March 2015

REPORT ON

Tree Conservation Report in Support of Draft Plan Approval of the Former CFB Rockcliffe Lands

Submitted to: Canada Lands Company CLC Limited 30 Metcalfe Street, Suite 601 Ottawa, ON K1P 5L4

Report Number: 1418293 Distribution:

REPORT 2 copies - Canada Lands Company CLC Ltd. 1 CD - Canada Lands Company CLC Ltd. 11 copies - City of Ottawa 1 copy - Golder Associates Ltd.

TREE CONSERVATION REPORT FORMER CFB ROCKCLIFFE LANDS

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2.0 GENERAL INFORMATION ...... 2

3.0 CURRENT DESIGNATIONS AND STATUS OF PLANNING APPLICATION ...... 3

4.0 PROPOSED WORKS AND SCHEDULE ...... 4

5.0 EXISTING TREE COVER ON-SITE ...... 5

6.0 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT FEATURES ON-SITE ...... 12

6.1 Species at Risk and Significant Wildlife Habitat ...... 13

7.0 PROPOSED ALTERATIONS TO TREE COVER AND IMPACTS TO ASSOCIATED NATURAL FEATURES OR FUNCTIONS ...... 14

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 16

9.0 CLOSURE ...... 17

10.0 REFERENCES: ...... 18

FIGURES Figure 1: Key Plan

APPENDICES APPENDIX A Maps 1 and 2

APPENDIX B List of Individual Trees

March 2015 Report No. 1418293 i

TREE CONSERVATION REPORT FORMER CFB ROCKCLIFFE LANDS

1.0 INTRODUCTION Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) was retained by the Canada Lands Company CLC Ltd. (CLC) to complete a Tree Conservation Report (TCR) for the former Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Rockcliffe lands, City of Ottawa, Ontario (Figure 1). The lands covered in this report include the Rockcliffe lands, as well as lands owned by the NCC (NCC lands) to the north where stormwater management facilities are contemplated. Collectively, these two areas form the Site, as shown on Figure 1.

This report has been prepared in accordance with the City of Ottawa’s TCR Guidelines (Ottawa, 2014). An Environmental Impact Study (EIS) (Golder, 2015) has been prepared concurrently with this TCR for the Site, and should be read in conjunction with this report.

The detailed tree inventory work conducted at the Site focused on the Rockcliffe lands, while work performed on the NCC lands has included primarily Species at Risk (SAR) surveys.

The Site is currently occupied by the decommissioned military base, consisting of a network of streets within an abandoned residential area (all structures removed), with scattered patches of natural vegetation. The surrounding landscape includes two Urban Natural Features (one occupying a portion of the Site and extending off-Site, and one southwest of the Site), both owned by the National Capital Commission (NCC), and surrounding urban uses with remnant patches of natural vegetation.

The proposed Draft Plan includes a range of land uses including residential, retail, mixed use, schools, employment, associated roads and servicing, parks, stormwater management and natural areas. Portions of the Site are currently subject to remediation activities to address contaminated soils, the impacts of which were addressed under Tree Permit No. D06-01-14-0075 as issued by the City of Ottawa May 20, 2014.

March 2015 Report No. 1418293 1

TREE CONSERVATION REPORT FORMER CFB ROCKCLIFFE LANDS

2.0 GENERAL INFORMATION Owner / Applicant: Canada Lands Company CLC Limited 30 Metcalfe Street, Suite 601 Ottawa, ON K1P 5L4 (613) 998-7765

Consultants Hired to Prepare this Report: Gwendolyn Weeks, H.B.Sc. (Env), Ecologist Golder Associates Ltd. 32 Steacie Drive Kanata, ON K2K 2A9 613-592-9600

Based on Information Gathered by:

Dan Baker - Registered Professional Forester and Urban Forestry Consultant

Jim McCready - Arboricultural & Urban Forestry Consultant

Andrew McKinley, Ph.D., MA.Sc., BA (Hons.), EP – DST Consulting Engineers Ltd.

Contractor Implementing the Plan: To be subcontracted by Canada Lands Company CLC Ltd.

March 2015 Report No. 1418293 2

TREE CONSERVATION REPORT FORMER CFB ROCKCLIFFE LANDS

3.0 CURRENT DESIGNATIONS AND STATUS OF PLANNING APPLICATION The Rockliffe lands are currently designated as General Urban Area with the Developing Community overlay (City of Ottawa OP; Schedule B). The NCC lands are identified as Major Open Space and Urban Natural Feature (corresponding to Urban Natural Area #170 – NRC Woods). Southwest of the Site is another UNF (corresponding to Urban Natural Areas #171 – Montfort Hospital Woods) (City of Ottawa OP; Schedule B).

These areas, and additional remnant natural areas along the southern perimeter of the Site, are considered Natural Heritage Systems Overlay (Schedule L1). According to the City’s Greenspace Master Plan (Ottawa, 2006), the natural areas immediately southwest of the Site are considered Supporting Areas, while the northern portion of the Site (NCC lands) are considered Primary Linkage and Contributing Areas.

A draft Community Design Plan (CDP) for the Site has been submitted to the City of Ottawa for approval. Ottawa City Council approvals of the CDP, an Official Plan Amendment (OPA), a Secondary Plan (SP), and a comprehensive Zoning Bylaw Amendment (ZBLA) are all anticipated in the first quarter of 2015. The Draft Plan of Subdivision application will be submitted in the fourth quarter of 2014 and will be processed concurrently with the City and external agency technical reviews of the SCP, OPA, SP and ZBLA.

March 2015 Report No. 1418293 3

TREE CONSERVATION REPORT FORMER CFB ROCKCLIFFE LANDS

4.0 PROPOSED WORKS AND SCHEDULE The Site consists of a 131 ha parcel within the urban boundary of the City of Ottawa. The Draft Plan (MMM Group, 2014; Appendix A - Map 2) illustrates the overall proposed land use, road, and block pattern for the community. This plan was designed to provide a range of places for people to live, work and play which will foster and encourage a vibrant community.

The Draft Plan designates the following land uses: low-rise residential; low- to mid-rise residential; mid-rise residential; low- to mid-rise mixed-use; mid-rise mixed-use; high-rise mixed-use; high-rise employment; Forest Special Design Area; schools; parks and parkettes (19.81 ha); natural areas (6.16 ha) and important tree groupings (10.25 ha); and infrastructure (e.g., roads, off-road cycling connections, stormwater facilities).

It is anticipated that site works will begin after the first quarter of 2016.

The impacts associated with removal of vegetation as part of the soil remediation activities being undertaken on- Site were addressed in a Tree Permit application submitted to the City under City By-Law 2009-200.

March 2015 Report No. 1418293 4

TREE CONSERVATION REPORT FORMER CFB ROCKCLIFFE LANDS

5.0 EXISTING TREE COVER ON-SITE An inventory of all trees on-Site, including species composition, size, age and condition, as well as the presence of specimen trees was conducted by various consultants, with results as presented in Appendix A (Map 1). The information contained in this section of the report was compiled based on a review of the following documents:  CFB Rockcliffe Lands Vegetation Survey (McCready, 2004);  CFB Rockcliffe Vegetation Survey (Baker, 2013);  Butternut Survey for Proposed Stormwater Ponds at the Former CFB Rockcliffe (DST, 2013); and,  Former CFB Rockcliffe Species at Risk Survey (DST, 2014). Below is a description of each treed area on-Site as described by McCready (2004) and updated by Baker (2013), and a listing of all individual trees recommended for retention by those authors.

Grouping A

Tree Species % Composition Average Size (cm) Condition Sugar Maple 70 40 Good White Ash / Basswood / 20 Fair American Beech Hemlock 10 Poor to Fair

Comments: This is very park-like with all the underbrush cleared out with some grass and very little humus present. There are also a few Bitternut Hickory and American Beech in this stand. There is excellent regeneration of sugar maple, and especially white ash and green ash. There is some regeneration of Beech, Basswood and Bitternut Hickory. This regeneration is gradually returning this grouping into a multi-aged stand. However, there are also patches of invasive European buckthorn and some dog strangling vine.

Recommendation: Retain. With the removal of the trees in poor condition this area could be used as greenspace for any development.

Grouping B

Tree Species % Composition Average Size (cm) Condition Sugar Maple 65 60 Good Ironwood 20 16 Good White Ash 10 45 Poor Basswood / Bitternut 5 60 Poor Hickory

Comments: A very small woodlot consisting of large old Sugar Maple in relatively good condition with Ironwood mixed in. The odd White Ash and Basswood are present but they are in poor condition. There is natural regeneration of young Sugar Maple and Ironwood present. Large boulders are present as if it were used as a

March 2015 Report No. 1418293 5

TREE CONSERVATION REPORT FORMER CFB ROCKCLIFFE LANDS

dumping area at one time. The old trail through the grouping is no longer apparent. A large (50+cm) White Elm present on the southern edge (top of the slope) is a relatively rare tree now, due to Dutch elm disease.

Recommendation: Retain.

Grouping C

Tree Species % Composition Average Size (cm) Condition Sugar Maple 60 45 Good Ironwood 20 16 Good Bitternut Hickory 10 45 Good Basswood / White Elm 10 45 Good

Comments: This small woodlot is located on Arcturus Ave on a rock outcrop slope. The rocky side slope is compacted from use over the years. A small trial goes through the middle at the bottom of the slope. There is good regeneration of a variety of species including Sugar Maple, White Ash, Basswood and Ironwood. However, the northeast edge of the stand is ringed by European buckthorn that is beginning to seed into the stand.

Recommendation: Retain.

Grouping D

Tree Species % Composition Average Size (cm) Condition Sugar Maple 10 30-74 Good White Ash 15 42 Good Bitternut Hickory 15 32-46 Good Basswood 15 60 Good Silver Maple 45 60 Good

Comments: This small woodlot has a mix of trees in relatively good condition with the odd tree in fair condition with many cavities created by birds. There is good regeneration of White and Green Ash with some Sugar Maple and Basswood in areas where there the understory is not dominated by European buckthorn. The overstorey trees continue to be in good condition.

Recommendation: Retain. Some of the trees should be removed or trimmed.

Grouping E

Tree Species % Composition Average Size (cm) Condition Silver Maple 100 61 Good

March 2015 Report No. 1418293 6

TREE CONSERVATION REPORT FORMER CFB ROCKCLIFFE LANDS

Comments: This is a group of 24 large Silver Maple that were located around a building at one time. These large Silver Maples are in good condition. Due to the dominance of the European buckthorn, there is virtually no natural regeneration of native species, although the odd Sugar Maple, White Ash, and Bitternut Hickory seedling was found. The overstorey trees continue to be in good condition.

Recommendation: Retain. A number of these trees will require cabling and some trimming. Silver Maple is a water-seeking species and any development should not take place near these trees.

Grouping F

Tree Species % Composition Average Size (cm) Condition Sugar Maple 80 30-78 Good White Ash 10 40 Poor American Beech 10 24-50 Good

Comments: This small group of 24 trees could be considered a natural stand. It consists of mostly Sugar Maples, which are in good condition with the odd American Beech also in good condition, and White Ash, which are in poor condition. There is heavy European buckthorn growth in many places of the understory, but there is some regeneration of White Ash, Basswood, Sugar Maple and Ironwood in areas where the buckthorn is not completely dominant.

Recommendation: Retain.

Grouping G

Tree Species % Composition Average Size (cm) Condition Silver Maple 85 53 Good White Ash / Basswood 15 60 Good

Comments: This grouping of Silver Maple was at the site of the old C.F.B Ottawa Arena and was probably used for picnic tables. The trees are in good condition although the soil is compacted. There are bird nesting cavities in one dead silver maple. Now that the area is not continuously mowed, there is a dense seedling layer of European buckthorn in much of the understory.

Recommendation: Retain. One Silver Maple has top off and should be removed.

Grouping H

Tree Species % Composition Average Size (cm) Condition Sugar Maple 90 (10 trees) 14-64 Good White Ash / Basswood 10 (1 tree) 41 Good

March 2015 Report No. 1418293 7

TREE CONSERVATION REPORT FORMER CFB ROCKCLIFFE LANDS

Comments: This small stand is at the base of a slope. The slope has a number of trees and this group of trees would act as a buffer on the property line. There is some Sugar Maple regeneration in areas, but European buckthorn is beginning to dominate parts of the understory.

Recommendation: Retain. One of the Sugar Maples has the top off and should be removed.

Grouping I

Tree Species % Composition Average Size (cm) Condition Bitternut Hickory 40 (9 trees) 18-42 Good White Ash 22 (5 trees) 35-53 Good to Fair Sugar Maple 13 (3 trees) 40-58 Good Basswood 17 (4 trees) 48-76 Good to Poor Ironwood 8 (2 trees) 26 Good

Comments: This small woodlot is a mixture of deciduous trees with a high percentage of Bitternut Hickory that is in good condition. The Basswood and the White Ash are a mixture of trees in good to poor condition. One Basswood has a hollow base, while others have cavity holes. There are parts of the understory dominated by European buckthorn but pockets of good natural regeneration of Basswood, Sugar Maple and White Ash. The mature White Ash in the stand appears to be affected by the emerald ash borer. Otherwise, the overstory is generally in good health.

Recommendation: Retain.

Grouping K

Tree Species % Composition Average Size (cm) Condition Sugar Maple 60 (16 trees) 42 Good White Ash 20 (4 trees) 42 Fair Silver Maple 10 (2 trees) 29 and 66 Good Basswood / Bitternut 10 (2 trees) 34 Good Hickory

Comments: This grouping is mostly Sugar Maple with White Ash, Silver Maple and Basswood being less dominant. The ground cover is grass with natural regeneration of Sugar Maple, Basswood and White Ash. There is good advanced regeneration (polewood sized) White Ash. There are patches of dense, invasive European buckthorn in the understory, but there is regeneration of Sugar Maple, Bitternut Hickory, as well as the aforementioned White Ash, throughout the stand.

Recommendation: Retain. One of the Silver Maples requires cabling.

March 2015 Report No. 1418293 8

TREE CONSERVATION REPORT FORMER CFB ROCKCLIFFE LANDS

Grouping L

This woodlot is located on a slope with very little humus layer and a lot of brush and rubble. This woodlot was predominantly a Basswood, Sugar Maple stand in the past. The Basswood is only in fair condition with a lot of dieback. The Basswood average size is 48 cm. The larger Sugar Maple are in fair condition and the younger trees (approximately 7) at about 30 cm in diameter being in good condition. There is a patch of Black Locust that is invasive and not ideal for a new development. There is very little wildlife value noticed in this woodlot. There is now good polewood regeneration of Ironwood which helps in stabilizing the steep slope. The mature Basswood is generally still alive but appears to be declining in health. Heavy European buckthorn regeneration in places. Towards the bottom of the slope at the north end of the grouping there is an almost pure stand of Green and White ash. This will likely be very susceptible to emerald ash borer which is likely in the stand although there was no obvious appearance of it. The Black Locust appears to only be in the east part of the grouping. There is the occasional mature Bitternut Hickory in the grouping.

Recommendation: Lower quality; not high priority for retention.

Grouping M

Most of this small woodlot is Manitoba Maple that is invasive and not an ideal species to be considered for a community. There is also the occasional Green Ash in the grouping but appears to be impacted by the emerald ash borer. There is a dense European buckthorn understory that is almost completely excluding any natural regeneration.

Recommendation: Lower quality; not high priority for retention.

Grouping P

Tree Species % Composition Average Size (cm) Condition Rock Elm 60 20 Fair to Poor Poplar 10 37 Fair to Poor Siberian Elm 10 - Fair to Poor Black Ash 10 - Fair to Poor Black Locust 10 - Fair to Poor

Comments: This is a moist area with grass and some bulrushes, with evidence of dumping but little evidence of wildlife. This woodlot has a lower value but due to its location may have aesthetic benefits for a community. A part of this grouping is Siberian Elm that appears to have been planted, possibly for slope stabilization purposes. Black locust is regenerating outwards from the grouping by root suckering, or vegetative reproduction. There is a dense understory of European buckthorn in areas. At the lower part of the slope, where it appears to be at least seasonally wet, willow tends to dominate. There is a little bit of Sugar Maple, White Ash, Basswood and White Elm regeneration throughout the grouping.

Recommendation: Lower quality; not high priority for retention.

March 2015 Report No. 1418293 9

TREE CONSERVATION REPORT FORMER CFB ROCKCLIFFE LANDS

Grouping R

Tree Species % Composition Average Size (cm) Condition Sugar Maple 70 30-85 Good White Ash 10 40 Poor American Beech 10 24-50 Good Bitternut Hickory 10 20-60 Good

Comments: This grouping, located on a rather steep slope (15%), is stabilizing the soil. It consists of mostly Sugar Maples, which are in good condition with the odd American Beech also in good condition. The White Ash appear to somewhat impacted by the emerald ash borer, shown by woodpecker activity on their upper stems. There is young natural generation of White Ash, Basswood, Sugar Maple, Bitternut Hickory and Ironwood.

Recommendation: Retain.

Grouping S

This area is comprised mostly of Manitoba Maple, Green Ash, and Basswood averaging 20-40 cm in diameter. These trees are scattered throughout a very heavy understory of European buckthorn where little natural regeneration occurs. These trees have matured and are showing signs of decline. Very little undergrowth is present. This grouping of trees has a lower value. Observations were made from afar for this grouping as the area itself was not accessible for close examination.

Recommendation: Lower quality; not high priority for retention.

Groupings Identified as ‘Z’ Three areas are shown on the mapping (Appendix A - Map 1) that are identified as ‘Z’. These areas correspond to natural areas identified on mapping presented in McCready (2004) but were not specifically reviewed by either McCready or Baker (2013).

According to McCready, the area in the northeast corner of the Site (adjacent to the NRC Woods) is an upland deciduous forest dominated by Sugar Maple, White Ash, Basswood, American Beech, Red Oak and Bitternut Hickory (30-65 cm DBH). This area corresponds to trees portions of previously manicured lots, with mature forest along the eastern boundary and extending into the NRC Woods.

The area along the southern boundary of the Site is described by McCready as a portion of a deciduous forest community dominated by Sugar Maple and Basswood with scattered Red Oak, White Elm and Ironwood. This corresponds primarily with the Montrfort Hospital Woods and the well-treed residential lots south of the Site that extend slightly on-Site.

Recommendation: Retain.

March 2015 Report No. 1418293 10

TREE CONSERVATION REPORT FORMER CFB ROCKCLIFFE LANDS

Individual Trees A complete listing of all individual trees reviewed and recommended for potential retention as part of the various studies on-Site was provided in McCready, 2004. Review of this list was undertaken during the various planning stages of the project to date, resulting in the identification of a shortened list that reflected those trees that could possibly be retained based on a variety of factors (such as proposed land use, required grading, etc.). Those trees are shown on Map 1 (Appendix A). A complete description of those trees, including species, DBH, condition and comments/recommendations are provided in Appendix B.

March 2015 Report No. 1418293 11

TREE CONSERVATION REPORT FORMER CFB ROCKCLIFFE LANDS

6.0 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT FEATURES ON-SITE As part of the EIS prepared for the Site, Golder undertook a review of available background data in order to identify any known or potential significant natural features associated with the treed portions of the Site. The conclusions presented in this report represent a summary of the information contained in the EIS, which should be read in conjunction with this report. Data sources reviewed included:  Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) Natural Areas Viewer (MNRF, 2014);  Breeding Bird Atlas of Ontario (OBBA) (Cadman, et al. 2007);  Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario (Dobbyn, 1994);  Ontario Reptile and Amphibian Atlas (Ontario Nature, 2013);  Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) range maps (ROM, 2010);  Bat Conservation International (BCI) range maps (BCI, 2013);  Land Information Ontario geospatial data (MNR, 2011); and,  City of Ottawa OP (2013). No provincially significant wetlands or Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) are known to be present on-Site or in the immediate vicinity. No steep slopes or valley features are present on-Site or in the immediate vicinity, with the exception of a small escarpment feature. The Site and immediate vicinity contains two small surface water features that are considered fish habitat for their contribution to downstream fisheries. The trees on-Site do not contribute significantly to the form or function of the fish habitat.

As noted, two Urban Natural Features (UNF) are located on and adjacent to the Site (corresponding to Urban Natural Areas #170 – NRC Woods and #171 – Montfort Hospital Woods) (City of Ottawa OP; Schedule B). These areas, and additional remnant natural areas along the southern perimeter of the Site, are considered Natural Heritage Systems Overlay (Schedule L1). According to the City’s Greenspace Master Plan (Ottawa, 2006), the natural areas immediately southwest of the Site are considered Supporting Areas, while portions of the NCC lands are considered Primary Linkage and Contributing Areas. These areas will be retained and buffered as shown on the Draft Plan.

No natural heritage designations are present on-Site, and no Natural Environment Areas or other unique natural heritage features were identified in the local landscape. Trees on-Site are typically individuals, or small groupings. On the NCC lands, tree cover includes portions of an Urban Natural Feature (NRC Woods). Trees on the NCC lands, where present within the UNF, will be maintained as shown on the Draft Plan.

The plant communities on-Site were identified by Golder according to the Ecological Land Classification system for Southern Ontario (Lee et al., 1998; Lee, 2008) as detailed in the EIS prepared for the Site. None of the communities encountered are considered rare (S1-S3) within the province. Discussion of rare plant species is provided under Section 6.1.

March 2015 Report No. 1418293 12

TREE CONSERVATION REPORT FORMER CFB ROCKCLIFFE LANDS

6.1 Species at Risk and Significant Wildlife Habitat The individual trees and treed habitats on the Rockcliffe lands were assessed for their potential to support Species at Risk (including those listed as threatened, endangered or special concern under the Endangered Species Act and the Species at Risk Act), as well as for the habitat function they may provide.

Based on the Species at Risk screening and through the various studies performed at the Site, as presented in the EIS, there is potential and confirmed habitat for a number of SAR at the Site. Of these species, those that would utilize individual trees or treed areas of the Site include:  The Site is known to support a number of butternut trees (Juglans cinerea) (Appendix A - Map 1);  Little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus) was confirmed present through studies;  Northern myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) was confirmed present through studies; and,  Small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii) (unconfirmed but potentially present). Based on observations made at the Site, large cavity trees are primarily located within the NRC Woods and Montfort Hospital Woods adjacent to the Site. These areas are identified as the most likely habitat in the study area for the bat SAR listed above.

It was noted by McCready (2004) that the NRC Woods represented the highest quality habitat and food source for wildlife in and around the Site, including a number of cavity trees. Based on this assessment, it is possible that the cavity trees are in such a density as to qualify the woods as significant wildlife habitat for bat maternity roosts. Further, the City OP indicates that wildlife habitats associated with escarpments (such as the one located in the NRC Woods) should be considered significant.

Both the NRC Woods and Montfort Hospital Woods will be retained and buffered as shown on the Draft Plan.

March 2015 Report No. 1418293 13

TREE CONSERVATION REPORT FORMER CFB ROCKCLIFFE LANDS

7.0 PROPOSED ALTERATIONS TO TREE COVER AND IMPACTS TO ASSOCIATED NATURAL FEATURES OR FUNCTIONS The proposed Draft Plan has been prepared in reference to the Community Design Plan (CDP) being prepared for the Site (MMM, October 2014), which serves to provide a coordinated vision for development in the area covered under the CDP. Several criteria were developed as part of the CDP to determine the selection of outstanding specimen trees and forest tree groupings of distinctive tree status to be considered for protection on- Site [based on Baker (2013) and McCready (2004)]. The criteria include:  Tree groupings with a low Ash species component due to the presence of the Emerald Ash Borer.  Tree groupings in Good to Fair condition with some natural regeneration of native species in the understory.  Tree groupings that function to stabilize and provide aesthetic benefit to steep slopes.  Trees with a high landscape value that are in good condition and possess a diameter at breast height (DBH) of 40cm or greater with a predominant focus on hardwood trees for their immense overall retention value.  Trees located along edges of property lines that function in continuation with forest patches in adjacent communities and protected forests around the site, most notably the NRC Woods and Montfort Hospital Woods.  Larger groupings of specimen trees located in areas adjacent to forest groupings where grades will already be maintained and buffer areas will incorporate the trees into the Site’s open natural green spaces.  Trees in good condition located in areas to be designated as non-recreationally focused parkland, lower density residential housing blocks and mixed-use areas where changes to the existing grades and drainage patterns can be minimized.  Tree groupings that are adjacent to surface water features.  Rare species and plant communities, including all butternut trees (Juglans cinerea) to be retained as required by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, due to their status as an endangered native tree species in Ontario.

All treed areas, with the exception of Areas E, K and G, were retained and incorporated into the proposed Draft Plan as shown on Map 2 (Appendix A). Area E consisted entirely of Silver Maples that were possibly planted, given their location around a building. Area K consisted of native species is good condition, but was highly impacted by exotic and invasive species in the understory. Area G consisted primarily of Silver Maples, which again given their location in a picnic facility at a building location indicate that they were likely planted. No natural heritage designations, habitat for Species at Risk, or significant wildlife habitat are associated with the areas proposed for removal.

Of the 113 individual trees (and small clumps of trees) originally recommended for possible retention as listed in McCready (2004), 69 were identified as possibly retainable based on subsequent planning stages of the project (Appendix B). Based on the current Draft Plan and the associated engineering constraints (e.g., grading), 14 of those 70 trees are candidates for retention, while an addition 19 trees may be candidates for retention (pending

March 2015 Report No. 1418293 14

TREE CONSERVATION REPORT FORMER CFB ROCKCLIFFE LANDS

detailed design). No natural heritage designations, habitat for species at risk, or significant wildlife habitat are associated with the individual trees proposed for removal.

A total of 48 butternut trees were identified on the Site, primarily on the NCC lands. Of these, 38 were assessed as Category 1 (non-retainable), and 10 were assessed as Category 2 (retainable) (Appendix A; Map1). However, two of the Category 2 trees and one of the Category 1 trees were removed for soil remediation activities. These two Category 2 trees were removed as part of Notice of Butternut Impact registry under the ESA (registry #141107). Of the eight remaining Category 2 butternuts on-Site, it appears that only two will need to be removed to accommodate the proposed works. These two trees are located in Block 27 (Rockcliffe lands) and west of the NRC Woods (NCC lands), respectively, as shown on Map 1 (Appendix A). A Notice of Activity for the removal of any Category 2 trees will need to be filed with the MNRF where present on the Rockcliffe lands. Where present on the NCC lands, the Species at Risk Act is applicable, and therefore protection of the trees should be considered, and any contemplated removal to accommodate the stormwater management system would need to be discussed with NCC as a liaison to Environment Canada.

The Site is relatively flat with the exception of a few sloped areas, which are typically associated with tree cover to be retained. Therefore, no significant grading is required across the Site. There will be an increase in impervious surfaces, but the majority of the retained vegetation is associated with parks, parkettes, woodland buffers, vegetated swales and other non-pervious land-uses which is expected to ensure continued surface water inputs in and around the retained vegetation. No changes to the existing water table are anticipated, and any impacts associated with adjacent development (including foundations) will be mitigated through the implementation of measures described in Section 8.0.

March 2015 Report No. 1418293 15

TREE CONSERVATION REPORT FORMER CFB ROCKCLIFFE LANDS

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The proposed Draft Plan includes buffer areas in the form of woodlot buffers and vegetated swales adjacent to the most significant natural features on and adjacent to the Site, namely the Montfort Hospital Woods and the NRC Woods. As noted, the Draft Plan also has included much of the retained vegetation within parks and buffered areas. It is anticipated that these measures will ensure the long-term survival of the retained trees and treed areas. For individual trees and treed areas located within areas proposed for more intensive land use, mitigation measures are detailed below.

During construction, the following measures will be employed to ensure the protection and survival of trees to be retained:  Erect a fence at the critical root zone (CRZ) of trees to be retained;  Do not place any material or equipment within the CRZ of the trees;  Do not attach any signs, notices or posters to the trees;  Do not raise or lower the existing grade within the CRZ without approval;  Tunnel or bore when digging within the CRZ of the trees;  Do not damage the root system, trunk or branches of the trees; and,  Ensure that exhaust fumes from all equipment are not directed towards any trees canopy. In order to protect wildlife, potential habitat of SAR and significant wildlife habitat, the recommendations as presented in the EIS should be adhered to, including:  No removal of vegetation during the active season for breeding birds (April 15 – July 31);  All buffer areas as shown on the design plan are established and protected; and,  Removal of any Category 2 butternut trees must be subject to a Notice of Activity filed with the MNRF where present on the Rockcliffe lands. Any removal on the NCC lands will need to be discussed with NCC as a liason to Environment Canada.

It is recommended that the control of exotic species, particularly European buckthorn and dog-strangling vine, be investigated within the retained treed areas, and that appropriate trimming for the health of individual trees be undertaken in accordance with the recommendations made in this report and as necessary. To retain value for wildlife, dead trees should only be removed where they pose a risk to human health and safety.

Wherever tree planting is to take place on-Site, consideration should be given to using species that reflect the existing native species present, such as Sugar Maple, Red Oak and Bitternut Hickory. Non-native and invasive species should not be used. Planting of tree species along streets and additional plantings within park areas where feasible will help to off-set the tree loss associated with the proposed Draft Plan.

March 2015 Report No. 1418293 16

TREE CONSERVATION REPORT FORMER CFB ROCKCLIFFE LANDS

9.0 CLOSURE We trust this report meets your current needs. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact the undersigned.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD.

/for Gwendolyn Weeks, H.B.Sc.(Env) Sean Miller, M.Sc. Ecologist / Project Manager Associate / Senior Ecologist

GAW/SM/FN/kf

Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation.

n:\active\2014\1126 - es&a\1418293 canada lands cfb rockcliffe eis and tcr\reporting\tcr\cfb rockcliffe_tcr_final draft.docx

March 2015 Report No. 1418293 17

TREE CONSERVATION REPORT FORMER CFB ROCKCLIFFE LANDS

REFERENCES: Baker, D. 2013. CFB Rockcliffe Vegetation Survey – Arborist’s Report.

Bat Conservation International (BCI). 2013. Range Maps. URL: http://batcon.org/index.php/all-about- bats/species-profiles.html.

Cadman, M.D., D. A. Sutherland , G. G. Beck , D. Lepage , and A. R. Couturier , editors. 2007. Co-published by Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto, xxii + 706 pp. ISBN 978-1-896059-15-0.

Dobbyn, J.S. 1994. Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Toronto. 120 pp.

DST Consulting Engineers. 2013. Butternut Survey for the Proposed Stormwater Ponds at the Former CFB Rockcliffe. DST File no. OE-OT-017184.

DST Consulting Engineers. 2014. Former CFB Rockcliffe Species at Risk Survey. DST File No. OE-OT-018979

Golder Associates Ltd. 2015. Environmental Impact Study in Support of Draft Plan Approval of the Former CFB Rockcliffe Lands.

IBI Group. October 2014. Draft Former CFB Rockcliffe Master Servicing Study. Report 32952-5.2.2. 90 pp.

Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, South Central Region, Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02.

Lee, H.T. 2008. Draft Southern Ontario Ecological Land Classification. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry: London, Ontario.

McCready, J. 2004. CFB Rockcliffe Lands Vegetation Survey.

MMM Group. 2014. Draft Plan of Subdivision – Former CFB Rockcliffe Lands.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2011. Land Information Ontario (LIO). http://www.MNRF.gov.on.ca/en/Business/LIO/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_167956.html

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). October 2014. Personal correspondence: letter dated October 6, 2014.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2014. Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) Natural Areas Viewer. http://www.giscoeapp.lrc.gov.on.ca/web/MNR/NHLUPS/NaturalHeritage/ Viewer/Viewer.html. Accessed 2014.

Ontario Nature. 2013. Ontario Reptile and Amphibian Atlas. http://www.ontarionature.org/protect/species/herpetofaunal_atlas.php. Accessed 2014.

Ottawa, City of. 2013. Annotated Version of the OP Showing Proposed Changes as per Amendment No. 150. Available: http://documents.ottawa.ca/en/node/5720

March 2015 Report No. 1418293 18

TREE CONSERVATION REPORT FORMER CFB ROCKCLIFFE LANDS

Ottawa, City of. 2013. Annotated Version of the OP Showing Proposed Changes as per Amendment No. 150. Available: http://documents.ottawa.ca/en/node/5720

Ottawa, City of. 2014. Tree Conservation Report Guidelines (Online). Available: http://ottawa.ca/en/residents/water-and-environment/trees-and-community-forests/tree-conservation- report-guidelines Accessed: 2014

Royal Ontario Museum. 2010. Ontario’s Species at Risk website URL: http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/ risk.php?region=4. Accessed 201

March 2015 Report No. 1418293 19

446000 447000 448000 449000 450000 451000 452000 453000 454000 455000 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 3 3 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 3 3 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 3 3 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 3 3 0 0 5 5

SITE 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 3 3 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 3 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 3 0 0 5 5 : M O R F

D E I 0 0 F I 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 O 3 3 M 0 0

5 5 N E E B

d S x A m H .

1 E 0 - Z I 2 S 0

0 T 3 E - 3 E 9 H 2 0 0 S 8

0 0 1 E 0 0 4 9 9 H 1 \ 2 2 T

0 0 , D 5 5 N O R W P O _ H 0 S 4

\ © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA S S I I

E T _

446000 447000 448000 449000 450000 451000 452000 453000 454000 455000 A C H L W C CLIENT _ H 3 C 9 T 2 A 8 CANADA LANDS COMPANY CLC LIMITED 1 M

4 1 T \ J O N O

R S P

PROJECT E _ O 9 9 D \ e T f TREE CONSERVATION REPORT f i N l E c k M c FORMER CFB ROCKCLIFFE LANDS E o R R _ U B TITLE S F A C E \ y M n KEY PLAN S a I p 0 500 1,000 2,000 H m T o F C I _ s m d CONSULTANT 2014-12-16 n YYYY-MM-DD 1:50,000 METRES m a 5 L 2 _ a

d NOTE(S) DESIGNED ---- a n 1. THIS FIGURE IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ACCOMPANYING GOLDER a C \ ASSOCIATES LTD. REPORT NO. 1418293 PREPARED JEM M I _ l a i t REVIEWED FIN a p S \ e REFERENCE(S) v SM

i APPROVED t c 1. PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR DATUM: NAD 83 A \ : PROJECT NO. PHASE REV. FIGURE

N COORDINATE SYSTEM: UTM ZONE 18 VERTICAL DATUM: CGVD28

: h t 1418293 3000 0 a

P 1 0 TREE CONSERVATION REPORT FORMER CFB ROCKCLIFFE LANDS

APPENDIX A Maps 1 and 2

March 2015 Report No. 1418293

449500 449750 450000 450250 450500 450750 451000 451250 451500

K LEGEND E N CRE R TREE E

T

S

A CATEGORY 1 BUTTERNUT E CATEGORY 2 BUTTERNUT WATERCOURSE NE MASSEY LA ROADWAY 0 0

5 5 IMPORTANT TREES GROUPING 2 2 4 4 3 3 0 0

5 5 WETLAND

BUILDING FOOTPRINT

WATERBODY PKY TIER ROCKCLIFFE SITE CAR NE IEN -ÉT GE OR GE B R RI SI AR CL IFF Z E DR 0 0

0 62 72 0 0 61 0

4 60 4 3 3 0 0

5 58 5 PVT 59 EL 64 RIG 57 63 R T CR 113 EN 65 CK RA Z A 67 B PVT 68 66 EY 27 109 DFR 70 Z GO 71 108 VD 54 56 S BL B IR R M 69 L GEO E YN 55 A RG G I E- N A R ÉTIE Y LE F RS N PK L R NE CARTIER M HA KI C P D KEY MAP Y 74 V T K 73 T P V 0 0

P

5 B 5

7 N D 76 7 3 3 O S B 52 3 I 3

0 H 75 0 T D C

5 53 5 U A D I R V O VT A L P C E E E L TAG 112 OF BR Y T ATTLE ITAIN CO K B B C LV C D I R 25 O E 26 S SITE S M O 51 P W V E T S TE 48 R N 50 49 C R O E 102 E 38 K B U 35 R 39 National Geographic, Esri, 0 103 M 0 0 36 0

5 T 5 A S 3 3 DeLorme, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, 101 T T 3 H 3

0 P IG A 0 Y 5 T L 5 PV V 37 F R USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, K H LL T IG M P NE H 3 R A O R N H 2 43 C U O 104 I T T PV N T K V OC P W A L I M A E T A H R S V 105 V CK Y O 110 40 B A U I N A T A CA B T 106 S C R L I 4 O V O A K 47 D 107 C D 46 E N A D 41 R L P TA S K IR P P P Y V 44 V T V T T 45 0 75 150 300 EK VT E P R US C 5 EN N V 0 R 100 IA 0 5 WESTE 99 C V 5 2 2 1:7,500 METRES A 42 C 3 3 :

3 S H 3 M 0 P 0 6 T I 5 5

P O O M R

96 F R 31 U 95 32 D

P N E I

V K 97 F 7 34 NOTE(S) I

T

30 D PVT S P T 1. THIS FIGURE IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ACCOMPANYING GOLDER O M 29 O 98 77 28 H M 9 8 1 S A BI 33 24 ASSOCIATES LTD. REPORT NO. 1418293 N

R 78 E S GW E 94 ATK Z B IN P V P T S d VT A x 11 BU RM H m 10 A R . 89 92 D. SW REFERENCE(S) E 1 79 M DIT

C Z 0 H I - Z 14 93 H S 1 88 1. LAND INFORMATION ONTARIO (LIO) DATA PRODUCED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. UNDER

0

91 T 0 87

19 E

3 18 12 LICENCE FROM ONTARIO MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES, © QUEENS PRINTER 2014 - E

3 VT C DRAY TON P H 9 Z ROTHBURY 2. PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR DATUM: NAD 83 20 86 S 2 13 17 R 8 16 E 1 90 E COORDINATE SYSTEM: UTM ZONE 18 VERTICAL DATUM: CGVD28 H 4

0 S 0 T 1 85 F

\ 0 0 15 , O 0 0

D 80

B N

3 21 3 O T X 3 3 V U W R 0 23 P V AVE 0 81 R O 5 5 P 82 IN ER

K I H _ T D 22 84 A E N M 0 W E S

G V

4 C W O

\ R P A S I S

O

I

P R T E 111 D A

_ L 83 B D CHEL D H C SEA DR R L

S W U C H _ R N 3 S C D CLIENT 9 A E T 2 V A AY L 8 I

W M

1 A N S 4 T E CANADA LANDS COMPANY CLC LIMITED T 1 I T \ O V O

J A N N H O R I S R P A E P R K Y F

A O _ D Y W PROJECT 9 A L D

R L 9 E I \ I V H MO T e I N NTREAL f R R E D N f E i D l R R TREE CONSERVATION REPORT E c G L

E A M k CA V E T R c RPEN A NT E o E

T R S ER N O FORMER CFB ROCKCLIFFE LANDS M

R W AY R U 0 0 _ O S H S 5 5

B T D A 7 Y K 7

F F G AIR A TITLE E 2 HAV C 2 EN W E

C A 3 3

\ L N B M

0 S 0 y

5 A 5 n S L I a CURRENT VEGETATION B

O H p B

L T m L A G F P A o B L F

R U I IT N H G T

C T E ANY G _ DR O H S s S G m d C CONSULTANT 2014-12-16 n R P YYYY-MM-DD m H A a 5

L D V E T 2 _ C T E a L d A A DESIGNED FIN a D G

n R R a S A C \ O PREPARED S JEM M

I N D T _ R l S a Y i U t R R REVIEWED FIN

a R A N VT p P U I D ROMULUS S Q T \ D e R Y v SM

i L APPROVED t A c RE S

A T T \ N : O PROJECT NO. PHASE REV. MAP N M

: h t 1418293 3000 0 a 449500 449750 450000 450250 450500 450750 451000 451250 451500 P 1 0 449500 449750 450000 450250 450500 450750 451000 451250 451500 LEGEND

CATEGORY 1 BUTTERNUT

CATEGORY 2 BUTTERNUT RETAINABLE TREE

POTENTIALLY RETAINABLE TREE

ROCKCLIFFE SITE 0 0

5 5 STORM DETENTION POND 2 2 4 4 3 3 0 0

5 5 A - Z TREE GROUPINGS

Z 0 0

0 62 72 0 0 61 0

4 60 4 3 3 0 0

5 58 5 59 63 R 57 65 67 Z 27 A 68 66 70 Z 109 71 108 69 F M 74 KEY MAP 0 0

5 73 5 7 D 76 53 B 7 3 52 3 3 3

0 75 C 0 5 B 5 L

I 26 25 SITE

National Geographic, Esri, 0 0 0 0 5 5

3 3 DeLorme, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, 3 3 0 0 5 5 USGS, NASA, ESA, METI,

110

107

0 75 150 300

0 100 0 5 99 5 2 2 1:7,500 METRES 3 3 : 3 3 M 0 P 0 5 5 O R

96 F

95 D E I F

NOTE(S) I D

24 1. THIS FIGURE IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ACCOMPANYING GOLDER O M

1

ASSOCIATES LTD. REPORT NO. 1418293 N E E

Z B

S d A x H m

.

REFERENCE(S) E 2 Z 0 I - H S 1 1. LAND INFORMATION ONTARIO (LIO) DATA PRODUCED BY GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. UNDER Z 0 T 0 E

3 LICENCE FROM ONTARIO MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES, © QUEENS PRINTER 2014 - E 3 H 9 Z 2. PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR DATUM: NAD 83 S 2

8 E

1 COORDINATE SYSTEM: UTM ZONE 18 VERTICAL DATUM: CGVD28 H 4 0 0 T 1

\ 0 0 , 0 0 D N 3 3 O 3 3 W R 0 0 O 5 5 P H _ 0 S

4 \ S I S

I T E A _ H C L W

C H _ 3 S CLIENT C 9 T 2 A 8 M 1

4

CANADA LANDS COMPANY CLC LIMITED T 1 \ O J N

O S R E P O _ PROJECT 9 D

9 \ T e f N f i l TREE CONSERVATION REPORT E c M k c E o FORMER CFB ROCKCLIFFE LANDS R R U 0 0 _ S 5 5 B A 7 7

F TITLE E 2 2 C 3 3 \ M

0 0 y 5 5 n S I a PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVED VEGETATION H p T m o F I C _ s m d CONSULTANT 2014-12-16 n

YYYY-MM-DD m a 5 L 2 _ a

d DESIGNED FIN a n a C \ PREPARED JEM M I _ l a i t REVIEWED FIN a p S \ e

v SM

i APPROVED t c A \ : PROJECT NO. PHASE REV. MAP N

: h t 1418293 3000 0 a 449500 449750 450000 450250 450500 450750 451000 451250 451500 P 2 0 TREE CONSERVATION REPORT FORMER CFB ROCKCLIFFE LANDS

APPENDIX B List of Individual Trees

March 2015 Report No. 1418293

March 2015 List of Individual Trees Contemplated for Retention On‐Site 1418293

Final Determination on Tree # Latitude Longitude Species Dbh (cm) Condition Crown Radius (m) Notes Retention (based on current draft plan)

1 45.450046 ‐75.639841 Burr Oak 136.7 Good 10.5 Crown appears in good shape. Retained Specimen tree. 2 45.452697 ‐75.636935 Bitternut Hickory 66.6 Good 7 N/A Not retained 3 45.452729 ‐75.638178 White Elm 57.3 Good 5No sign of Dutch Elm Disease. Not retained 6 45.450718 ‐75.64102 White Pine 55.7 Good 6 Very slight yellowing in crown but Not retained otherwise healthy. 11 45.449576 ‐75.642885 Blue/White Spruce Clump Average ~32 Good 4 Clump Not retained 12 45.449365 ‐75.642914 White Spruce 38.6 Good 4 Not retained 13 45.449314 ‐75.642999 White Spruce 38.6 Good 3.5 Some seeping from branch stubs. Not retained 14 45.449333 ‐75.643406 White Pine 65.5 Good 6 Slight lean over road. Slight thinning in Not retained upper crown. 15 45.449053 ‐75.643739 White Pine 67.3 Fair 7.5 N/A Not retained 16 45.449072 ‐75.643631 White Pine 41.7 Fair 4 N/A Not retained 17 45.449109 ‐75.643516 White Pine 62.7 Fair 7 N/A Not retained 18 45.449156 ‐75.643772 White Pine 51.6 Good 4.5 N/A Not retained 19 45.449172 ‐75.643901 White Pine 67.8 Good 8 N/A Not retained 20 45.448964 ‐75.644266 White Pine 71 Good 8 N/A Not retained 21 45.448953 ‐75.644286 White Pine 73.5 Good 8.5 Very top of crown is somewhat thin. Not retained

22 45.448526 ‐75.644241 White Pine 52.4 Good 7 Some seeping, likely just from wounds Not retained but possibly from blister rust.

24 45.450133 ‐75.638781 Burr Oak 76.7 Good 9.5 Potentially long lived tree. Nice, Retained balanced crown. 25 45.454609 ‐75.634108 Bitternut Hickory 62.2 Good 5.5 Possibly some Fomopsis nodules, but Retained healthy. 26 45.454568 ‐75.63447 Bitternut Hickory 63.9 Good 8 N/A Retained 27 45.456731 ‐75.63248 Bitternut Hickory 74.6 Good 8.5 Nice, well balanced crown. Potentially retained 51 45.455379 ‐75.628263 Sugar Maple 73.4 Good 5.5 Active seam on main bole and power Not retained line tied into tree. 52 45.455418 ‐75.628267 Sugar Maple 52 Good 5 N/A Retained 53 45.455459 ‐75.627861 Sugar Maple 73.7 Good 8 White face wound on bole healing well. Retained

Golder Associates

N:\Active\2014\1126 - ES&A\1418293 Canada Lands CFB Rockcliffe EIS and TCR\Reporting\TCR\Appendices\Appendix B_Tree List.xlsx Page 1 of 3 March 2015 List of Individual Trees Contemplated for Retention On‐Site 1418293

Final Determination on Tree # Latitude Longitude Species Dbh (cm) Condition Crown Radius (m) Notes Retention (based on current draft plan)

57 45.457459 ‐75.629137 Sugar Maple 79.7 Good 7.5 Very healthy crown. Potentially retained 58 45.457527 ‐75.627882 Sugar Maple 93 Good 8.5 Very healthy crown. Potentially retained 59 45.457561 ‐75.62987 Sugar Maple 82.4 Fair 7.5 Fruiting bodies (shelf mushroom) on Potentially retained main bole near ground. Likely from demolition damage. Healthy crown.. 60 45.457659 ‐75.629705 Sugar Maple 85.6 Good 8 Some major branch dieback but Potentially retained generally still healthy. 61 45.457736 ‐75.629346 Sugar Maple 74.3 Good 6.5 Relatively long bole and crown higher Potentially retained than its neighbours. Cavity in upper crown healing nicely. 62 45.457755 ‐75.628556 Sugar Maple 85.7 Good 7.5 Potentially retained 63 45.457559 ‐75.628248 Green Ash 57 Good 6 No external sign of Emerald Ash Borer Potentially retained

65 45.457015 ‐75.626769 Sugar Maple 72.4 Good 8.5 Well balanced crown. Potentially retained 66 45.456898 ‐75.626734 Sugar Maple 48.9 Good 7 N/A Potentially retained 67 45.456835 ‐75.626774 Sugar Maple 63 Good 7 N/A Potentially retained 68 45.456659 ‐75.626818 Sugar Maple 66.5 Good 8 Well balanced crown. Potentially retained 69 45.456611 ‐75.626802 Sugar Maple 52.5 Good 5.5 Active wildlife cavity in base of tree. Potentially retained 70 45.456734 ‐75.626943 Bitternut Hickory 49.6 Good 5 N/A Potentially retained 71 45.456642 ‐75.626692 Sugar Maple 52.3 Good 6 Tall and straight with well balanced Potentially retained crown. 72 45.457772 ‐75.628187 Sugar Maple 88.5 Good 9 N/A Potentially retained 73 45.455697 ‐75.629182 Silver Maple 96.3 Good 8 Grouping of 3 Retained 74 45.455782 ‐75.629365 Silver Maple 56 Good 7 Grouping of 3 Retained 76 45.455686 ‐75.629333 White Spruce 31.7 Good 3 Larger conifer in area of few conifers. Retained

77 45.4501 ‐75.635409 Silver Maple 52.7 Good 5 N/A Retained 78 45.449952 ‐75.634946 Silver Maple 44.4 Good 5 N/A Not retained 82 45.448448 ‐75.637289 Sugar Maple 70.6 Good 6 Well balanced crown. Not retained 83 45.448246 ‐75.63748 Sugar Maple 64.9 Good 6 Well balanced crown. Not retained 84 45.448567 ‐75.637903 White Elm 71.2 Good 9 White Elm Dutch Elm Disease concerns Not retained but healthy now. A large, impressive tree.

Golder Associates

N:\Active\2014\1126 - ES&A\1418293 Canada Lands CFB Rockcliffe EIS and TCR\Reporting\TCR\Appendices\Appendix B_Tree List.xlsx Page 2 of 3 March 2015 List of Individual Trees Contemplated for Retention On‐Site 1418293

Final Determination on Tree # Latitude Longitude Species Dbh (cm) Condition Crown Radius (m) Notes Retention (based on current draft plan)

85 45.448771 ‐75.638095 Sugar Maple 71.7 Good 6 Well balanced crown. Not retained 86 45.449007 ‐75.637706 Weeping Willow 95.5 Good 7.5 N/A Not retained 87 45.449433 ‐75.638003 White Spruce 43.7 Good 3.5 N/A Not retained 88 45.449488 ‐75.63805 White Spruce 46.9 Good 4.5 N/A Not retained 89 45.4495 ‐75.638029 White Pine 48.2, 44.1 Good 8 Double stemmed. Not retained 90 45.449215 ‐75.638564 Silver Maple 82.5 Good 10 Has wildlife nesting and feeding Not retained cavities on one limb but in good condition. 91 45.449254 ‐75.638569 Silver Maple 92.3 Good 9 N/A Not retained 92 45.449693 ‐75.637167 Basswood 68.1, 59.3, 58.4 Fair 11 Active wildlife nesting cavity in one Not retained limb. 95 45.450456 ‐75.639359 Weeping Willow 131.5 Good 11 N/A Retained 96 45.450564 ‐75.639682 Burr Oak 66.2 Good 8 N/A Retained 99 45.450944 ‐75.638595 Sugar Maple 37.6 Good 4 Well balanced crown. Potentially retained 100 45.451044 ‐75.637775 Weeping Willow 104.6 Good 12 N/A Potentially retained 101 45.453305 ‐75.635845 Sugar Maple 83.5 Good 7 N/A Not retained 102 45.453622 ‐75.635794 Silver Maple Group 17.8 ‐ 85.0 Good Various Grouping of 15 along corner. Not retained 103 45.45328 ‐75.63638 Silver Maple 64.8 Good 8.5 N/A Not retained 104 45.452556 ‐75.638044 Silver Maple 85.7 Good 10 N/A Not retained 106 45.452168 ‐75.638713 Sugar Maple 71.5 Good 9.5 N/A Not retained 107 45.451852 ‐75.640847 White Pine 78.1 Good 7 N/A Potentially retained 108 45.456305 ‐75.635911 Butternut 23.5 Good 3.5 N/A Retained 109 45.456456 ‐75.635589 Butternut 4.3 Good 1.5 N/A Retained 110 45.452221 ‐75.634926 Silver Maple Group 20.2 ‐ 74.6 Fair ‐ Good Various Row along Codd's Road. Not retained 111 45.448275 ‐75.643821 Red Maple 72.7 Good 6 N/A Not retained 112 45.454991 ‐75.627838 Rock Elm 90.7 Good 9 DBH measured below low fork. Rare Not retained tree of this size and species.

Golder Associates

N:\Active\2014\1126 - ES&A\1418293 Canada Lands CFB Rockcliffe EIS and TCR\Reporting\TCR\Appendices\Appendix B_Tree List.xlsx Page 3 of 3

Golder Associates Ltd. 1931 Robertson Road Ottowa, Ontario, K2H 5B7 Canada T: +1 (613) 592 9600