNIT 4

REMOVE*Refer to unit species distributionchart for additional information

SAVE

SAVE

Douglas Fir1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

On propertymetal tag #618Good15 DPicea pungensColorado Spruce

On propertymetal tag #617Good15 D

On propertymetal tag #616Good15 D

On propertyGood15 D

On propertyGood15 D

On propertyGood17 D

On propertyGood15 D

On propertyGood15 C

On propertyGood15 C

On propertyGood15 C11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

On propertyGood15 C

On propertyGood15 C

On propertyGood16 DAcer rubrumRed Maple

On propertyGood15 D

On propertyGood15 D

On property SAVENoneGood15 D

On property SAVENoneGood15 D

On property SAVENoneGood15 D

On property SAVENoneGood19 D

On property SAVENone.Good15 D21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

On property SAVENone.Good17 D

On property SAVENone.Good16 D

On property SAVENone.Good16 D

On property SAVENone.Good18 D

On property SAVENoneLeader missingPoor19 D

On property SAVENone.Fai15 D

On property SAVENone.Good15 D

On property SAVENone.Good18 D

On property SAVENone.Good20 D

On property SAVENone.Good17 DAbies concolorSilver/White Fir31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

On property SAVENone.Good15 D

On property SAVENone.Good15 D

On property SAVENone.Good15 D

On property SAVENone.Good28 D

On property SAVENone.Good17 DPicea glaucaWhite Spruce

On property SAVENone.Good16 D

On property SAVENone.Good17 DAcer platanoidesNorway Maple

On property SAVENone.Good18 D

On property SAVENone.Good17 D

On property SAVENone.Good21 DQuercus rubraRed Oak41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

On property SAVENone.Good17 D

On property SAVENone.Good20 D

On property SAVENone.Good16 D

On property SAVENoneNaturalized right beside existing transformerGood17 DJugland nigraBlack Walnut

On property SAVENone.Good16 D

On property SAVENone.Good16 D

On property SAVENone.Good16 D

On property SAVENone.Good16 D

On property SAVENone.Good18 D

On property SAVENone.Good18 D51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

On property SAVENone.Good19 DAcer platanoidesNorway Maple

On property SAVENone.Good18 DTilia cordataLittle Leaf Linden

On property SAVENone.Good17 D

On property SAVENone.Good16 D

On property SAVENone.Good17 D

On property SAVENone.Good16 D

On property SAVENoneNot surveyedGood15 D

On property.Good19 D

On propertySplit in barkFair16 D

On property.Good16 D61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

On property.Good16 D

On property.Good22 D

On property.Good18 D

On property SAVENone.Good20 DPyrus sp.Ornamental Pear

On property SAVENone.Good16 D

On propertyConflict with proposed parking lot.Good15 D

On property.Good15 D

On property.Good15 D

On property.Good16 D

On property.Good18 D71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

On property.Good21 D

On property SAVENone - behind retaining wallGood40 DMorus albaWhite Mulberry

SAVENoneGood23, 27 DAcer negundoManitoba Maple

SAVENoneGood43 DUlmus pumilaSiberian Elm

SAVENoneGood10, 15, 18 D

Neighbouring SAVENoneGood42 DPinus nigraAustrian Pine

Neighbouring SAVENoneGood36 D

On property.Good20 D

On property.Good20 D

On property.Good56Picea abiesNorway Spruce81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

On property.Good64

On property.Good23 C

On property.Good15, 16, 24 C

On property REMOVENone - remove due to poor conditionBroken branches in canopyPoor16, 24 DBlack Locust Robinia pseudoacacia

On property.Good18 DUlmus pumilaSiberian Elm

Municipal ROW SAVENone.Good13 D

91

92

93

94

95

On propertyGood13, 25 D

On propertyGood15 D

On propertyGood25 D

On propertyGood23 D

On propertyGood35 D

On propertyGood40 D

On propertyGood18 D

On propertyNot surveyedGood18 D

CANOPYDIA. (m)

5

NA

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

4

2

4

4

4

4

4

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

6

2

4

5

5

3.5

4

4

4

4

4

3

3

4

3

6

3.5

4

4

3.5

2

3

3

3

3

2.5

4.5

5

4

4

3

2.5

2

2

2

3.5

2

3

3

4

4

6

6

6

6

5

6

6

4

4

4

5

5

3

3

10

12

6

6

6

4

3

5

3.5

4

3

5

8

3.5

5

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Acer rubrumRed Maple

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas Fir

Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas Fir

Acer rubrumRed Maple

Acer rubrumRed Maple

Acer rubrumRed Maple

Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas Fir

Acer rubrumRed Maple

Acer rubrumRed Maple

Abies concolorSilver/White Fir

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Acer platanoidesNorway Maple

Acer rubrumRed Maple

Picea glaucaWhite Spruce

Picea glaucaWhite Spruce

Acer rubrumRed Maple

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Tilia cordataLittle Leaf Linden

Tilia cordataLittle Leaf Linden

Abies concolorSilver/White Fir

Abies concolorSilver/White Fir

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Acer platanoidesNorway Maple

Acer rubrumRed Maple

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea glaucaWhite Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Pyrus sp.Ornamental Pear

Quercus rubraRed Oak

Quercus rubraRed Oak

Quercus rubraRed Oak

Quercus rubraRed Oak

Quercus rubraRed Oak

Quercus rubraRed Oak

Ulmus pumilaSiberian Elm

Pinus nigraAustrian Pine

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea abiesNorway Spruce

Tilia cordataLittle Leaf Linden

Tilia cordataLittle Leaf Linden

Tilia cordataLittle Leaf Linden

Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia

Elaeagnus angustifoliaRussia Olive

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Picea pungensColorado Spruce

Elaeagnus angustifoliaRussia Olive

Ulmus pumilaSiberian Elm

Acer negundoManitoba Maple

Conflict with proposed parking lot

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Conflict with proposed parking lot

Conflict with proposed parking lot

Conflict with proposed parking lot

Conflict with proposed parking lot

Conflict with proposed parking lot

Conflict with proposed parking lot

Conflict with proposed parking lot

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Not surveyed

Neighbouring

Neighbouring

Neighbouring

Not surveyed

metal tag #614

metal tag #613

metal tag #612

metal tag #611

metal tag #610

metal tag #608

metal tag #606

metal tag #609

metal tag #607

metal tag #629

metal tag #627

metal tag #628

.

.

.

.

Conflict with proposed parking lot REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

Conflict with proposed parking lot Previously Removed

Conflict with proposed parking lot Previously Removed

Conflict with proposed parking lot REMOVE

Conflict with proposed parking lot. Transplanted to new location as shown on L-1

REMOVEConflict with proposed entrance and associated berm grading

REMOVEConflict with proposed entrance and associated berm grading

REMOVEConflict with proposed entrance and associated berm grading

REMOVEConflict with proposed entrance and associated berm grading

REMOVEConflict with proposed entrance and associated berm grading

REMOVEConflict with proposed entrance and associated berm grading

REMOVEConflict with proposed entrance and associated berm grading

Conflict with proposed parking lot REMOVE

Conflict with proposed parking lot REMOVE

NA

4 - 12

2 - 16

C, I

D, C, I None

On Property

On Property

On Property REMOVE*Refer to unit species distributionchart for additional information

None.

.

.

C

C

Tree Protection Fencing - Town of Oakville 1D

SCALE: NTS

NOTE:Vegetation inventory undertaken on 2019-12-10 and2020-05-29 by Nate Torenvliet, ISA Certified Arborist(ON-1782A) with Environmental Design LandscapeContractors Ltd. - Arborist License No. 19-113528 inTown of Oakville.

EXISTING VEGETATION IDENTIFICATION TABLE

% OF UNITOCCUPIED

SPECIES(COMMON NAME)

SPECIES(BOTANICAL NAME)

11 - 26

DBH (cm) CROWNCLASS*

CONDITION

37.5%

CANOPYDIA. (m)

6 - 10 C, I

UNIT 3 & UNIT 4 EXISTING VEGETATION IDENTIFICATION TABLE - UNIT SPECIES DISTRIBUTION

Morus albaWhite Mulberry

TREE/UNITNO.

UNIT 3

40 - 5025% 8 - 12Pseudotsuga menziesiiDouglas Fir

multi.6% 10Acer platanoidesNorway Maple

multi.6% 10Elaeagnus angustifoliaRussian Olive

11 - 16 6 - 8Rhamnus cathartica

17 4Acer negundo

19.5% Buckthorn

6% Manitoba Maple

NO. OFINDIVIDUALS

6

4

1

1

3

1

C

C

C

C

C

Good-Poor10 - 6722% 3 - 14 D, C, IUlmus pumilaSiberian ElmUNIT 4

10 - 3316% 3 - 10Pinus sylvestrisScots Pine

10 - 3712% 3 - 10Robinia pseudoacaciaBlack Locust

10 - 4711.5% 2 - 14Acer negundoManitoba Maple

10 - 34 3 - 16Morus alba

Fair-Poor30 - 57 8 - 16Pinus nigra

9.0% White Mulberry

6.5% Black Pine

65

47

36

34

26

19

C, I

D, C

Good-Poor10 - 35 3 - 12Juglans nigraBlack Walnut

Good-Poor10 - 27 2 - 10Thuja occidentalisWhite Cedar

Fair-Poor10 - 16 3 - 6Rhamnus catharticaBuckthorn

Good10 - 23Populus tremuloidesTrembling Aspen

Fair-Poor14 - 37 3 - 8Pinus strobus

Good-Poor23 - 46

3 - 6

Populus deltoides

White Pine

Eastern Cottonwood

Good-Fair17 - 34 8Acer saccharumSugar Maple

Good-Fair12 - 27 8 - 10Acer platanoidesNorway Maple

Fair-Poor41 - 64 8 - 16Picea abiesNorway Spruce

Fair-Poor24 - 25 12Elaeagnus angustifoliaRussian Olive

Fair-Poor14 - 19 5 & 8Lonicera spp.

Poor12 - 18 6Fraxinus americana

Honey Suckle

White Ash

5%

4%

3.5%

1.5%

1.5%

1.5%

14

11

8

5

5

5

1.0%

1.0%

1.0%

0.5%

0.5%

0.5%

3

3

3

2

2

2

Good & Poor14 - 33 6 & 10Ailanthus altissimaTree of Heaven

Good23Ginkgo bilobaGinkgo

Poor11/13Malus spp.

Poor25 8Phellodendron amurense

Apple

Amur Corktree

0.5%

0.3%

0.3%

0.3%

2

1

1

1

Good-Poor

Good-Poor

Good-Poor

Good-Poor

Fair-Poor

Good & Poor

Good

Good

Poor

Fair

RECOMMENDATION

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

UNIT 3 understory:90% Buckthorn, Rhamnus cathartica 5% Russian Olive, Elaeagnus angustifolia 5% Red Oiser Dogwood, Cornus sericea

Conflict with proposed parking lot

*Refer to unit breakdown chartfor additional information

Good -Poor

Good -Poor

Good -Poor

*Refer to unit breakdown chartfor additional information

C, I

D, C, I

C

C, I

C

C

8 C

8 C

C

I

C

D, C

D, C

C

C

C

5 - 8 C

C, I

C

UNIT 4 understory:25% Honey Suckle, Lonicera spp. 25% Buckthorn, Rhamnus cathartica 20% Siberian Elm, Ulmus pumila5% Serviceberry, Amelanchier spp. 5% Yew, Taxus spp. 5% Manitoba Maple, Acer negundo 5% Trembling Aspen, Populus tremuloides

PLEASE NOTE:Previous versions of the TPP included four (4) additional species that are no longer represented in Unit 4:- Staghorn Sumac, Rhus typhina. Has been removed from areas at the edges of the unit.- Red Maple, Acer rubrum. None identified upon further inspection. Previously misidentified as Norway and/or Sugar Maple, which do exist onsite.- Weeping Mulberry, Morus alba Pendula. Was standing dead upon further inspection.- European Birch, Betula pendula 'Fastigiata'. Was standing dead upon further inspection.

16

295

3 2020-06-12 Issued for review

TOTAL

TOTAL

Transplanted as shownNo longer a conflict with proposed entrance and associated berm grading

Transplanted as shownNo longer a conflict with proposed entrance and associated berm grading

Transplanted as shownNo longer a conflict with proposed entrance and associated berm grading

Transplanted as shownNo longer a conflict with proposed entrance and associated berm grading

Transplanted as shownNo longer a conflict with proposed entrance and associated berm grading

Transplanted as shownNo longer a conflict with proposed entrance and associated berm grading

Transplanted as shownNo longer a conflict with proposed entrance and associated berm grading

Transplanted as shownNo longer a conflict with proposed entrance and associated berm grading

4 2020-06-23 Issued for review

34 *Excluding Unit 3 and Unit 4 removals, which total 311TOTAL TO BE REMOVED

5 2020-07-28 Issued for re-submission review6 2020-10-27 Issued for re-submission review

TOTAL TO BE RETAINED / TRANSPLANTED ON SITE 61 (SEE NOTE BELOW)

7 2020-11-03 Issued for third submission

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

Conflict with proposed entrance

Conflict with associated berm grading

Conflict with proposed sidewalk reconfiguration

Conflict with associated berm grading

Conflict with associated berm grading

Conflict with associated berm grading

Conflict with proposed parking lot

Conflict with proposed parking lot

Conflict with proposed parking lot

Conflict with proposed parking lot

Conflict with proposed parking lot

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

REMOVE

Transplanted as shown (L-1)

EXISTING <15cm DBH TREES- TREES #96 - 108 ARE TO BE RETAINED AND PROTECTED AS SHOWN ON THE TREE PROTECTION PLAN (SEE DRAWINGS L-1 & L-2)

- TREES #109 - 130 ARE TO BE REMOVED TO ACCOMMODATE PROPOSED ENTRANCE LANEWAY, BERM, & PARKING LOT AS SHOWN ON THE TREE PROTECTION PLAN (SEE DRAWINGS L-1 & L-2)

- TREES #131 - 140 ARE TO BE RETAINED AND PROTECTED AS SHOWN ON THE TREE PROTECTION PLAN (L1 & L2). HAND GRADING REQUIRED WITHIN ROOT ZONE TO PROTECT TREES

8 2021-03-17 Issued for review

101.50

102.00

102.50

101.25

101.75

102.25

102.00102.25

100.68

100.50

101.00

100.75

100.65

FILE

:Z:\

Proj

ect_

files

\Pro

ject

s_20

19\1

9-17

4_21

75 C

ornw

all R

d_O

akvi

lle\0

1-C

urre

nt_D

raw

ings

\19-

174L

.dw

g L

AYO

UT:3

a_TP

P KC

TLA

ST S

AV

ED B

Y:St

atio

n07,

Mar

ch 1

7, 2

021

9:11

:10

PM P

LOTT

ED B

Y:St

atio

n07

Mar

ch 1

7, 2

021

9:12

:25

PM

vegetation unit (refer to chart)

existing tree number (refer to chart)

existing Kentucky Coffee Trees to remain

existing elevations

L-3aTree Protection PlanKentucky Coffee Trees

UNIT 2

2

tree protection fence (with silt fence)

existing vegetation to be removed

adesso design inc.landscape architecture

Hamilton, ON L8P 4B4t. 905.526.8876

218 Locke Street South, 2nd Floor

www.adessodesigninc.ca

H&R REIT (c/o 2121 Cornwall RoadPortfolio Inc.)

Town of Oakville

Amazon Distribution Centre2175 Cornwall Rd

SP.1604.006/01

1 2020-01-15 Issued for submission2 2020-04-17 Issued for second submission

REVISIONS/ SUBMISSIONS

STAMP

CLIENT

PROJECT

SHEET

MUNICIPAL FILE NUMBER

# DATE DESCRIPTION

MUNICIPALITY

proj

ect #

: 19

-174

KEY MAP - N.T.S.

Ford Dr

Roya

l Win

dsor

Dr

Cornw

all R

dCon

stanc

e Dr Joshua's

Valley Park

SITE

OAKVILLE

north

Dunedin

Rd

AspenForest Park

LEGEND

property line

north

2 01 2 6

1:150

4

(m)

ENLARGEMENT - EXISTING KENTUCKY COFFEE TREE AREA

UNIT 4

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONISSUED FOR REVIEW & COMMENTS ONLY

proposed elevations

8281

TREE/UNITNO.

SPECIES (COMMON NAME) SPECIES (BOTANICAL NAME)

On property SAVENonemetal tag #143Fair3 C

DBH (cm) CROWNCLASS*

CONDITION VEGETATION VALUE& PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS

POTENTIAL IMPACTSFROM CONSTRUCTION

OWNERSHIP RECOMMENDATION

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree96

97

98

On propertymetal tag #144Fair19 C

On propertymetal tag #145Fair19 C

EXISTING VEGETATION IDENTIFICATION TABLE (Kentucky Coffee Trees)

96

97

98

SAVENone

SAVENone

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

153

152

151

126 127

125 124

123

102

103

104

105 106

110

107

108

109112

111115

114

113

116136

143

142

141

134

139

140138

135

133

137

144145

131

132146 148

147

149

150

129

130

128

118117

119

100

99

120

122

121

101

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

Gymnocladus dioicusKentucky Coffee Tree

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

On property SAVENone

On property

On property

SAVENone

SAVENone

On property SAVENone

On property

On property

SAVENone

SAVENone

On property SAVENone

On property

On property

SAVENone

SAVENone

On property SAVENone

On property

On property

SAVENone

SAVENone

On property SAVENone

On property

On property

SAVENone

SAVENone

On property SAVENone

On property

On property

SAVENone

SAVENone

On property SAVENone

On property

On property

SAVENone

SAVENone

On property SAVENone

On property

On property

SAVENone

SAVENone

On property SAVENone

On property

On property

SAVENone

SAVENone

On property SAVENone

On property

On property

SAVENone

SAVENone

On property SAVENone

On property

On property

SAVENone

SAVENone

On property SAVENone

On property

On property

SAVENone

SAVENone

On property SAVENone

On property

On property

SAVENone

SAVENone

On property SAVENone

On property

On property

SAVENone

SAVENone

On property SAVENone

On property

On property

SAVENone

SAVENone

On property SAVENone

On property

On property

SAVENone

SAVENone

On property SAVENone

On property

On property

SAVENone

SAVENone

On property SAVENone

On property SAVENone

On property

On property

SAVENone

SAVENone

metal tag #146

metal tag #147

metal tag #148

metal tag #149

metal tag #150

metal tag #151

metal tag #152

metal tag #153

metal tag #154

metal tag #155

metal tag #156

metal tag #157

metal tag #158

metal tag #159

metal tag #160

metal tag #161

metal tag #162

metal tag #163

metal tag #164

metal tag #165

metal tag #166

metal tag #167

metal tag #168

metal tag #169

metal tag #170

metal tag #171

metal tag #172

metal tag #173

metal tag #174

metal tag #175

metal tag #176

metal tag #177

metal tag #178

metal tag #179

metal tag #180

metal tag #181

metal tag #182

metal tag #183

metal tag #184

metal tag #185

metal tag #186

metal tag #187

metal tag #188

metal tag #189

metal tag #190

metal tag #191

metal tag #192

metal tag #193

metal tag #194

metal tag #195

metal tag #196

metal tag #197

metal tag #198

metal tag #199

metal tag #200

10

15

3

11

3

4

8

5

7

12

6

5

18

19

2

3

11

5

4

4

11

3

15

11

11

11

2

3

12

4

4

4

2

2

9

3

4

3

2

2

1

4

2

8

4

3

3

3

2

2

2

3

5

2

6

NOTE:Vegetation inventory undertaken on 2019-12-10 and2020-05-29 by Nate Torenvliet, ISA Certified Arborist(ON-1782A) with Environmental Design LandscapeContractors Ltd. - Arborist License No. 19-113528 inTown of Oakville.

3 2020-06-12 Issued for review

REFER TO DRAWINGS L-2 & L-3 FORINFORMATION ON TREES 81 and 82

REFER TO DRAWINGS L-2 & L-3 FORINFORMATION ON UNIT 4

4 2020-06-23 Issued for review5 2020-07-28 Issued for re-submission review6 2020-10-27 Issued for re-submission review7 2020-11-03 Issued for third submission8 2021-03-17 Issued for review

APPENDIX D – MECP Correspondence

1

Christian Lyon

From: Martin, Christopher (MECP) <Christopher.Martin@ontario.ca>Sent: February 2, 2021 1:37 PMTo: Christian LyonCc: Michael Boyes; Benjamin Clare; Chris HeffernanSubject: RE: 2175 Cornwall Road, Oakville, Ontario - C-Permit & AAF

Categories: HR REIT - Cornwall Rd EIA

Hello Christian,

Thank you for submitting the AAF and C-PAF regarding Kentucky Coffee-Trees located at 2175Cornwall Road, Oakville (4 attachments).

I will prioritize review of this information within the next three weeks.

Regards,

Chris

Christopher Martin, A/Management BiologistPermissions and Compliance Section | Species at Risk Branch | Land and Water DivisionMinistry of the Environment, Conservation and ParksChristopher.Martin@ontario.ca | (705) 313-3928

From: Christian Lyon <C.Lyon@McIntoshPerry.com>Sent: February 2, 2021 9:42 AMTo: Martin, Christopher (MECP) <Christopher.Martin@ontario.ca>Cc: Michael Boyes <mboyes@hr-reit.com>; Benjamin Clare <b.clare@mcintoshperry.com>; Chris Heffernan<c.heffernan@mcintoshperry.com>Subject: 2175 Cornwall Road, Oakville, Ontario - C-Permit & AAF

CAUTION -- EXTERNAL E-MAIL - Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.Good morning Chris,

As discussed a few weeks ago, we have completed the requested AAF and C-Permit Application for your review andinput regarding the Kentucky Coffee-trees located at 2175 Cornwall Road, Oakville, Ontario. Please find the documentsattached to this email. We have also included an excel document for information on the Kentucky Coffee-trees and amemo outlining the background of the project. Please let us know if you have any questions. We would be happy toschedule a meeting at your earliest convenience to go through the documents should that be your preference.

We were also hoping you could provide a timeline as to when we can expect comments back from MECP to assist in theplanning stages of the project.

Thank you and we look forward to your response.

Regards,Christian

2

Christian Lyon, B.A.Sc.Project Manager, Environmental115 Walgreen R.R. 3, Carp ON K0A 1L0T. 613.714.4672 | F. 613.836.3742 | C. 613.223.1858C.Lyon@McIntoshPerry.com | www.mcintoshperry.com

Confidentiality Notice – If this email wasn’t intended for you, please return or delete it. Click here to read all of the legal language around this concept.

We have been informed that a number of our clients have received phishing emails from scammers pretending to beMcIntosh Perry. We take information security very seriously and ask that you also be vigilant in order to prevent fraud.If you have any concerns, please let your contact at McIntosh Perry know or email us at info@mcintoshperry.com

1

Christian Lyon

Subject: FW: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville (2175 Cornwall Road.

From: McAllister, Aurora (MECP) <Aurora.McAllister@ontario.ca>Sent: April 14, 2020 11:51 AMTo: Matthew Wheeler <m.wheeler@mcintoshperry.com>Subject: RE: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville (2175 Cornwall Road.

Hello,

It’s my approximate timeline, based on how long it takes me to turn around reviews onaverage. Given the current circumstances, many things are taking longer in general. I can assureyou that this file is in my queue.

Thanks again for your patience.

Aurora

From: Matthew Wheeler <m.wheeler@mcintoshperry.com>Sent: April 13, 2020 9:49 AMTo: McAllister, Aurora (MECP) <Aurora.McAllister@ontario.ca>Subject: RE: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville (2175 Cornwall Road.

CAUTION -- EXTERNAL E-MAIL - Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.Hi Aurora,

I hope you are well and had a good weekend. Thanks for confirming the review time. I initially contacted you onFebruary 5, 2020. When does MECP start the clock for the 3-4 month review period? So would this mean May 5 (3month) and June 5 (4 month) would be the dates? I’m looking to set calendar reminders to touch base with you andminimize contact so you can move through your other priorities.

Stay well, Matt

Matthew Wheeler, B.A.Senior Ecologist/Project Manager1-1329 Gardiners Road, Kingston, ON, K7P 0L8T. 343.344.2696 | F. 613.542.7583 | C. 613.770.2624m.wheeler@mcintoshperry.com | www.mcintoshperry.com

Confidentiality Notice – If this email wasn’t intended for you, please return or delete it. Click here to read all of the legal language around this concept.

2

From: McAllister, Aurora (MECP) <Aurora.McAllister@ontario.ca>Sent: April 6, 2020 8:33 AMTo: Matthew Wheeler <m.wheeler@mcintoshperry.com>Subject: RE: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville (2175 Cornwall Road.

Hello – Review timelines are about 3-4 months right now. I haven’t forgotten –just working through abacklog and balancing a number of priorities. Thanks for your patience.

Aurora

From: Matthew Wheeler <m.wheeler@mcintoshperry.com>Sent: April 1, 2020 3:50 PMTo: McAllister, Aurora (MECP) <Aurora.McAllister@ontario.ca>Subject: RE: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville (2175 Cornwall Road.

CAUTION -- EXTERNAL E-MAIL - Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.Hi Aurora,

I hope you are well.

I haven’t touched base in about a month. I wanted to see if you’re still working, if your team has had a chance to reviewthe information provided and if you could please provide an update on my inquiry

Thanks,

Matthew Wheeler, B.A.Senior Ecologist/Project Manager1-1329 Gardiners Road, Kingston, ON, K7P 0L8T. 343.344.2696 | F. 613.542.7583 | C. 613.770.2624m.wheeler@mcintoshperry.com | www.mcintoshperry.com

Confidentiality Notice – If this email wasn’t intended for you, please return or delete it. Click here to read all of the legal language around this concept.

From: Matthew WheelerSent: March 6, 2020 3:44 PMTo: McAllister, Aurora (MECP) <Aurora.McAllister@ontario.ca>Subject: RE: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville (2175 Cornwall Road.

Hi Aurora. I will stand by. Thanks for the update.

Have a good weekend,

From: McAllister, Aurora (MECP) <Aurora.McAllister@ontario.ca>Sent: March 6, 2020 3:22 PM

3

To: Matthew Wheeler <m.wheeler@mcintoshperry.com>Subject: RE: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville (2175 Cornwall Road.

Hi Matt – Thanks for providing all the information. It is like going to be a few weeks. Thanks for yourpatience.

Aurora

From: Matthew Wheeler <m.wheeler@mcintoshperry.com>Sent: March 6, 2020 2:41 PMTo: McAllister, Aurora (MECP) <Aurora.McAllister@ontario.ca>Subject: RE: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville (2175 Cornwall Road.

CAUTION -- EXTERNAL E-MAIL - Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.Hi Aurora,

I’m touching base to see if you had any updates and to see if you needed any additional information?

Kind regards, Matthew

From: Matthew WheelerSent: February 27, 2020 4:08 PMTo: McAllister, Aurora (MECP) <Aurora.McAllister@ontario.ca>Subject: RE: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville (2175 Cornwall Road.

Hi Aurora,

I hope you are doing well. I wanted to provide additional information relative to Kentucky Coffee-trees at 2175Cornwall Road, Oakville which have surfaced in the past week.

· The Sheridan Nursery Farm at 2175 Cornwall Road was historically called “The Anderson Farm” and the originalfarm occupied a greater area than the current land parcel at 2175 Cornwall Road according to Murray Greer,40+ year employee of Sheridan Nurseries who spent 9 years working at this location. Sheridan Nurseries movedoff this site in 1987 to move its staff and farm operations to Norval Farm in 1987.

· Bill Stensson noted “Considering the location on the photo I'd say that the trees are remnants from the nurseryplantings, say 99.9% certainty.” Murray Greer noted on the phone today (Feb. 27, 2020) that two formerSheridan Nursery staff that worked on that property agreed that the location of the Kentucky Coffee-trees onthe site are indicative of where the commercial stock was planted.

· On Monday, February 24, 2020, Murry Greer stopped by the former nursery site at 2175 Cornwall Road. Henoted the presence of Corylus contorta (corkscrew hazel) or Corylus pendula (weeping hazelnut) near theKentucky Coffee-trees. This was one of the largest specimens of this horticultural hazelnut he has seen. Thepresence of the hazel is an indicator species of a ‘planted block’ of nursery stock.

· Arborist Nate Torenvliet visited the site on Feb 26, 2020, to mark the trees and so we could apply a snow fenceas a physical buffer around the Kentucky Coffee-trees. He provided additional information regarding the site.

o 58 stems total of Kentucky Coffee-tree are on the site and are divided into the following size classes oftrees (see attached excel sheet summarizing all Kentucky Coffee-trees on site):§ Fourty four (44) trees in the size class of 1-9 cm DBH§ Eleven (11) trees in the size class of 10-15 cm DBH§ Four (4) in the size class of 16-20 cm DBH

o The four largest trees (16-20cm DBH) appear to be the original nursery plantingso There is evidence of historical digging (likely a tree spade) on the site.

4

o A tree core (see photos below) was taken from Kentucky Coffee-tree (tree #145, 19 cm DBH), thelargest trees on site, with the intent of aging the tree. Nate noted “The tree is 34 years old. You can seethat growth really slowed about 14 years ago - probably due to the suckers and other competingtrees…If nursery stock, these trees would have then been planted around 1986. Wire basket/b&b [balland burlap] trees are usually grown for around 6 or 7 years before being harvested at the 50-60mmcaliper size. Planned dig/harvest time might have been around 1993.” This information lines up wellwith the oral history of the site provided by Murray Greer who mentioned Sheridan Nurseries left thesite around 1987. If Sheridan Nurseries planted the trees in 1986 and left the site in 1987, it would makesense that they wouldn’t have uprooted young planting stock and it would explain why the trees arestill present. I believe a portion of the farm was sold in the late 1980s with the remainder of the farmsold in 1997. I believe the land registry records show a transfer of land title from Sheridan Nurseries toanother owner in 1997 for 2175 Cornwall Road. The original Sheridan Nursery Farm at 2175 CornwallRoad (referenced as the “Anderson Farm”.) would have been much larger at one time than the currentparcel size. I believe Sheridan Nurseries may have sold off other portions of land prior to the 1997 sale.

5

6

From: Matthew WheelerSent: February 25, 2020 3:49 PM

7

To: McAllister, Aurora (MECP) <Aurora.McAllister@ontario.ca>Subject: RE: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville (2175 Cornwall Road.

Hi Aurora,

Thank you for getting back to me and for discussing this with your team. It is greatly appreciated. I will await yourresponse.

Have a great day,

From: McAllister, Aurora (MECP) <Aurora.McAllister@ontario.ca>Sent: February 25, 2020 1:25 PMTo: Matthew Wheeler <m.wheeler@mcintoshperry.com>Subject: RE: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville (2175 Cornwall Road.

Hi Matthew,

Thank you, this is very helpful information. I will put this forward for internal discussion and see whathappens. I likely won’t have a response for you this week. Thanks for your patience.

Aurora

Aurora McAllister | Management Biologist | Permissions and Compliance | Species at Risk Branch |Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks |50 Bloomington Road, Aurora, Ontario, L4G 0L8 | Email: aurora.mcallister@ontario.ca

From: Matthew Wheeler <m.wheeler@mcintoshperry.com>Sent: February 24, 2020 4:48 PMTo: McAllister, Aurora (MECP) <Aurora.McAllister@ontario.ca>Subject: RE: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville (2175 Cornwall Road.

CAUTION -- EXTERNAL E-MAIL - Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.Hi Aurora,

I have been in touch with Sheridan Nurseries regarding the Kentucky Coffee-trees as they historically owned this siteand operated it as a tree nursery. I spoke with Murray Greer from Sheridan Nurseries, who has worked from thecompany for 41 years (started in 1979) and who worked at the 2175 Cornwall Road property in the 1980s (i.e. the sitewhere the Kentucky Coffee-trees are located). Murry didn’t have any specific information about the trees but put me intouch with Bill Stensson who did have direct involvement with that property and many others owned by SheridanNurseries.

I believe Bill functioned as the nursery manager and wholesale manager as Sheridan Nurseries, was promoted to variousother roles in the company during his long tenure and he retired 2 years ago. Bill, having worked for Sheridan Nurseriesfor 40+ years, has vast institutional knowledge of this property, and Sheridan’s operations. Bill noted the following whenI inquired about the Kentucky Coffee-trees at 2175 Cornwall Road “Considering the location on the photo I'd say thatthe trees are remnants from the nursery plantings, say 99.9% certainty.”

The Kentucky Coffee-trees are confirmed as landscape plantings for a historical commercial horticultural operation. Thisexplains why the trees are found so far outside of their historical range in Ontario. Given this new information, I was

8

hoping we could have a brief phone call this week to discuss the implications of these plantings under the ESA. Pleaselet me know if you’re free for a short call.

Kind regards,

From: McAllister, Aurora (MECP) <Aurora.McAllister@ontario.ca>Sent: February 19, 2020 1:02 PMTo: Matthew Wheeler <m.wheeler@mcintoshperry.com>Subject: RE: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville

Hi Matthew – Great. It will just be me, you can reach me at 289-221-2014. Talk to you then.

Aurora

From: Matthew Wheeler <m.wheeler@mcintoshperry.com>Sent: February 19, 2020 11:45 AMTo: McAllister, Aurora (MECP) <Aurora.McAllister@ontario.ca>Subject: RE: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville

CAUTION -- EXTERNAL E-MAIL - Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.Hi Aurora,

No need to apologize for the delay. I’m sure you’ve got a full plate of work.

A phone call at 10am Friday February 21, 2020 works for me. What phone number should I use to call you?Alternatively, if we have more than a couple people attending I can set up a conference call. From McIntosh Perry I willbe the only person on the call.

Thanks in advance,

Matthew Wheeler, B.A.Senior Ecologist/Project Manager1-1329 Gardiners Road, Kingston, ON, K7P 0L8T. 343.344.2696 | F. 613.542.7583 | C. 613.770.2624m.wheeler@mcintoshperry.com | www.mcintoshperry.com

From: McAllister, Aurora (MECP) <Aurora.McAllister@ontario.ca>Sent: February 19, 2020 9:24 AMTo: Matthew Wheeler <m.wheeler@mcintoshperry.com>Subject: RE: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville

Hello – Sorry for the delayed response. Are you available Friday for a call to discuss? Is 10am ok?

Aurora

From: Matthew Wheeler <m.wheeler@mcintoshperry.com>Sent: February 11, 2020 3:31 PMTo: McAllister, Aurora (MECP) <Aurora.McAllister@ontario.ca>Subject: RE: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville

CAUTION -- EXTERNAL E-MAIL - Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.

9

Hi Aurora,

It’s very likely that these Kentucky Coffee-trees were planted at the property which was owned and occupied bySheridan Nurseries up until 1997 from what I can tell from land registry records. They no longer own or operate at thisproperty. Sheridan Nurseries historically and currently sells ornamental plans, annuals, and garden supplies. Thecompany historically and currently sells a wide selection of trees, shrubs, evergreens, roses, perennials and annuals.Sheridan Nurseries has a long history of providing unique ornamental botanical specimens from boxwoods toMountbatten Junipers, to exotic Lilacs. While I can’t find any historical evidence to support this claim, I’m sure at onepoint in time Kentucky Coffee-tree was offered due to the unique structure and appearance of this species. It’s subtlepanicles of white pea-like flowers, compound leaves and large pods make it an attractive ornamental trees. Plus thespecies is hardy to a wide range of conditions and locations beyond it’s historical native range in Ontario, is long livedand makes an excellent shade tree. All of these attributes would have likely seen it as a desirable plant for a commercialnursery to sell in their wider catalogue of trees, shrubs and other plants.

We had begun to explore the option of genetic testing to determine if these trees originated from native stock. Mycolleague working on this project with me has reached out to the researchers at Trent University that previously didgenetic analysis for Kentucky Coffee-tree. They no longer provide this function for this species. It is my understandingthat the in-house staff member at Trent with the expertise required to perform the tests is no longer there and thus,the lab is not able to perform these tests.

Considering this avenue of investigation is no longer available and the trees are most likely planted by the formernursery owners from unknown stock, how does the ESA apply to these Kentucky Coffee-trees at this site? I understandthat each determination by MECP is site, situation and species specific. Thus, the determination for these trees, on thissite, is not applicable to other sites.

Kind regards, Matthew Wheeler

Matthew Wheeler, B.A.Senior Ecologist/Project Manager1-1329 Gardiners Road, Kingston, ON, K7P 0L8T. 343.344.2696 | F. 613.542.7583 | C. 613.770.2624m.wheeler@mcintoshperry.com | www.mcintoshperry.com

From: McAllister, Aurora (MECP) <Aurora.McAllister@ontario.ca>Sent: February 11, 2020 2:58 PMTo: Matthew Wheeler <m.wheeler@mcintoshperry.com>Subject: RE: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville

Hello Matthew,

It sounds like these are likely planted, and I agree that they are outside of their native range. Eventhough they are technically protected under the Endangered Species Act, in Aurora District MNRF wedid not protect SAR such as Kentucky Coffee-trees that were likely planted. However, we only everdealt with 1 or two trees at a time in manicured, urban areas. Given the large number of trees in thiscase, if the testing is available I think it would be best to confirm whether or not these trees originatedfrom native stock before confirming requirements under the Endangered Species Act.

A professor a Trent University (Dr. Joanna Freeland) has previously done genetic analysis for thisspecies and it is possible that she may be willing to assist in this circumstance as well. Her contactinformation can be found here: https://www.trentu.ca/biology/faculty-research/faculty/joanna-freeland

Regards,

10

Aurora McAllister | Management Biologist | Permissions and Compliance | Species at Risk Branch |Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks |50 Bloomington Road, Aurora, Ontario, L4G 0L8 | Email: aurora.mcallister@ontario.ca

From: Matthew Wheeler <m.wheeler@mcintoshperry.com>Sent: February 5, 2020 3:24 PMTo: McAllister, Aurora (MECP) <Aurora.McAllister@ontario.ca>Subject: RE: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville

CAUTION -- EXTERNAL E-MAIL - Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.Hi Aurora,

Thank you for getting in touch with me. My apologies for not sending this request into the general email for SAROOntario. I was hoping to speak with someone from MECP to understand the implications under the Endangered SpeciesAct prior to commencing down the application process for an Overall Benefit Permit.

I was hoping to speak with you regarding a property located at 2175 Cornwall Road, Oakville, Ontario (see image below,with approximate Kentucky Coffee-tree location circled). McIntosh Perry was undertaking an Environmental ImpactStatement for this commercial property. The owner would like to extend their parking lot to the northeast to providemore parking for employees and service trucks at the warehouse. During the field work for the EIS, 56 KentuckyCoffee-Trees (DBH range 2cm to 24 cm) were observed. I believe these trees represent landscape trees that wereplanted;

· The property was formerly owned by Sheridan Nurseries (1997 they sold the property) and they likely cultivateda range of trees and shrubs for commercial sales.

· These trees appear to be located approximately 100 km east of the native range of the species.· The trees show no sign of sexual reproduction on trees of sufficient size to bear pods/seeds. This may indicate

that the original planted seeds were of a single sex and that either only male or only female trees are presenton site.

I was hoping to have a brief call with you to discuss this site. My contact information is listed below. Please give me acall when you have a moment.

11

Kind regards,

Matthew Wheeler, B.A.Senior Ecologist/Project Manager1-1329 Gardiners Road, Kingston, ON, K7P 0L8T. 343.344.2696 | F. 613.542.7583 | C. 613.770.2624m.wheeler@mcintoshperry.com | www.mcintoshperry.com

Confidentiality Notice – If this email wasn’t intended for you, please return or delete it. Click here to read all of the legal language around this concept.

From: McAllister, Aurora (MECP) <Aurora.McAllister@ontario.ca>Sent: February 5, 2020 2:43 PMTo: Matthew Wheeler <m.wheeler@mcintoshperry.com>Subject: Kentucky Coffee-tree in Oakville

12

Hello,

I understand that you left a voicemail with Carolyn Hann about a Kentucky Coffee-tree inOakville. You can direct your question to me as I am the biologist responsible for this geographicregion of the province.

In the future, please direct all inquiries to SAROntario@ontario.ca as this is the Ministry’s one-window e-mail account for applications, report submissions and other communications relating toapplications and authorizations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Regards,

Aurora McAllister | Management Biologist | Permissions and Compliance | Species at Risk Branch |Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks |50 Bloomington Road, Aurora, Ontario, L4G 0L8 | Email: aurora.mcallister@ontario.ca

APPENDIX E – Significant Wildlife Habitat Table

115 Walgreen Road, R.R.3. Carp, ON K0A 1L0 | T. 613-836-2184 | F. 613-836-3742

info@mcintoshperry.com | www.mcintoshperry.com

SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT FOR ECOREGION 7E

Candidate Wildlife Habitat

Criteria Methods Habitat Assessment of Features Found Within the Study Area

Seasonal Concentration Areas of Animals Waterfowl Stopover and Staging Area (Terrestrial)

Fields with sheet water or utilized by tundra swans during spring (mid-March to May), or annual spring melt water flooding found in any of the following Community Types: Meadow (CUM1), Thicket (CUT1).

Agricultural fields with waste grains are commonly used by waterfowl, and these are not considered SWH unless used by Tundra swans in the Long Point, Rondeau, Lake St. Clair, Grand Bend and Point Pelee Areas.

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that may support waterfowl stopover and staging areas (terrestrial).

No candidate habitat for waterfowl stopover and staging areas occurred within the Study Area.

Waterfowl Stopover and Staging Area (Aquatic)

The following Community Types: Shallow Marsh (MAS), Shallow Aquatic (SA), Deciduous Swamp (SWD). Ponds, marshes, lakes, bays, coastal inlets, and watercourses used during migration. The combined area of the ELC ecosites and a 100 m radius area is the SWH. 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. Theses habitats have an abundant food supply (mostly aquatic invertebrates and vegetation in shallow water)

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that may support waterfowl stopover and staging areas (aquatic).

No candidate habitat for aquatic waterfowl stopover and staging areas occurred within the Study Area.

Shorebird Migratory Stopover Area

Shorelines of lakes, rivers and wetlands, including beach areas, bars and seasonally flooded, muddy and un-vegetated shoreline habitats.

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that may

No candidate habitat for shorebird stopover areas occurred within the Study Area.

Significant Wildlife Habitat for Ecoregion 7E 2175 Cornwall Road, Oakville, Ontario

2

Candidate Wildlife Habitat

Criteria Methods Habitat Assessment of Features Found Within the Study Area

Great Lakes coastal shorelines, including groynes and other forms of amour 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 significant wildlife habitat. The following community types: Meadow Marsh (MAM), Beach/Bar (BB), or Sand Dune (SD)

support migratory shorebirds.

Raptor Wintering Area

At least one of the following Forest Community Types: Deciduous Forest (FOD), Mixed Forest (FOM) or Coniferous Forest (FOC), in combination with one of the following Upland Community Types: Meadow (CUM), Thicket (CUT), Savannah (CUS), Woodland (CUW) (<60% cover) that are >20 hectare (ha) and provide roosting, foraging and resting habitats for wintering raptors. Upland habitat (CUM, CUT, CUS, CUW), must represent at least 15 ha of the 20-ha minimum size.

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that may support wintering raptors.

No candidate habitat for raptor wintering areas occurred within the Study Area.

Bat Hibernacula

Hibernacula may be found in caves, mine shafts, underground foundations and karsts. May be found in these Community Types: Crevice (CCR), Cave (CCA).

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that may support bat hibernacula.

No crevices, caves, karst or abandoned mines are located within the Study Area. No candidate habitat for bat hibernacula occurred within the Study Area.

Bat Maternity Colonies

Maternity colonies considered significant wildlife habitat are found in forested ecosites. Any of the following Community Types: Deciduous Forest (FOD), Mixed Forest (FOM), Deciduous Swamp (SWD), Mixed Swamp (SWM), that have >10/ha wildlife trees >25cm diameter at breast height (dbh).

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that may support bat maternity colonies.

The FOD is less than 10 ha in size and is a young stand. No candidate habitat for bat maternity colonies occurred within the Study Area.

Significant Wildlife Habitat for Ecoregion 7E 2175 Cornwall Road, Oakville, Ontario

3

Candidate Wildlife Habitat

Criteria Methods Habitat Assessment of Features Found Within the Study Area

Maternity colonies can be found in tree cavities, vegetation and often in buildings (buildings are not considered to be SWH). Female Bats prefer wildlife tree (snags) in early stages of decay, class 1-3 or class 1 or 2. Northern Myotis prefer contiguous tracts of older forest cover for foraging and roosting in snags and trees 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 preferred.

Turtle Wintering Areas

Snapping and Midland Painted turtles utilize ELC community classes: Swamp (SW), Marsh (MA) and Open Water (OA). Shallow water (SA), Open Fen (FEO) and Open Bog (BOO). Northern Map turtle: open water areas such as deeper rivers or streams and lakes can also be used as over-wintering habitat. Water has to be deep enough not to freeze and have soft mud substrate. Over-wintering sites are permanent water bodies, large wetlands, and bogs or fens with adequate dissolved oxygen. Man-made ponds such as sewage lagoons or storm water ponds should not be considered SWH.

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that may support areas of permanent standing water but not deep enough to freeze.

The marsh community within the Study Area is a stormwater pond and therefore not considered SWH. No candidate habitat for turtle wintering areas occurred within the Study Area.

Reptile Hibernaculum

Hibernation occurred in sites located below frost lines in burrows, rock crevices, broken and fissured rock and other natural features. 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.

ELC surveys and wildlife assessments were used to assess features within the Study Area that may support reptile hibernacula.

Rock crevices, burrows, broken and fissued rock and other natural features possibly used by as candidate reptile hibernacula were not observed within the Study Area.

Significant Wildlife Habitat for Ecoregion 7E 2175 Cornwall Road, Oakville, Ontario

4

Candidate Wildlife Habitat

Criteria Methods Habitat Assessment of Features Found Within the Study Area

The following Community Types may be directly related to snake hibernacula: Talus (TA), Rock Barren (RB), Crevice (CCR), Cave (CCA), and Alvar (RBOA1, RBSA1, RBTA1).

Colonial-Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Bank and Cliff)

Eroding banks, sandy hills, borrow pits, steep slopes, sand piles, cliff faces, bridge abutments, silos, or barns found in any of the following Community Types: Meadow (CUM), Thicket (CUT), Bluff (BL), Cliff (CL). 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.

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that may support colonial bird breeding habitat (Bank and Cliff).

The site has Cultural Meadow features but these have flat topography and lacks necessary bank and cliff features. No candidate habitat for bank or cliff colonial nesting birds occurred within the Study Area.

Colonial-Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Tree/Shrubs)

Identification of stick nests in any of the following Community Types: Mixed Swamp (SWM), Deciduous Swamp (SWD), Treed Fen (FET). The edge of the colony and a minimum 300 m area of habitat or extent of the Forest Ecosite containing the colony or any island <15.0 ha with a colony is the SWH. Nests in live or dead standing trees in wetlands, lakes, islands, and peninsulas. Shrubs and occasionally emergent vegetation may also be used

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that may support colonial bird breeding habitat (Trees/Shrubs).

No ELC communities were identified within the Study Area that are generally associated with potential candidate habitat for colonial nesting breeding birds. No large stick nests were observed during field surveys. No candidate habitat for tree/shrub colonial nesting birds occurred within the Study Area.

Colonial-Nesting Bird Breeding Habitat (Ground)

Any rocky island or peninsula within a lake or large river. For Brewer’s Blackbird close proximity to watercourses in open fields or pastures with scattered trees or shrubs found in any of the following Community Types: Meadow Marsh (MAM1-6), Shallow Marsh (MAS1-3), Meadow (CUM), Thicket (CUT), Savannah (CUS).

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that may support colonial bird breeding habitat (ground).

No rocky islands or peninsulas are present within the Study Area. No candidate habitat for ground colonial nesting breeding birds occurred within the Study Area.

Significant Wildlife Habitat for Ecoregion 7E 2175 Cornwall Road, Oakville, Ontario

5

Candidate Wildlife Habitat

Criteria Methods Habitat Assessment of Features Found Within the Study Area

Migratory Butterfly Stopover Areas

Located within 5 km of Lake Ontario A combination of ELC communities, one from each land class is required: Field (CUM, CUT, CUS) and Forest (FOC, FOM, FOD, CUP) Minimum of 10 ha in size with a combination of field and forest habitat present

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that may support migratory butterfly stopover areas.

No candidate significant wildlife habitat for migratory butterfly stopover areas occurred within the Study Area.

Landbird Migratory Stopover Areas

The following community types: Forest (FOD, FOM, FOC) or Swamp (SWC, SWM, SWD) Woodlots must be >5 ha in size and within 5 km of Lake Ontario – woodlands within 2 km of Lake Ontario are more significant

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that may support landbird migratory stopover areas.

No candidate habitat for migratory landbird stopover areas occurred within the Study Area.

Deer Winter Congregation Areas

Woodlots typically > 100 ha in size unless determined by the MNRF as significant. (If large woodlots are rare in a planning area >50ha) All forested ecosites within Community Series: FOC, FOM, FOD, SWC, SWM, SWD Conifer plantations much smaller than 50 ha may also be used

No studies required as the MNRF determines this habitat.

No deer winter congregation areas were identified by the MNRF within the Study Area. The FOD is less than 100 ha in size. No candidate habitat for deer winter congregation areas occurred within the Study Area.

Rare Vegetation Communities Cliffs and Talus Slopes

A Cliff is vertical to near vertical bedrock >3 m in height. A Talus Slope is rock rubble at the base of a cliff made up of coarse rocky debris Any ELC Ecosite within Community Series: TAO, TAS, TAT, CLO, CLS, CLT Most cliff and talus slopes occur along the Niagara Escarpment

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that would be considered cliffs or talus slopes.

No cliffs or talus slopes were identified within the Study Area. No candidate wildlife habitat for cliffs or talus slopes occurred within the Study Area.

Sand Barrens Sand barrens typically are exposed sand, generally sparsely vegetated and cause by lack of moisture, periodic fires and erosion. Vegetation can vary from patchy and barren to tree covered but less than 60%.

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that would be considered to be sand barrens.

No sand barrens were identified within the Study Area. No candidate wildlife habitat for sand barrens occurred within the Study Area.

Significant Wildlife Habitat for Ecoregion 7E 2175 Cornwall Road, Oakville, Ontario

6

Candidate Wildlife Habitat

Criteria Methods Habitat Assessment of Features Found Within the Study Area

Any of the following Community Types: SBO1 (Open Sand Barren Ecosite), SBS1 (Shrub Sand Barren Ecosite), SBT1 (Treed Sand Barren Ecosite).

Alvars 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. 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 zoogeographically diverse, supporting many uncommon or are relict plant and animal species. Vegetation cover varies from patchy to barren with a less than 60% tree cover. Any of the following Community Types: ALO1(Open Alvar Rock Barren Ecosite), ALS1 (Alvar Shrub Rock Barren Ecosite), ALT1 (Treed Alvar Rock Barren Ecosite), FOC1 (Dry-Fresh Pine Coniferous Forest), FOC2 (Dry-Fresh Cedar Coniferous Forest), CUM2 (Bedrock Cultural Meadow), CUS2 (Bedrock Cultural Savannah), CUT2-1 (Common Juniper Cultural Alvar Thicket), or CUW2 (Bedrock Cultural Woodland) An Alvar site > 0.5 ha in size

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that would be considered to be alvar communities.

No candidate wildlife habitat for alvars occurred within the Study Area.

Old-growth Forest

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.

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that would be considered to be old-growth forest communities.

No old growth forests were identified within the Study Area. No candidate wildlife habitat for old growth forests occurred within the Study Area.

Significant Wildlife Habitat for Ecoregion 7E 2175 Cornwall Road, Oakville, Ontario

7

Candidate Wildlife Habitat

Criteria Methods Habitat Assessment of Features Found Within the Study Area

Woodland area is greater than 0,5 ha in the following Community Types: FOD, FOM, FOC, SWD, SWC, and SWM. Dominant trees species greater than 140 years old is considered SWH.

Savannah A Savannah is a tallgrass prairie habitat that has tree cover between 25 – 60%. In Ecoregion 7E, known Tallgrass Prairie and savannah remnants are scattered between Lake Huron and Lake Erie, near Lake St. Clair, north of and along the Lake Erie shoreline, in Brantford and in the Toronto area (north of Lake Ontario). Any of the following Community Types: TPS1 (Dry- Fresh Tallgrass Mixed Savannah Ecosite), TPS2 (Fresh-Moist Tallgrass Deciduous Savannah Ecosite), TPW1 (Dry-Fresh Black Oak Tallgrass Deciduous Woodland Ecosite), TPW2 (Fresh-Moist Tallgrass Deciduous Woodland Ecosite), CUS2 (Bedrock Cultural Savannah Ecosite).

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that would be considered to be savannah communities.

No savannahs were identified within the Study Area. No candidate wildlife habitat for savannahs occurred within the Study Area.

Tallgrass Prairies

A Tallgrass Prairie has ground cover dominated by prairie grasses. An open Tallgrass Prairie habitat has < 25% tree cover. In Ecoregion 7E, known Tallgrass Prairie and savannah remnants are scattered between Lake Huron and Lake Erie, near Lake St. Clair, north of and along the Lake Erie shoreline, in Brantford and in the Toronto area (north of Lake Ontario). Any of the following Community Types: TPO1 (Dry Tallgrass Prairie Ecosite), TPO2 (Fresh-Moist Tallgrass Prairie Ecosite).

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that would be considered to be tall-grass communities.

No candidate wildlife habitat for tall grass prairies occurred within the Study Area.

Other Rare Vegetation Communities

Provincially Rare S1, S2 and S3 vegetation communities are listed in Appendix M of the SWHTG. Any ELC Ecosite Code that has a possible ELC

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that would be

No rare vegetation communities were identified within the Study Area.

Significant Wildlife Habitat for Ecoregion 7E 2175 Cornwall Road, Oakville, Ontario

8

Candidate Wildlife Habitat

Criteria Methods Habitat Assessment of Features Found Within the Study Area

Vegetation Type that is Provincially Rare is Candidate SWH.

considered to be other rare vegetation communities.

No candidate wildlife habitat for rare vegetation communities occurred within the Study Area.

Specialized Habitat for Wildlife Waterfowl Nesting Area

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. Waterfowl nesting area extends 120 m from a wetland (> 0.5 ha) or a wetland (> 0.5 ha) and any small wetlands (0.5 ha) within 120 m or a cluster of 3 or more small (< 0.5 ha) wetlands within 120 m of each individual wetland where waterfowl nesting is known to occur. Note: includes adjacency to Provincially Significant Wetlands

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that may support nesting waterfowl.

The Study Area has Cultural Meadow features but the biophysical attributes of the phragmites stand and adjacent area does not support the needs of waterfowl during their nesting period. Vegetation Community 3 (CUM1/MAM2) has an area less than 0.5 ha. No candidate wildlife habitat for waterfowl nesting areas occurred within the Study Area.

Bald Eagle and Osprey nesting, Foraging, and Perching Habitat

Nests are associated with lakes, ponds, rivers or wetlands along forested shorelines, islands, or on structures over water. Nests located on man-made objects are not to be included as SWH (e.g. telephone poles and constructed nesting platforms). ELC Forest Community Series: FOD, FOM, FOC, SWD, SWM and SWC directly adjacent to riparian areas – rivers, lakes, ponds and wetlands

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that may support nesting, foraging and perching habitat for large raptors.

No large stick nests were identified within the Study Area. No candidate wildlife habitat for Osprey or Bald Eagle habitat occurred within the Study Area.

Woodland Raptor Nesting Habitat

All natural or conifer plantation woodland/forest stands combined >30 ha and with >4 ha of interior habitat. Interior habitat determined with a 200 m buffer. 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 Coopers hawk nest along forest edges

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that may support nesting habitat for woodland raptors.

There is no woodland >30 ha on or adjacent to the Study Area No candidate wildlife habitat for woodland raptor nesting occurred within the Study Area.

Significant Wildlife Habitat for Ecoregion 7E 2175 Cornwall Road, Oakville, Ontario

9

Candidate Wildlife Habitat

Criteria Methods Habitat Assessment of Features Found Within the Study Area

sometimes on peninsulas or small off-shore islands. May be found in all forested ELC Ecosites. May also be found in SWC, SWM, SWD and CUP3

Turtle Nesting Areas

Best nesting habitat for turtles is close to water, 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. Exposed mineral soil (sand or gravel) areas adjacent (< 100 m) or within the following ELC Ecosites: MAM1, MAM2, MAM3, MAM4, MAM5, MAM6, SAS1, SAM1, SAF1, BOO1, FEO1

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that may support turtle nesting areas.

The Cultural Meadow feature in Vegetation Community 3 is a phragmites stand and does not provide suitable biophysical conditions for turtle overwintering, basking, foraging or movement. There is also no open sand, gravel or sparsely vegetated pathes suitable for turtle nesting. No candidate wildlife habitat for turtle nesting areas occurred within the Study Area.

Seeps and Springs

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 system.

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that may support the presence of seeps and springs.

No seeps or springs were observed within the Study Area.

Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Woodland)

Presence of a wetland, lake, or pond within or adjacent (within 120 m) to a woodland (no minimum size). Some small wetlands may not

ELC surveys were used to assess features within the Study Area that may

Vegetation Communities 4 and 5 have deciduous forest features but do not have permanent ponds or contain water.

Significant Wildlife Habitat for Ecoregion 7E 2175 Cornwall Road, Oakville, Ontario

10

Candidate Wildlife Habitat

Criteria Methods Habitat Assessment of Features Found Within the Study Area

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 habitat. All Ecosites associated with these ELC Community Series; FOC, FOM, FOD, SWC, SWM, SWD

support woodland breeding amphibians.

No significant woodland amphibian breeding habitat occurred within the Study Area.

Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Wetlands)

Wetland areas >120 m from woodland habitats. Wetlands and pools (including vernal pools) >500 m2 (about 25 m diameter) supporting high species diversity are significant; some small or ephemeral habitats may not be identified on MNRF mapping and could be important amphibian breeding habitats. 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. ELC Community Classes SW, MA, FE, BO, OA and SA.

ELC surveys were used to identify wetland habitat features within the Study Area including those that may support bullfrogs (i.e., natural open aquatic and marsh habitats greater than 1 ha in size).

There are no wetlands within the Study Area that are >120 m from woodland habitat or >500 m2 No significant wetland amphibian breeding habitat occurred within the Study Area.

Woodland Area-Sensitive Bird Breeding Habitat

Habitats > 30ha where interior forest is present (at least 200 m from the forest edge); typically, > 60 years old. These include any of the following Community Types: Forest (FO), Treed Swamp (SW)

ELC surveys were used to determine whether woodlots that occurred within the Study Area that were >30 ha with interior habitat present (>200 m from edge).

No candidate wildlife habitat for woodland area-sensitive breeding bird habitat occurred within the Study Area.

Significant Wildlife Habitat for Ecoregion 7E 2175 Cornwall Road, Oakville, Ontario

11

Candidate Wildlife Habitat

Criteria Methods Habitat Assessment of Features Found Within the Study Area

Habitat of Species of Conservation Concern considered SWH Marsh Bird Breeding Habitat

All wetland habitats with shallow water and emergent aquatic vegetation. May include any of the following Community Types: Meadow Marsh (MAM), Shallow Aquatic (SA), Open Bog (BOO), Open Fen (FEO), or for Green Heron: Swamp (SW), Marsh (MA) and Meadow (CUM1) Community Types.

ELC surveys were used to identify marshes with shallow water and emergent vegetation that may support marsh breeding birds.

Vegetation Community 3 has Cultural Meadow/Mineral Meadow Marsh features but does not have shallow water and/or emergent aquatic vegetation. It is dominated by phragmites. No candidate wildlife habitat for marsh breeding birds occurred within the Study Area.

Open Country Bird Breeding Habitat

Grassland areas > 30 ha, not Class 1 or Class 2 agricultural lands, with no row-cropping or hay or livestock pasturing in the last 5 years, in the following Community Type: Meadow (CUM).

ELC surveys were used to identify grassland communities within the Study Area that may support area-sensitive breeding birds.

Non-agricultural grassland communities > 30 ha are not present within the Study Area. No candidate wildlife habitat for open country breeding bird habitat occurred within the Study Area.

Shrub/Early Successional Bird Breeding Habitat

Large field areas succeeding to shrub and thicket habitats >10 ha, not Class 1 or Class 2 agricultural lands, with no row-cropping or intensive hay or livestock pasturing in the last 5 years, in the following Community Types: Thickets (CUT), Savannahs (CUS), or Woodlands (CUW). Shrub thicket habitats are most likely to support and sustain a diversity of these species.

ELC surveys were used to identify large CUT, CUS or CUW communities that may support shrub/early successional breeding birds.

Shrubs and treed areas are less than 2 ha. No candidate wildlife habitat for shrub/early successional breeding bird habitat occurred within the Study Area.

Terrestrial Crayfish

Meadow marshes and edges of shallow marshes (no minimum size). Vegetation communities include MAM1, MAM2, MAM3, MAM4, MAM5, MAM6, MAS1, MAS2, MAS3, SWD, SWT, SWM. Construct burrows in marshes, mudflats, meadows Can be found far from water

ELC surveys were used to identify shallow marsh and meadow marsh communities that occurred within the Study Area.

Vegetation Community 3 has Meadow Marsh (MAM2) features and Vegetation Community 6 has Shallow Marsh (MAS2) features. MAM2 is completely dominated by phragmites and does not contain water. Terrestrial Crayfish are most likey to inhabit lake and stream freshwater ecosystems, and are likely to be found along rocky or weedy shorelines in water less than 2 m deep.

Significant Wildlife Habitat for Ecoregion 7E 2175 Cornwall Road, Oakville, Ontario

12

Candidate Wildlife Habitat

Criteria Methods Habitat Assessment of Features Found Within the Study Area

These conditions do not exist at MAM2 or MAS2. In addition, no Terrestrial Crayfish chimneys were observed within the Study Area. No candidate wildlife habitat for terrestrial crayfish were observed within the Study Area.

Special Concern and Rare Wildlife Species

Linking candidate habitat for all Special Concern and Provincially Rare (S1-S3) plant and animal species identified by elemental occurrence within 1 or 10 km grid.

ELC surveys were used in conjunction with background research and field visits to identify special concern and provincially rare (S1-S3) species within the Study Area.

No special concern or provincially rare (S1-S3) species were observed within the Study Area.

Animal Movement Corridors Amphibian Movement Corridors

Corridors may be found in all ecosites associated with water. Determined based on identifying significant amphibian breeding habitat (wetland).

Identified after Amphibian Breeding Habitat - Wetland is confirmed. Movement corridors should be considered when amphibian breeding habitat is confirmed as SWH from Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Wetland).

No significant amphibian breeding habitat was present within the Study Area. Therefore, no amphibian movement corridors are present within the Study Area.