The Middlesex Natural Heritage Study

11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 1 of 121 Attachment 3

A Natural Heritage Study to Identify Significant Woodland Patches in Middlesex County

Prepared by: Upper Thames River Conservation Authority in cooperation with the Middlesex Natural Heritage Study Steering Committee

Final Draft July 2003 11.B.7 - CW

OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e xPage N a t 2 u ofr a 121l H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3 Table of Contents

Table of Contents ...... i

List of Tables ...... ii

List of Figures ...... iii

1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Project Coordination ...... 2 1.2 Project phases ...... 2 1.3 Budget ...... 2

2. Study Area ...... 3

3. Methods ...... 6 3.1 Selection of Sites for Inventory ...... 6 3.2 Landowner Contact ...... 6 3.3 Field Survey Methods ...... 6 3.3.1 vascular plants ...... 6 3.3.2 vegetation communities ...... 6 3.3.3 woodland patch type ...... 7 3.4 Field Data Entry and Analysis ...... 8 3.4.1 database ...... 8 3.5 Mapping and Geographical Information System Analysis ...... 8 3.5.1 update woodland patch layer ...... 8 3.5.2 change in forest composition ...... 9 3.5.3 spatial parameters ...... 9 3.6 Statistical Analysis ...... 10

4. Results and Analysis ...... 11 4.1 Woodland Physiography ...... 11 4.2 Landowner Contact ...... 12 4.3 Change in Forest Composition ...... 12 4.4 Field Survey Findings ...... 13 4.4.1 vascular plants ...... 13 4.4.2 vegetation communities ...... 18 4.4.3 woodland patch type ...... 23 4.5 Results of Mapping and GIS Analysis ...... 23 4.5.1 woodland patch size ...... 23 4.5.2 woodland patch interior ...... 23 4.5.3 forest connectivity ...... 23 4.6 Results of the Statistical Analysis ...... 26 4.6.1 native species richness ...... 26 4.6.2 non-native species richness ...... 27 4.6.3 weediness ...... 28 4.6.4 mean conservatism coefficient ...... 28 4.6.5 basal area ...... 30 4.7 Summary of Key Results and Recommendations ...... 30

42i 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e xPage N a t 3 u ofr a 121l H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

5. Identification of Significant Woodland Patches ...... 32 5.1 Rationale for Landscape Criteria ...... 32 5.2 Development of Landscape Criteria ...... 33 5.2.1 criterion 1 ...... 33 5.2.2 criterion 2 ...... 33 5.2.3 criterion 3 ...... 34 5.2.4 criterion 4 ...... 35 5.2.5 criterion 5 ...... 35 5.2.6 criterion 6 ...... 36 5.3 Identification of Significant Woodlands ...... 36 5.4 Summary of Key Points and Recommendations ...... 37

6. Implementation ...... 38 6.1 Implementation Tools ...... 38 6.2 Land Use Planning ...... 38

7. References ...... 39

8. Appendices Appendix 1 Landowner Contact Package ...... A1-1 Appendix 2 Standard Field Data Forms ...... A2-1 Appendix 3 Glossary ...... A3-1 Appendix 4 Database Relationship Diagram ...... A4-1 Appendix 5 Vascular Plants of Middlesex County ...... A5-1 Appendix 6 Geodatabase Digital Mapping Layers ...... A6-1 Appendix 7 Tree Species by Physiographic Type ...... A7-1 Appendix 8 Landowner Follow-up Package ...... A8-1 Appendix 9 Recognized Natural Heritage Features in Middlesex County ...... A9-1

List of Tables

Table 1. Project Revenue (Cash) ...... 1 Table 2. Forest cover of counties abutting and including Middlesex County ...... 4 Table 3. Forest health indicators and landscape parameters calculated for each surveyed patch in Middlesex County ...... 10 Table 4. Comparison between the area of physiographic types in Middlesex County and the area covered by woodlands for each physiographic type ...... 11 Table 5. The average wetness coefficient for all native plants found in a particular physiographic type ...... 18 Table 6. Regressional analysis table showing relationship between native species richness per patch and the independent landscape variables ...... 27 Table 7. Regressional analysis table showing relationship between non-native plant species and the independent landscape variables ...... 27 Table 8. Total native and non-native plant species richness, mean number of native and non-native plant species per woodland patch and mean conservatism per woodland patch in nine woodland patch size classes ...... 28 Table 9. Regressional analysis table showing relationship between sum of weediness scores per patch and the independent landscape variables ...... 28 Table 10. List of the six landscape criteria used to evaluate woodland patches in Middlesex County ...... 32 Table 11. The percent of woodland patches in geographic Middlesex County that meet a certain number of criteria ...... 36

43ii 11.B.7 - CW

OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e xPage N a t 4 u ofr a 121l H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3 List of Figures

Figure 1. Location of Middlesex County in southwestern Ontario ...... 3 Figure 2. Location of Middlesex County in the forest regions of southern Ontario ...... 3 Figure 3. Physiography of Middlesex County ...... 4 Figure 4. The proportion of physiographic types for Middlesex County ...... 5 Figure 5. Calculation of basal area showing a) good forest management with a mixture of trees of different size classes and b) poor forest management with only small trees remaining ...... 7 Figure 6. Calculation of woodland patch interior ...... 9 Figure 7. A comparison of the relative dominance of canopy tree species in the surveyed patches between the 1950s to 1960s and data collected in the field for MNHS and LSWS ...... 13 Figure 8. The number of native species (excluding grasses and sedges) that occur in a certain number of patches ...... 14 Figure 9. The number of non-native species (excluding grasses and sedges) that occur in a certain number of patches ...... 15 Figure 10. The number of plant species found only once in Middlesex County per area of physiographic type studied in MNHS and LSWS ...... 15 Figure 11. Distribution of the conservatism coefficient for native plant species (excluding grasses and sedges) for all of Middlesex County and for plants surveyed in the MNHS and LSWS ...... 16 Figure 12. Sum of patch weediness scores per sampled area for each physiographic type ...... 17 Figure 13. Distribution of the coefficient of wetness for native plant species (excluding grasses and sedges) for all of Middlesex County and for plants surveyed in the MNHS and LSWS ...... 17 Figure 14. Comparison of the average coefficient of wetness per patch for herbaceous plants and trees ...... 18 Figure 15. Proportion of woodland communities of a particular successional age ...... 19 Figure 16. Soil textures of Middlesex County ...... 19 Figure 17. Diameter size class distribution of upland hardwood trees in Middlesex County compared with the recommended residual diameter size class according to the provincial standard ...... 21 Figure 18. Basal area distribution of medium and large trees in upland hardwood woodland patches surveyed in MNHS ...... 21 Figure 19. Basal area of medium and large upland trees plotted against average tree size for forest communities surveyed in MNHS ...... 22 Figure 20. Disturbance scores summed over all woodland patches surveyed in MNHS ...... 22 Figure 21. The distribution of woodland patch size class in Middlesex County by a) the number of woodland patches and b) the total area of woodland patches ...... 24 Figure 22. Distribution of interior size classes for woodland patches in Middlesex County ...... 25 Figure 23. The amount of interior for patch sizes between 6 to 15 ha in area ...... 25 Figure 24. Woodland patches in Middlesex County that are greater than 10 ha and buffered by 100 m on outside of patch ...... 26 Figure 25. Regression of a) native and b) non-native plant species richness against patch area surveyed in MNHS and LSWS ...... 29 Figure 26. Regression of mean conservatism coefficient against patch area for surveyed patches in MNHS and LSWS ...... 30 Figure 27. Woodland patches in Middlesex County that meet one or more landscape criteria ...... 37

44iii 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e xPage N a t 5 u ofr a 121l H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

3. To develop land use planning information and policy to 1. Introduction enable the protection and rehabilitation of the County’s forest-dominated natural heritage features and systems. The MNHS will provide criteria for the local definition of woodland recognition, associated criterion mapping The Middlesex Natural Heritage Study (MNHS) was for significant woodlands and identification of sites for initiated in 1999, when the County of Middlesex asked the future restoration and rehabilitation. five Conservation Authorities with jurisdiction within its boundaries, as well as the Ontario Ministry of Natural 4. To encourage and facilitate private stewardship and Resources (OMNR), to participate in a natural heritage study conservation, as well as public education. that would provide information on woodland significance. Middlesex County recognized the need to develop a solid 5. To increase the representation of forest-dominated natural information and policy basis for its woodland and wetland heritage features in the County. features, in order to fulfil the County’s obligations under the Provincial Policy Statement. The County had adopted The MNHS is a pilot project for the Carolinian Canada Big an official plan which identified the natural heritage areas Picture Project and the Ministry of Natural Resources of Provincial significance in 1997 but it was recognized Ecological Land Classification System (ELC) for Southern that other natural heritage areas on the landscape are critical Ontario (Lee et al. 1998), as well as landowner outreach to the health of the County’s natural heritage system. and stewardship approaches. The MNHS provides a methodology where detailed, site specific woodland Woodlands are important components of the County’s information is combined with landscape level analysis tools natural heritage system. The definition of a woodland in to identify woodlands which are considered to be of County context of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) are treed significance. For the site specific field component of the areas that provide environmental and economic benefits such study, the study area was limited to the lands within the as erosion prevention, water retention, provision of habitat, corporate jurisdiction of the County of Middlesex. The recreation and the sustainable harvest of woodland products. study limit was expanded to include the geographic County For the purposes of this report, woodlands cover the for the landscape level analysis component. The application continuum from wetland (bottomland) through to upland, of the landscape methodology to the broader study area does and include treed areas, woodlots and forested areas. allow for the identification of significant woodland patches Woodland and forest are considered equivalent terms. All that are beyond the Corporate boundary of the County of woodlands or forests that occur within wetlands, as well as Middlesex. uplands that are at least 0.5 ha in size, were subject to criteria for designation as significant in Middlesex County. While the primary focus of the study is to identify woodland patches that are of County significance, the study also needed The original partners in the project agreed to proceed with to anticipate methods for implementing the study findings a scientific study of the County’s woodland ecosystem which to achieve the goals that were identified. With the County would allow for the identification of areas of County of Middlesex having a fairly new official plan, and the significance and consider options for maintaining and expectation that the MNHS would serve as a background enhancing these areas for future generations. The following document to support the first five year review of the official specific study goals were identified: plan, it is not surprising that land use planning was contemplated throughout the process as a means of 1. To collect biological information on the County’s forest- implementing the goals of the MNHS. While there is a dominated ecosystems (e.g. woodlands, wetlands) that focus on implementation of the study findings through the would act as background information for the woodland planning process, it is also recognized that there are other system in official plan policy (County and local plans). means of implementation that should be explored. To address this, a brief discussion on implementation options 2. To encourage self-sustaining natural ecosystems by is included in this report. increasing the certainty about woodland patches on the landscape that support areas of provincial significance, such as ANSIs (Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest) and PSWs (Provincially Significant Wetlands), as well as areas of local interest such as ESAs (Ecologically Significant Areas) and LSWs (Locally Significant Wetlands). The MNHS will provide baseline data for these supporting natural heritage features.

1 11.B.7 - CW

OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e xPage N a t 6 u ofr a 121l H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

1.1 PROJECT COORDINATION PHASE III: GIS MODELLING & ANALYSIS, FIELD INVENTORIES (2001) The MNHS was coordinated by the Upper Thames River • Set up field database Conservation Authority (UTRCA) in partnership with the • Complete landowner contact approach and education County of Middlesex, Middlesex Stewardship Committee, program Elgin Stewardship Council, Middlesex County • Field inventory in selected woodland patches across the Conservation Authorities (Ausable Bayfield, St. Clair County using ELC Region, Lower Thames Valley, Kettle Creek and Upper • GIS modelling and analysis of patch parameters Thames River), City of London, Carolinian Canada, Nature including: patch size, shape, amount of forest interior, Conservancy of Canada, Ministry of Natural Resources, proximity to satellite woodlots, etc. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Thames • Data entry, analysis and documentation of field results Talbot Land Trust. A review of the draft methodology and the derived criterion mapping was undertaken with the Value: $48,000.00 partners. PHASE IV: PRODUCTS/IMPLEMENTATION (2002) 1.2 PROJECT PHASES • Finalize data trends and scientific findings • Develop mapping showing County-wide natural heritage The project is being funded from several sources. The system UTRCA is managing the funding and the service contracts • Develop policy implementation options for this project. The project tasks with costs are summarized • Assist lower tier municipalities with implementation as follows: • Develop land stewardship programs • Finalize woodland significance criteria and assessment PHASE I: GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION guidelines SYSTEMS (GIS) MAPPING (1999) • Refine Conservation Authority policies and program • Transcribe and digitize heritage and hazard information targets • Import and verify data from OMNR and Middlesex • Prepare summary reports County • Identify future project stages • Compile data layers for the five Authorities to assist with Conservation Authority planning services Value: $24,000.00

Value: $6,600.00 (completed by UTRCA staff as an in- kind contribution) 1.3 BUDGET

PHASE II: LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION/ The total project budget for the MNHS is $102,600.00. This CLASSIFICATION (2000) amount was funded by cash ($63,500) from various sources • Establish steering committee (Table 1) and in-kind contributions from the project partners • Develop woodland significance criteria and assessment ($39,100) including Conservation Authorities and OMNR. guidelines The UTRCA managed the funding and the service contracts • Review background reports and studies for this project. • Verify woodland patch location and boundaries Table 1. Project Revenue (Cash) • Review and assimilate Big Picture data • Apply scoping methodology to identify woodland patches Amount Source for field inventories • Complete drive-by assessments/audits for final $14,500.00 Middlesex Stewardship Committee verification $5,000.00 Carolinian Canada $24,000.00 County of Middlesex • Finalize known information mapping layers on GIS $15,000.00 Ontario Trillium Foundation with Elgin • Complete preliminary woodland patch analysis using GIS Stewardship Council support $5,000.00 Nature Conservancy of Canada Value: $24,000.00 $63,500.00

2 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e xPage N a t 7 u ofr a 121l H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

municipality in the County is the City of London at 42,298 2. Study Area ha, it was not included as part of the study area because it is more urban than other parts of the County and might skew the results.

Middlesex County lies in the transition zone between the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence forest region to the north and the Carolinian Life Zone or Southern Mixed Deciduous forest region to the south (Figure 2). Remnant forests contain plants and animals with both the northern and southern affinities. The Carolinian Life Zone makes up less than 1% of Canada’s land area, yet boasts more species of plants and animals than anywhere else in Canada. Archival records suggest that this rich, forest dominated ecosystem supported abundant populations of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians. Many of these species, such as the Tulip Tree, Sassafras, Eastern Spiny Softshell Turtle and Acadian Flycatcher, as well as several species of fish and mussels, are not found anywhere else in Canada.

Agriculture is the predominant land use and economic mainstay in the County. Between 1825 and 1875, increased settlement and the push for economic development led to the very rapid depletion of a large portion of the original forest for agriculture, timber, fuel wood and railway construction. The reduction was so rapid that by 1860 the forests of Middlesex County were depleted by more than 60% and by 1910 by more than 90% (Department of Planning and Development 1952). In 1940, the census of Canada showed woodland coverage for Middlesex County Figure 1. Location of Middlesex County in (not including London) to be 7.8 %. Forest cover has since southwestern Ontario. rebounded to 12.3%. The County of Middlesex is located in the agricultural heartland of southwestern Ontario between Oxford County to the east, Lambton County to the west, Perth and Huron Counties to the north and Elgin County to the south (Figure 1). According to the 1999 Middlesex County Official Plan, the County is in the watersheds of five Conservation Authorities (the Upper Thames River, St. Clair Region, Ausable- Bayfield, Kettle Creek and the Lower Thames Valley) and is a federation of eight municipalities covering an area of approximately 284,464 ha (1098 square miles). Although the largest

Figure 2. Location of Middlesex County in the forest regions of southern Ontario.

3 11.B.7 - CW

OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e xPage N a t 8 u ofr a 121l H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

Table 2. Forest cover of counties abutting and including to impact the environment in southern Ontario. Suburban Middlesex County. Forest cover is based on the 1979 - 1981 sprawl and the creation and expansion of power lines, golf Ontario Forest Resource Inventory and summarized in Riley courses, road networks, aggregate extraction, etc. have and Mohr (1994). created exaggerated flood regimes and further fragmented forests and wetlands into isolated components, reducing the COUNTY FOREST COVER (%) habitat of flora and fauna. Middlesex 12.3 Oxford 13.4 Figure 3 shows the geographical (i.e. spatial) distribution Perth 9.0 of physiographic types in Middlesex County while Figure Huron 15.3 4 illustrates the relative proportion of physiographic types Lambton 10.5 found in Middlesex County. Till Moraine and Chatham-Kent 4.2 Undrumlinized Till Plain occur primarily in the north east. Elgin 15.2 Moraines, which comprise approximately 20% of the County, are composed chiefly of unsorted glacial materials Table 2 shows the percent of forest cover for all counties and were formed at halts in the advance or retreat of the ice abutting Middlesex County. Although it is difficult to define front. They may be classified as either Till or Kame, changes in total forest cover over time due to varying depending on whether they were laid down on land (Till) mapping criteria and the limitations of each source, the or under water (Kame). Till Plains account for approximately County’s forest cover appears to have increased since the 28% of the County and are formed under moving glaciers. 1940s. This increase is consistent with trends across all of Till Plains can be beveled or undrumlinized. Beveled Till North America at this time (Tchir and Johnson 2002) and Plains have been molded into long oval hills (called drumlins may be attributed to the implementation of tree planting or whale backs) or into ridges and flutings with natural programs and to changes in land management, where drainage. Undrumlinized Till Plains do not have definite marginal agricultural areas were abandoned and left to ridging. naturally regenerate. However, human expansion continues

Figure 3. Physiography of Middlesex County.

4 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e xPage N a t 9 u ofr a 121l H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

Sand Plain (20%)

Clay Plain (21%)

Peat Muck / Kame (0.2%) Beach (1%)

Till Plain (27.8%)

Till Moraine (19.5%)

Spillway (10.5%)

Figure 4. The proportion of physiographic types for Middlesex County (source: Chapman and Putnam 1972).

To the east and southwest of London, broad sand and clay plains account for approximately 40% of Middlesex County. Sand Plains are the remains of deltas and off-shore sand deposits from post-glacial bodies of water. Clay Plains are bottom deposits of glacial lakes. Spillways are interspersed throughout the east and comprise approximately 12% of Middlesex County. Spillways are meltwater channels formed by glacial waters and are characterized by surficial deposits of sand and gravel.

Muck and peat deposits, which occur in scattered pockets throughout the County, only account for 0.2% of the area. Muck and peat are formed in areas of poor drainage by the accumulation of decayed vegetation (organic matter). Muck soils are developed through the accumulation of eighteen inches or more of decomposed organic matter and occur in low lying areas with no surface drainage. Peat is formed in areas where the water table is permanently high and the organic matter does not decompose completely.

5 11.B.7 - CW

OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e Pagex N a t10 u rof a l121 H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

to ensure that there would be no financial cost to the 3. Methods landowners when returning their completed consent forms. The package was mailed to all 556 landowners.

This chapter provides a general summary of the 3.3 FIELD SURVEY METHODS methodology used to develop trends in Middlesex County. Sampling methodology and biological information from Field data forms were produced using prototypes from the both the 68 woodland patches surveyed in the Middlesex Ecological Land Classification (ELC) for Southern Ontario Natural Heritage Study (MNHS) and the 85 woodland (Lee et al. 1998) and modified for this study. For both the patches surveyed in the City of London Sub-Watershed MNHS and the LSWS, field surveys concentrated on Studies (LSWS) by Bowles et al. (1994) were used in vascular plants. Field assessments for the MNHS were developing trends for Middlesex County. carried out in 68 woodland patches by two surveyors, a vegetation specialist and field assistant, on 34 dates between June 14 and August 22, 2001. Field assessments for the 3.1 SELECTION OF SITES FOR LSWS were carried out in 85 woodland patches by three surveyors on 57 dates between April 18 and June 27, 1994. INVENTORY For both studies, patches had to be at least 0.5 ha in size and were surveyed at approximately the same level of effort, Approximately 34,990 ha (12.3 %) of Middlesex County is based on time per unit area. woodlands, broken into approximately 8684 woodland patches. Given the size of the County, landscape For the field assessments, each of the 153 woodland patches stratification was used to select sites in both the MNHS selected for inventory was visited once. Patches were and LSWS. The County was divided by physiographic units surveyed by walking in a criss-cross fashion across the patch in order to sample a range of woodland types and sizes. over its entire length (keeping 30 m from the edge to avoid Then, a range of woodland patch sizes was selected from edge effects) in an attempt to apply a uniform level of effort each. A total of 200 woodland patches were selected. In per unit area. Woodland patch and community identification the LSWS, the landscape was further subdivided according information, names of surveyors, slope, aspect and a brief to sub-watersheds. description of the location were recorded. For MNHS, aerial photos of each patch from 1998 ortho imagery were used by the surveyors to confirm patch area and to identify 3.2 LANDOWNER CONTACT potential vegetation community types within the patch.

3.3.1 Vascular Plants In the MNHS, a total of 200 woodland patches representing 556 landowners were selected for sampling. Each woodland patch in the county was given a unique number identifier. For In each woodland / wetland patch, a running list was each property selected, property assessment records were developed for both the MNHS and the LSWS of all vascular obtained from the appropriate township and the township roll plant species that were encountered in a vegetation number was assigned to the property for internal use. A database community. Vascular plants were chosen as the primary was created to record the names and mailing addresses of the indicators of environmental conditions because of the landowners and the location of their properties. The database relative ease with which they can be sampled and because information was added to the Geographic Information System much is known about their distribution in southern Ontario. (GIS) as point attribute files based on a common field for the Specimens of unknown species, or species difficult to woodland patch number. identify, were collected for later identification. Since sedge (i.e. Carex species) identification is a specialized knowledge, Landowner permission was sought to survey the selected the field staff in the MNHS did not feel confident that patches. A landowner contact package was generated that identification was to the level used in the LSWS and so all consisted of a contact letter, a consent form and a fact sheet sedges were removed from the analysis. (Appendix 1). The contact letter explained the purpose of the field inventory, the timing of the field visits, the selection 3.3.2 Vegetation Communities of sites, what would be required of the landowner and how landowners could become involved in the study. The Major vegetation community types identified in each patch consent form provided room for signatures for permission were recorded on field data forms during the floral surveys. or not and comments from the landowner about the study. Community descriptions were adopted from the hierarchical The fact sheet provided information on the purpose of the approach used in the ELC for Southern Ontario (Lee et al. study, project partners and general facts about Middlesex 1998). Community boundaries were confirmed on the aerial County. A self-addressed, stamped envelope was enclosed photo and later digitized in the office. Lee et al. (1998) define a vegetation community type as a group of similar

6 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e Pagex N a t11 u rof a l121 H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

vegetation stands that share common characteristics of vegetation, structure and soils. Communities had to be 0.5 acres or greater in size. This is consistent with Lee et al. (1998), which recommends 0.5 ha as the minimum mapping unit when using vegetation maps at 1:10,000.

For each community, dominant plant species by percent cover and height in the canopy, sub-canopy and shrub layers were recorded in descending order by stratum. All plant species found in the herbaceous layer were recorded for each community.

Soil Type and Moisture Soil type and moisture were recorded in the MNHS for each vegetation community following the methodology outlined in Lee et al. (1998). Each community was sampled once. At each of the soil sampling points, a soil auger was used to sample up to 120 cm deep or to an obstruction. The soil sample was laid out on the ground to measure depth. The soil profile was described by first separating the organic and mineral layers and measuring their depth to determine if the soil was organic (i.e. accumulated organics exceed 40 - 60 cm) or mineral (i.e. accumulated organics are less than 40 cm). To determine effective texture, the soil horizons (i.e. changes in color and soil texture) were then delineated and their depths measured. Depth to mottles was also recorded. Various field tests including the feel, moist cast, ribbon, taste and shine tests were used to differentiate soil texture. Both effective texture and soil texture measurements were used to determine the soil moisture regime and drainage. Since measurements of soil texture did not follow the same methodology in the LSWS, they were not included in the analysis.

Basal Area Basal area measures the area of the forest that is taken up by standing trees (Figure 5). Basal area by tree species and size class was determined for each community in the MNHS by completing prism sweeps in two to five random locations 3.3.3 Woodland Patch Type within each community. Prism sweeps (see Husch et al. 1972 for explanation of technique) were used to record tree Woodland patches were classified following the system species in three tree size classes: small (3-10 cm diameter developed by Lee et al. (1998) in which forests and at breast height), medium (10 - 25 cm diameter at breast woodlands are distinguished on the basis of canopy closure. height) and large (> 25 cm diameter at breast height). According to Lee et al. (1998), any treed community with a Sweeps were separated so that no tree was counted more canopy cover of at least 60 % is classified as a forest. than once and so that sweeps did not overlap the community Woodlands have a canopy cover of coniferous or deciduous boundary. Total basal area, as well as basal area by tree trees between 35 % to 60 % while savannas are treed species and size class, were calculated by multiplying the communities that are often associated with prairie species number of trees by the prism factor and dividing the product and have a cover of 25 % to 35 %. Thickets are characterized by the number of locations. The prism factor represents the by <10% tree cover and > 25% tall shrub cover. Plantations thickness and therefore the degree of the refraction angle of are forests or woodlands that have been planted by humans, the prism (Husch et al. 1972). For MNHS, a prism factor rather than being the product of natural dispersal of 2 was used. Basal area was not recorded in the LSWS mechanisms. Plantations do not include orchards. For the and therefore was not included in this analysis. purposes of this study, all five of these categories are considered to be woodlands (i.e. tree cover > 10% or tall shrub cover > 25%). This applies to both wetland and upland systems.

7 11.B.7 - CW

OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e Pagex N a t12 u rof a l121 H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

Disturbance with a high conservatism score (i.e. 9-10) is considered For each woodland patch in MNHS, major anthropogenic extremely conservative, requiring very limited and disturbances (i.e. plantation, sugar bush operations, non- specialized conditions. There is a low probability that these native plant species, livestock, trails, dams, dumping, earth species will be found in a disturbed habitat. A plant with a movement, recreation and noise) and natural disturbances low score (i.e. 0-3) can tolerate a variety of different (i.e. wind throw, disease or insects, canopy gaps, fire, flood ecological conditions and might be found in a range of and browse) were listed and assessed for both intensity and habitats, either disturbed or not. Wilhelm and Ladd (1988) extent (how widespread). Following Lee et al. (1998), each also emphasize that species with the lowest values have disturbance type was scored from 0-3 for intensity and 0-3 little affinity for conditions that occurred prior to European for extent as they applied to the whole patch. Intensity and settlement while those with higher numerical values tend extent scores were then multiplied together and summed to have increasingly greater affinity for native communities over all surveyed patches to produce a score for each and are more likely to be part of stable communities. disturbance type. As well, total human and natural Therefore, the higher the number, the higher the quality of disturbance indices for each patch were calculated by the site. multiplying the intensity and extent scores for each type of disturbance and summing the resulting products for each A conservatism coefficient (CC) was assigned to each native patch. Therefore, the disturbance index is a composite of plant species recorded in the MNHS and the LSWS. MCC several kinds of disturbance types. Disturbances were not is simply an average of CC values for a given woodland scored in the LSWS and therefore are not included in this patch. Mean conservatism coefficients were calculated for analysis. each inventoried patch in the study.

Weediness 3.4 FIELD DATA ENTRY AND Oldham et al. (1995) also developed weediness coefficients for non-native species. Non-native species that are non- ANALYSIS invasive are given a score of -1. Highly invasive weedy species, that have the potential to invade natural habitats 3.4.1 Database and displace the native flora, are assigned a weediness coefficient of -3. Total weediness was calculated for each The information recorded on the field data forms (Appendix inventoried patch in this study. Average weediness scores 2) were entered into a database for analysis. Appendix 3 were not calculated since measures of species evenness (i.e. contains the glossary and definitions used in the field data how many times a species occurs in a patch) were not forms. Appendix 4 shows the relationships between the recorded. Therefore, very low (large negative) numbers various MNHS databases. The structure of the field data for patches can contain numerous non-invasive (-1) weeds forms and database for the LSWS is outlined in a separate or a few highly invasive (-3) weeds. report by Bowles et al. (1994). Both MNHS and LSWS databases were added to the GIS as point attribute files based Wetness on a common field for the vegetation patch number. The A coefficient of wetness was assigned to native plant species databases were linked to an annotated list of vascular plant by Oldham et al. (1995). Wetness scores range from 5 for species (Appendix 5) developed from Oldham et al. (1995) obligate upland species to -5 for obligate wetland species. that contains additional ecological, taxonomic and status Mean wetness coefficients were also calculated for each information for each plant species. From this data inventoried patch in the study by averaging the scores of all (Appendix 5), the following computations were performed the native species recorded. to assess the state and health of the woodland patches:

Species Richness 3.5 MAPPING AND GEOGRAPHICAL Species richness was calculated by adding together the number of different plant species, both native and non- INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS) native, found in a particular community and summed over ANALYSIS the entire patch. Appendix 6 lists the digitized mapping layers that were used Mean Conservatism Coefficient (MCC) in this study. A Geographical Information System (GIS) The methodology for the MCC was first developed in the was used to overlay the multiple mapping layers and perform Chicago region (Wilhelm and Ladd 1988) and has since detailed data queries for landscape analysis. been adapted to Ontario (Oldham et al. 1995). A conservatism coefficient (CC) between 0 and 10 is assigned 3.5.1 Update Woodland Patch Layer to each native plant species, reflecting each species’ fidelity to a particular habitat type, or the likelihood that any plant Information on the woodland patch boundaries for will be found in a pristine and undisturbed site. A plant Middlesex County was cut from the (1994) Natural

8 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e Pagex N a t13 u rof a l121 H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

Resources Values Information System (NRVIS) database 3.5.2 Change in Forest Composition and provided in NAD 83, UTM Zone 17 format by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). These Comprehensive forest inventories were compiled in the past data provided the basis for the woodland analysis. Since for the Upper Thames Valley (Department of Planning and this mapping source is relatively old, a variety of sources Development 1952), the Lower Thames Valley (Department were used to update the woodland patch cover for the County of Energy and Resources Management 1966), the Ausable of Middlesex: River (Department of Planning and Development 1949), the St. Clair (Department of Energy and Resources • The Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority (ABCA) Management 1965) and Kettle Creek (Department of Energy provided orthoimagery taken in spring 1999 and and Resources Management 1967). At the time of inventory, orthorectified by ABCA. The data was in ECW format most woodland patches greater than 0.5 ha were ground- (digital photography compression format created by Earth truthed by forestry crews and mapped at 1:63,360. GIS Resources mapping) and was referenced as NAD 83, was used to link the dominant tree species recorded in these UTM Zone 17. reports to the updated digital woodland patch layer. Then, GIS was used to compare the dominant tree species • The Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, composition found in the field for the surveyed woodland Municipalities of Thames Center, Middlesex Center, and patches in the MNHS and LSWS to the dominant tree Lucan-Biddulph as well as the County of Middlesex species composition from the historical reports for the same provided orthoimagery taken in spring 2000 and woodland patches. This provided valuable historical orthorectified by Triathlon Ltd . The data is in Mr. SID information for the County. format (digital photography compression format created by Lizardtech Inc. Software Company) and was 3.5.3 Spatial (Landscape) Parameters referenced as NAD 83, UTM Zone 17. Queries were performed with GIS on the updated woodland • The St. Clair River Conservation Authority (SCRCA) patch layer to determine the following spatial parameters identified discrepancies based on their 1992 air for surveyed woodland patches in Middlesex County: photography. The Lower Thames Valley Conservation • woodland patch area (size) Authority (LTVCA) used hard copy maps produced by • woodland patch interior (core) area after a 100 m buffer St. Clair Pipelines Ltd. Ecological Services Group (Map was removed from around the patch perimeter #1. Natural Features. June 1997) to identify areas of (Figure 6) discrepancy. However, the corrections provided by both • distance to nearest neighbouring woodland patch greater the SCRCA and LTVCA could not be geo-referenced than ten hectares in size from the hard copy maps. Therefore, a 5 metre • distance to nearest road / railroad Panchromatic Satellite Image (IRS D 291-39B) taken • distance to nearest ANSI , ESA or wetland (Provincial or May 26, 1998 and referenced as NAD 83 UTM Zone 17 Locally Significant) was provided by the OMNR as a reference for the discrepancies identified by the SCRCA and LTVCA. Colour infrared photography contact prints (1997/1998) at 1:10,000 were also used to identify any discrepancies in the interpretation of the satellite imagery.

ESRI ArcView 8.2 was used to update the woodland patch layer. The data were imported into a geodatabase that has the capability of immediately updating perimeter and area information. The orthoimagery / satellite image was used as a backdrop to the NRVIS information. Individual nodes in woodland patches were adjusted to meet the current shape of the patch based on the ortho / satellite image. Areas that needed to be verified were printed at 1:10,000 and provided to the ecologist for interpretation.

Recognizing that the mapping of woodlands from aerial photography would not reliably distinguish young plantations, early successional forests and continuous or discontinuous valley lands, an aerial reconnaissance was completed by the ecologist. Coordinates from each woodland that needed to be verified were entered as way points into the plane’s GPS. The pilot was then able to fly to the woodland that required verification. 9 11.B.7 - CW

OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e Pagex N a t14 u rof a l121 H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

These spatial parameters were linked to the updated digital woodland patch layer and added to the database. Woodland patch area and interior were also calculated for all woodland patches in Middlesex County, not just the surveyed patches.

3.6 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Each surveyed patch was given a score for each of the forest health indicators and the landscape parameters (Table 3). The GIS was then queried to correlate these forest health indicators to landscape parameters. A series of multiple regressions was used to identify relationships between the health of the woodland patch and the size, shape and distribution of the remaining forest-dominated ecosystems in Middlesex County. Correlations between different physiographic types and forest health indicators were not conducted since certain physiographic classes did not meet an adequate sample size for statistical work.

Table 3. Forest health indicators and landscape parameters calculated for each surveyed patch in Middlesex County.

FOREST HEALTH INDICATORS LANDSCAPE PARAMETERS

native species richness woodland patch area

non-native species richness woodland patch interior

total weediness nearest neighbour greater than 10ha in size

mean conservatism coefficient nearest road / railroad basal area nearest ANSI, ESA or wetland

10 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e Pagex N a t15 u rof a l121 H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

on the nature of the soil overlaying the relatively 4. Results & Analysis impermeable clay layer. In general, flat homogeneous areas have experienced the greatest loss of woodlands due to their high agricultural value.

This chapter provides a general summary of County trends Kame Moraines, Peat and Muck, Beveled Till Plains and based on the MNHS and LSWS field surveys and on spatial Beaches or Shore Cliffs are uncommon physiographic types analysis of the woodland patches in Middlesex County. in Middlesex, yet a relatively large proportion of these areas are covered in woodlands (Table 4). Peat and Muck soils, which occur on valley bottoms, are too saturated to farm unless drained and are generally used for cash crops. 4.1 WOODLAND PHYSIOGRAPHY Remnant wetlands tend to be irregularly shaped and account for a high proportion of the area in these bottom lands. Table 4 is a comparison between the area of physiographic Woodlands in riparian landscapes tend to be long and types in Middlesex County and the area covered by continuous, but irregularly shaped. The strong relief of woodlands for each physiographic type. Although Kame Moraines, Shore Cliffs and Beveled Till Plains are Undrumlinized Till Plains, Till Moraines and Clay Plains not easy to farm and therefore more of these areas are are common physiographic types in Middlesex County wooded. Sandy soils found in Sand Plains, Spillways and (Table 4), only a relatively small proportion of these areas Kame Moraines are dominated by relatively large forest are covered in woodlands. Remnant woodlands in these patches that are irregularly shaped and frequently linked to areas tend to be smaller and of uniform geometric shape, other patches. Sandy soils provide high groundwater occurring as isolated fragments aligned with roads and recharge potential and good drainage to the subsurface. located along lot boundaries at the rear of farm lots. The Undulating topography creates low-lying wet environments absence of relief makes Undrumlinized Till Plains relatively where the water table intersects the surface, contrasting with easy to farm. Till Moraine features are easy to farm in the the well-drained hills. Poor drainage and undulating areas where the ice flattened the landscape, but more difficult topography are not conducive to highly mechanized in areas where deposits of unsorted materials and deep agricultural practices nor to agricultural crops with deeper scouring by the ice heavily dissected the landscape. Flat or taproot systems (Buckman and Brady 1961). clay plains may be good or poor for agriculture, depending Table 4. Comparison between the area of physiographic types in Middlesex County and the area covered by woodlands for each physiographic type.

PHYSIOGRAPHIC AREA IN AREA OF PHYSIOGRAPHIC COMMENTS TYPE COUNTY (ha) TYPE COVERED IN WOODLANDS (ha)

Kame Moraine 284 37 - accounts for less than 3% of the area in Middlesex County - between 10%-15% of kame moraines are woodlands

Peat / Muck 569 67 - accounts for less than 3% of the area in Middlesex County - between 10%-15% of peatlands are woodlands

Beveled Till Plain 2276 312 - accounts for less than 3% of the area in Middlesex County - between 10%-15% of beveled till plains are woodlands

Beach 3414 492 - less than 3% of the area in Middlesex County - between 10%-15% of beaches are woodlands

Spillway 29584 5443 - accounts for 10% of the area in Middlesex County - more than 20% of spillways are woodlands

Till Moraine 55186 5795 - accounts for 20% of the area in Middlesex County - between 10%-15% of till moraines are woodlands

Sand Plain 55755 10259 - accounts for 20% of the area in Middlesex County - approximately 20% of sand plains are woodlands

Clay Plain 59169 8402 - accounts for 20% of the area in Middlesex County - between 10%-15% of clay plains are woodlands

Unbeveled Till 76521 6428 - accounts for more than 25% of the area in Middlesex County Plain - less than 10% of unbeveled till plains are woodland

11 11.B.7 - CW

OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e Pagex N a t16 u rof a l121 H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

A breakdown of treed communities by dominant species is Landowner follow-up is an integral part of any successful given in Appendix 7. Treed communities dominated by landowner contact program. At the conclusion of the Red and Silver Maple occurred in all physiographic types. Middlesex Natural Heritage Study (MNHS), landowners Treed communities dominated by Sugar Maple and Black that granted permission were provided with a follow-up Walnut occurred in all physiographic types except Peat, package containing information specific to their woodland while Ash species (Red and Green) occurred in all patch (Appendix 8). The package consisted of a thank-you physiographic types except Beach. White Elm occurred in letter, a natural heritage fact sheet reiterating the study’s all physiographic types except Kame Moraines. Other goals and summarizing the results, a detailed map of the community dominants varied among the physiographic landowner’s woodland showing community boundaries and types. a description of the plants and animals found on the property during the field visit. It is anticipated that the information in the follow-up package will assist landowners in 4.2 LANDOWNER CONTACT understanding the importance of their woodlands with respect to other woodlands in Middlesex County. Since Of the 556 landowners that were contacted, 245 (44%) long term landowner follow-up is key to developing and responded by returning their consent forms by mail or by maintaining a positive relationship with landowners in phone call. Considering that there was no follow-up contact Middlesex County, landowner contact will continue to be after the initial mailing, the positive response to our request an important aspect of the Middlesex Natural Heritage Study to access properties was greater than anticipated. The rate as final reports are completed and newsletters, workshops of consent was 80% of the total returned forms or 35% of and open houses are scheduled. the total number of landowners that were contacted (i.e. 195 landowners granted permission for a field inventory of their property). Permission was obtained to inventory 96 4.3 CHANGE IN FOREST woodlands in full or in part. However, time and budget COMPOSITION restrictions meant that only 68 woodland patches were inventoried for MNHS. Prior to European settlement in the early nineteenth century, much of southwestern Ontario was covered with relatively The relative frequencies of physiographic types was the continuous tracts of closed canopy hardwood forest. From same for both the 200 patches selected for sampling and the mid 1800s to the mid 1900s, rapid colonization and the 68 patches actually sampled in the field (X2 = 15.507, 0.05, 8 conversion of forest to agricultural land fragmented this X2 = 5.199). When landowner permission was not obs forest into small, isolated fragments. Since the mid-1900s, obtained for all or most of a woodland patch, an alternate agricultural expansion has stabilized, and marginal lands patch was substituted. The relative frequencies of have been left to regenerate back to a semi-natural state. A physiographic types were the same for both the 200 patches comparison of dominant tree species in the historic selected for sampling and the patches where landowner Conservation Authority reports produced from 1950 to permission was not obtained (X2 = 15.507, X2 = 5.092). 0.05, 8 obs the1960s with the species found in the field in 2001 for each of the 153 surveyed woodland patches in Middlesex The positive response to our request to access properties County (Figure 7) can be used to identify changes in forest was similar to that experienced in the Oxford County composition that have occurred over time. Terrestrial Ecosystems Study (UTRCA 1997, Vanderschot 1997). The amount of detail and information provided to The historic forest composition was predominantly Sugar the landowners may have had an overall positive impact on Maple - American Beech. Silver Maple and White Elm the consent rates. However, the landowner contact process occupied similar but poorly drained soils on higher land. could have been improved by: The relative proportions of Silver and Red Maple, ash, aspen, hickory and Tamarack have all increased while White Elm, • contacting landowners before spring when they were not Black Cherry, oak and American Beech have decreased. as busy; The relative dominance of Sugar Maple, Yellow Birch and • explaining in detail how the property would be accessed Basswood has remained the same. Forest management and the amount of time that would be spent on each techniques, combined with the tolerance of tree species to particular property; and shade, may be one explanation for this shift in species • following up the initial contact letter with a phone call if composition. Sugar Maple, considered to be a shade the landowner did not respond. This would have tolerant, climax tree in this region (Rowe 1972), was valued immediately clarified any misunderstandings that the for its timber and for sugar production. It was both desirable landowner might have had about the study. This was not and relatively easy to maintain this species. American done in MNHS because the target number of woodland Beech, on the other hand, is not considered a valuable timber patches was met. tree and it may have been actively managed out for more favourable species. Aspen and ash species, generally

12 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e Pagex N a t17 u rof a l121 H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

field data Canopy Tree Species historical data (CA reports)

Sugar Maple

Ash

Silver/Red Maple

White Elm

Hickory

Aspen

AmericanBeech Beech

Oak

Basswood

Yellow Birch

Tamarack

Black Cherry

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Proportion of Surveyed Area in Middlesex County (%)

Figure 7. A comparison of the relative dominance of canopy tree species in the surveyed patches between the 1950s to 1960s and data collected in the field for MNHS and LSWS. considered to be shade intolerant, early successional trees, 4.4 FIELD SURVEY FINDINGS have increased since the 1950-1960s reports. The increase in these species reflects the pioneer nature of many of the forests today. Black Cherry and oak, also shade intolerant 4.4.1 Vascular Plants species, have not increased since the 1950-1960s reports since they do not readily regenerate after being logged. Sedge (Carex) species were removed from the analysis since Finally, the decrease in elm can be attributed to both recent they were not identified in the MNHS. An assessment of pest outbreaks, such as Dutch Elm disease, and more than the distributions for richness, mean conservative coefficient, 40 years of over logging. wetness and weediness for the remaining vascular plants collected in the MNHS and LSWS showed similar measures Other explanations for the changes in species composition of central tendency and dispersion between the two studies. between the 1950-1960s reports and the 2001 field survey Therefore, the data for MNHS and LSWS were combined could be changes in the farm industry, economic markets to develop trends for the entire County. and drainage technology. Human expansion since the 1950s has caused additional clearing of forested land and draining Species Richness of wetlands for recreational, logging and grazing activities, The number of species recorded in each patch can be used while recent changes in the farming industry have resulted as a measure of overall biological diversity and, therefore, in more lands near riparian areas being left to naturally woodland health. A total of 581 plant species were recorded regenerate. Large scale effects such as climate change may in the MNHS and the LSWS, of which 438 were native also be contributing to the shift in species composition. (143 were non-native). The total number of native species represents approximately 5% of the native flora recorded for Southwestern Ontario and 37% of that recorded for Middlesex County. The number of native plant species recorded per patch ranged from 19 to 248. Sixty-three native

13 11.B.7 - CW

OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e Pagex N a t18 u rof a l121 H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

20 Number Native of Species 10

0 0 20406080100120140 Number of Patches

Figure 8. The number of native species (excluding grasses and sedges) that occur in a certain number of patches. plant species (14% of total) were recorded only once out of More unique native species per sampled area were found in the 153 patches while only 18 native species (4% of total) Beach, Till Moraine and Spillway physiographic types while were recorded in at least 75% of the patches (Figure 8). Peat Muck had the highest number of unique non-native Some of the most common native species include Jack-in- species per sampled area. the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), Enchanter’s Nightshade (Circaea quadrisulcata), Sensitive Fern (Onoclea Mean Conservatism Coefficient (MCC) sensibilis), Virginia Creeper (Parthenocissus inserta), The mean conservatism score for all plants in a patch reflects Mayapple (Podophyllum peltatum), Poison Ivy (Rhus the number of conservative species in that patch. In some radicans) and Riverbank Grape (Vitis riparia). studies, the conservatism score has been used to assess site quality. For example, the City of London (2000) has The number of non-native plant species recorded per patch developed a methodology for evaluating significant ranged from one to 81. Of the 143 non-native plant species woodlands that uses a MCC threshold of 4.5 to assign a recorded in the MNHS and the LSWS, 33 non-native species high priority ranking for a woodland patch, 4.0 to 4.5 for (23% of total) were recorded in only one of the153 patches medium priority and less than 4.0 for low priority. These and only one non-native species (Garlic Mustard - Alliaria values were derived from MCC scores for woodlands officinalis) was recorded in at least 75% of the woodland inventoried for the LSWS. However, meaningful thresholds patches (Figure 9). Other common non-native species for Middlesex County cannot be extrapolated from this data, include Bittersweet Nightshade (Solanum dulcamara), since sedges (Carex), which tend to have high coefficients Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), Common of conservatism, were not identified in the MNHS. Instead, Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) and Herb Robert differences in mean conservatism scores between patches (Geranium robertianum). will be used as an indicator of woodland health.

Figure 10 shows the number of unique species (i.e. native Mean conservatism scores for individual patches ranged from and non-native plant species recorded only once) in each 3.0 to 4.8. Figure 11 shows the frequency distribution of physiographic type per sampled area. All physiographic conservatism coefficients for native plant species (excluding types contained at least one unique native or non-native sedges) recorded in MNHS and LSWS compared to the species except Kame Moraine, which did not have any distribution of all plants (excluding sedges) recorded in unique species (i.e. all the plant species found in Kame Middlesex County (Oldham 1993). The two frequency 2 Moraines were found in other physiographic types). This distributions are significantly different from each other (X 0.05, 2 emphasizes the importance of all individual patches and 10 = 18.307, X obs = 22.097). The main difference between the physiographic types in maintaining plant species diversity. two frequency distributions is fewer species with high

14 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e Pagex N a t19 u rof a l121 H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

Number of Non-Native Species Number of Non-Native 5

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Number of Patches Figure 9. The number of non-native species (excluding grasses and sedges) that occur in a certain number of patches.

0.035

# native species/sample area 0.030 # non-native species/sample area

0.025

0.020

0.015

0.010

0.005

0.000 Beach Number of Species Found Only Once / Sampled Area (ha) Till Plain Spillways Clay Plain Clay Peat Muck Sand Plain Sand Till Moraine Till Kame Moraine Kame Physiographic Type (source: Chapman and Putnam 1972) Figure 10. The number of plant species found only once in Middlesex County per area of physiographic type studied in MNHS and LSWS. 15 11.B.7 - CW

OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e Pagex N a t20 u rof a l121 H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

MNHS and LSWS 25 Middlesex County

10 Percent of Flora (%) of Flora Percent

0 0 1 23 4567 8 9 10 Conservatism Coefficient

Figure 11. Distribution of the conservatism coefficient for native plant species (excluding grasses and sedges) for all of Middlesex County (source: Oldham et al. 1995) and for plants surveyed in the MNHS and LSWS. conservatism coefficients of 8, 9 and 10 in the MNHS and LSWS weediness score per area sampled for Peat Muck, Beach compared with County flora. As well, overall mean and Spillways compared to other physiographic types. conservatism for all species in the MNHS and LSWS was 4.6. These physiographic types are also often associated with This is much lower than the mean conservatism score of 6.0 surficial flow, which may aid in the dispersal of non-native that has been reported for all of Middlesex County (Oldham et seed sources. al. 1995). These differences reflect the fact that the MNHS and LSWS focused on typical woodland patches. Pristine and special Mean Wetness areas, where very conservative plants are most likely found, Wetness scores are not an indication of woodland health, were not specifically targeted in the MNHS and LSWS. but can be used as a measure of moisture conditions in a However, plants from such areas would be represented in the woodland patch. Wetness scores range from +5 for native overall County list. obligate upland species to -5 for native obligate wetland species. Mean wetness coefficients for individual patches Weediness surveyed in the MNHS and LSWS ranged from -2.53 to Measures of weediness can be used as indicators of quality 2.13. Figure 13 shows the distribution of wetness since weedy species have the ability to displace native flora coefficients for native plant species (excluding sedges) and tend to move into disturbed habitats. The majority recorded in MNHS and LSWS compared to the distribution (50%) of non-native plants recorded for MNHS and LSWS of all native plants (excluding sedges) recorded in Middlesex are relatively non-invasive (weediness score of -1), 30% County (Oldham 1993). The two distributions are similar, are moderately invasive and 20% are highly invasive with the exception that there were fewer obligate species (weediness score of -3). This suggests that despite the large (both wetland and upland) recorded in MNHS and LSWS. number of non-natives recorded in the MNHS and LSWS, Approximately half of the native plant species recorded in many of these species are not highly aggressive and could Middlesex and in the MNHS and LSWS are upland species be contained with minimal control. However, non-native (coefficient of wetness of +1 to +5) and half are wetland species were not quantified (only presence, not extent, was species (coefficient of wetness of -1 to -5). Over 20% are recorded). Therefore, it is impossible to know whether the obligate wetland species (coefficient of wetness of -5) and few aggressive non-native species were more widespread over 20% are obligate upland species (coefficient of wetness in the woodland patch than the numerous less invasive non- of +5). For each patch, the average wetness scores for native native species. When weediness scores are broken down herbaceous plant species were lower (i.e. more tolerant of into physiographic type (Figure 12), there is a higher patch moist conditions) than for native tree species (Figure 14).

16 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e Pagex N a t21 u rof a l121 H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

- 2

- 1

Sum Weediness Patch Score / Sample Area 0 Beach Spillway Till Plain Clay Plain Peat Muck Sand Plain Sand Till Moraine Kame Moraine Kame Physiographic Type (source: Oldam and Putnam 1972) Figure 12. Sum of patch weediness scores per sampled area for each physiographic type. 25

MNHS + LSWS Middlesex County 20

10 Percent of Flora Percent

0 - 5 -4 -3 -2 - 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Coefficient of Wetness Figure 13. Distribution of the coefficient of wetness for native plant species (excluding grasses and sedges) for all of Middlesex County (source: Oldam et al. 1995) and for plants surveyed in the MNHS and LSWS. 17 11.B.7 - CW

OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e Pagex N a t22 u rof a l121 H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

5 herbaceous plants 4 trees 3

-1

-2

-3

-4 Average of Wetness (CW) Coefficient

-5 Individual Woodland Patch

Figure 14. Comparison of the average coefficient of wetness per patch for herbaceous plants and trees. Variations in moisture regime are related to the differences geographic Middlesex County demonstrates that the number in soil and physiographic conditions. Table 5 shows the of communities in a patch is not a good measurement of average wetness coefficients for all native plants found in a diversity, since the delineation of communities can be particular physiographic type for MNHS and LSWS. Peat subjective. Muck, Spillways and Kame Moraines have higher proportions of wetland species (larger negative averages Despite the discrepancy in the number of communities per for wetness coefficients) whereas Sand and Till Plains have patch between the MNHS and the LSWS, general trends in more upland species (larger positive averages for wetness community descriptions can still provide information about coefficients). the types of habitat remaining on the landscape. Overall, 81% of the community systems inventoried were terrestrial, Table 5. The average wetness coefficient for all native plants found in a particular physiographic type. 62% occurred on tablelands, 95% were on mineral substrate, 57% were of young to mid- successional age and 58% were PHYSIOGRAPHIC TYPE AVERAGE CW (for MNHS forests (85% deciduous, 8% coniferous and 7% mixed). and COLSWS) Several of the coniferous communities described were plantations. BEACH 0.22 CLAY 0.31 Seral Age KAME MORAINE -0.56 Seral age of the vegetation communities was generally PEAT MUCK -1.19 young, with only 36% of the communities described as mid- SAND 0.45 SPILLWAY -0.05 aged or older (Figure 15). Forty percent of the communities TILL MORAINE 0.2 were described as young while 24% were described as TILL PLAIN 0.44 pioneer. Seral refers to the gradual replacement of one plant community by another. Therefore, seral age does not refer to the actual age of the stand, but reflects the composition 4.4.2 Vegetation Communities of the plant community (particularly the tree species) with respect to light tolerance and moisture conditions. For An average of two communities per patch were found in example, young stands will contain fewer shade tolerant MNHS, while an average of eight communities per patch species than mid-aged stands. The distribution of were identified in LSWS. Although the number of successional ages across Middlesex County suggests that vegetation communities described in each patch has been the forests are mainly in a disturbed successional condition, used as a measure of overall habitat diversity (City of either still recovering from heavy logging or forming second London 2000), the discrepancy between the two studies in growth from previously cleared land. Mature community types appear to be under-represented in Middlesex County.

18 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e Pagex N a t23 u rof a l121 H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

15 Percent of Communities 10

0 Pioneer Young Mid-Age Mature Successional Age Figure 15. Proportion of woodland communities of a particular successional age.

Figure 16. Soil Textures of Middlesex County. 19 11.B.7 - CW

OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e Pagex N a t24 u rof a l121 H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

Soil Type and Moisture optimum, and the average tree diameter is smaller than the Figure 16 shows that the prevailing soil in Middlesex County allowable diameter limit (Middlesex County Tree Cutting is loam, which has developed on medium-textured glacial Bylaw No. 4672). till and is imperfectly drained. A comparison of mineral soil pore patterns between field surveys and the Ontario Diameter limit cutting does not restrict the number of trees Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA cut, nor does it consider what the residual basal area should 1985) soils map for the 68 surveyed patches in the MNHS be. Instead, all healthy trees over a certain minimum shows that the soils tend to be more retentive in the field diameter are harvested. Under diameter limit logging, the than is depicted on the soils map. Since soil mapping is remaining canopy is more open. This encourages stems to done at generalized scales (e.g. 1:50,000), they cannot be develop low branches, opens the remaining forest to wind relied on to give definitive soil properties such as soil throw and disease, causes growth in diameter rather than moisture and texture at finer, site specific levels. height and produces an even-aged stand with an overstocking of small stems. The forest is often not Soil information from LSWS was not included in the harvestable again for several decades. analysis since measurements of soil texture and moisture did not follow the same methodology as MNHS. Most Given the results of the MNHS (Figures 17 to 19), it is woodland patches surveyed in the MNHS tend to remain recommended that a better harvesting technique for on imperfectly drained soil. Approximately 66% of the Middlesex County would be “selection cutting” for diversity woodland patches occurred on loam or silty loam (a retentive in size and species composition to encourage maximum pore pattern), 10% on sandy loam or loamy very fine sand timber growth, improve timber quality and enhance wildlife (a moderately retentive pore pattern), 2% on silty clay loam values of the forest (OMNR 2000b). Under this type of (a very retentive pore pattern) and 22% on fine sand or harvesting, individual trees are marked by a certified marker loamy fine sand (a moderately open pore pattern). prior to harvest. The composition and amount of tree harvesting can be amended to maintain or enhance timber Basal Area production. For example, single-tree selection is most In a forest managed for optimum tree growth, there should appropriate for promoting growth and development in be a mixture of trees of different sizes and a residual basal upland stands of shade-tolerant hardwood species such as area of 15 - 20 m2 / ha (OMNR 1983). Since basal area Sugar Maple and American Beech (OMNR 2000b, 2002a), accounts for both the number of standing trees per hectare while group selection may be more appropriate for mid- and their size, the same basal area may be achieved by many tolerant species such as oak, hickory, Sassafras, Tulip Tree small trees or fewer large trees. Figure 17 shows a) the size and Hackberry that require larger canopy openings for class distribution of upland hardwood trees in Middlesex regeneration and development (Elliot et al. 1997, Miller et County and b) the recommended residual size classes for al. 1995, Law and Lorimer 1989). upland hardwood trees according to the provincial standard (OMNR 2000b). The size class distribution of trees in Forest stands that have been cut through selection methods Middlesex County shows an over abundance of small trees have more rapid overall growth and good natural (i.e. high basal area) and too few trees in the largest size regeneration. The greater structural diversity of selection classes (i.e. low basal area) compared with the provincial cutting for size and species composition creates numerous standard. Similar findings of sub-optimal forest conditions vegetation layers that are important to maintaining plant in the Maitland River watershed were attributed to the and animal species diversity. These features are achieved practice of diameter limit cutting (Bowles et al. 2001). by employing a suite of forest management practices and application of appropriate silvicultural systems (OMNR Figure 18 shows the frequency distribution of basal areas 2000b). For example, forest management practices can be of trees > 25 cm dbh in upland hardwood sites in Middlesex modified to allow forests to mature to the late seral stage, County to determine how many communities meet the by creating canopy gaps 10 - 50 metres in diameter to recommended basal area for these larger trees. Larger trees encourage growth of mid-tolerant species, retaining cavity are important to the health of the woodland for many reasons. trees and snags, increasing the amount of woody material, They act as seed sources, they provide habitat and food for leaving a minimum of three trees larger than 50 cm in wildlife and they enhance the amount of woody material. diameter in each hectare, retaining higher basal areas in the The provincial standard recommends that the post logging largest diameter classes and extending the period between basal area of trees of this size should be 15 m2 / ha (OMNR harvests (OMNR 2003). Animal and plant species diversity 2000b). Approximately 55% of the upland forests in can be maintained or enhanced by protecting areas of high Middlesex County fall below the standard. Figure 19 shows conservation value, such as areas that contain provincially the basal area of larger trees (> 25cm diameter) plotted rare flora and fauna, woodland areas > 90 years of age and against average size of trees in Middlesex County. Many areas that contain forest interior. woodlands have basal areas lower than the 15 m2 / ha

20 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e Pagex N a t25 u rof a l121 H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

18 Middlesex County 16 Provincial standard

12 /ha) 2 10

6 Basal Area (m

0 >10-25cm >25-50cm >50cm Diameter Class Figure 17. Diameter size class distribution of upland hardwood trees in Middlesex County compared with the recommended residual diameter size class according to the provincial standard (OMNR 2000b).

Percent of Communities (%) 10

0 > 35 0 - 5 > 5 - 10 >25 - 30 >30 - 35 > 20 - 25 > 15 - 20 > 10 - 15 Basal Area (m2/ha) Figure 18. Basal area distribution of medium and large trees (i.e. >25 cm DBH) in upland hardwood woodland patches surveyed in MNHS.

21 11.B.7 - CW

OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e Pagex N a t26 u rof a l121 H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

Optimal 45 Post - cut Basal Area Diameter Limit

Mean Tree Diameter (cm) 25

20 0 5 10 15 20 25 Basal Area (m2/ha) Figure 19. Basal area of medium and large upland trees (i.e. >25 cm DBH) plotted against average tree size for forest communities surveyed in MNHS (reprinted from Bowles 2002). 160

human disturbance 140 natural disturbance

120

100

20 Disturbance (intensity*extent) Score

0 Fire Dams Flood Noise Trails Browse Dumping Livestock Plantation Recreation Sugar Bush Sugar Canopy Gaps Canopy Wind Throw Earth Movement Insect / Disease Non-Native Plants Type of Disturbance Figure 20. Disturbance scores summed over all woodland patches surveyed in MNHS.

22 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e Pagex N a t27 u rof a l121 H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

4.4.3 Woodland Patch Type Therefore, the few large woodland patches on the landscape (i.e. patches > 25 ha) account for most of the woodland Disturbance area in Middlesex County. Figure 21 demonstrates that by Disturbance events may have an important influence on protecting only the larger patches, there would be a overall site quality. Disturbance events were considered to significant loss of a large number of woodlands. be perturbations of the natural community dynamics and, therefore, a negative influence on overall woodland patch 4.5.2 Woodland Patch Interior health. Figure 20 shows the disturbance scores (i.e. disturbance index summed over all surveyed patches) for Numerous functions are attributed to woodland patches with the various types of disturbance recorded in MNHS. Natural forest interior, including reduction of detrimental edge disturbance processes such as disease, canopy gaps and effects such as sun scald, windfall and invasive species, as wildlife browse were most prevalent and intense while fire well as habitat for area sensitive species. Wilcove (1988) and flood were least. Human disturbance types such as and Harris (1984) have shown that physical edge effects hiking trails, non-native plant species and noise were most (i.e. microclimate, sun scald, noise, wind, dessication) prevalent and intense while sugar bush operations, earth extend into a forest to a distance of three times the height of movement and recreation activities other than hiking (these the trees in the forest. Mature trees in Middlesex County were examined separately) were least. reach a height of approximately 25 - 30 m. Therefore, forest interior (core patch area) is defined as the amount of area The natural disturbance index had a mean of 7.2 (± 0.3 remaining after 100 m buffer is removed from around the S.E.) and ranged from 4 to 19 points. The human disturbance patch perimeter (Figure 6). index had a mean of 8.4 (± 0.5 S.E.) and ranged from 2 to 18 points. However, the human disturbance index was more Of the 1078 woodland patches that have interior, variable than the natural disturbance index (over 90% of approximately 50% have less than 2 ha of interior area the patches had human disturbance scores between 4 and (Figure 22). In general, there are many small interior size 14 while most of the patches had natural disturbance scores classes and fewer large interior size classes. The largest between 5 and 10). The variability expressed in human amount of interior area recorded for a patch was 205 ha. disturbance values demonstrates the difficulty in assessing The majority of woodland patches with large amounts of extent and intensity of human disturbance in remnant forest interior are situated in the northwest section of Middlesex patches on the landscape, since different types of human County in the Ausable Bayfield watershed. These woodland disturbance can have various effects depending on the type patches occur along river valleys and bottom lands. Figure of vegetation, the features and functions of the woodland 23 shows the amount of interior for patch sizes between 6 patch, the topographic location, etc. This variability may and 15 ha in size. From this figure, we see that patches also reflect how different landowners use their woodlands. must be between 10 and 12 ha in size before an interior size The effects of natural disturbance were not as variable since of at least 2 ha is found. On the other hand, many of the the woodland species have had many years to adapt to these woodland patches on the landscape are long and thin, which types of disturbances. There was no correlation between means that although they might be of a relatively large area, natural and human disturbance indices for each patch (r2 = they may not have much interior.

0.0066, t0.05(2),67 = 1.995, tobs = 0.675). 4.5.3 Forest Connectivity

4.5 RESULTS OF THE MAPPING AND Linkages are important for both animal and plant dispersal. GIS ANALYSIS However, the identification of landscape connectivity is an evolving science. For Middlesex County, 100 m is the distance at which linkages between woodland patches 4.5.1 Woodland Patch Size greater than 10 ha start to appear (Figure 24). One hundred metres is also the distance which most seeds dispersed by Figure 21 shows the distribution of woodland patches by wind can travel (Nathan et al. 2002). At least 50% of the size in the county. In general, there are many patches in woodland patch must be within 100 m of a woodland patch small size classes and fewer in large size classes (Figure greater than 10 ha to ensure that there is linkage between 21a). More than 90% of Middlesex County’s woodlands the two patches. and wetlands fall into the “micro” category, between 4 and 40 hectares, as defined by Riley and Mohr (1994). More significant is the fact that over 50% of the County’s woodlands are less than 4 hectares. However, when one looks at the percent of area accounted for by various size classes, over 50% of the woodland and wetland area is accounted for by patches > 25 ha in size, while less than 5% is accounted for by the smallest size class (Figure 21b).

23 11.B.7 - CW

OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e Pagex N a t28 u rof a l121 H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

a 50

10 Percent of Woodland Patches by Number by Patches Percent of Woodland 0 0 - < 2 0 - < 4 2 - < 104 - < 10 - < 15 15 - < 20 20 - < 25 25 - < 40 < 40 Size Class of Woodland Patch (ha)

b 50

10 Percent of Woodland Patches by Area by Patches Percent of Woodland

0 0 - < 2 0 - < 2 - < 2 -4 < > 40 4 - < 4 -10 < 25 - < 40 - < 25 20 - < 25 - < 20 10 - < 15 15 - < 20 Size Class of Woodland Patch (ha) Figure 21. The distribution of woodland patch size class in Middlesex County by a) the number of woodland patches and b) the total area of woodland patches.

24 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e Pagex N a t29 u rof a l121 H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

Percent of Woodland Patches by Number (%) by Patches Percent of Woodland 0 > 50 > 2 - < 4 4 - < 10 0.5 - < 2 10 - < 25 25 - < 50 > 0 - < 0.5 Interior Size Class (ha)

Figure 22. Distribution of interior size classes for woodland patches in Middlesex County.

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5 Woodland Patch Interior (ha) Size Patch Woodland

0.0 6 8 10 12 14 16 Woodland Patch Size (ha)

Figure 23. The amount of interior for patch sizes between 6 to 15 ha in area.

25 11.B.7 - CW

OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e Pagex N a t30 u rof a l121 H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

Figure 24. Woodland patches in Middlesex County that are greater than 10 ha and buffered by 100 m on outside of patch. 4.6 RESULTS OF THE STATISTICAL The number of native plant species had a significant positive relationship to area of the woodland patch, demonstrating ANALYSIS that larger patches have more native species. However, the number of native plant species had a significant negative There was a significant relationship (i.e. Fobs > Fcrit) between relationship to amount of interior, which means that patches species richness, weediness and conservatism coefficient with more interior had fewer native species than the same and all landscape parameters, with the exception of nearest size patch with less interior. Since interior conditions tend neighbour greater than 10 ha. However, only species to be relatively undisturbed and well shaded, it is expected richness (native and non-native) and sum of weediness than only specific interior native species would be able to scores showed a relatively strong relationship (i.e. r2 > 0.36) grow in these conditions and that woodland patches with with the independent landscape variables. One reason that more edge habitat would have higher numbers of native nearest neighbour did not have a significant relationship species. with any of the woodland patch indicators of health could be the fact that most woodlands are relatively equi-distant There was a significant negative relationship between the from each other, reflecting the non-random pattern of number of native plant species and distance to any road. In remnant woodland patches on the landscape. other words, the shorter the distance between the woodland patch and any road, the greater the number of native species. 4.6.1 Native Species Richness Roads may be acting as corridors for species dispersal. However, there was no significant relationship between the Table 6 shows the relationship between the number of native number of native plant species and distance to only main species per patch and patch area, patch interior, distance to any roads. The higher level of disturbance and maintenance road (i.e. all provincial, county and township roads), distance to associated with larger roads may be responsible for the lack main road (i.e. only provincial and county roads), distance to of relationship. ANSI and distance to wetland (PSW and LSW). The regression was significant (F0.05(1),6,118 = 2.18, Fobs = 18.38). 26 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e Pagex N a t31 u rof a l121 H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

The number of native plant species had a significant negative dispersal. Although the relationship between only main relationship to distance from a recognized natural heritage roads and non-native species was stronger than with native feature (i.e. ANSI and wetland). In other words, the shorter species, it was still not significant. the distance between the woodland patch and a recognized natural heritage feature, the greater the number of native The number of non-native plant species was significantly plant species in the woodland. ANSIs, which tend to have positively related to the distance from an ANSI. In other a higher proportion of conservative native species than non- words, woodland patches closer to ANSIs have fewer non- native species, may be acting as a seed source for nearby native species. ANSIs, which tend to have a higher woodlands. Recognizing that water can act as a form of proportion of conservative native species than non-native species dispersal and many wetlands are associated with species, are not contributing non-native seeds to nearby surficial flow, it is understandable that seeds from native woodlands. plants are likely to be dispersed between wetlands and nearby woodlands. The number of non-native plant species was significantly Table 6. Regressional analysis table showing relationship negatively related to distance from a wetland. In other between native species richness per patch and the words, woodland patches closer to wetlands have more non- independent landscape variables. Asterisk (*) denotes native species. Recognizing that water can act as a form of significance. species dispersal, it is understandable that seeds from non- native plants are likely to be dispersed between wetlands R square 0.48 and nearby woodlands since many wetlands are associated Observations 125 with surficial flow. Fobs 18.38*

F0.05(1),6,118 2.18 Table 7. Regressional analysis table showing relationship

t0.05,118 1.66 between non-native plant species and the independent landscape variables. Asterisk (*) denotes significance. INDEPENDENT COEFFICIENTS STANDARD t OBSERVED VARIABLES ERROR R square 0.37 Observations 125 Patch Area 1.75 0.21 8.28* Fobs 11.35* Patch Interior -1.91 0.82 2.32* F0.05(1),6,118 2.18 Any Road Distance -27.9 13.44 2.07* t0.05,119 1.66 Main Road Distance -0.85 2.54 0.33 ANSI Distance -2.5 1.09 2.28* INDEPENDENT COEFFICIENTS STANDARD t STATISTIC Wetland Distance -3.33 1.4 2.38* VARIABLES ERROR

4.6.2 Non-Native Species Richness Patch Area 0.46 0.07 6.11* Patch Interior -0.79 0.3 2.66* Table 7 shows the relationship between the number of non- Any Road Distance -10.33 4.88 2.12* native species per patch and patch area, patch interior, Main Road Distance -0.73 0.92 0.8 distance to any road (i.e. all provincial, county and township ANSI Distance 1.52 0.4 3.84* roads), distance to main road (i.e. only provincial and county Wetland Distance -1.14 0.51 2.24* roads), distance to ANSI and distance to wetland (PSW and Species Richness and Patch Size LSW). The regression was significant (F0.05(1),6,118 = 2.18, F = 11.35). Since patch size appears to account for much of the variation obs observed in species richness, an Analysis of Variance The number of non-native plant species was also (ANOVA) was used to determine if species richness differed significantly positively related to area of the woodland patch, significantly between woodland patch size classes (Table demonstrating that larger patches have more non-native 8). Differences between woodland patch sizes were species. The number of non-native plant species had a significant for both total number of native species (F0.05(1),8,315 significant negative relationship to amount of interior, = 1.97, Fobs = 7.21) and total number of non-native species demonstrating that patches with interior have fewer non- (F0.05(1),8,315 = 1.97, Fobs = 6.41). native species. Since many non-native species are opportunistic and adapted to disturbances, which are often Figure 25 shows the relationship between the number of prevalent in edge habitats, the more stable conditions found native and non-native species with woodland patch area. in patches with interior forest habitat would be less suitable Although the regressions are significant for both native for non-native species. species richness (F0.05(1),1,136 = 3.92, Fobs = 83.98) and non- native species richness (F0.05(1),1,136 = 3.92, Fobs = 36.04), the The number of non-native plant species was significantly strength of the relationship is greater for native species (r2 negatively related to distance from a road. In other words, = 0.4) than for non-native species (r2 = 0.18). In general, woodland patches closer to roads have more non-native the larger the woodland patch area, the greater the number species. Roads may be acting as corridors for species of plant species (both native and non-native).

27 11.B.7 - CW

OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e Pagex N a t32 u rof a l121 H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

Table 8. Total native and non-native plant species richness, mean number of native and non-native plant species per woodland patch and mean conservatism per woodland patch in nine woodland patch size classes.

Patch Size (ha) >4 4-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 35-40 >40

Total number of native species 170 325 271 301 297 293 274 210 404

Total number of non-native species 42 97 66 80 94 84 62 48 122

Mean number native species per patch 44 59.6 68.8 83.3 88.3 89.2 127.2 92.2 19.4

Mean number of non-native species per patch 8.4 12.8 12.7 14.1 17.6 18.6 24 18.8 31.3

Mean conservatism per patch 3.7 4 4 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.4 4 4.1

4.6.3 Weediness Table 9. Regressional analysis table showing relationship between sum of weediness scores per patch and the Table 9 shows the relationship between the weediness score independent landscape variables. Asterisk (*) denotes significance. for a patch and patch area, patch interior, distance to any road (i.e. all provincial, county and township roads), distance R square 0.36 to main road (i.e. only provincial and county roads), distance Observations 125

to ANSI and distance to wetland (PSW and LSW). The Fobs 11.01*

regression was significant F0.05(1),6,118 2.18 t 1.66 (F0.05(1),6,118 = 2.18, Fobs = 11.01). 0.05,118 The sum of weediness scores per patch had a significant INDEPENDENT COEFFICIENTS STANDARD t STATISTIC negative relationship to patch area. In other words, larger VARIABLES ERROR woodland patch areas tend to have more aggressive non- Patch Area -0.8 0.14 5.93* native plant species (i.e. more negative weediness scores) Patch Interior 1.34 0.53 2.55* than smaller woodland patches. However, the sum of Any Road Distance 18.37 8.6 2.14* weediness scores per patch had a significant positive Main Road Distance 1.38 1.63 0.85 relationship to patch interior, showing that woodland patches ANSI Distance -2.59 0.7 3.70* with interior have less aggressive non-native plant species Wetland Distance 2.2 0.9 2.46* (i.e. more positive weediness scores). Thus, larger woodlands with no interior (i.e. a large area of edge) will 4.6.4 Mean Conservatism Coefficient (MCC) have more aggressive non-native species than woodland patches of the same size with interior. Although the multiple regression between MCC and the independent landscape variables was significant (F The sum of weediness scores per patch was significantly 0.05(1),6,118 = 2.18, Fobs = 2.29), it did not have a strong relationship positively related to distance to nearest road. In other words, with the independent landscape variables (r2 = 0.10). Mean the farther the woodland patch is situated from the road, the conservatism was also plotted against log of patch area less aggressive (i.e. more positive weediness scores) the (Figure 26). Again, the regression was significant (F non-native plant species. Again, there was no significant 0.05(1),1,128 = 3.92, Fobs = 4.83) but there was not a strong relationship relationship between the number of native plant species and between mean conservatism coefficient and patch area (r2 distance to only main roads. = 0.1). In an ANOVA (Table 8), mean conservatism per patch was not significantly different between woodland The sum of weediness scores per patch was significantly patch sizes. Instead, as is evident from Figure 26, some of negatively related to distance to ANSIs. In other words, the smallest patches (< 4ha) have mean conservatism scores woodland patches closer to ANSIs have fewer highly close or equal to many of the larger patches. Therefore, aggressive species (more positive weediness scores) than small patches may have lower species richness (i.e. number woodland patches farther from ANSIs. of native plants) but relatively higher conservatism scores, suggesting that smaller patches are supporting populations The sum of weediness scores per patch was significantly with moderately high conservatism scores that are being positively related to distance from a wetland. In other words, retained even though total species richness is low relative woodland patches closer to wetlands have more highly to other sites. This means that very small patches must be aggressive species (more negative weediness scores) than examined individually for community characteristics and woodland patches farther from wetlands. conservative species. Bowles (1997) has suggested that past management history could account for the high mean conservatism values.

28 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e Pagex N a t33 u rof a l121 H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

a # native species in area regression line 95% confidence interval

100 r2 = 0.4 Number of Native Plant Species Number Plant of Native

10 110100 Patch Area (ha)

100

# non-native species in area regression line 95% confidence interval

r2 = 0.18

Number of Non-Native Plant Species b

1 10 100 Patch Area (ha)

Figure 25. Regression of a) native and b) non-native plant species richness against patch area (ha) surveyed in MNHS and LSWS.

29 11.B.7 - CW

OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e Pagex N a t34 u rof a l121 H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

5 MCC score in area regression line 95% confidence interval

r2 = 0.1 4

3 Mean Conservatism Coefficient For Each Patch For Each Coefficient Conservatism Mean 2 110100 Patch Area (ha)

Figure 26. Regression of mean conservatism coefficient against patch area (ha) for surveyed patches in MNHS and LSWS.

4.6.5 Basal Area mechanized agriculture. Remnant woodlands in these areas tend to be smaller and of uniform geometric shape occurring There was no significant relationship between basal area as isolated fragments along roads and lot boundaries.

and any of the landscape parameters (i.e. Fobs < Fcrit). Given the highly cultural landscape of Middlesex County, it is not Kame Moraines, Peat and Muck, Beveled Till Plains and unexpected that basal area would be more influenced by Beaches or Shore Cliffs are uncommon physiographic types, private landowner initiatives (i.e. tree cutting) than by the yet a large proportion of these areas are covered in surrounding landscape. woodlands. These areas are characterized by poor drainage and undulating topography which are not conducive to highly mechanized agricultural practices or to agricultural crops with shallow root systems. Remnant woodlands tend 4.7 SUMMARY OF KEY RESULTS to be long and continuous, but irregularly shaped. AND RECOMMENDATIONS County Forest Cover Size of Woodland Patches Forest cover in Middlesex County is approximately 12.3%. Over 50% of the woodland patches in Middlesex County In a joint paper by Environment Canada, the Ontario are less than 4 ha in area and less than 10% are greater than Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ontario Ministry of 40 ha. By protecting only the larger patches, there would the Environment (1998) that provides guidelines for habitat be a significant loss of a large number of woodlands. rehabilitation in Ontario, it is recommended that the percent woodland cover in a watershed should exceed 30% in order Distribution of Woodland Patches to support most forest breeding bird species. The Ontario Ideally, woodland cover should be maintained on all Ministry of Natural Resources (2000c) similarly representative physiography and soil types to maintain recommends that woodland cover be retained above a 30% diversity. A relatively small proportion of Undrumlinized threshold to maintain area-sensitive woodland breeding Till Plains and Clay Plains are covered in woodlands, given species and to protect water quality, air, soil, etc. that these areas are relatively flat and conducive to

30 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e Pagex N a t35 u rof a l121 H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

American Forests (2001) recommend that 40% woodland Disturbance cover should be maintained to benefit air quality since leaf The most prevalent and intense types of natural disturbance surfaces act as ozone reaction sites. Therefore, retention of include disease, canopy gaps and wildlife browse while fire forest cover can play a significant role in mitigating episodes and flood events were the least prevalent. The most of poor air quality usually associated with high ozone prevalent and intense types of human disturbance include episodes during the summer months. McPherson et al. trails, non-native plants and noise while sugar bush (1997) and Scott et al. (1998) have shown that urban forests operations, earth movement and recreation activities were play a significant role in reducing air pollution in an urban the least prevalent. The effects of human disturbance were environment. Weathers et al. (2001) found that forest edges much more variable than natural disturbance, demonstrating function as significant traps for air-borne nutrients and the difficulty in classifying remnant forest patches on the pollutants from adjoining agricultural or urban landscapes, landscape, since different human disturbances will have further justifying the retention of small woodlands with different effects on the vegetation. respect to atmospheric effects. Species Richness (excludes sedges) Change in Forest Composition Approximately 40% of all species recorded for Middlesex The relative proportion of Silver and Red Maple, ash, aspen, County were found in the MNHS and LSWS. Of these, hickory and Tamarack have all increased since the 1950 14% of the total number of native species in MNHS and and 1960s, while White Elm, Black Cherry, oak and LSWS were recorded only once out of the 153 patches and American Beech have decreased. Possible reasons include all physiographic types (with the exception of Kame the value of timber species, the successional nature of tree Moraines) contained at least one species that was not found species, pest outbreaks, changes in recreation and grazing in any other physiographic type. This result suggests that activities as well as large scale effects such as climate change all individual patches and physiographic types are important and distribution on physiographic types. Successional age in maintaining plant species diversity. was generally young, with over 60% of the communities within the surveyed woodland patches described as young When weediness scores were broken down into or pioneer. This suggests that the forests of Middlesex physiographic type, Peat Muck, Beach and Spillways had County are mainly in a disturbed successional condition, higher patch weediness scores per area sampled than other still recovering from human disturbance activities. Mature physiographic types. Since these physiographic types are community types are rare (less than 60% of the communities often associated with surficial flow, the dispersal rates of within the surveyed woodland patches) in Middlesex non-native seed sources may be higher in these areas. County. Recognizing that the MNHS and LSWS focused on typical, Basal Area remnant woodland patches on the landscape, the mean and Approximately 45% of the upland forests in Middlesex the distribution of conservatism coefficients were lower (i.e. County fall outside the provincial post logging basal area fewer conservative species) for these studies than what was standard of 15 m2 / ha (OMNR 2000b) and the average tree found for all of Middlesex County where pristine and special diameter is small. There is an over abundance of small areas (such as ANSIs) would be represented in the overall trees but there are too few large trees, which means that County list. most of the trees in the remnant woodlands are not growing at their optimal rate.

Selective cutting for size (i.e. diameter limit cutting), which does not restrict the number of trees cut, often results in a forest that is not harvestable for several decades. A better harvesting technique should consider the residual (i.e. post logging) basal area and selectively cut for both diversity in size and species. Under this type of harvesting, a certified marker would identify individual trees to be retained prior to harvesting. The composition and amount of tree harvesting can be amended to maintain or enhance forest diversity.

31 11.B.7 - CW

OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e Pagex N a t36 u rof a l121 H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

surveys. Since this is not possible given the large number 5. Identification of of woodland patches in Middlesex County, a landscape ecosystem approach was used instead. The advantage in applying a landscape approach for recognizing woodlands, Significant as opposed to a site-specific approach, is that it can be applied at the County scale and does not require detailed Woodland Patches vegetation surveys.

The selection of criteria for determining significant woodlands was based on three key concepts of natural This chapter uses landscape principals to develop criteria heritage planning identified by Riley and Mohr (1994): for the significance of woodlands in Middlesex County. 1. protection of core areas; 2. restoration of corridors associated with watercourses; and 5.1 RATIONALE FOR LANDSCAPE 3. replacement of connecting linkages on the landscape. CRITERIA and on the following two principals:

As defined by the Provincial Policy Statement (Ontario 1. The criteria should identify a measure of the contribution Ministry of Municipal Affairs 1997), significant woodlands of the woodland to its landscape ecosystem function at a are those that are: county scale. “...ecologically important in terms of features, functions, 2. The criteria must be measurable and based on a data set representation or amount, and contributing to the quality that represents all of the woodlands in Middlesex County and diversity of an identifiable geographic area or natural (e.g. intrinsic variables derived from comprehensive field heritage system. Criteria for determining significance may inventories are not available for all woodlands). be recommended by the Province, but municipal approaches that achieve the same objective may also be used”. Incorporating the three key concepts of Riley and Mohr (1994), as well as results from the scientific literature, input The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR 1999) from the steering committee and the significant correlations further identifies the following evaluation factors for from regressional analysis between the independent determining significance: landscape parameters and the dependent site specific forest health indicators collected in the field, six landscape criteria • woodland size (Table 10) were developed to identify candidate woodland • woodland shape and proximity to other woodlands or to patches in Middlesex County. A woodland patch only had other habitat types to meet one of the criteria to be recommended as a candidate • linkages for significance in the context of the Provincial Policy • woodland diversity Statement 2.3 for Middlesex County. • uncommon characteristics (i.e. composition, cover type, quality, age, age structure, etc.) Many of the criteria and associated thresholds are similar • economic and social values to the rational and methodology independently derived for determining significant woodlands in the Regional Some of these factors would require detailed vegetation Municipality of Halton (Gartner Lee Limited 2002).

Table 10. List of the six landscape criteria used to evaluate woodland patches in Middlesex County. All patches are pre- screened using any or all of these landscape criteria. The entire patch is identified if it meets one or more criteria.

LANDSCAPE CONNECTIVITY 1. Any woodland patch where 50% of the area is within 750 m of a recognized Natural Heritage Feature.* 2a. Any woodland patch greater than 10 ha in area. 2b. Any woodland patch less than 10 ha that contains forest interior (defined as treed habitat more than 100 m from the patch edge). 3. Any woodland patch within 100 m of a woodland patch greater than or equal to 10 ha. 4. Any woodland patch in a recognized corridor.**

HYDROLOGY 5a. Any woodland patch containing a watercourse. 5b. Any woodland patch within 50 m on either side of a watercourse but not containing a watercourse. 6. Any woodland patch on porous soils that may have sensitive groundwater recharge / discharge resources.

* Natural Heritage Features recognized (i.e. features listed or mapped) in the County Official Plan or City of London Official Plan. ** Recognized corridor includes Big Picture Corridor, Ausable River Corridor and Thames River Valley Corridor.

32 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e Pagex N a t37 u rof a l121 H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

5.2 DEVELOPMENT OF EACH a complex is also dependent to varying degrees upon the presence of the entire complex of wetlands, with each LANDSCAPE CRITERION wetland unit contributing to the whole.” Since 750 m is the maximum distance for complexing wetlands (OMNR 1994) An additional 1 km buffer was placed around the boundary and most recognized natural features contain wetland of geographic Middlesex to ensure that the entire woodland components, 750 meters was selected as the maximum patch, and not just the portion within Middlesex County, distance between recognized natural heritage features and was evaluated. To generate maps of woodlands that fulfilled a woodland feature. Therefore, any wetland unit within each criterion, spatial analysis methods were applied to the 750 m of another may be considered to be part of a complex updated digital woodland patch layer (excluding all whether or not a direct hydrological connection exists woodland patches 0.5 ha or less). As well, six maps by (OMNR 1994). As well, 750 m is the distance at which criterion, plus a map of all woodland patches that met at linkages between the recognized natural heritage features least one of the criteria (to identify candidate woodlands of and other woodland patches start to appear on the Middlesex county significance), were generated for committee and landscape. Linkages are important for dispersal of plants public review. and animals. For example, Wilcove (1988) has shown that even widespread forest-associated breeding birds may be 5.2.1 Criterion 1: Any woodland patch where absent in forests as large as 20 hectares if they are isolated. 50% of the area is within 750 m of a It was decided that 50 percent of a woodland patch must fall within750 m of a recognized natural heritage feature to recognized Natural Heritage Feature ensure that the woodland patch was functioning as part of (“core area”). the natural framework for that feature.

Objective Methodology The objective of Criterion 1 is to ensure connectivity Appendix 9 is a list of all recognized natural heritage features between the recognized and protected core areas in in Middlesex County. A recognized natural heritage feature Middlesex County and other natural heritage features that includes Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs), Locally support them. This criterion strongly complements Policy Significant Wetlands (LSWs), Areas of Natural and 2.3.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement (OMNR 1999). Scientific Interest (ANSIs) and Environmentally Significant Moreover, a variety of ecological models, such as Areas (ESAs). Boundaries of PSWs and LSWs were metapopulation, percolation theory and island biogeography, defined and mapped by the 1983 / 1984 OMNR wetland demonstrate that an absence of surrounding vegetation for evaluations. Two wetland boundaries were updated by the core areas can jeopardize the long-term stability of these OMNR (Campbellville Swamp in 1999 and Arva Moraine core areas. Wetland in 1998). Boundaries of ANSIs were defined by Hilts and Cook (1982) and summarized by Jalava (1996) Rationale and Identification of Woodlands for Middlesex County. Boundaries of ESAs, originally When the number of native plant species per patch for the defined by Hilts and Cook (1982), were updated by the MNHS and the LSWS was tested against distance from an City of London in 2002. The most recent updated ANSI , a significant negative relationship was found. That boundaries were used in this analysis. is, the shorter the distance between the woodland feature and the ANSI, the greater the number of native plant species Using the buffer tool in ArcInfo, a 750 m buffer was placed in the woodland. Thus, ANSIs are supporting neighbouring around the outside perimeter of each recognized natural sites, making them more significant. As well, woodland heritage feature. Any neighbouring woodland patch with patches closer to ANSIs have fewer non-native species 50% of its area within this buffer limit was captured for this (Table 7) and fewer highly aggressive species (Table 9) than criterion. woodland patches farther from ANSIs. Woodland patches closer to wetlands had greater numbers of native species as 5.2.2 Criterion 2: Any woodland patch greater well as more aggressive (more negative weediness scores) than 10 ha in area or any woodland patch non-native species than woodland patches farther from less than 10 hectares that contains forest wetlands. Given that water aids species dispersal, it is understandable that seeds from both native and non-native interior. plants are likely to be dispersed between wetlands and nearby woodlands since many wetlands are associated with Objective surficial flow. The objective of Criterion 2 is to identify the minimum sized woodland patches that serve a variety of ecological According to the Southern Ontario Wetland Manual functions. (OMNR 1994), “wetland complexes are commonly related in a functional way, that is, as a group they tend to have Rationale and Identification of Woodlands similar or complementary biological, social and / or Based on work by Levenson (1981), Riley and Mohr (1994) hydrological functions. Much of the wildlife in the area of recommend that woodlands dominated by mesic beech- 33 11.B.7 - CW

OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e Pagex N a t38 u rof a l121 H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

maple forests should be protected if they are at least 4 ha in break for core natural areas. The AOC guidelines further size. Sugar Maple - Beech forests are the dominant forest suggest that habitat suitability for populations of area- type in Middlesex County. The OMNR Natural Heritage sensitive species increases as patch sizes increase between Reference Manual (1999) also recommends that the size of 10 and 30 ha. In Middlesex County, most of the quality woodland patches considered to be significant within the indicators do not express themselves consistently until planning area is a function of the percentage of woodland woodland patches are at least 10 ha in size. Figure 23 shows cover within that area. Within Middlesex County, the that 10 ha is the approximate size at which woodland patches percentage of woodland cover is approximately 12%. had at least 2 ha of interior habitat. Given that Middlesex Therefore, all woodland patches 4 hectares or greater in County has approximately 12% forest cover remaining, 10 size would be considered to be significant (OMNR 1999). ha was selected as an appropriate critical size to capture a Indeed, this study found high mean conservatism scores for variety of forest functions. small woodland patches (Figure 29). Some of the smallest patches (< 4ha) have mean conservatism scores close to or Recognizing the numerous functions attributed to equal to many of the larger patches, suggesting that woodlands with forest interior (e.g. reduction in edge effects moderately high conservatism scores are being retained even such as sun scald, windfall and invasive species as well as though total species richness is low relative to other sites. habitat for many area-sensitive bird species), all woodland This means that very small patches must be examined patches that do not meet the 10 ha woodland size but that individually for community characteristics and conservative do have forest interior are also recognized in this criterion. species. This is supported by Riley and Mohr (1994), who suggest that potential for habitat for disturbance sensitive species However, there appears to be general agreement that forests can occur in woodlands that are 4 ha, as long as they have a below ten hectares are unlikely to be productive for many minimum diameter of 100 m (ie. contain some interior forest-associated wildlife species (e.g. Freemark and Collins forest). 1992, Riley and Mohr 1994). The Area of Concern (AOC) guidelines (Environment Canada et al. 1998) and the Methodology Guidelines for Significant Habitat (OMNR 2000c) also Using the inquiry tool in ArcInfo, the area of woodland indicate that woodland patches of 10 ha begin to offer patches was determined. Using the buffer tool in ArcInfo, functions associated with area-sensitive and disturbance- a 100 m buffer was placed around the inside perimeter of sensitive wildlife species. For example, area-sensitive woodland patches less than or equal to 10 ha (Figure 6). breeding birds such as the Hairy Woodpecker (Picoides The remaining amount of area not in the 100 m buffer (called villosus) and White-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta carolinens) interior) was summed for each woodland patch. Some only begin to be supported by forest units as large as ten irregularly shaped woodlands had more than one section of hectares. interior (e.g. not continuous but fragmented). All woodland patches greater than 10 ha as well as woodland patches less It is generally well established that as forest area increases, than or equal to 10 ha in size with greater than a sum of 0.5 so does the diversity of forest-associated breeding bird ha of forest interior were designated for this criterion. species. In southern Ontario, Freemark and Collins (1992) showed that the presence of all bird species increased as a 5.2.3 Criterion 3: Any woodland patch within function of forest size. Models of island biogeography also 100 m of a woodland patch greater than or predict that plant species will increase with patch size equal to 10 hectares. (McAurthur and Wilson 1967). These models, which have been applied to studies of fragmented forest patches, predict that species richness will increase with patch size up to the Objective regional species diversity. The number of native plant The objective of Criterion 3 is to identify woodland patches species (Table 6), non-native plant species (Table 7) and that are more significant and healthy because they are near the sum of weediness scores (Table 9) had significant (and influenced by) larger woodland patches. positive relationships to patch area. Therefore, the larger the woodland patch area, the greater the number of plant Rationale and Identification of Woodlands species (both native and non-native) but the less aggressive Linkages are important for both animal and plant dispersal. (i.e. more positive weediness score) the non-native plant Bowles (1997) found that species richness was higher for species. small patches closely linked to larger patches than similarly sized patches not linked to larger patches. However, the There is general agreement that forests between 10 ha and identification of landscape connectivity is an evolving 50 ha in area have elevated functions for wildlife. For science. Recognizing the non-random pattern of remnant example, In a study of the Farewell Creek watershed woodland patches on the County landscape and that most (Henshaw and Leadbeater 1999), forests 10 to 25 ha in size woodlands are relatively equi-distant from each other, it is were supported by the data as an appropriate break in the not surprising that there was not enough variability in this designation of secondary core natural areas, while a measurement to determine relationships between nearest minimum 25 ha threshold was designated as an appropriate neighbour and woodland patch indicators of health. Instead, 34 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e Pagex N a t39 u rof a l121 H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

100 meters was selected as the maximum distance between 5.2.5 Criterion 5: Any woodland patch woodland patches since this is the distance at which linkages containing or within 50 m of a watercourse. between woodland patches start to appear (Figure 24). One hundred metres is also the distance that most seeds dispersed Objective by wind can travel (Nathan et al. 2002). Fifty percent was The objective of Criterion 5 is to protect the features and selected as the minimum amount of woodland patch that functions of watercourses. The riparian functions that must be within this distance to ensure that the majority of woodlands perform include erosion control and stability, the patch will be influenced by its neighbour. thermoregulation and humidity control, nutrient flow and maintenance of stream flow. Methodology Using the buffer tool in ArcInfo, a 100 m buffer was placed Rationale and Identification of Woodlands around the outside perimeter of each woodland greater or A comparison of flow data (from September 1986, January equal to 10 ha. Any woodland patch found within this buffer 1993, May 1996 and April 2001) from the South Saugeen limit (in whole or in part) was designated for this criterion. River near Neustadt and the Teeswater River used in Environment Canada’s 2001 Temperate Wetland 5.2.4 Criterion 4: Any woodland patch within a Restoration Course, illustrate the profound difference in Carolinian Canada Big Picture corridor, hydrographs produced by a forested versus an unforested the Ausable River corridor and the corridor watershed. The relatively unforested South Saugeen graphs along the North Branch of the Thames River. show a flash point following a rain event and an equally Only woodlands that do not contain a severe drop to background levels. The forested Teeswater River, however, rises slowly following a rain event, sustains watercourse or are not within 50 m of a slightly higher flows for a longer period and then gently watercourse are identified in this criterion. subsides. In addition, water quality at the confluence of Teeswater and Saugeen Rivers is dramatically different, with Objective clear water in the Teeswater River downstream of Greenock Networks of natural areas are considered the best way to Swamp and muddy brown water in the Saugeen River. maintain ecological diversity and health in an agricultural landscape (Riley and Mohr 1994). The woodlands identified Woodlands or natural areas situated along large rivers in these corridors provide broader linkage opportunities provide habitat, bank stability and flood absorption between regions. functions, while woodlands or natural areas along smaller streams have more impact on water quality. To determine Rationale and Identification of Woodlands how far from a river a woodland had to be to have an impact Carolinian Canada Big Picture corridors have been identified on it, several literature sources were reviewed. OMNR for most of Middlesex County (Bigger Picture Phase 2, (2000a) found that buffer widths of 30 m to 90 m are needed 2003). Two additional corridors were included in this for adequate removal of smaller particles found in urban criterion: the Ausable River corridor, which was identified runoff. Castelle et al. (1994) found that buffers less than in the 1995 Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority 10 m provide little protection of aquatic resources. Griffiths Watershed Management Strategy (Snell and Cecile (2001) concluded that if 26% of the land within 100 m of Environmental Research 1995), and the corridor along the streams was in a natural state, the water quality in the streams North Branch of the Thames River, which was recognized would be unimpaired. Other references (OMNR 1987, in the Life Science Inventory of the Thames River between Johnson and Ryba 1992, O’Laughlin and Belt 1995) St. Marys and Fanshawe Lake (Stephenson 1991). These recommend a horizontal distance of at least one and a half are the largest natural heritage corridors in the county and, times the height to which the trees in the adjacent woodland therefore, are of prime importance to the ecosystem and to could be expected to grow. In Middlesex County, the wildlife. The three corridors were identified by the existing potential height of the maples, elm, walnut, oak and pine landscape pattern, incorporating and enlarging the major varies from 25 m to 35 m. This translates into a threshold natural core areas and linking them along major water bodies of approximately 50 m. and major upland woodland corridors. Existing natural areas and natural linkages were used as much as possible to keep Recent investigations have documented that energy flow from intrusion into agricultural land at a minimum. the watercourse to the woodland could occur at least 100 m away from a watercourse. For example, Semeniuk (2001) Methodology demonstrated that the predation of salmon by grizzly bears and Any woodland patch found within these corridor boundaries subsequent removal to upland woodlands may account for up (in whole or in part) was designated for this criterion. to half of the nitrogen fixed by the trees. The possibility that birds and mammals found in Middlesex County, such as osprey, heron, mink and racoon, may be contributing to the health of the woodlands in a similar way gives additional credence to the interaction of watercourses and their adjoining habitats.

35 11.B.7 - CW

OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e Pagex N a t40 u rof a l121 H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

Large blocky buffers provide optimal wildlife habitat while as potential zones of groundwater recharge / discharge. This dense, narrow buffers may be effective at reducing sediment criteria will be modified when the groundwater studies for delivery at critical points (Lowrance et al. 2002, Welsh the County have been completed. 1991). A 50 m wide buffer was chosen for this study as a reasonable minimal width to provide good buffering Methodology functions (i.e. moderate temperature and buffer erosion, Digital soil information for Middlesex County was provided sedimentation and runoff ) and wildlife habitat or corridor by OMFRA (1985). Porous soils were defined as very fine functions for edge species (Johnson and Ryba 1992, Beschta sandy loam, sandy loam, fine sandy loam and fine sand. et al. 1987 and OMNR 2000c). Any woodland patch found within these soil types (in whole or in part) was designated for this criterion. Methodology Watercourses were identified from 1:10,000 OBM maps and are based on a centre line (Appendix 6). The ABCA, 5.3 IDENTIFICATION OF SCRCA and UTRCA ground truthed this data at 1:5,000. Watercourses can have either permanent and intermittant SIGNIFICANT WOODLANDS flow. Both the ABCA and UTRCA removed closed (subsurface groundwater) drains. Significant woodlands are those woodland patches that meet at least one criteria. Figure 27 illustrates the woodlands Using the buffer tool in ArcInfo, a 50 m buffer was placed that fulfilled any one of the criteria and are recommended on either side of the centre line used to define watercourses. for designation as significant in the context of the Provincial Thus, riparian buffers adjacent to larger streams were much Policy Statement 2.3 for Middlesex County (does not include narrower than 50 m, while buffers adjacent to smaller First Nations or City of London). Table 11 shows the percent streams were approximately 50 m, owing to the width of of woodland patches that meet a certain number of criteria. the stream. The increased amount of buffer in smaller Based on the six criteria, 74% of woodland patches in streams is justified when hydrological functions of Middlesex County perform significant functions on the woodlands is considered. Hydrological function is related Middlesex landscape. Since the woodlands have been to the area of the woodland divided by the area of the designated using a methodology that compares woodland subcatchment upstream of the woodland and the stream characteristics within the context of the County of Middlesex order into which it drains. Therefore, woodlands have as a whole, it is important to recognize that the features of decreasing significance with respect to management of an individual woodland cannot be evaluated without surface flow and groundwater infiltration with an increase returning to the County context. in upstream area and stream order. Intrinsic characteristics, such as habitat of endangered and Any woodland patch intersected by the watercourse centre threatened species, are not included in the methodology line (in whole or in part) or found within the 50 m limit on since the occurrence of species of conservation concern is either side of the watercourse centre line, was designated incomplete. However, GIS queries were constructed to for this criterion. identify woodland patches that have been previously identified as habitat of endangered and threatened species 5.2.6 Criterion 6: Any woodland patch on porous but not identified as significant woodlands based on the six soils that may have sensitive groundwater landscape criteria. Only two woodland patches that contain recharge or discharge resources. significant habitat of endangered and threatened species were not captured by this study.

Objective Table 11. The percent of woodland patches in geographic The objective of Criterion 6 is to ensure the integrity of the Middlesex County that meet a certain number of criteria groundwater resource. (including all woodland patches that fall partially within County boundary, City of London and First Nations). Rationale and Identification of Woodlands All woodlands that intersect areas of groundwater seepage Number of Landscape Percent in Geographic will be designated since the loss of these woodlands may Criteria Middlesex result in a degradation of both groundwater quality and quantity. By preserving woodlands on porous soils, areas 0 26.11% 1 28.53% with high percolation and recharge potential are protected 2 21.77% and land uses that could potentially pollute groundwater 3 14.21% supply are avoided. 4 6.85% 5 2.51% Until detailed groundwater studies and comprehensive 6 0.02% hydrogeological mapping are completed (currently underway), all woodlands on porous soils will be recognized

36 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e Pagex N a t41 u rof a l121 H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

Figure 27. Woodland patches in Middlesex County that meet one or more landscape criteria. 5.4 SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS AND 4. That when reviewing the features of an individual woodland, they must be evaluated within the context of RECOMMENDATIONS the County and not on a woodland by woodland basis. The Terms of Reference for Development Assessment The recommendations are: Reports should include confirmation of the functions for which the candidate significant woodland was designated. 1. That the six criteria be approved as the basis for designation of significant woodland patches in Middlesex 5. That the ELC be endorsed as the standard for vegetation County. classification in Middlesex County and that a strategy for completing the classification of woodland patches to 2. That all woodland patches that fulfilled any one of the at least the Community Series level be adopted. six criteria are recognized as significant in Middlesex County. 6. That the County develop a protocol for the addition or removal of a woodland to or from the candidate significant 3. That 30 % forest cover is the recommended minimum to woodlands layer as a result of any discrepancies or maintain healthy ecosystems (Riley and Mohr 1994, ambiguities created by unavoidable uncertainties in the Environment Canada et al. 1998, Ontario Ministry of GIS methodology used to create these candidates. Natural Resources 2000c) and that Middlesex County’s forest cover of approximately 12% is far below the recommended target of 30%. Therefore, all woodland patches in the county, even those that do not meet any one of the six criteria, are recognized as important to the entire system.

37 11.B.7 - CW

OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e Pagex N a t42 u rof a l121 H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

development of implementation programs, the delivery of 6. Implementation these programs and the regular evaluation of the programs against their identified goals is a responsibility that rests with all of the partners that were involved in the project. The MNHS study does not lay out a comprehensive The MNHS focuses on the scientific methodology to implementation plan but rather, provides a standard identify woodland patches that are of County significance. information baseline and a method for identifying The Landscape Criteria allow for the mapping of patches woodlands of County significance which can be used as a that are considered to be significant and that should be starting point for individuals to manage their woodlands maintained through implementation. In addition to and for organizations to develop programs. identifying areas for protection, the landscape map can also be used to identify areas where restoration efforts and efforts to link existing patches and increase forest interior should 6.2 LAND USE PLANNING be concentrated. With the County being the proponent of the MNHS and the There are numerous options for implementing the findings expectation that the study would provide information to of the MNHS. Through the study, the following five main support the five year update to the County Official Plan, categories of options have been discussed: the MNHS did give significant consideration to implementation of the study through land use planning. The following land use planning related implementation 6.1 IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS recommendations were presented to Middlesex County Council by the Steering Committee: Regulatory Measures • It is recommended that the County place all patches that Measures to control an individuals freedom to act for the meet one or more of the landscape criteria in a “natural benefit of the individual, the community or the broader heritage” designation that is accompanied by policies public interest. Two regulatory measures that are applicable designed to maintain existing areas. in this case are: • It is recommended that the “natural heritage” policies i) the regulation of land use through official plan policy specifically allow uses such as maple syrup production, and zoning by-law regulation under the jurisdiction of passive trails and forestry following good forest the Planning Act management practices, to continue. ii) the regulation of tree cutting under the County Tree • It is recommended that stewardship policies encouraging Cutting By-Law made pursuant to the Trees Act the maintenance of all woodland patches be incorporated into the official plan. Stewardship Tools for landowners and the community to undertake • It is recommended that the policy framework of the measures which sustain and improve resources. official plan take a landscape protection approach to natural heritage verses a patch protection approach. The Education approach advocated would result in the maintenance of Creating a broad awareness of the importance of the resource all natural heritage patches that meet one criteria and the and actions that can be taken to maintain and restore the emphasis would be on protecting the system rather than resource. Education and stewardship are closely linked. assessing the impact of the loss of parts of the system.

Incentives In addition to making the foregoing recommendations, a Measures that reward good management practices. The modified policy framework was provided to the County. incentive can be financial or simply recognition. The policy framework was based on the existing Middlesex County Official Plan policy and included revisions which Acquisition would implement the recommendations noted. Outright purchase of land or easements as a means of obtaining management control.

A comprehensive program to achieve the goals identified for the natural heritage of Middlesex County could involve elements of each of these measures and it may involve strategies which go beyond the ones that are listed. The

38 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e Pagex N a t43 u rof a l121 H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

Couturier, A. 1999. Conservation Priorities for the Birds 7. References of Southern Ontario. Unpublished Bird Studies Canada report. Port Rowan, Ontario.

Curtis, J.T. 1959. The Vegetation of Wisconsin. University American Forests. 2001. Environmental Benefits of of Wisconsin Press, Madison. Urban Trees. www.americanforests.org Department of Energy and Resources Management. Bakowsky, W.D. 1993. A review and assessment of prairie, 1965. Sydenham Valley Conservation Report. oak savannah and woodland in Site Regions 7 and 6 (southern region). 89 pp., appendices. [Report. Gore & Department of Energy and Resources Management. Storrie Ltd. for Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 1966. Lower Thames Conservation Report. Southern Region, Aurora.] Department of Energy and Resources Management. Beschta, R.L., R.E. Bilby, G.W. Brown, L.B. Holtby and 1967. Kettle Creek Conservation Report. T.D. Hofstra. 1987. Stream temperature and aquatic habitat: fisheries and forestry interactions. p.191-232. In: Department of Planning and Development. 1949. E.O. Salo and T.W. Cundy (ed.). Stream side management: Ausable Valley Conservation Report. forestry and fishery interactions. Contrib. 57. Seattle, W.A. February 1986. Institute of Forest Research, University of Department of Planning and Development. 1952. Upper Washington, Seattle, W.A. Thames Valley Conservation Report.

Bowles, J.M. 1986. Preliminary Life Science Inventory Elliott, K.A., B.D. Batchelor, E.P. Boysen, A.S. Corlett of the Medway Creek Valley and Snake Creek Valley known and S.R. Reid. 1997. Hardwood silviculture of the as Dead Horse Canyon and Fox Hollow. Sponsored by the northeast United States. Ministry of Natural Resources. McIlwraith Field Naturalists of London, Inc. South-central Science Internal Report. 21pp.

Bowles, J.M. 1997. Oxford County Terrestrial Ecosystems Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of Natural Study Life Sciences Report. 67 pp. Resources and Ontario Ministry of Environment. 1998. A Framework for guiding Habitat Rehabilitation in Great Bowles, J.M., W. Draper, A. Heagy, M. Kanter and B. Lakes Areas of Concern. Canada - Ontario Remedial Action Larson. 1994. City of London Sub-Watershed Studies Plan Steering Committee. Life Science Inventories. Freemark, K. and B. Collins. 1992. Landscape ecology Bowles, J.M., N. Gaetz, T. Schwan and R. Steele. 2001. of breeding birds in temperate forest fragments. In: Ecology Assessing Forest Health in the Maitland Watershed and Conservation of Neotropical migrant Land birds. J.M. (Preliminary Draft Report). Maitland watershed Hagan III and D.W. Johnson (eds.). Smithsonian Institution Partnership. Press, London.

Bowles, J.M. 2002. The Effects of Diameter limit Logging Gartner Lee Ltd. 2002. Rationale and Methodology for on Upland Forests in Middlesex County. Determining Significant Woodlands in the Regional Municipality of Halton. Final Draft Technical Background Buckman, H.O. and N.C. Brady. 1961. The Nature Paper #6. Prepared for The Regional Municipality of and Properties of Soils: A College Text of Edaphology. Halton. 66pp. MacMillan Company. New York, New York. 567pp. Griffiths, R.W. 2001. Mapping the Water Quality of Castelle, A.J., A.W. Johnson and C. Conolly. 1994. Watercourses in the Region of Halton. Planning and Public Wetland and stream buffer size requirements - a review. Works. Regional Municipality of Halton. Journal of Environmental Quality 23: 878-882. Harris, L.D. 1984. The Fragmented Forest. University of Chapman, L.J. and D.F. Putnam. 1972. Physiography Chicago Press. 211 pp. of the Southwestern Portion of Southern Ontario. Map 2225. Scale 1:253,440. Ontario Department of Mines and Henshaw, B. and D. Leadbeater. 1998. The Spatial Northern Affairs, Ontario Research Foundation. Distribution of waterfowl Nests and Predation Patterns in the Vicinity of Oshawa Second Marsh and Lynde Shores City of London. 2000. Guideline Document for the Conservation Area. Prepared for Friends of Second Marsh Evaluation of Ecologically Significant Woodlands. and Environment Canada. Planning and Development, City of London, Ontario.

39 11.B.7 - CW

OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e Pagex N a t44 u rof a l121 H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

Hills, G.A. 1959. A ready reference to the description of Miller, G.W., T.M. Schuler and H.C. Smith. 1995. the land of Ontario and its productivity. Ontario Department Method of applying group selection in central Appalachians of Lands and Forests, Research Division Preliminary Report, hardwoods. USDA Forestry Service Northeastern Forest 141pp. Experimental Station. Research Paper NE-696. 11pp.

Hilts, S.G. and F.S. Cook. 1982. Significant Natural Areas Nathan, R., G.G. Katul, H.S. Horn, S.M. Thomas, R. of Middlesex County. McIlwraith Field Naturalists in Oren, R. Avissars, S.W. Pacala and S. Levin. 2002. cooperation with School of Rural Planning and Mechanisms of long-distance dispersal of seeds by wind. Development, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario. Nature 418: 409 - 413. 189pp. and maps. O’Laughlin, J. and G.H. Belt. 1995. Functional Husch, B., C. I. Miller and T. W. Beers. 1972. Forest approaches to riparian buffer strip design. Journal of Mensuration. John Wiley and Sons. New York. USA. Forestry 93:29-32. 410 p.p. Oldham, M.J. 1993. Distribution and status of the vascular Jalava, J.V. 1996. Life Science Areas of Natural and plants of southwestern Ontario. Draft. Ontario Ministry of Scientific Interest in Ecological Site Regions 6 and 7: Natural Resources, Aylmer District. 150 pp. Summary of Locations, Sizes and Evaluation Reports. Natural Heritage Information Centre. OMNR. Oldham, M.J., W.D. Bakowsky and D.A. Sutherland. Peterborough. iv + 41 pp. 1995. Floristic Quality Assessment System for Southern Ontario. Heritage Information Centre, Ontario Ministry of Johnson, A. W. and D.M. Ryba. 1992. A literature review Natural Resources, Ontario. of recommended buffer widths to maintain various functions of stream riparian areas. King County Surface Water Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Management Division, Washington, USA. (29pp.). Affairs. 1985. Soils of Middlesex County. Resources and Regulations Branch, Geographical Information Systems Law, J.R. and C.G. Lorimer. 1989. Managing uneven- Unit. age stands. In: Clark, F.B. and J.G. Hutchinson (eds.). 1989. Central hardwood notes. USDA Forestry Service North Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs. 1997. Provincial Central Forestry Experimental Station. St. Paul, MN. Note Policy Statement. Queen’s Printer. Ontario. 6.08. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1983. Lee, H., W. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, Management of tolerant hardwoods in Algonquin Provincial P. Uhlig and S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological Land Park. Toronto: Forest Resources Branch, Ontario Ministry Classification for Southern Ontario. First Approximation of Natural Resources. and Its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, South-Central Science Section, Science Development and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1987. Class Transfer branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02. Environmental Assessment for Timber Management on Crown Lands in Ontario. Levenson, J.B. 1981. Woodlots as biogeographic islands in southeastern Wisconsin. Pp. 13-39, In: R.L. Burgess and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1994. Ontario D.M. Sharpe (eds.). Forest Island Dynamics in Man- Wetland Evaluation System Southern Manual Covering dominated Landscapes. Springer-Verlag. 310 pp. Hill’s Site Regions 6 and 7. 3rd Edition.

Lowrance, R., S. Dabney and R. Schultz. 2002. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1999. Natural Improving water and soil quality with conservation buffers. Heritage Training Manual for Policy 2.3 of the Provincial Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 57 (2). Policy Statement. Version 1.0. 67pp. plus appendices.

McAurthur, R.H. and E.O. Wilson. 1967. The theory of Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2000a. island biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, Vegetative Buffer Strips and Wetlands. New Jersey. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2000b. A McPherson, E.G., D. Nowak, G. Heisler, S. Grimmond, Silvicultural Guide to Managing Southern Ontario Forests. C. Souch, R. Grant and R. Rowntree. 1997. Quantifying Version 1.1. Ontario Ministry Resources. Queen’s Printer urban forest structure, function and value: The Chicago for Ontario. Toronto. 648p. Urban Forest Climate Project. Urban Ecosystems. 1: 49- 61.

40 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14,T h 2014 e M i d d l e s e Pagex N a t45 u rof a l121 H e r i t a g e S t u d yAttachment 3

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2000c. Welsh, 1991. Riparian Forest Buffers: Function and Design Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. Queen’s for Protection and Enhancement of Water Resources. United Printer. 151pp. States Department of Agriculture, Radnor, PA.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2002a. Ontario Wilcove, D.S. 1988. Forest fragmentation as a wildlife Tree Marking Guide, Version 1.1. Ontario Ministry of management issue in the eastern United States. Presented Natural Resources. Queen’s printer for Ontario. Toronto. at the convention of the Society of American Foresters. 228p. Rochester, N.Y. October 16-19, 1988.

Riley, J. And P. Mohr. 1994. The Natural Heritage of Wilhelm, G.S. and D. Ladd. 1988. Natural area assessment Southern Ontario’s Settled Landscapes. Technical Report in the Chicago region. pp. 361-375. In: Transactions of the TR-001. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Southern 53rd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Region, Aurora. 78pp. Conference. Wildlife Management Institute. Washington, D.C. Rowe, J.S. 1972. Forest regions of Canada. Canadian Forestry Service Publication # 1300, Department of Whittaker, R.H. 1975. Communities and Ecosystems. Fisheries and the Environment, Ottawa. 2nd ed. Macmillan, New York.

Scott, K.I., E.G. McPherson and J.R. Simpson. 1998. Air pollutant uptake by Sacramento’s urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture 24(4): 215-233.

Semeniuk, R. 2001. Do bears fish in the woods? The Ecologist (article #210).

Snell and Cecile Environmental Research. 1995. The Ausable-Bayfield Conservation Authority Watershed Management Strategy. Prepared with the Ausable-Bayfield Conservation Authority.

Stephenson, D.E. 1991. Preliminary Life Science Inventory of the Thames River Between St. Marys and Fanshawe Lake. Woodfern Research. Kitchener, Ontario. 32p.

Tchir, T. and E.A. Johnson. 2002. A Review of the History of Deforestation in North America. In: The Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems. EOLSS Publishers Co. Ltd.

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority. 1996. Slope Stability Mapping Project for the City of London.

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority. 1997. The Oxford County Terrestrial Ecosystems Study (OCTES). A Natural Heritage Study for Oxford County.

Vanderschot, I. 1997. The Role of Landowners in Natural Heritage Systems Planning: An Oxford County Case Study. Masters Thesis, Land Resources Science, University of Guelph, Ontario.

Weathers, K.C., M.L. Cadenasso and S.T.A. Pickett. 2001. Forest edges as nutrient and pollutant concentrators: potential synergisms between fragmentation, forest canopies and the atmosphere. Conservation Biology 15 (6): 1506 - 1514.

41 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 46 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

APPENDIX 1

LANDOWNER CONTACT PACKAGE

A1- 1 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 47 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

Date: Landowner Name Landowner Address

Dear Landowner

Re: Request for Access to Property for Life Science Inventory, Middlesex County Natural Heritage Study

Five Conservation Authorities and the County of Middlesex are involved in a collaborative effort to conduct a life science (biological) inventory of the natural areas found throughout Middlesex County. The purpose of the study is to identify, locate and determine the health of woodlands, wetlands and aquatic systems within Middlesex County; and to use this information in the development of the County’s Official Plan.

We are writing you to request consent for access to your property at Property Address because it contains a natural forest or wetland feature. Site visits will be made by Conservation Authority staff throughout the summer (2001). The information that we collect about your woodlot and /or associated wetland features can be used to assist you in developing land use planning options, determining the significance of the natural features in your woodlot and in managing the natural heritage features on your property. As part of the thank-you package, all landowners who permit the Conservation Authority access to their property will receive a copy of the report summary in the winter of 2002.

While we understand that this is a very busy time for you, we would greatly appreciate your reply on the enclosed consent form (this applies whether you agree to consent or not) by date (or as soon as possible). If you have any information about the plants, animals or nesting birds on your property that could assist in this study, please check the appropriate space on the consent form and a representative from the Conservation Authority will contact you at your convenience. As well, I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have and can be reached at (519) 451-2800 ext. 261 between 8:15 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. If I am out of the office, please leave a message and I will return your call as soon as possible.

Thank you very much for your time.

Yours truly, UPPER THAMES RIVER CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

Tara Tchir Planning Ecologist

A1- 2 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 48 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

LANDOWNER CONSENT FORM FOR ACCESS TO PROPERTY For the 2001 Life Science Inventory of the Middlesex County Natural Heritage Study

Please complete this form and return it in the enclosed stamped, self-addressed envelope by date (or as soon as possible). Thank-you very much for your assistance with this inventory study.

Permission is granted for qualified personnel, employed by the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, to be on lands described as Property Address owned by Landowner Name between June 11th, 2001 and August 31st, 2001 for the purpose of conducting life science (biological) inventories. It is understood that Conservation Authority staff carry the necessary liability insurance for this project.

G YES

G NO (please explain): ______

______

G I / We have records or information about the plants, animals or nesting birds on my/our property.

______

Contact Person(s): ______

Telephone: ______

Signed by: ______

Date: ______

A1- 3 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 49 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

Middlesex County Natural Heritage Study Project Update - Spring 2001

In 1999, the County of Middlesex asked the five C Baseline data for natural heritage features Conservation Authorities with jurisdiction within C Natural heritage systems mapping its boundaries, as well as the Ministries of Natural C Determining the criteria for and local Resources and Municipal Affairs and Housing, to definition of woodland significance participate in a coordinated natural heritage study C Landowner conservation / stewardship / in Middlesex County. education tools C Identifying possible sites for future The County recognized the need to develop a restoration and rehabilitation projects solid information and policy basis for its woodland and wetland features, in order to fulfil the Project Phases County’s obligations under the Provincial Policy The Middlesex County Natural Heritage Study Statement for the protection and rehabilitation of will be completed early in 2002. The information natural heritage features and functions (Section will be available for local official plan updates and 2.3). for the next update of the County’s official plan.

The Middlesex County Natural Heritage Study Tasks completed in 2000/2001: has several goals: C Formed multi-partner steering committee 1. To increase our understanding of the to direct the project. County’s natural heritage features and C Obtained satellite imagery and completed systems (e.g. woodlands, wetlands and map production. aquatic systems). C Prepared Development Assessment Report 2. To develop land use planning information (DAR) guidelines and interim guidelines and policy that identifies, protects and for woodland significance for the enhances the County’s natural heritage Township of Middlesex Centre. features and systems. C Developed landowner outreach program 3. To encourage and facilitate private to provide information about conservation stewardship and public education. incentives, stewardship programs and land 4. To protect the relationships between plant use planning tools. and animal communities. C Developed communications program for municipal decision makers and local The study is a pilot project for the Carolinian interest groups. Canada Big Picture Project and the Ministry of Natural Resources Ecological Land Classification Winter 2001 tasks: System, as well as landowner outreach and C Review, update and standardize stewardship approaches. The study’s specific information on natural features in products include: Middlesex County. C Background for official plan policy C Determine the number and location of field (county and local plans) visits needed.

A1- 4 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 50 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

Spring / Summer 2001 tasks: The Upper Thames River Conservation Authority C Implement the landowner outreach is leading the study, under the direction of a program. steering committee comprised of representatives C Collect biological information for 80 to from the partner groups. The steering committee 100 sites. is determining the best approach for assessing the C Cross reference study results that affect natural features of Middlesex County, with input bordering municipalities. from local municipalities, landowners, the C Develop an interim natural heritage policy agricultural community, and other stakeholders. framework for local municipalities. All of the project partners are kept informed throughout the project phases. Fall 2001 / Winter 2002 tasks: C Incorporate results into County and lower For more information or to get involved: tier official plans, as well as CA land use Check your local Conservation Authority’s web planning advisory services. site: C Make the information base available to < Ausable Bayfield CA- other partners to assist in their own www.execulink.com/~abca/ conservation programs. < Kettle Creek CA- www.kettlecreekconservation.on.ca Budget and Partners < Lower Thames Valley CA- The estimated budget for the Middlesex County www.lowerthames-conservation.on.ca Natural Heritage Study is $105,000 over three < St. Clair Region CA- years. This figure includes in-kind contributions www.scrca.on.ca but not volunteer time donated by the steering < Upper Thames River CA- committee participants. www.thamesriver.on.ca

As of March 2001, the project partners include: Visit the Middlesex County Natural Heritage C County of Middlesex Study website: C Middlesex Stewardship Committee http:/www.thamesriver.on.ca/MNHS/MNHS.htm C Middlesex County Conservation Authorities (Ausable Bayfield, St. Clair Phone or email: Region, Lower Thames Valley, Kettle Tara Tchir Creek and Upper Thames River) Planning Ecologist C City of London Upper Thames River Conservation Authority C Carolinian Canada (519) 451-2800 ext. 261 C Nature Conservancy of Canada [email protected] C Ministry of Natural Resources C Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Steve Evans C Thames - Talbot Land Trust Director of Planning and Economic Development C Natural Heritage Coalition of Thames County of Middlesex Centre (519) 434-7321 ext. 253 [email protected]

A1- 5 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 51 of 121 Attachment 3 T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

APPENDIX 2

STANDARD FIELD DATA FORMS

A2- 1 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 52 of 121 Attachment 3 T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

Page ...... of ...... Patch ID: Community Number(s): PRE - FIELD PATCH ANALYSIS : Complete only once for each patch

PATCH IDENTIFICATION Landowner Patch ID # UTMZ UTME UTMN Township Lot Concession Aerial Photo # Date of Photo Patch Area (ha)

Soil Texture (soil map) Slope (DEM) Aspect (DEM) Check all that apply G Stream classification done by: G Within a Big Picture core G Within a Big Picture corridor G Patches adjacent to the City of London G Within an area zoned for development

PATCH EVALUATION CRITERIA: Circle one in each row Distance to road 0 - 100 m 100 - 200m 200 - 300m 300 - 400m > 400m (major 2 lane)

Patch Size < 4 ha 4 - 10 ha >10 - 20 ha >20 - 40 ha > 40 ha (2.2) * (3) **

Woodland Size Patch contains <2 ha Patch contains 2 - 4 ha Patch contains > 4 - 10 Patch contains >10 - Patch contains > 20 ha (2.2a) * of upland forest of upland forest ha of upland forest 20 ha of upland forest of upland forest

Patch Interior 100m circle does not 100m circle just fits 100m circle fits inside 100m circle fits inside 100m circle fits inside (2.2b) * fit inside patch inside patch patch with < 2% of patch with 2 - 4% of patch with > 4% of (3) ** interior patch area interior patch area interior patch area remaining remaining remaining

Proximity to > 4 ha >400 m to next patch >250 - 400 m to next >100 - 250m to next >40 - 100 m to next # 40 m to next patch patch patch patch patch (1.2c) * (6) **

Connectedness / No connecting natural Natural area connected Natural area connected Natural area connected Natural area connected Fragmentation corridors; natural areas by cultural corridors by natural corridors < by natural corridors 10 by natural corridors > (1.2b) * separated by active 10 m wide - 30 m wide and > 80 30 m wide and < 80 m (6) ** agricultural lands or m long long urban development

Distinctive Patch not on Patch on significant Patch on slopes Patch on remnant Patch on glacial Landforms significant slopes, slopes as well as on till associated with glacial valley slopes meltwater channels, (4.2a) * and/or is on Till Plain plain or spillways deposits, lake associated with Arva, lakes or on Beach or spillways shorelines or Till Ingersoll and Ridge or Sand Plain Moraine Westminster Moraines

Slope no slope 0 - 10% slope on any > 10 - 15% on heavy > 10 - 15% on silty >15% slope on any (1.1b)* soil clay, clay or silty clay loam, sandy loam, soil loam, fine sand to coarse sand * City of London. 2000. Guideline Document for the Evaluation of Ecologically Significant Woodlands. ** Bowles, J and B. Bergsma. November 30, 1999. Components of the Natural Heritage System Guidelines for the Evaluation of Patches.

A2- 2 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 53 of 121 Attachment 3 T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

Page ...... of ...... Patch ID: Community Number(s):

POST - FIELD PATCH ANALYSIS : Complete only once for each patch

PATCH EVALUATION CRITERIA: Circle one in each row Community Patch homogeneous; Patch relatively Patch containing 2 - 5 Patch containing 6 - Patch containing > 10 Structure and all vegetation homogeneous, 2 - 5 ELC vegetation types 10 ELC vegetation ELC vegetation types Diversity (excludes communities of the ELC vegetation types in 2 ELC Community types in 2 Community in 2 Community cultural same ELC vegetation in 1 ELC Community Series; or 6 - 10 ELC Series; or >10 ELC Series; or $ 3 ELC communities) type and the same Series vegetation types in one vegetation types in one Community Series (2.3a) * ELC Community ELC Community ELC Community (5) ** Series Series Series

Vegetation Type and Woodland Woodland has 3 Woodland has 1 Woodland has 4 + Woodland has 2 + Topographic homogeneous with 1 - vegetation types on vegetation type with vegetation types vegetation types on 2 Diversity 2 vegetation types on one topographic complexes + different topographic (2.3b) * one topographic feature features feature

Conifer cover Patch contains no Patch contains Patch contains Patch contains Patch contains a (2.3d) * coniferous plantations of non- plantations of native naturalized vegetation naturalized native (6) ** communities; or native, non-invasive indigenous conifer communities with 25 - conifer community plantations of non- conifer species species 75% native conifer (with > 75% conifer native, invasive conifer canopy cover canopy cover) species

Woodland Cover No woodland cover < 10% woodland 10 - 25% woodland 25 - 50% woodland 50 - 100% woodland (1.2a) * cover cover cover cover

Hydrological Patch > 100 m from Patch > 50 - 100 m > 30 - 50 m from a # 30 m from an Includes or is adjacent Features (includes: the nearest from a hydrological hydrological feature intermittent (not to a permanent watercourses, hydrological feature feature permanent) hydrological feature wetlands, aquifers, hydrological feature seepage) (1.1a) * (4) **

Groundwater No recharge areas Up to 20% or < 2 ha 20 - 40% or 2 - 4 ha of > 40 - 60% or 4 - 10 > 60 - 100% or > 10 Recharge Areas on identified in patch of patch in a recharge patch in a recharge ha of patch in a ha of patch in a course substrate area area recharge area recharge area (1.1a) * (4) **

Wetland Hydrology No wetland areas Patch containing or Patch containing or Patch containing or Patch containing a (1.1a) * within the patch connected to a wetland connected to a wetland connected to a wetland provincially significant (4) ** meeting no key meeting 1 key meeting 2 key wetland; or a wetland hydrology functions hydrology function *** hydrology functions meeting 3 or more key *** *** hydrology functions *** * City of London. 2000. Guideline Document for the Evaluation of Ecologically Significant Woodlands. ** Bowles, J and B. Bergsma. November 30, 1999. Components of the Natural Heritage System Guidelines for the Evaluation of Patches. *** Key Hydrology Functions (defined by OMNR 3rd ed. Wetland evaluation manual for Southern Ontario) : - Flood Attenuation - Groundwater Discharge - Carbon Sink / Long Term Nutrient Trap - Groundwater Recharge - Water Quality Improvement

A2- 3 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 54 of 121 Attachment 3 T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

Page ...... of ...... Patch ID: Community Number(s): IN - FIELD PATCH ANALYSIS : Complete only once for each patch

ANTHROPOGENIC MANAGEMENT DATA SHEET FOR PATCH: Plantation none occasional abundant dominant Extent none local widespread extensive Sugar Bush none light moderate heavy Extent none local widespread extensive Non-native none occasional abundant dominant Species Extent none local widespread extensive Livestock none light moderate heavy Extent none local widespread extensive Trails none faint well marked tracks / road Extent none local widespread extensive Artificial Drainage none occasional abundant dominant Extent none local widespread extensive Dumping none light moderate heavy Extent none local widespread extensive Earth movement none light moderate heavy Extent none local widespread extensive Recreation none light moderate heavy Extent none local widespread extensive Noise none slight moderate intense Extent none local widespread extensive Other ...... none light moderate heavy Extent none local widespread extensive

A2- 4 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 55 of 121 Attachment 3 T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

Page ...... of ...... Patch ID: Community Number(s): IN - FIELD PATCH ANALYSIS : Complete only once for each patch

NATURAL PROCESSES DATA SHEET FOR PATCH: Wind throw none light moderate heavy Extent none local widespread extensive Disease / Death none light moderate heavy Extent none local widespread extensive Canopy Gaps none small intermediate large Extent none local widespread extensive Fire none light moderate heavy Extent none local widespread extensive Flooding none light moderate heavy Extent none local widespread extensive Ice Damage none light moderate heavy Extent none local widespread extensive Browse none light moderate heavy Extent none local widespread extensive Beaver none light moderate heavy Extent none local widespread extensive Other ...... none light moderate heavy Extent none local widespread extensive

Comments:

A2- 5 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 56 of 121 Attachment 3 T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

Page ...... of ...... Patch ID: Community Number(s): IN - FIELD PATCH ANALYSIS : Complete only once for each patch POTENTIAL TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT: Check all that apply G Cavity Trees G Snags G Hibernacula G Mast Trees / Fruit Shrubs G Stick Nests G Dens / Burrows G Fallen Logs G Remnant Pools G Healthy Watercourse G Other (specify) ......

INCIDENTAL WILDLIFE SIGHTING (Aquatic / Terrestrial Species List): TY SP. CODE EV NOTES # TY SP. CODE EV NOTES #

FAUNAL TYPE CODES (TY): B = BIRD M = MAMMAL H = HERPETOFAUNA L = LEPIDOPTERA F = FISH O = OTHER

EVIDENCE CODES (EV): POSSIBLE BREEDING BIRD SH = SUITABLE HABITAT SM = SINGING MALE

PROBABLE BREEDING BIRD T = TERRITORY A = ANXIETY BEHAVIOUR D = DISPLAY P = PAIR V = VISITING NEST N = NEST BUILDING

CONFIRMED BREEDING BIRD DD = DISTRACTION NE = EGGS AE = NEST ENTRY NU = USED NEST NY = YOUNG FY = FLEDGED YOUNG FS = FOOD/FAECAL SACK

OTHER WILDLIFE OB = OBSERVED DP = DISTINCTIVE PARTS TK = TRACKS VO = VOCALIZATION FE = FEEDING EVIDENCE CA = CARCASS

A2- 6 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 57 of 121 Attachment 3 T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

Page ...... of ...... Patch ID: Community #:

IN - FIELD COMMUNITY ANALYSIS: Complete for each community

COMMUNITY IDENTIFICATION: Surveyor(s) Date Aspect (dir.) Slope (/) circle one: < 2 2 - 9 10 - 30 > 30

COMMUNITY / POLYGON DESCRIPTION: Check one in each group SYSTEM TOPOGRAPHIC DOMINANT PLANT COMMUNITY FEATURE FORM G Terrestrial G Lacustrine G Plankton G Lake G Wetland G Riverine G Submerged G Pond G Aquatic G Bottomland G Floating G River G Terrace G Graminoid G Stream SUBSTRATE G Valley Slope G Forb G Marsh G Organic G Tableland G Lichen G Swamp G Mineral G Rolling Land G Bryophyte G Fen G Bluff G Deciduous G Bog HISTORY G Coniferous G Barren G Natural COMM. AGE G Mixed G Meadow G Cultural G Pioneer G Prairie G Young SITE G Thicket COVER G Mid-Age G Open Water G Savanna G Open G Mature G Shallow Water G Woodland G Shrub G Old Growth G Surficial Dep. G Forest G Treed * G Plantation

* Note: Record whether it is open, sparse or closed

A2- 7 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 58 of 121 Attachment 3 T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

Page ...... of ...... Patch ID: Vegetation Type #: Community #

IN - FIELD VEGETATION TYPE ANALYSIS: Complete for each vegetation type

STAND DESCRIPTION: HT CODES: 1 = >25m 2 = 1060% LAYER HT CVR SPECIES IN ORDER OF DECREASING DOMINANCE 1 CANOPY 2 SUB-CANOPY 3 UNDER STOREY 4 GRD. LAYER

MOISTURE REGIME (circle one): Dry Fresh Moist Wet / Organic COMMENTS:

Soil Texture (as verified in field):

Drainage:

Other:

POST - FIELD VEGETATION TYPE ANALYSIS: Complete for each vegetation type

Community Description:

COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATION: Community Class Code Community Series Code Ecosite Code Vegetation Type Code

A2- 8 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 59 of 121 Attachment 3 T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

Page ...... of ...... Patch ID: Vegetation Type #: Community #:

IN - FIELD VEGETATION TYPE ANALYSIS: Complete for each vegetation type

TREE TALLY BY SPECIES: Prism Factor (BAF) G Stations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Total # of Stations Diameter Classes Species Small: Medium: Large: Total < 25cm >25cm- 50cm >50cm

DEAD (snags) Total Actual Basal Area (m2/ha) **

** Total Trees ( ) x BAF ( ) = Actual BA/ha

Comments:

A2- 9 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 60 of 121 Attachment 3 T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

Page ...... of ...... Patch ID: Vegetation Type #: Community #:

IN - FIELD VEGETATION TYPE ANALYSIS: Complete for each vegetation type

PLANT SPECIES LIST: LAYERS: 1 = CANOPY 2 = SUB-CANOPY 3 = UNDER STOREY 4 = GROUND LAYER ABUNDANCE CODES: R = RARE O = OCCASIONAL A = ABUNDANT D = DOMINANT

SPECIES CODE LAYER COLL. SPECIES CODE LAYER COLL.

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

A2- 10 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 61 of 121 Attachment 3 T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

Page ...... of ...... Patch ID: Vegetation Type #: Community #:

IN - FIELD VEGETATION TYPE ANALYSIS: Complete for each vegetation type

PLANT SPECIES LIST: LAYERS: 1 = CANOPY 2 = SUB-CANOPY 3 = UNDER STOREY 4 = GROUND LAYER ABUNDANCE CODES: R = RARE A = ABUNDANT D = DOMINANT

SPECIES CODE LAYER COLL. SPECIES CODE LAYER COLL.

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

A2- 11 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 62 of 121 Attachment 3 T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

Page ...... of ...... Patch ID: Vegetation Type #: Community #: IN - FIELD VEGETATION TYPE ANALYSIS: Complete for each vegetation type

PLANT SPECIES LIST: LAYERS: 1 = CANOPY 2 = SUB-CANOPY 3 = UNDER STOREY 4 = GROUND LAYER ABUNDANCE CODES: R = RARE A = ABUNDANT D = DOMINANT

SPECIES CODE LAYER COLL. SPECIES CODE LAYER COLL.

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Comments:

A2- 12 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 63 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

APPENDIX 3

GLOSSARY

A3 - 1 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 64 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

Abundance codes: the quantity (noted as rare, water, emergent woody or herbaceous vegetation occasional, abundant or dominant) of a plant species in cover <25%, vegetation cover absent or of submerged a vegetation community. or floating leaved plant species.

Abundant: large numbers of individuals or clumps of Associate species: a species which is a normal individuals likely to be encountered anywhere in a given component of a vegetation community, but which does area (e.g. vegetation community). When describing not have sufficient importance to rank dominant, co- herbaceous plants, usually forms 10% of the ground dominant or secondary. cover. Aspect: orientation of slope face expressed as a Adjacent: next to or nearest to. compass direction.

Adventive: a non-native species (generally plant) Barren: unusually open sites on bedrock or growing without human aid or intervention. See Alien unconsolidated material where major limiting factor is species. drought. Substrate surface a mosaic of exposed bare substrate and vegetation cover. May have stunted Alien species: species that are not native to a particular trees and low shrubs with patchy and open vegetation region. In the case of Ontario, alien species are those cover, but not tall grass species. that did not occur prior to European settlement. Alien species are brought into an area from other parts of the Basal area: the area occupied by plants, especially world or province, intentionally or accidentally by trees, near the ground surface. Usually measured in humans. Some alien species, such as Common m2/ha. The diameter of a tree is measured at breast Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) and Garlic Mustard height approximately 1.5m above the ground surface; (Alliaria petiolaris) can be highly invasive and or across a clump of graminoids, usually 2 to 3 cm dominate woodland areas to the detriment of the native above the ground surface. flora. Intensity was judged from the number of alien species and abundance of individual species. Biodiversity: total richness of biological variation, ranging from within species genetic variation, through Amphibians: any vertebrate animal whose life history subspecies and species, to communities and the includes an aquatic gill-breathing larval stage followed patterns and dynamics of these on the landscape (City by a terrestrial lung-breathing adult stage. Includes of London 2000). frogs, toads, newts, and salamanders. Amphibians can be indicators of healthy woodlands with well Bluff: a shoreline area of a river or lake with steep to functioning processes (OMNR 1999, 2000c). vertical slopes of unconsolidated surficial deposits that are subject to active erosion from slumping, mass Aquatic system: water table above substrate surface wasting or toe erosion. including flooded bedrock, mineral or organic substrates. Permanently flooded sites with persistent

A3 - 2 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 65 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

Bog: deep (>40 cm) sphagnum peat lands generally Community age: the estimated successional stage of unaffected by nutrient rich groundwater. Acidic and the community based on Strong et al. 1990. These often dominated by heath shrubs and mosses. May include: Pioneer, Young, Mid Aged, Sub-Climax and include open growing stunted trees. Climax.

Bottomland: land situated at the bottom of a river Community diversity: the number of different valley. It includes the flood plain, but may extend ecosites and/or community series (excluding cultural beyond the limit of flooding to the base of the valley communities) in the patch as defined by the ELC slopes. Community tables (Lee et al. 1998).

Bryophyte: plants without a vascular system such as Community series: units that are visible and mosses and liverworts. recognizable on air-photos or from a combination of maps, air photo interpretation and other remote Canopy: tallest layer of vegetation that receives direct sensing techniques. This is the lowest level in the ELC sunlight. that can be identified without a site visit. Distinguished based on the type of vegetation cover Carbon sink: an area where the rate of carbon uptake and / or the plant form that characterizes the by living organisms exceeds the rate of carbon release. community (Lee et al. 1998).

Centroid: the geometric or gravitational centre. Community SRANK: A provincial ranking system based on the rarity of a community type. Ranks are Climax: the final or end stage; a self-perpetuating based on the best available information from three community composed primarily of climax species factors: estimated number of occurrences, estimated showing uneven stand age distribution. areal extent and estimated range. Based on Bakowsky (1993) and current status from the NHIC web page Co-dominant: two or more species that share, more or http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca./MNR/nhic/veg/lists/comml less equally, the greatest importance in the community. ist.html.

Community: an assemblage of species or populations Community type: an overall descriptor of the that live in a defined environment at a defined spatial - community setting in the landscape, to be used for temporal scale, and interact with one another to form a description purposes only. Community types include: distinctive living system with its own composition, Lakes, Ponds, Rivers, Streams, Marsh, Swamp, Fen, structure, environmental relations, development and Bog, Barren, Meadow, Prairie, Thicket, Savanna, function (Whittaker 1975). A community may be Woodland, Forest or Plantation. described and classified using the Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario (Lee et al. 1998) or any other recognized system.

A3 - 3 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 66 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

Conifer cover: an area dominated by coniferous species as a percentage of the total number of (evergreen) trees; important for providing winter food individuals of all species in the same area (Curtis and shelter for a variety of wildlife species (OMNR 1959) 1999, 2000c). Disease/ death of trees - This disturbance category Coniferous forest: a forest community where the was applied to generalized events rather than the canopy is made up of >75% coniferous trees. senescence and death of individuals in the forest canopy. Generalized tree death can occur, for Conservative bird species: species with high example, as a result of changes in site drainage, or jurisdictional responsibility, preservation responsibility disease such as Dutch Elm disease. and / or area sensitivity scores for Middlesex County based on Couturier (1999). Distinctive landforms: identified by the slope stability mapping project (UTRCA 1996) and City of London Cover: the type of vegetation that dominates an area, Glacial Geomorphology mapping (City of London GIS either open (i.e. tree-less), shrub or treed. layer).

Cultural barrier: permanent human structure or Disturbances: each disturbance type (except time feature, including roads, buildings and railroads, unless since the last logging event) was scored from 0 to 3 connected by a culvert or bridge that allows movement for intensity and 0 to 3 for extent. Intensity and extent of wildlife (City of London 2000). scores were then multiplied together to produce a score for each disturbance type. A total disturbance Cultural community: vegetation community index for each patch was calculated from the sum of originating from or maintained by people (e.g. disturbance scores. Estimated time since the last meadows growing on disturbed soils, pine plantations). logging event (in years) was also recorded for each Non-native species often abundant. patch.

Cultural corridor: includes abandoned rail or roads, Dominant plant form: the most prevalent plant form utility easements or right of ways, recreational green in a community which include Plankton, Submerged, way parks/open spaces, abandoned agricultural land Floating, Graminoids, Forbs, Lichen, Bryophyte, (City of London 2000). Deciduous Forest, Coniferous Forest, Mixed Forest.

Deciduous forest: a forest community where the Dominant: a plant species encountered throughout the canopy is made up of >75% deciduous (broad-leaved) polygon in a large numbers or clumps and visually trees. more abundant than other species (>10% of the ground cover and > 35% of the vegetation cover in Density: the number of plant individuals per unit area. any one layer). May be expressed in absolute terms or as a relative density, which is number of individuals of a certain

A3 - 4 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 67 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

Dominants(s): One to three species which dominate Fresh soil moisture: characterized by no mottles or and characterize the vegetation community. Species gleying within top half of the soil profile. were listed in order of importance based on a visual estimate. Importance combines both the size and Gaps in forest canopy: only gaps caused by abundance of species. Relative abundance was disturbance events such as logging, windstorm or indicated by >>, > or =. Species in separate strata disease were recorded. Intensity was judged by the were divided by /. number and size of gaps. The vegetation in established gaps is generally quite distinct because Dumping: any dumping of material including field gaps are frequently occupied by shade-intolerant stone or top-soil was recorded as a disturbance. species rather than shade tolerant woodland species. Shade-intolerant species tend to replace slower Earth displacement: excavation of soil for any reason growing woodland species when light levels are high. was recorded, including extraction of sand and drainage Gap dynamics are part of a healthy ecosystem, but in operations. small patches large or frequent gaps may affect the long term health of a woodlot. Ecosite: part of an ecosection that consists of a mappable area or land having a consistent set of Gleying: a soil characteristic caused by poor soil environmental factors (hydrology, soils) and patterns of aeration in saturated soils, leading to a soil profile that vegetation characteristics (City of London 2000). is typically grey in colour interspersed with yellow, orange, or rusty brown mottles or streaks. Fen: wetland with a peat substrate and nutrient rich waters, primarily vegetated by shrubs and graminoids. Graminoids: community with >75% of the vegetation Substrate of brown moss peat or marl with water composed of narrow leaved monocots with a grass-like source minerotrophic, alkaline to mildly acidic. morphology, including grasses, sedges and rushes.

Floating: aquatic community with wetland plants that Ground layer: vegetation layer that is nearest to the have their major photo synthetic area (leaves) floating substrate. on the surface of the water. Groundwater discharge: an area where the Forbs: community with >75% of the vegetation groundwater moves upward from the underlying composed of non-woody broad leaved herbaceous mineral material or emerges from surrounding plants that are either monocots or dicots but not uplands. Discharge wetlands have a high value both graminoids. for ecological reasons and because of their utility value in erosion control and water quality Forest: terrestrial vegetation community with at least improvement. Groundwater discharging in a wetland 60% tree cover of coniferous or deciduous trees (City is usually nutrient and mineral rich allowing the of London 2000). development of locally unique ecosystems.

A3 - 5 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 68 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

Groundwater recharge: the flow to groundwater Landscape variables: measurements taken from GIS storage from precipitation, infiltration from streams, information for each patch. Landscape variables and other sources of water. included patch area, patch core area after a 100m buffer was removed from around the patch perimeter, Hardwood: all broad-leafed trees. edge (buffer) area to total area ratio and distance to road, railroad, neighbour and recognized feature. History: past influences and management regime of the community. Can be either natural or cultural. Lichen: community with >50% of the vegetation composed of lichens. Hydrological features: includes groundwater recharge areas, headwater/first order watercourses, river or Linkage: according to OMNR (1999), woodlands are stream corridors, wetlands (OMNR 1994), shallow considered to be continuous even if intersected by aquifers or discharge / seepage areas as identified by standard roads 21 m wide. the subwatershed studies and / or verified through technical studies (City of London 2000). Livestock: historic livestock grazing was inferred from the condition of the ground layer flora and the Interior habitat: amount area left after 100m buffer tree species composition (such as abundance of Hop- has been removed from the interior of the woodland hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana) or Hawthorn patch perimeter (City of London 2000). (Crataegus spp.), both species tolerant of livestock impacts). Clues to previous grazing influences include Invasive species: non-native species that reproduce the presence of old fences and open-grown trees in the aggressively and displace native plant species in an forest canopy. Other indications of livestock grazing area. in the last 5-15 years are damage and compaction around tree roots and evidence of old browse lines. Lacustrine: aquatic or wetland site associated with fresh water lakes or ponds. Sediments generally consist Logging: intensity was based on evidence of the most of stratified fine sand, silt and clay deposits on a lake recent logging practices in the patch. Fuel wood bed. cutting was assumed when occasional trees, especially dead or diseased individuals, had been removed. Lake: standing water body >2 ha in area. Evidence of selective cutting included a more intensive level of tree removal, signs of skidding operations, one Landforms: the various slopes of the land surface or more trees species targeted, and so on. A diameter resulting from a variety of actions such as deposition or limit cut was indicated by heavy removal of large trees sedimentation, erosion and movements of the earth resulting in an even-aged sapling response. Time crust to create topographic features (City of London since logging was also estimated from clues such as 2000). the condition of stumps and the size of released saplings.

A3 - 6 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 69 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

Marsh: wetland with a mineral or peat substrate Mesic: soil moisture that is neither humid (hydric) nor inundated by nutrient rich water and characterized by very dry (xeric). emergent vegetation. Mid aged: a seral community which has undergone Meadow: open terrestrial communities characterized natural thinning as a result of species interaction. by grasses or forbs (not tall grass species), usually May contain some climax species. originating or maintained by cultural disturbances. Mineral substrate: soil composed of unconsolidated Mean Coefficient of Conservatism (MCC): based on mineral matter where the organic thickness (if present) the Floristic Quality Assessment System for Southern is < 40 cm. Ontario (Oldham et al. 1995) and on analysis of distribution in the London Subwatershed area (City of Mixed forest: both deciduous and coniferous species London 2000). It aids in measuring the overall quality make up >25% of the canopy cover. of a site since the conservative coefficient describes the probability of finding a species in a particular habitat Moist moisture regime: mottles occur within 15cm or type or undisturbed habitat. It ranges from 0 gleying within 45cm of mineral surface. (widespread) to 10 (found only in specialized habitats). For each patch a mean conservatism coefficient (MCC) Moisture regime: estimated soil moisture regime was calculated from the conservatism coefficients for based on plant species assemblages and soil all native species recorded from the patch. characteristics. Can be Dry, Fresh, Moist or Wet.

Mean weediness: Oldham et al. (1995)developed Mottle: spots or blotches of different soil colors or weediness coefficients for non-native species. Non- shades of colors interspersed with the dominant soil invasive adventive (non-native) species were given a color, usually the result of alternating aerobic and score of -1. Highly invasive weedy species, which have anaerobic soil conditions and indicative of poor a potential for invading natural habitats and displacing drainage. The depth of mottles in soils of different the native flora, were assigned a weediness coefficient types is a diagnostic indication of moisture regime. of -3. Mean weediness was also calculated for all patches in this study. Native species: species known to have existed on a site prior to European settlement. Mean wetness: a coefficient of wetness was assigned to plant species by Oldham et al. (1995). Wetness Natural community: resulting from natural dynamics scores range from 5 for obligate upland species to -5 of vegetation development; not maintained as a result for obligate wetland species. The mean coefficient of of anthropogenic disturbance regimes. Any wetness for a site is an indicator of the overall soil anthropogenic influences either not of sufficient moisture regime. intensity or were long enough ago that the community has recovered some of its original composition and structure.

A3 - 7 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 70 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

Natural corridor: includes hedgerows, streams, Phytosociological: refers to a recognizable and drainage features, plantations, valley and stream repeatable community of interacting plant species that corridors, riparian zones, thickets, woodlands. A occurs across a landscape under the same conditions corridor may be interrupted by some cultural features (City of London 2000). such as bridges and culverts which still permit wildlife movement (City of London 2000). Pioneer: a community which has invaded disturbed or newly created sites, and represents the early stages of Noise: persistent or repeated noise, for example either primary or secondary succession. highways, railways or manufacturing operations, was recorded. Occasional noise such as from farm Plankton: plant community composed of free-floating machinery was not recorded. microscopic organisms suspended in water. Some photosynthetic plankton, such as algae, occur in such Occasional: plants represented as scattered individuals large numbers that they form visible blooms on the throughout a community or one or more large clumps water surface. of many individuals in the polygon. Plantation: a coniferous or deciduous treed Open cover: wetland or terrestrial communities with < community in which the majority of trees have been 10% tree cover and <25% shrub cover. planted (City of London 2000).

Open water: aquatic site with deep water (usually Pond: a small body of water <2ha in area. >2m) in lakes, ponds or rivers; community dominated by plankton; vascular vegetation cover <25%. Prairie: an area of native grassland (tallgrass species present) controlled by a combination of moisture Organic substrate: soil dominated by deep organic deficiency and fire. deposits, usually >40 cm thick. Rare: plant species represented by only one to a few Patch: a vegetated unit with a discrete boundary that individuals (less than 3-5 individuals) or small clumps differs in appearance from its surroundings and is 0.5 in the community. ha in size or larger. Recreation use: signs of recreation use included Patch ID: a unique identifier (number) for each patch, tracks and recreational vehicle trails, signs of hunting used to link most of the tables and GIS files in the (deer platforms, large numbers of spent cartridges), database. fire pits, empty bottles and drink cans, forts and so on.

Patch interior: the proportion of interior to total area Remnant pond: a pond that remains from an based on a 100 m interior edge zone. Definition is ecological community that was once much larger. based on an analysis of subwatershed study patches in the City of London (2000).

A3 - 8 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 71 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

Riffle: shallow rapids where the water flows swiftly Slope: protection of runoff processes and ground over completely or partially submerged obstructions to stability (erosion potential) for slopes > 10% as produce surface disturbances, but where standing mapped in the slope stability mapping project waves are absent. (UTRCA 1996) and digital topographic layers (City of London GIS). Consideration is given to soil River: a large permanent watercourse (4th order or textures and type as described in the ELC manual (Lee larger) with at least some permanent tributary streams. et al. 1998).

Riverine: aquatic or wetland site associated with Species code: plant species recorded using the NHIC waters of a river or stream. 7- letter codes for species names.

Rolling land: topography that exhibits a complex or Stream: a permanent or intermittent water course (3rd repeated pattern of ridges, slopes and hollows, but no order or smaller). abrupt peaks or cliffs. Sub-canopy: vegetation layer under the canopy that Satellite community: a group of small woodlands does not receive direct sunlight. surrounding a larger woodland. Sub-climax: a secessional maturing community Savanna: treed community with 10 - 35% cover of dominated primarily by climax species, but significant coniferous or deciduous trees. remnants of early seral stages may be present.

Seepage: the slow movement of water near the soil Submerged: aquatic community with plants that surface, often occurring above an impermeable subsoil normally lie entirely beneath the water. Some species layer or at the boundary between bedrock and have flowering parts that break the water surface. unconsolidated material that is exposed at ground surface. Usually occurs downslope of the recharge Sugar bush operations: light or occasional sugar area (City of London 2000). bush operations include signs of historic evidence, tapping of occasional trees and instances where there Shallow water: aquatic or wetland sites with more or was little recent evidence of selective cutting for sugar less permanent shallow water (usually <2 m); bush. Heavy impacts included the presence of a vegetation cover typically >25%, except in disturbed permanent network of sap tubes, and forest sites. management towards the sugar bush operation.

Shrub cover: vegetation communities that have Surficial deposits: sites on deep (>15cm) deposits of <10%cover of trees and >25% cover of shrubs. unconsolidated organic or mineral material.

Site: categories consist of: open water, shallow water Surveyor(s): initials of all members of the field crew and surficial deposits. responsible for filling in the data.

A3 - 9 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 72 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

Swamp: a mineral rich wetland characterized by a Animal trails resulting from wildlife movement were cover (>25%) of deciduous or coniferous trees. not included. Faint trails are visible mostly as compacted and vegetation-free strips on ground System: predominant form of ecosystem which can be surface. Well marked trails are usually actively either terrestrial, wetland or aquatic. managed, the trail itself is wider and some brush maybe cut at the side of the trail. Often there are Tableland: an upland area that is essentially flat, on a signs of erosion on the trail itself and there may be a more or less level plain that is not associated with any change in the trail-side vegetation. Tracks or roads marked topographic feature. are, or have been, used by vehicles. There is commonly a gap in the canopy above the track and Terrace: a relatively level bench that is created and distinct flora along the edge. occurs within river valleys but is above the reach of modern flood waters. Sometimes sharp or low breaks Treed cover: all vegetation patches containing tree occur between individual terrace surfaces. These cover >10% cover (City of London 2000). features are formed during a period of fluvial stability followed be a period of down-cutting by a stream. Understory: vegetation layer intermediate in height Typically represent historical shorelines or flood plains. between the canopy and the ground layer (e.g. shrub layer in the forest). Terrestrial system: water table rarely above substrate surface; substrate of parent mineral material, mineral Upland forest: all forest that is found above regulated soil or bedrock; depth of accumulated organics < 40cm; fill lines (City of London 2000). standing or vernal pools of water. Valley slope: sloping walls of a distinct valley Thicket: open terrestrial community characterized by associated with a river or stream. Site in a clearly < 10% tree cover and > 25% tall shrub (> 2m) cover. incised river valley.

Threatened and Endangered Species: identification, Vegetation layers: includes canopy, sub-canopy, evaluation and listing of provincially endangered or understory and ground layers. threatened species as determined by the OMNR (City of London 2000). Vegetation type: the finest level of resolution in the ELC, identified through site and stand level research Topographic feature: the dominant feature of the and inventory. Vegetation types are generated by patch. Includes lacustrine, riverine, bottomland, grouping similar plant communities based on plant terrace, valley slope, tableland, rolling land and bluff species composition and dominance, according to features. relative cover. The goal is to distill the natural diversity and variability of plant communities to a Tracks and trails: roads, paths and trails made and small number of relatively uniform vegetation units maintained by human were considered disturbances. (City of London 2000).

A3 - 10 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 73 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

Vernal pool: a pool appearing in the spring and/or fall.

Watercourse: has one or more of the following characteristics: a distinct channel in which water naturally flows at some time of the year (i.e. either permanent or intermittent flow), natural riparian vegetation or a type I - IV aquatic habitat (City of London 2000).

Wet moisture regime: mottles within 5cm of surface.

Wetland: defined by the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System Southern Manual 3rd edition (OMNR 1994) with a minimum community size of 0.5 ha.

Wetland system: water table above substrate surface; flooded bedrock, mineral or organic substrates, standing water >20% of ground coverage. Water levels fluctuate. Emergent herbaceous or woody vegetation cove >25%.

Windstorm (blowdown): evidence that trees had been uprooted or broken by wind. Does not include isolated, single tree falls or damage to small branches.

Woodland: a treed community with 35 - 60% cover of coniferous or deciduous trees (Lee et al. 1998, City of London Significant Woodlands Criteria, Provincial Policy Statement 1997, City of London Official Plan).

Woodland cover: percentage cover of woodlands within 2km radius circle from patch centroid (City of London 2000).

Young: a community which has not undergone a series of natural thinning. Plants are essentially growing as independent individuals rather than as members of a photo-sociological community.

A3 - 11 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 74 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

APPENDIX 4

DATABASE RELATIONSHIP DIAGRAM

A4 - 1 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 75 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

COMMUNIT PATCHES PATCH WILD CRITTERS UTCRITTER

PATCHID PATCHID ID ID PATCHID SP-CODE

SPECIES

STAND PRISM SWEEP PLANTS COMMUNITYID ID COMMUNITYID COMMUNITYID

UTPLANT

SP-CODE SP-CODE

A4 - 1 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 76 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

APPENDIX 5

Vascular Plants of Middlesex County

Species Codes and County Status

A5 - 1 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 77 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

The following list gives the scientific name and species codes for the vascular plants of Middlesex County. Scientific names and status follow Oldham 1993a and are taken from his database. Some plant names were added from Bowles et al. 1994. Definition of column headings are as follows:

SP_CODE: 7 letter code (ALL CAPS) based on first 3 letters of the genus and first 4 letters of the species name SCI_NAME: latin name (genus and species) MIDD: status in Middlesex County (see below) CC: conservatism coefficient CW: coefficient of wetness SRANK: NHIC ranking WEED: weediness score COM_NAME: common name PHYSIOG: type of plant (Native or Alien)

The symbols used in column MIDD (status in Middlesex County) are as follows:

R#: rare with # = 1-4 records C: common VU: very uncommon (5-9 records) U: uncommon (10-15 records) I: introduced c: common introduction r: rare introduction u: uncommon introduction X: status unknown

SP_CODE SCI_NAME MIDD CC CW SRANK WEED COM_NAME PHYSIOG ABIBALS Abies balsamea Ir 5 -3 Balsam Fir N T ree ABUTHEO Abutilon theophrasti Ic 4 -1 Velvet-leaf A Forb ACARHOM Acalypha rhomboidea C 0 3 Three-seeded Mercury N Forb ACENIGR Acer saccharum C 7 3 Black Maple N T ree ACEPLAT Acer platanoides Iu 5 -3 Norway Maple A T ree ACERUBR Acer rubrum C 4 0 Red Maple N T ree ACESACC Acer saccharum C 4 3 Sugar Maple N T ree ACESACN Acer saccharinum C 5 -3 Silver M aple N T ree ACESPIC Acer spicatum VU 6 3 Mountain Maple N T ree ACHMILL Achillea millefolium C 3 -1 Yarrow A Forb ACIARVE Acinos arvensis Ir 5 -1 Bas il Balm A Forb ACOAMER Acorus americanus R2 8 -5 Sweet-flag N Forb ACOCALA Acorus calamus Ir -5 -1 European Sweet-flag A Forb ACTPACH Actaea pachypoda C 6 5 W hite Baneberry N Forb ACTRUBR Actaea rubra C 5 5 Red Baneberry N Forb ADIPEDA Adiantum pedatum C 7 1 Northern Maidenhair Fern N Fern ADLFUNG Adlumia fungosa R1 8 5 Climbing Fumitory N Forb AEGPODA Aegopodium podagraria Iu 0 -3 Goutweed A Forb AESHIPP Aesculus hippocastanum Ir 5 -1 Horse-chestnut A T ree AGANEPE Agastache nepetoides R3 8 3 Yellow Giant Hyssop N Forb AGATENU Agalinis tenuifolia VU 7 -3 Slender-leaved Agalinis N Forb AG RC RIS Agropyron cristatum Ir 5 -1 Crested Wheat Grass A Grass AGRGIGA Agrostis gigantea Ic 0 -2 Redtop A Grass AGRGITH Agrostemma githago Ir 3 -1 Corn-cockle A Forb AGRGRYP Agrimonia gryposepala C 2 2 Agrimony N Forb AGRPARV Agrimonia parviflora R4 4 -1 S3 Small-flowered Agrimony N Forb AGRPERE Agrostis perennans VU 5 1 Autumn Bent Grass N Grass

A5 - 2 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 78 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

SP_CODE SCI_NAME MIDD CC CW SRANK WEED COM_NAME PHYSIOG AGRPUBE Agrimonia pubescens VU 7 5 S4 Hairy Agrimony N Forb AGRSCAB Agrostis scabra R1 6 0 Rough Hair Grass N Grass AGRSTOL Agrostis stolonifera C 0 -3 Creeping Bent Grass N Grass AILALTI Ailanthus altissima Ir 5 -1 Tree-of-Heaven A T ree ALCROSE Alcea rosea Ir 5 -1 Hollyhock A Forb ALLBURD Allium burdickii R1 9 3 W ild Leek N Forb ALLCANA Allium canadense U 8 3 W ild Garlic N Forb ALLSATI Allium sativum Ir 5 -1 Garlic A Forb ALLSCHO Allium schoenoprasum Ir 9 3 W ILD CHIVES N Forb ALLVINE Allium vineale Ir 3 -1 Field Garlic A Forb ALNGLUT Alnus glutinosa Iu -2 -3 Black Alder A T ree ALOAEQU Alopecurus aequalis R2 7 -5 Short-awned Foxtail N Grass ALOGENI Alopecurus geniculatus Ir -5 -1 W ater Foxtail A Grass ALOPRAT Alopecurus pratensis Iu -3 -1 Meadow Foxtail A Grass ALYALYS Alyssum alyssoides Iu 5 -1 Pale Alyssum A Forb AMAALBU Amaranthus albus Iu 3 -1 Tumbling Pigweed A Forb AMABLIT Amaranthus blitoides Iu 5 -1 Prostrate Pigweed A Forb AMAHYBR Amaranthus hybridus Iu 5 -1 Smooth Pigweed A Forb AMAPOWE Am aranthus powellii Ir 5 -1 Green Pigweed A Forb AMARETR Amaranthus retroflexus Ic 2 -1 Redroot Pigweed A Forb AMATUBE Amaranthus tuberculatus R4 6 -5 Water-hemp N Forb AMBARTE Am brosia artemisiifolia C 0 3 Com mon Ragweed N Forb AMBPSIL Ambrosia psilostachya Ir 1 -1 Perennial Ragweed A Forb AMBT RIF Ambrosia trifida C 0 -1 Giant Ragweed N Forb AMEARBO Amelanchier arborea C 5 3 Juneberry N T ree AMELAEV Am elanchier laevis U 5 5 Smooth Juneberry N T ree AMESANG Amelanchier sanguinea R4 7 5 S4 Juneberry N Shrub AMESPIC Amelanchier spicata R1 7 3 Tall Juneberry N Shrub AMOFRUT Amorpha fruticosa Ir 5 -4 S1 False Indigo N Shrub AMPBRAC Amphicarpaea bracteata C 4 0 Hog-peanut N Forb ANAARVE Anagallis arvensis Ir 4 -1 Scarlet Pimpernel A Forb ANAMARG Anaphalis margaritacea R3 3 5 Pearly Everlasting N Forb ANDGERA Andropogon gerardii C 7 1 Big Bluestem N Grass ANDPOLI Androm eda polifolia R2 10 -5 Bog-Rosemary N Shrub ANDVIRG Andropogon virginicus U 5 1 S2S3 Broom-sedge N Grass ANECANA Anemone canadensis C 3 -3 Canada Anemone N Forb ANECYLI Anemone cylindrica VU 7 5 Long-fruited Thimbleweed N Forb ANEGRAV Anethum graveolens Ir 5 -1 Dill A Forb ANEQ UIN Anemone quinquefolia C 7 0 W ood Anemone N Forb ANETHAL Anemonella thalictroides R2 8 5 S4 Rue-anemone N Forb ANEVIRG Anemone virginiana C 4 5 Thimbleweed N Forb ANGATRO Angelica atropurpurea C 6 -5 Angelica N Forb ANTCOTU Anthemis cotula Iu 3 -1 Stinking Mayweed A Forb ANTHOWE Antennaria howellii X 2 5 Pussytoes N Forb ANTNEGL Antennaria neglecta X 3 5 Pussytoes N Forb ANTODOR Anthoxanthum odoratum Ir 3 -1 Sweet Vernal Grass A Grass ANTPARL Antennaria parlinii U 2 5 Plantain-leaved Everlasting N Forb ANTSYLV Anthriscus sylvestris Ir 5 -2 W ild Chervil A Forb ANTTINC Anthemis tinctoria Ih 5 -1 Yellow Chamomile A Forb APESPIC Apera spica-venti Ir 5 -1 W ind Grass A Grass APIAMER Apios americana C 6 -3 Groundnut N Forb

A5 - 3 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 79 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

SP_CODE SCI_NAME MIDD CC CW SRANK WEED COM_NAME PHYSIOG APLHYEM Aplectrum hyemale Rh 10 1 S2 Putty-root N Forb APOANDR Apocynum androsaemifolium C 3 5 Spreading Dogbane N Forb APOCANN Apocynum cannabinum C 3 0 Indian Hemp N Forb AQUCANA Aquilegia canadensis C 5 1 W ild Columbine N Forb ARACANA Arabis canadensis R2 7 5 S4 Sickle-pod N Forb ARAGLAB Arabis glabra R2 4 5 Tower Mustard N Forb ARALAEV Arabis laevigata VU 5 5 Smooth Rock-cress N Forb ARALYRA Arabis lyrata R3 7 4 S4 Lyre-leaved Rock-cress N Forb ARANUDI Aralia nudicaulis C 4 3 W ild Sarsaparilla N Forb ARARACE Aralia racemosa C 7 5 Spikenard N Forb ARCLAPP Arctium lappa Ir 5 -2 Great Burdock A Forb ARCMINU Arctium minus Ic 5 -2 Common Burdock A Forb AREBULB Arethusa bulbosa R1 10 -5 Arethusa N Forb ARESERP Arenaria serpyllifolia Ic 0 -2 Thyme-leaved Sandwort A Forb ARIDRAC Arisaema dracontium U 9 -3 S3 Green Dragon N Forb ARINECO Aristida necopina R1 8 5 S2 Three-awn N Grass ARITRIP Arisaema triphyllum C 5 -2 Jack-in-the-pulpit N Forb ARMLACU Armoracia lacustris R1 9 -5 Lake Cress N Forb ARMRUST Armoracia rusticana Ir 0 -1 Horseradish A Forb AROMELA Aronia melanocarpa VU 7 -3 Chokeberry N Shrub ARRELAT Arrhenatherum elatius Iu 3 -1 Tall Oat Grass A Grass ARTABSI Artemisia absinthium I 5 -1 Absinth A Forb ARTBIEN Artemisia biennis Ir -2 -1 Biennial W ormwood A Forb ARTCAMP Artemisia campestris R1 8 0 Sagewort W ormwood N Forb ARTPONT Artemisia pontica Ir 5 -1 Rom an W ormwood A Shrub ARTVULG Artemisia vulgaris Ir 5 -1 Mugwort A Forb ASACANA Asarum canadense C 6 5 W ild-ginger N Forb ASCEXAL Asclepias exaltata VU 8 5 Poke Milkweed N Forb ASCINCA Asclepias incarnata C 6 -5 Swamp Milkweed N Forb ASCSULL Asclepias sullivantii R1 8 5 S2 Sullivant's Milkweed N Forb ASCSYRI Asclepias syriaca C 0 5 Com mon Milkweed N Forb ASCTUBE Asclepias tuberosa U 8 5 Butterfly-weed N Forb ASITRIL Asimina triloba R2 10 0 S3 Pawpaw N T ree ASPOFFI Asparagus officinalis Ic 3 -1 Garden Asparagus A Forb ASPPLAT Asplenium platyneuron R4 6 3 Ebony Spleenwort N Fern ASTBORE Aster borealis R3 10 -5 Rush Aster N Forb ASTCORD Aster cordifolius C 5 5 Heart-leaved Aster N Forb ASTERIC Aster ericoides C 4 4 Heath Aster N Forb ASTLAEV Aster laevis C 7 5 Smooth Aster N Forb ASTLANC Aster lanceolatus C 3 -3 Panicled Aster N Forb ASTLATE Aster lateriflorus C 3 -2 Calico Aster N Forb ASTMACR Aster macrophyllus C 5 5 Large-leaved Aster N Forb ASTNEGL Astragalus neglectus R2 9 4 Cooper's Milk-vetch N Forb ASTNOVA Aster novae-angliae C 2 -3 New England Aster N Forb ASTOOLE Aster oolentangiensis R1 9 5 Azure Aster N Forb ASTPILO Aster pilosus U 4 2 Hairy Aster N Forb ASTPRAE Aster praealtus R1 8 -3 S1 W illow Aster N Forb ASTPUNI Aster puniceus X 6 -5 Purple-stemmed Aster N Forb ASTSCHR Aster schreberi R2 8 5 S2 Schreber's Aster N Forb ASTUMBE Aster umbellatus VU 6 -3 Flat-topped W hite Aster N Forb ASTUROP Aster urophyllus X 6 5 Arrow-leaved Aster N Forb

A5 - 4 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 80 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

SP_CODE SCI_NAME MIDD CC CW SRANK WEED COM_NAME PHYSIOG ATHFILI Athyrium filix-femina X 4 0 Northeastern Lady Fern N Fern ATHPYCN Athyrium pycnocarpon R1 10 1 Glade Fern N Fern ATHTHEL Athyrium thelypterioides X 8 0 Silvery Glade Fern N Fern ATRPATU Atriplex patula X 0 -2 Spearscale N Forb AURFLAV Aureolaria flava R2 10 5 S4 Yellow False Foxglove N Forb AVEFATU Avena fatua Ir 5 -1 W ild Oats A Grass AVESATI Avena sativa Ir 5 -1 Oats A Grass BARVIRG Bartonia virginica Rh 9 -4 S2 Virginian Bartonia N Forb BARVULG Barbarea vulgaris Ic 0 -1 W inter Cress A Forb BECSYZI Beckmannia syzigachne Rh 4 -5 American Slough Grass N Grass BELPERE Bellis perennis Ir 5 -1 English Daisy A Forb BERINCA Berteroa incana I 5 -3 Hoary Alyssum A Forb BERTHUN Berberis thunbergii I 4 -3 Japanese Barberry A Shrub BERVULG Berberis vulgaris I 3 -2 Common Barberry A Shrub BETALLE Betula alleghaniensis X 6 0 Yellow Birch N T ree BETPAPY Betula papyrifera X 2 2 Paper Birch N T ree BETPEND Betula pendula Ir -4 -3 European White Birch A T ree BETPUMI Betula pumila * 9 -5 Swamp Birch N Shrub BIDCERN Bidens cernua X 2 -5 Nodding Beggarticks N Forb BIDCORO Bidens coronata Rh 9 -5 S2 Southern T ickseed N Forb BIDDISC Bidens discoidea R2 6 -3 S3 Small Beggarticks N Forb BIDFRON Bidens frondosa X 3 -3 Devil's Beggarticks N Forb BIDTRIP Bidens tripartita X 4 -3 Beggarticks N Forb BIDVULG Bidens vulgata X 5 -3 Tall Beggarticks N Forb BOECYLI Boehmeria cylindrica X 4 -5 False Nettle N Forb BOTDIDI Botrychium dissectum X 6 0 Dissected Grape Fern N Fern BOTMATR Botrychium matricariifolium R2 7 3 Daisy-leaved Grape Fern N Fern BOTMULT Botrychium multifidum R2 6 3 Leather-leaved Grape Fern N Fern BOTONEI Botrychium oneidense R2 8 5 Blunt-lobed Grape Fern N Fern BOTRUGU Botrychium rugulosum R1 6 5 S2 Rugulose Grape Fern N Fern BOTVIRG Botrychium virginianum X 5 3 Rattlesnake Fern N Fern BRAEREC Brachyelytrum erectum X 7 5 Bearded Shorthusk N Grass BRAJUNC Brassica juncea I 5 -1 Indian Mustard A Forb BRANIGR Brassica nigra I 5 -1 Black Mustard A Forb BRARAPA Brassica rapa ? 5 -1 Field Mustard A Forb BRASCHR Brasenia schreberi R2 7 -5 W ater-shield N Forb BRIMEDI Briza media Ir 0 -1 Quaking Grass A Grass BROBRIZ Bromus briziform is Ih 5 -1 Quake Grass A Grass BROCILI Bromus ciliatus X 6 -3 Fringed Brome N Grass BROCOMM Bromus commutatus I 5 -1 Hairy Chess A Grass BROEREC Bromus erectus Ir 5 -1 Upright Brome A Grass BROINER Bromus inermis Ic 5 -3 Smooth Brome A Grass BROJAPO Bromus japonicus I 3 -1 Japanese Brome A Grass BROKALM Bromus kalmii R3 8 0 S4 Kalm's Brome N Grass BROLATI Bromus latiglum is U 7 -2 Tall Brome N Grass BROPUBE Bromus pubescens R2 7 3 S4 Canada Brome N Grass BROSECA Bromus secalinus I 5 -1 Cheat A Grass BROSQUA Bromus squarrosus Ir 5 -1 Chess A Grass BROTECT Bromus tectorum I 5 -2 Downy Chess A Grass BUGARVE Buglossoides arvensis Ir 5 -1 Corn G romwell A Forb BULCAPI Bulbostylis capillaris Ir 5 2 S3 Bulbostylis N Sedge

A5 - 5 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 81 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

SP_CODE SCI_NAME MIDD CC CW SRANK WEED COM_NAME PHYSIOG CACPLAN Cacalia plantaginea R1 10 0 S3 Indian-plantain N Forb CALCANA Calamagrostis canadensis X 4 -5 Canada Blue-joint N Grass CALEPIG Calamagrostis epigejos Ir 0 -1 Feathertop A Grass CALLONG Calamovilfa longifolia Ir 10 5 S3 Long-leaved Reed Grass N Grass CALPALU Caltha palustris C 5 -5 Marsh-m arigold N Forb CALSEPI Calystegia sepium X 2 0 Hedge Bindweed N Forb CALSTRI Calamagrostis stricta VU 8 -4 S5 Northern Reed Grass N Grass CALTUBE Calopogon tuberosus R4 9 -5 Grass-pink N Forb CAMAMER Campanula americana R2 8 0 S4 Tall Bellflower N Forb CAMAPAR Cam panula aparinoides VU 7 -5 Marsh-bellflower N Forb CAMMICR Camelina microcarpa I 5 -1 Small-seeded False Flax A Forb CAMRADI Campsis radicans Ir 3 0 S1 Trumpet Creeper N Vine CAMRAPU Cam panula rapunculoides Ir 5 -2 Creeping Bellflower A Forb CAMROTU Campanula rotundifolia VU 7 1 Harebell N Forb CANSATI Cannabis sativa Ir 0 -1 Marijuana A Forb CAPBURS Capsella bursa-pastoris Ic 1 -1 Shepherd's-purse A Forb CARALBU Carex albursina C 7 5 W hite-bear Sedge N Sedge CARALOP Carex alopecoidea U 6 -4 Foxtail Sedge N Sedge CARAQUA Carex aquatilis VU 7 -5 W ater Sedge N Sedge CARATHE Carex atherodes R3 6 -5 Slough Sedge N Sedge CARATLA Carex atlantica R1 10 -3 S1 Prickly Bog Sedge N Sedge CARAURE Carex aurea C 4 -4 Golden-fruit Sedge N Sedge CARBEBB Carex bebbii C 3 -5 Bebb's Sedge N Sedge CARBLAN Carex blanda C 3 0 W oodland Sedge N Sedge CARBREV Carex brevior R3 7 0 Short-headed Sedge N Sedge CARBROM Carex bromoides C 7 -4 Brome-like Sedge N Sedge CARBRUN Carex brunnescens R2 7 -3 Brownish Sedge N Sedge CARCANE Carex canescens VU 7 -5 Hoary Sedge N Sedge CARCARE Carex careyana VU 10 5 S2 Carey's Sedge N Sedge CARCARO Carpinus caroliniana C 6 0 Blue-beech N T ree CARCEPD Carex cephaloidea U 6 2 Thin-leaf Sedge N Sedge CARCEPH Carex cephalophora C 5 3 Oval-leaf Sedge N Sedge CARCHOR Carex chordorrhiza R1 10 -5 Creeping Sedge N Sedge CARCOMM Carex communis C 6 5 Common Sedge N Sedge CARCOMO Carex comosa C 5 -5 Bearded Sedge N Sedge CARCONO Carex conoidea R1 9 2 S3 Field Sedge N Sedge CARCORD Carya cordiformis X 6 0 Bitternut Hickory N T ree CARCRAW Carex crawei R1 10 -3 Crawe's Sedge N Sedge CARC RIN Carex crinita C 6 -4 Fringed Sedge N Sedge CARC RIS Carex cristatella C 3 -4 Crested Sedge N Sedge CARCRYP Carex cryptolepis R1 7 -5 Northeastern Sedge N Sedge CARDEW E Carex deweyana C 6 4 Short-scale Sedge N Sedge CARDIAN Carex diandra R4 7 -5 Lesser Panicled Sedge N Sedge CARDIGI Carex digitalis U 7 5 Finger Sedge N Sedge CARDISP Carex disperma VU 8 -5 Soft-leaf Sedge N Sedge CAREBUR Carex eburnea VU 6 4 Bristle-leaf Sedge N Sedge CAREMOR Carex em oryi U 8 -5 S3 Emory's Sedge N Sedge CARFLAC Carex flacca Ih 0 -1 Sedge A Sedge CARFLAV Carex flava C 5 -5 Yellow Sedge N Sedge CARFORM Carex formosa R4 6 -2 S3 Handsome Sedge N Sedge CARGARB Carex garberi R1 10 -3 Elk Sedge N Sedge

A5 - 6 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 82 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

SP_CODE SCI_NAME MIDD CC CW SRANK WEED COM_NAME PHYSIOG CARGLAB Carya glabra R1 9 3 S2 Sweet Pignut Hickory N T ree CARGRAN Carex granularis C 3 -4 Meadow Sedge N Sedge CARGRAY Carex grayi U 8 -4 Asa Gray's Sedge N Sedge CARG RIS Carex grisea C 8 1 Sedge N Sedge CARHIRF Carex hirtifolia C 5 5 Hairy Sedge N Sedge CARHIRS Carex hirs utella R1 3 S2 -1 Sedge A Forb CARHITC Carex hitchcockiana U 6 5 Hitchcock's Sedge N Sedge CARHYST Carex hystericina C 5 -5 Hybrid Sedge N Sedge CARHYST Carex hystericina C 5 -5 Porcupine Sedge N Sedge CARINTE Carex interior C 6 -5 Inland Sedge N Sedge CARINTU Carex intumescens C 6 -4 Bladder Sedge N Sedge CARJAME Carex jamesii U 8 5 S3 James' Sedge N Sedge CARLACU Carex lacustris C 5 -5 Lake Sedge N Sedge CARLAEV Carex laevivaginata U 8 -5 S4 Smooth-sheathed Sedge N Sedge CARLANU Carex lanuginosa C 4 -5 W oolly Sedge N Sedge CARLASI Carex lasiocarpa R4 8 -5 Hairy-fruited Sedge N Sedge CARLAXC Carex laxiculmis U 7 5 S4 Loose-stemmed Sedge N Sedge CARLAXI Carex laxiflora C 5 0 Distant-flowered Sedge N Sedge CARLEPN Carex leptonervia U 5 0 Finely-nerved Sedge N Sedge CARLEPT Carex leptalea U 8 -5 Bristle-stalked Sedge N Sedge CARLIMO Carex limosa R2 10 -5 Sedge N Sedge CARLUPF Carex lupuliformis R1 10 -4 S1 Hop-like Sedge N Sedge CARLUPU Carex lupulina C 6 -5 Hop Sedge N Sedge CARLURI Carex lurida R1 6 -5 Sallow Sedge N Sedge CARMEAD Carex meadii R2 9 0 S2 Mead's Sedge N Sedge CARMOLE Carex molesta U 5 2 S4 Troublesome Sedge N Sedge CARMUSK Carex muskingumensis R1 9 -5 S2 Muskingum Sedge N Sedge CARNORM Carex normalis VU 6 -3 Right-angled Sedge N Sedge CAROVAT Carya ovata X 6 3 Shagbark Hickory N T ree CARPALL Carex pallescens R4 5 3 Pale Sedge N Sedge CARPARR Carex parryana Ir -2 -1 Parry's Sedge A Sedge CARPAUC Carex pauciflora ? 10 -5 Few-flowered Sedge N Sedge CARPECK Carex peckii R3 6 5 Peck's Sedge N Sedge CARPEDU Carex pedunculata C 5 5 Peduncled Sedge N Sedge CARPENS Carex pensylvanica C 5 5 Pennsylvania Sedge N Sedge CARPLAN Carex plantaginea C 7 5 Plantain-leaved Sedge N Sedge CARPRAE Carex praegracilis Iu -3 -1 Very Slender Sedge A Sedge CARPRAI Carex prairea R3 7 -4 Prairie Sedge N Sedge CARPRAS Carex prasina VU 10 -5 S3 Drooping Sedge N Sedge CARPROJ Carex projecta U 5 -4 Spreading Sedge N Sedge CARPSEU Carex pseudo-cyperus U 6 -5 Cyperus-like Sedge N Sedge CARRADI Carex radiata C 4 5 Sedge N Sedge CARRICH Carex richardsonii R1 9 5 S4 Richardson's Sedge N Sedge CARROSE Carex rosea C 5 5 Sedge N Sedge CARRUGO Carex rugosperma R1 7 5 W rinkled-seeded Sedge N Sedge CARSCAB Carex scabrata U 8 -5 Rough Sedge N Sedge CARSCHW Carex schweinitzii R1 9 -5 Schweinitz's Sedge N Sedge CARSPAR Carex sparganioides U 5 0 Bur-reed Sedge N Sedge CARSPIC Carex spicata Ic 5 -1 Spiked Sedge A Sedge CARSPRE Carex sprengelii U 6 0 Sprengel's Sedge N Sedge

A5 - 7 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 83 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

SP_CODE SCI_NAME MIDD CC CW SRANK WEED COM_NAME PHYSIOG CARSTER Carex sterilis R2 10 -5 Sterile Sedge N Sedge CARSTIP Carex stipata C 3 -5 Awl-fruited Sedge N Sedge CARSTRI Carex stricta C 4 -5 Tussock Sedge N Sedge CARSUBE Carex suberecta R1 10 -5 S1 Sedge N Sedge CARSW AN Carex swanii R2 7 3 S3 Swan's Sedge N Sedge CARSYLV Carex sylvatica Ir -1 -1 W ood Sedge A Sedge CARTENE Carex tenera U 4 -1 Slender Sedge N Sedge CARTENU Carex tenuiflora Rh 10 -5 Sparse-flowered Sedge N Sedge CARTETA Carex tetanica R4 8 -3 S2 Rigid Sedge N Sedge CARTORT Carex torta Rh 10 -5 SX Sedge N Sedge CART RIB Carex tribuloides U 5 -4 Blunt-broom Sedge N Sedge CART RIC Carex trichocarpa U 8 -5 S2 Hairy-fruited Sedge N Sedge CART RIS Carex trisperma R4 9 -5 Three-fruited Sedge N Sedge CARTUCK Carex tuckermanii VU 7 -5 Tuckerman's Sedge N Sedge CARUMBE Carex umbellata R2 7 5 Umbellate Sedge N Sedge CARUTRI Carex utriculata U 7 -5 Beaked Sedge N Sedge CARVESI Carex vesicaria R1 7 -5 Inflated Sedge N Sedge CARVIRI Carex viridula VU 5 -5 Greenish Sedge N Sedge CARVULP Carex vulpinoidea C 3 -5 Fox Sedge N Sedge CARWOOD Carex woodii C 6 0 S4 W ood's Sedge N Sedge CARXCOP Carex x copulata VU 7 (C. digitalis X C. laxiculmis) N Sedge CASCOCC Castilleja coccinea R1 9 0 Indian Paintbrush N Forb CASDENT Castanea dentata VU 8 5 S3 American Chestnut N T ree CAUTHAL Caulophyllum thalictroides X 6 5 Blue Cohosh N Forb CEAAMER Ceanothus americanus R2 7 5 New Jersey Tea N Shrub CELOCCI Celtis occidentalis X 8 1 Common Hackberry N T ree CELSCAN Celastrus scandens X 3 3 Climbing Bittersweet N Vine CELTENU Celtis tenuifolia R1 10 5 S2 Dwarf Hackberry N Shrub CENERYT Centaurium erythraea Ir -4 -1 Centaury A Forb CENJACE Centaurea jacea I 5 -1 Brown Knapweed A Forb CENLONG Cenchrus longispinus R3 3 5 S4 Long-spined Sandbur N Grass CENMACU Centaurea rhenana I 5 -3 Spotted Knapweed A Forb CENPULC Centaurium pulchellum Ir 4 -1 Beautiful Centaury A Forb CEPOCCI Cephalanthus occidentalis X 7 -5 Buttonbush N Shrub CERARVE CERASTIUM ARVENSE Ivu 5 -1 FIELD CHICKWEED A Forb CERCANA Cercis canadensis Ir 8 3 SX Redbud N T ree CERDEME Ceratophyllum demersum VU 4 -5 Common Coontail N Forb CERFONT Cerastium fontanum Ic 3 -1 Mouse-eared Chickweed A Forb CERGLOM Cerastium glomeratum Ir 5 -1 Chickweed A Forb CERNUTA Cerastium nutans R1 4 2 Nodding Chickweed N Forb CERSEMI Cerastium semidecandrum Iu 5 -1 Spring Mouse-eared Chickweed A Forb CHACALY Chamaedaphne calyculata R2 9 -5 Leatherleaf N Shrub CHAGLYP Chamaesyce glyptosperma I 5 -1 Engraved Spurge A Forb CHAMACU Chamaesyce maculata I 4 -1 Hairy-fruited Spurge A Forb CHAMINU Chaenorrhinum minus Ic 5 -1 Dwarf Snapdragon A Forb CHANUTA Chamaesyce nutans VU 0 3 Eyebane N Forb CHASERP Chamaesyce serpyllifolia Ir 5 -1 Thyme-leaved Spurge A Forb CHAVERM Chamaesyce vermiculata X 0 5 Hairy-stemmed Spurge N Forb CHEALBU Chenopodium album I 1 -1 Lamb's-quarters A Forb CHEBOTR Chenopodium botrys Ir 4 -1 Jerusalem-oak A Forb CHECAPI Chenopodium capitatum R2 4 5 Strawberry Blite N Forb

A5 - 8 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 84 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

SP_CODE SCI_NAME MIDD CC CW SRANK WEED COM_NAME PHYSIOG CHEGLAB Chelone glabra X 7 -5 Turtlehead N Forb CHEGLAU Chenopodium glaucum I -3 -1 Oak-leaved Goosefoot A Forb CHEGLAU Chenopodium glaucum I -3 -1 Oak-leaved Goosefoot A Forb CHEMAJU Chelidonium majus I 5 -3 Celandine A Forb CHESIMP Chenopodium simplex VU 0 5 Maple-leaved Goosefoot N Forb CHIUMBE Chimaphila umbellata R2 8 5 Pipsissewa N Forb CHRAMER Chrysosplenium americanum X 8 -5 Golden Saxifrage N Forb CICBULB Cicuta bulbifera X 5 -5 Bulb-bearing Water-hemlock N Forb CICINTY Cichorium intybus Ic 5 -1 Chicory A Forb CICMACU Cicuta maculata X 6 -5 Spotted Water-hemlock N Forb CINARUN Cinna arundinacea X 7 -3 S4 Stout Wood Grass N Grass CINLATI Cinna latifolia R2 7 -4 Drooping W oodreed N Grass CIRALPI Circaea alpina X 6 -3 Small Enchanter's-nightshade N Forb CIRARVE Cirsium arvense Ic 3 -1 Canada Thistle A Forb CIRDISC Cirsium discolor R1 9 5 S5 Field Thistle N Forb CIRLUTE Circaea lutetiana X 3 3 Enchanter's-nightshade N Forb CIRMUTI Cirsium muticum X 8 -5 Swamp Thistle N Forb CIRVULG Cirsium vulgare I 4 -1 Bull Thistle A Forb CLACARO Claytonia caroliniana R3 7 3 Spring Beauty N Forb CLAMARI Cladium mariscoides R1 9 -5 Twig-rush N Sedge CLAVIRG Claytonia virginica C 5 3 Narrow-leaved Spring Beauty N Forb CLEHASS Cleome hassleriana Ir 5 -1 Spider-flower A Forb CLEVIRG Clematis virginiana C 3 0 Virgin's-bower N Vine CLIBORE Clintonia borealis X 7 -1 Bluebead Lily N Forb CLIVULG Clinopodium vulgare X 4 5 W ild Basil N Forb CLLPALU Calla palustris VU 8 -5 W ild Calla N Forb CLTPALT Callitriche palustris R1 6 -5 Common W ater-starwort N Forb COEVIRI Coeloglossum viride R1 8 0 Long-bracted G reen O rchid N Forb COLCANA Collinsonia canadensis X 8 0 Horsebalm N Forb COLVERN Collinsia verna Rh 10 3 SX Blue-eyed Mary N Forb COMCOMM Commelina communis Ir 0 -1 Day-flower A Forb COMPERE Comptonia peregrina R1 7 5 Sweet-fern N Shrub COMUMBE Com andra umbellata U 6 3 Bastard-toadflax N Forb CONAMER Conopholis americana R4 9 5 Squawroot N Forb CONARVE Convolvulus arvensis I 5 -1 Field Bindweed A Forb CONCANA Conyza canadensis C 0 1 Horseweed N Forb CO NC HIN Conioselinum chinense R1 10 -5 S3 Hem lock Parsley N Forb CO NO RIE Conringia orientalis Ir 5 -1 Hare's-ear Mustard A Forb CO PT RIF Coptis trifolia X 7 -3 Goldthread N Forb CORALTE Cornus alternifolia X 6 5 Alternate-leaved Dogwood N T ree CORAMER Corylus americana C 5 4 American H azel N Shrub CORAMOM Cornus amomum X 5 -4 Silky Dogwood N Shrub CORCANA Cornus canadensis X 7 0 Bunchberry N Shrub CORCORN Corylus cornuta X 5 5 Beaked Hazel N Shrub CORFLOR Cornus florida X 7 4 S4S3 Flowering Dogwood N T ree CORFOEM Cornus foemina X 2 -2 Grey Dogwood N Shrub CORGRAN Coreopsis grandiflora Ir 5 -1 Large-flowered C oreopsis A Forb CORLANC Coreopsis lanceolata ? 5 3 S2 Lance-leaved Coreopsis N Forb CORMACU Corallorhiza maculata X 7 4 Spotted Coral-root N Forb CORRUGO Cornus rugosa X 6 5 Round-leaved Dogwood N Shrub CORSTOL Cornus stolonifera C 2 -3 Red-osier Dogwood N Shrub

A5 - 9 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 85 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

SP_CODE SCI_NAME MIDD CC CW SRANK WEED COM_NAME PHYSIOG CORSTRI Corallorhiza striata ? 7 4 Striped Coral-root N Forb CO RT RIF Corallorhiza trifida R1 7 -2 Early Coral-root N Forb CO RT RIP Coreopsis tripteris R2 9 0 S2 Tall Coreopsis N Forb CORVARI Coronilla varia I 5 -2 Crown-vetch A Forb CR AAPIO Crataegus apiomorpha R2 4 5 Hawthorn N T ree CRAATER Crataegus ater R1 4 5 Hawthorn N T ree CRABRAI Crataegus brainerdii R3 4 5 S2 Brainerd's Hawthorn N T ree CRACALP Crataegus calpodendron X 4 5 Hawthorn N T ree CRACHRY Crataegus chrysocarpa X 4 5 Hawthorn N T ree CRACOMP Crataegus compacta X 4 5 Compact Hawthorn N T ree CRACORU Crataegus corusca R1 4 5 S3 Hawthorn N T ree CRACRUS Crataegus crus-galli VU 4 0 Cockspur Hawthorn N T ree CRADISS Crataegus dissona R3 4 5 S2 Hawthorn N T ree CRADODG Crataegus dodgei U 4 5 S2 Hawthorn N T ree CRAFLAB Crataegus flabellata R1 4 5 Fan-shaped Hawthorn N T ree CRAHOLM Crataegus holmesiana X 4 5 Holmes' Hawthorn N T ree CRALUMA Crataegus lumaria R3 4 5 S2 Hawthorn N T ree CRAMACR Crataegus macracantha X 4 5 Hawthorn N T ree CRAMACS Crataegus macrosperma X 4 5 Variable Hawthorn N T ree CRAMARG Crataegus margaretta R1 4 5 S1 Hawthorn N T ree CRAMOLL Crataegus mollis X 4 -2 Downy Hawthorn N T ree CRAMONO Crataegus monogyna I 5 -1 English Hawthorn A T ree CRAPEDI Crataegus pedicellata R3 4 5 Pedicelled Hawthorn N T ree CRAPERJ Crataegus perjucunda R3 4 5 S2 Hawthorn N T ree CR APRIN Crataegus pringlei X 4 5 Hawthorn N T ree CRAPRUI Crataegus pruinosa X 4 5 W axy-fruited Hawthorn N T ree CRAPUNC Crataegus punctata C 4 5 Dotted Hawthorn N T ree CRASCAB Crataegus scabrida R1 4 5 Hawthorn N T ree CRASCHU Crataegus schuettei X 4 5 Hawthorn N T ree CRASUBO Crataegus suborbiculata VU 4 5 S2 Roundish-leaved Hawthorn N T ree CRASUCC Crataegus succulenta X 4 5 Hawthorn N T ree CRASYLV Crataegus sylvestris R2 4 5 Hawthorn N T ree CRATAE. Crataegus sp. X 4 5 Hawthorn species N T ree CRATENA Crataegus tenax X 4 5 Hawthorn N T ree CRDBULB Cardamine bulbosa X 8 -5 S4 Spring Cress N Forb CRDDOUG Cardam ine douglassii X 7 -3 S4 Purple Spring Cress N Forb CRDPENS Cardamine pensylvanica X 6 -4 Pennsylvania Bitter-cress N Forb CRECAPI Crepis capillaris I 5 -1 Hawk's-beard A Forb CRETECT Crepis tectorum I 5 -1 Narrow-leaved Hawk's-beard A Forb CRYCANA Cryptotaenia canadensis X 5 0 S5 Honewort N Forb CRYSCHO Crypsis schoenoides Ir 3 -1 Crypsis A Grass CUSCAMP Cuscuta campestris Ih 2 5 S2 Dodder sp. N Forb CU SEPIT Cuscuta epithymum Ih 5 -1 Clover Dodder A Forb CUSGRON Cuscuta gronovii C 4 -3 Com mon Dodder N Forb CYCATRI Cycloloma atriplicifolium R3 1 3 W inged Pigweed N Forb CYNC RIS Cynosurus cristatus Ir 0 -1 Crested Dogtail A Grass CYNOFFI Cynoglossum officinale I 5 -1 Hound's-tongue A Forb CYPACAU Cypripedium acaule R3 7 -3 Pink Moccasin Flower N Forb CYPARIE Cypripedium arietinum Rh 10 -4 S3 Ram 's-head Lady's-slipper N Forb CYPBIPA Cyperus bipartitus U 4 -4 Shining Cyperus N Sedge CYPCALP Cypripedium calceolus X 5 -1 Large Yellow Lady's-slipper N Forb

A5 - 10 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 86 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

SP_CODE SCI_NAME MIDD CC CW SRANK WEED COM_NAME PHYSIOG CYPCALR Cypripedium calceolus X 7 -1 Small Yellow Lady's-slipper N Forb CYPDIAN Cyperus diandrus Rh 6 -4 Low Cyperus N Sedge CYPERYT Cyperus erythrorhizos R2 6 -5 S3 Red-rooted Cyperus N Sedge CYPESCU Cyperus esculentus C 1 -3 Yellow Nut Sedge N Sedge CYPLUPU Cyperus lupulinus VU 7 4 Slender-stemmed Cyperus N Sedge CYPODOR Cyperus odoratus VU 5 -3 S4 Coarse Cyperus N Sedge CYPREGI Cypripedium reginae VU 7 -4 Showy Lady's-slipper N Forb CYPSTRI Cyperus strigosus VU 5 -3 Straw-colored Cyperus N Sedge CYSBULB Cystopteris bulbifera X 5 -2 Bulblet Fern N Fern CYSPROT Cystopteris protrusa R3 9 5 S2 Creeping Fragile Fern N Fern CYSTENU Cystopteris tenuis X 6 5 Mackay's Fragile Fern N Fern DACGLOM Dactylis glomerata Ic 3 -1 Orchard Grass A Grass DANSPIC Danthonia spicata X 5 5 Poverty Oat Grass N Grass DATSTRA Datura stramonium I 5 -1 Jimsonweed A Forb DAUCARO Daucus carota Ic 5 -2 W ild Carrot A Forb DECVERT Decodon verticillatus R4 7 -5 Swamp Loosestrife N Shrub DENPUNC Dennstaedtia punctilobula ? 6 Hay-scented Fern N Fern DESCANA Desmodium canadense X 5 1 Showy Tick-trefoil N Forb DESCANE Desmodium canescens R1 10 5 S2 Tick-trefoil N Forb DESCUSP Desmodium cuspidatum R1 10 5 S4 Tick-trefoil N Forb DESGLUT Desmodium glutinosum X 6 5 Pointed-leaved Tick-trefoil N Forb DESILLI Desmodium illinoense Rh 10 5 SX Tick-trefoil N Forb DESNUDI Desmodium nudiflorum VU 7 5 Naked-flowered T ick-trefoil N Forb DESPAND Desmodium paniculatum X 6 3 Tick-trefoil N Forb DESPANI Desmodium paniculatum R? 8 3 Tick-trefoil N Forb DESROTU Desmodium rotundifolium R3 10 5 S2 Prostrate Tick-trefoil N Forb DESSOPH Descurainia sophia Ir 5 -1 Flixweed A Forb DIAARME Dianthus armeria I 5 -1 Deptford Pink A Forb DICCANA Dicentra canadensis X 7 5 Squirrel-corn N Forb DICCUCU Dicentra cucullaria X 6 5 Dutchman's-breeches N Forb DIELONI Diervilla lonicera X 5 5 Bush-honeysuckle N Shrub DIGCOGN Digitaria cognata R3 6 5 S1 Fall Witch Grass N Grass DIGISCH Digitaria ischaemum I 3 -1 Smooth Crab Grass A Grass DIGSANG Digitaria sanguinalis I 3 -1 Large Crab Grass A Grass DIOQUAT Dioscorea quaternata X 7 1 W ild Yam N Vine DIPFULL Dipsacus fullonum Ic 5 -1 Teasel A Forb DIPLACI Dipsacus laciniatus Ir 5 -1 Cut-leaved Teasel A Forb DIPMURA Diplotaxis muralis Ir 5 -1 W all Rocket A Forb DIPTENU Diplotaxis tenuifolia I 5 -3 Narrow-leaved W all Rocket A Forb DIRPALU Dirca palustris X 7 0 Leatherwood N Shrub DISLANU Disporum lanuginosum R3 8 5 S3 Yellow Mandarin N Forb DRAREPT Draba reptans Rh 9 5 S2 Carolina Whitlow-grass N Forb DROINTE Drosera intermedia R1 9 -5 Spatulate-leaved Sundew N Forb DROROTU Drosera rotundifolia VU 7 -5 Round-leaved Sundew N Forb DRYCART Dryopteris carthusiana X 5 -2 Spinulose W ood Fern N Fern DR YCLIN Dryopteris clintoniana X 7 -4 Clinton's W ood Fern N Fern DR YCRIS Dryopteris cristata X 7 -5 Crested W ood Fern N Fern DRYGOLD Dryopteris goldiana R2 10 0 Goldie's W ood Fern N Fern DRYINTE Dryopteris intermedia VU 5 0 Glandular W ood Fern N Fern DRYMARG Dryopteris marginalis X 5 3 Marginal W ood Fern N Fern DULARUN Dulichium arundinaceum VU 7 -5 Three-way Sedge N Sedge

A5 - 11 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 87 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

SP_CODE SCI_NAME MIDD CC CW SRANK WEED COM_NAME PHYSIOG ECHCRUS Echinochloa crusgalli Ic -3 -1 Barnyard Grass A Grass ECHLOBA Echinocystis lobata X 3 -2 W ild Cucumber N Vine ECHMICR Echinoc hloa microstachya X 6 -2 Barnyard Grass N Grass ECHMURI Echinochloa muricata R2 4 -5 Barnyard Grass N Grass ECHVULG Echium vulgare Ic 5 -2 Viper's-bugloss A Forb ELAUMBE Elaeagnus umbellata Ir 3 -3 Autumn-olive A Shrub ELEACIC Eleocharis acicularis VU 5 -5 Needle Spike-rush N Sedge ELECOMP Eleocharis compressa R2 8 -3 Flat-stemmed Spike-rush N Sedge ELEELLI Eleocharis elliptica R4 7 -3 Elliptic Spike-rush N Sedge ELEERYT Eleocharis erythropoda C 4 -5 Red-based Spike-rush N Sedge ELEINDI Eleusine indica Ir 3 -1 Goose Grass A Grass ELEINTE Eleocharis interm edia VU 7 -3 S4 Intermediate Spike-rush N Sedge ELEOBTU Eleocharis obtusa C 5 -5 Blunt Spike-rush N Sedge ELEO LIV Eleocharis olivacea R2 8 -5 S4 Olive-fruited Spike-rush N Sedge ELEOVAT Eleocharis ovata R1 8 -5 Spike-rush N Sedge ELESMAL Eleocharis sm allii R2 6 -5 Small's Spike-rush N Sedge ELOCANA Elodea canadensis X 4 -5 Canada W ater-weed N Forb ELYCANA Elymus canadensis X 8 1 Canada W ild-rye N Grass ELYREPE Elymus repens Ic 3 -3 Quack Grass A Grass ELYRIPA Elymus riparius R4 7 -3 River Bank W ild-rye N Grass ELYTRAC Elymus trachycaulus R3 7 0 Slender Wheat Grass N Grass ELYVILL Elymus villosus X 7 3 S4 Hairy W ild-rye N Grass ELYVIRG Elymus virginicus X 5 -2 Virginia W ild-rye N Grass ELYWIEG Elymus wiegandii R1 10 0 W ild-rye N Grass EPIANGU Epilobium angustifolium X 3 0 Fireweed N Forb EPICILI Epilobium ciliatum X 3 3 S4 W illow-herb N Forb EPICOLO Epilobium coloratum X 3 -5 Purple-leaved Willow-herb N Forb EPIHELL Epipactis helleborine I 5 -2 Helleborine A Forb EPIHIRS Epilobium hirsutum I -4 -2 Great Hairy W illow-herb A Forb EPILEPT Epilobium leptophyllum X 7 -5 Narrow-leaved W illow-herb N Forb EPIPARV Epilobium parviflorum I 3 -1 Small-flowered W illow-herb A Forb EPIREPE Epigaea repens R1 9 5 Trailing Arbutus N Shrub EPISTRI Epilobium strictum R2 9 -5 Downy W illow-herb N Forb EPIVIRG Epifagus virginiana C 6 5 Beech-drops N Forb EQUARVE Equisetum arvense C 0 0 Field Horsetail N Fern EQUFLUV Equisetum fluviatile U 7 -5 W ater Horsetail N Fern EQUHYEM Equisetum hyemale ssp. affine C 2 -2 Common Scouring-rush N Fern EQULAEV Equisetum laevigatum VU 7 -3 Smooth Scouring-rush N Fern EQUPALU Equisetum palustre R1 10 -3 Marsh Horsetail N Fern EQUPRAT Equisetum pratense VU 8 -3 Meadow Horsetail N Fern EQ USCIR Equisetum scirpoides VU 7 -1 Dwarf Scouring-rush N Fern EQUSYLV Equisetum sylvaticum R3 7 -3 W oodland Horsetail N Fern EQUVARI Equisetum variegatum U 5 -3 Variegated Scouring-rush N Fern ERACILI Eragrostis cilianensis I 3 -1 Stink Grass A Grass ERAFRAN Eragrostis frankii X 3 -3 SE Frank's Love Grass N Grass ERAHYPN Eragrostis hypnoides R2 7 -5 S4 Moss-like Love Grass N Grass ERAMINO Eragrostis minor I 5 -1 Little Love Grass A Grass ERAPECT Eragrostis pectinacea X 0 0 Tufted Love Grass N Grass ERASPEC Eragrostis spectabilis R4 6 5 S2 Purple Love Grass N Grass EREHIER Erechtites hieracifolia X 2 3 Pilewort N Forb ERIANNU Erigeron annuus C 0 1 Daisy Fleabane N Forb

A5 - 12 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 88 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

SP_CODE SCI_NAME MIDD CC CW SRANK WEED COM_NAME PHYSIOG ERIBULB Erigenia bulbosa U 9 5 S3 Harbinger-of-spring N Forb ERIGRAC Eriophorum gracile R1 10 -5 Slender Cotton-grass N Sedge ERIPHIL Erigeron philadelphicus C 1 -3 Philadelphia Fleabane N Forb ERIPULC Erigeron pulchellus X 7 3 Robin's-plantain N Forb ERISTRI Erigeron strigosus C 0 1 Narrow-leaved Fleabane N Forb ERIVIRG Eriophorum virginicum R1 10 -5 Tawny Cotton-grass N Sedge ERIVIRI Eriophorum viridi-carinatum Rh 9 -5 Cotton-grass N Sedge EROVERN Erophila verna I 5 -2 W hitlow-grass A Forb ERUGALL Erucastrum gallicum I 5 -1 Dog Mustard A Forb ERYALBI Erythronium albidum X 8 5 W hite Trout Lily N Forb ERYAMER Erythronium americanum X 5 5 Yellow Trout Lily N Forb ERYCHEI Erysimum cheiranthoides I 3 -1 W ormseed Mustard A Forb ERYREPA Erysimum repandum Ir 5 -1 Spreading W allflower A Forb EUOATRO Euonymus atropurpurea R2 8 1 S3 Burning Bush N Shrub EUOEURO Euonymus europaea Ir 5 -1 Spindle-tree A Shrub EUOFORT Euonymus fortunei Ir 5 -1 W intercreeper A Vine EUOOBOV Euonymus obovata C 6 5 Running Strawberry-bush N Shrub EUPALTI Eupatorium altissimum Ir 3 3 Tall Thoroughwort N Forb EUPCOMM Euphorbia commutata Rh 10 5 S1 W ood Spurge N Forb EUPCORO Euphorbia corollata U 7 5 S4 Flowering Spurge N Forb EUPCYPA Euphorbia cyparissias I 5 -2 Cypress Spurge A Forb EUPDENT Euphorbia dentata I 5 -1 Toothed Spurge A Forb EUPESUL Euphorbia esula I 5 -2 Leafy Spurge A Forb EUPHELI Euphorbia helioscopia Ir 5 -1 Sun Spurge A Forb EUPMACU Eupatorium maculatum C 3 -5 Spotted Joe-Pye-weed N Forb EUPMARG Euphorbia marginata Ir 4 -1 Snow-on-the-mountain A Forb EUPPEPL Euphorbia peplus Ir 5 -1 Petty Spurge A Forb EUPPURP Eupatorium purpureum VU 8 0 S2 Sweet Joe-Pye-weed N Forb EUPRUGO Eupatorium rugosum C 5 3 W hite Snakeroot N Forb EUPSERO Eupatorium serotinum Ir -1 -1 Late-flowering Thoroughwort A Forb EUTGRAM Euthamia gram inifolia C 2 -2 Grass-leaved Goldenrod N Forb FAGESCU Fagopyrum esculentum Ir 5 -1 Buckwheat A Forb FAGGRAN Fagus grandifolia C 6 3 American Beech N T ree FESARUN Festuca arundinacea Ic 2 -1 Tall Fescue A Grass FESBREV Festuca brevipila I 5 -2 Hard Fescue A Grass FESFILI Festuca filiformis Ir 5 -1 Hair Fescue A Grass FESPRAT Festuca pratensis I 4 -1 Meadow Fescue A Grass FESRUBR Festuca rubra I 1 -1 Red Fescue A Grass FESSUBV Festuca subverticillata X 6 2 Nodding Fescue N Grass FLOPROS Floerkea proserpinacoides X 9 -1 S4S3 False Mermaid N Forb FRAAMER Fraxinus americana C 4 3 W hite Ash N T ree FRANIGR Fraxinus nigra X 7 -4 Black Ash N T ree FRAQUAD Fraxinus quadrangulata VU 9 5 S2 Blue Ash N T ree FRAVESC Fragaria vesca X 4 4 W oodland Strawberry N Forb FRAVIRG Fragaria virginiana C 2 1 W ild Strawberry N Forb GALAPAR Galium aparine X 4 3 Cleavers N Forb GALASPR Galium asprellum X 6 -5 Rough Bedstraw N Forb GALBREV Galium brevipes R1 8 -5 Bedstraw N Forb GALCIRC Galium circaezans X 7 4 W ild Licorice N Forb GALCONC Galium concinnum R1 9 3 Bedstraw N Forb GALLABR Galium labradoricum R1 9 -5 Bog Bedstraw N Forb

A5 - 13 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 89 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

SP_CODE SCI_NAME MIDD CC CW SRANK WEED COM_NAME PHYSIOG GALLANC Galium lanceolatum X 8 5 Lance-leaved Wild Licorice N Forb GALMOLL Galium mollugo I 5 -2 W ild Madder A Forb GALOBTU Galium obtusum R1 6 -5 Obtuse Bedstraw N Forb GALPALU Galium palustre X 5 -5 Marsh Bedstraw N Forb GALPILO Galium pilosum R3 9 5 S3 Hairy Bedstraw N Forb GALQUAD Galinsoga quadriradiata Ir 5 -1 Hairy Galinsoga A Forb GALSPEC Galearis spectabilis R4 9 5 Showy Orchis N Forb GALTETR Galeopsis tetrahit I 5 -1 Hemp-nettle A Forb GALTINC Galium tinctorium R1 5 -5 Dyer's Bedstraw N Forb GALTRID Galium trifidum R4 5 -4 Three-cleft Bedstraw N Forb GALTRIF Galium triflorum X 4 2 Sweet-scented Bedstraw N Forb GALVERU Galium verum I 5 -1 Yellow Bedstraw A Forb GAUHISP Gaultheria hispidula R1 8 -3 Snowberry N Shrub GAUPROC Gaultheria procumbens X 6 3 W intergreen N Shrub GAYBACC Gaylussacia baccata VU 8 3 Black Huckleberry N Shrub GENANDR Gentiana andrews ii X 6 -3 Closed Gentian N Forb GENCR IN Gentianopsis crinita VU 8 -4 Fringed Gentian N Forb GENQUIN Gentianella quinquefolia R2 9 0 S2 Stiff Gentian N Forb GENVIRG Gentianopsis virgata R1 8 -5 Narrow-leaved Fringed Gentian N Forb GERMACU Geranium maculatum X 6 3 W ild Geranium N Forb GERPUSI Geranium pusillum Ir 5 -1 Sm all-flowered C rane's-bill A Forb GERROBE Geranium robertianum Ic 5 -2 Herb Robert A Forb GEUALEP Geum aleppicum X 2 -1 Yellow Avens N Forb GEUCANA Geum canadense X 3 0 W hite Avens N Forb GEULACI Geum laciniatum X 4 -3 S4 Cut-leaved Avens N Forb GEURIVA Geum rivale R2 7 -5 W ater Avens N Forb GEUTRIF Geum triflorum R3 9 4 S4 Prairie Smoke N Forb GEUURBA Geum urbanum Ir 5 -1 Urban Avens A Forb GEUVERN Geum vernum R2 7 1 S3 Spring Avens N Forb GLEHEDE Glechoma hederacea I 3 -2 Gill-over-the-ground A Forb GLETRIA Gleditsia triacanthos I 3 0 S2 Honey Locust N T ree GLYBORE Glyceria borealis R3 8 -5 Northern Manna Grass N Grass GLYCANA Glyceria canadensis R1 7 -5 Rattlesnake Manna Grass N Grass GLYGRAN Glyceria grandis X 5 -5 Tall Manna Grass N Grass GLYMAX Glycine max Ir 5 -1 Soybean A Forb GLYSEPT Glyceria septentrionalis X 8 -5 Eastern Manna Grass N Grass GLYSTRI Glyceria striata X 3 -5 Fowl Manna Grass N Grass GNAOBTU Gnaphalium obtusifolium X 4 5 Fragrant Cudweed N Forb GNAULIG Gnaphalium uliginosum Ir 0 -1 Low C udweed A Forb GNAVISC Gnaphalium viscosum R1 4 5 Clammy Cudweed N Forb GOOPUBE Goodyera pubescens R2 8 0 S4 Downy Rattlesnake-plantain N Forb GOOREPE Goodyera repens R1 8 3 Dwarf Rattlesnake-plantain N Forb GRANEGL Gratiola neglecta R1 7 -5 S4 Hedge-hyssop N Forb GRISQUA Grindelia squarrosa Ih 3 -1 Gumweed A Forb GYMDIOI Gymnocladus dioicus R2 6 5 S2 Kentucky Coffee Tree N T ree GYMDRYO Gymnocarpium dryopteris VU 7 0 Oak Fern N Fern HACVIRG Hackelia virginiana VU 5 1 Stickseed N Forb HALDEFL Halenia deflexa R2 7 0 Spurred Gentian N Forb HAMVIRG Hamamelis virginiana X 6 3 W itch-hazel N Shrub HEDPULE Hedeoma pulegioides R3 6 5 American Pennyroyal N Forb HELANNU Helianthus annuus Ir 1 -1 Com mon Sunflower A Forb

A5 - 14 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 90 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

SP_CODE SCI_NAME MIDD CC CW SRANK WEED COM_NAME PHYSIOG HELAUTU Helenium autumnale R3 7 -4 Sneezeweed N Forb HELBICK Helianthemum bicknellii R1 9 5 S4 Bicknell's Frostweed N Forb HELCANA Helianthemum canadense R2 9 5 Frostweed N Forb HELDECA Helianthus decapetalus X 7 5 Thin-leaved Sunflower N Forb HELDIVA Helianthus divaricatus X 7 5 W oodland Sunflower N Forb HELFLEX Helenium flexuosum I -1 -1 Purple-headed Sneezeweed A Forb HELGIGA Helianthus giganteus X 6 -3 Tall Sunflower N Forb HELHELI Heliopsis helianthoides R4 3 5 Ox-eye N Forb HELMOLL Helianthus mollis Ir 5 -1 Soft Sunflower A Forb HELSTRU Helianthus strumosus X 7 5 Sunflower N Forb HELTUBE Helianthus tuberosus I 0 -2 Jerusalem Artichoke A Forb HEMFULV Hemerocallis fulva I 5 -3 Orange Day Lily A Forb HEMLILI Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus Ir 5 -1 Yellow Day Lily A Forb HEPACUT Hepatica acutiloba X 6 5 Sharp-lobed Hepatica N Forb HEPAMER Hepatica americana X 6 5 Round-lobed Hepatica N Forb HERLANA Heracleum lanatum X 3 -3 Cow-parsnip N Forb HESMATR Hesperis matronalis I 5 -3 Dam e's Rocket A Forb HETDUBI Heteranthera dubia R2 7 -5 W ater Star-grass N Forb HIEAURA Hieracium aurantiacum I 5 -2 Devil's Paintbrush A Forb HIECAES Hieracium caespitosum I 5 -2 Field Hawkweed A Forb HIEGRON Hieracium gronovii R1 9 5 S4 Hawkweed N Forb HIELACH Hieracium lachenalii Ir 5 -1 Com mon Hawkweed A Forb HIEODOR Hierochloe odorata VU 5 -3 Sweet Grass N Grass HIEPILD Hieracium piloselloides Ir 5 -2 King Devil Hawkweed A Forb HIEPILO Hieracium pilosella Ir 5 -1 Mouse-ear H awkweed A Forb HIESCAB Hieracium scabrum VU 7 5 Rough Hawkweed N Forb HIEXFLO Hieracium x floribundum Ir 5 -2 (H. caespitosum X H. lactucella) A Forb HOLLANA Holcus lanatus Ir 4 -1 Velvet Grass A Grass HOLUMBE Holosteum umbellatum Ir 5 -1 Jagged Chickweed A Forb HORJUBA Hordeum jubatum I -1 -1 Foxtail Barley A Grass HUMJAPO Humulus japonicus Ir 3 -1 Japanese Hops A Vine HUMLUPU Humulus lupulus Ir 3 -1 Com mon Hop A Vine HYBCONC Hybanthus concolor R2 9 2 S2 Green Violet N Forb HYDAMER Hydrocotyle americana X 7 -5 Marsh or W ater-pennywort N Forb HYDAPPE Hydrophyllum appendiculatum R2 9 5 S2 Appendaged W aterleaf N Forb HYDCANA Hydrophyllum canadense X 8 -2 S4 Canada W aterleaf N Forb HYDCAND Hydrastis canadensis R1 10 5 S2 Golden Seal N Forb HYDVIRG Hydrophyllum virginianum C 6 -2 Virginia W aterleaf N Forb HYPASCY Hypericum ascyron VU 6 -1 Great St. John's-wort N Forb HYPCANA Hypericum canadense R1 8 -3 Canada St. John's-wort N Forb HYPHIRS Hypoxis hirsuta R1 10 0 S3 Yellow Stargrass N Forb HYPMAJU Hypericum majus R2 5 -3 Large St. John's-wort N Forb HYPMUTI Hypericum mutilum ssp. mutilum R3 6 -3 WEAK ST. JOHN'S-WORT N Forb HYPPERF Hypericum perforatum Ic 5 -3 Common St. John's-wort A Forb HYPPROL Hypericum prolificum R3 6 3 S1 Shrubby St. John's-wort N Shrub HYPPUNC Hypericum punctatum X 5 -1 Spotted St. John's-wort N Forb HYPSPHA Hypericum sphaerocarpon Ir 6 3 St. John's-wort N Forb HYSOFFI Hyssopus officinalis Ih 5 -1 Hyssop A Forb HYSPATU Hystrix patula X 5 5 Bottlebrush Grass N Grass ILEVERT Ilex verticillata X 5 -4 W interberry N Shrub IMPCAPE Impatiens capensis C 4 -3 Spotted Touch-me-not N Forb

A5 - 15 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 91 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

SP_CODE SCI_NAME MIDD CC CW SRANK WEED COM_NAME PHYSIOG IMPGLAN Impatiens glandulifera Ir -3 -2 Purple Touch-me-not A Forb IMPPALL Impatiens pallida X 7 -3 Pale Touch-me-not N Forb INUHELE Inula helenium I 5 -2 Elecampane A Forb IPOPURP Ipomoea purpurea Ir 4 -1 Common Morning-glory A Forb IRIPSEU Iris pseudacorus Ir -5 -2 Yellow-flag A Forb IRIVERS Iris versicolor X 5 -5 W ild Blue-flag N Forb IRIVIRG Iris virginica R2 5 -5 S4 Southern Blue-flag N Forb ISOBITE Isopyrum biternatum VU 10 0 S2 False Rue-anemone N Forb ISOECHI Isoetes echinospora ? 7 -5 Spiny-spored Quillwort N Forb ISOVERT Isotria verticillata R1 10 0 S1 Larger W horled Pogonia N Forb JEFDIPH Jeffersonia diphylla X 10 5 S2 Twinleaf N Forb JUGCINE Juglans cinerea X 6 2 Butternut N T ree JUGNIGR Juglans nigra X 5 3 S4 Black Walnut N T ree JUNACUM Juncus acuminatus R1 6 -5 S3 Tapered Rush N Forb JUNALPI Juncus alpinoarticulatus VU 5 -5 Alpine Rush N Forb JUNARTI Juncus articulatus VU 5 -5 Jointed Rush N Forb JUNBALT Juncus balticus U 5 -5 Baltic Rush N Forb JUNBRAC Juncus brachycephalus VU 7 -5 Short-headed Rush N Forb JUNBUFO Juncus bufonius U 1 -4 Toad Rush N Forb JUNCANA Juncus canadensis X 6 -5 Canadian Rush N Forb JUNCOMM Juniperus com munis R1 4 3 Com mon Juniper N Shrub JUNCOMP Juncus compressus Ir -4 -1 Flat-stemmed Rush A Forb JUNDUDL Juncus dudleyi C 1 0 S4 Dudley's Rush N Forb JUNEFFU Juncus effusus X 4 -5 Soft Rush N Forb JUNGERA Juncus gerardii Ir -5 -1 Black-grass A Forb JUNHORI Juniperus horizontalis R1 10 1 Creeping Juniper N Shrub JUNMARG Juncus marginatus R2 9 -3 S2 Grass-leaved Rush N Forb JUNNODO Juncus nodosus X 5 -5 Knotted Rush N Forb JUNPELO Juncus pelocarpus R1 8 -5 Brown-fruited Rush N Forb JUNPYLA Juncus pylaei X 4 -5 Soft Rush N Forb JUNTENU Juncus tenuis X 0 0 Path Rush N Forb JUNTORR Juncus torreyi VU 3 -3 Torrey's Rush N Forb JUNVIRG Juniperus virginiana X 4 3 Red Cedar N T ree KALPOLI Kalm ia polifolia R1 10 -5 Bog-laurel N Shrub KOCSCOP Koc hia scoparia I 4 -1 Summer-cypress A Forb KOEMACR Koeleria macrantha R3 10 5 S2S3 Prairie June Grass N Grass LACBIEN Lactuca biennis X 6 0 Tall Blue Lettuce N Forb LACCANA Lactuca canadensis X 3 2 W ild Lettuce N Forb LACSERR Lactuca serriola I 0 -1 Prickly Lettuce A Forb LAMAMPL Lamium amplexicaule Ir 5 -1 Henbit A Forb LAMPURP Lamium purpureum Ir 5 -2 Purple Dead-nettle A Forb LAPCANA Laportea canadensis X 6 -3 W ood Nettle N Forb LAPCOMM Lapsana com munis Ir 5 -2 Nipplewort A Forb LAPSQUA Lappula squarrosa Ir 5 -1 Burseed A Forb LARDECI Larix decidua I 5 -1 European Larch A T ree LARLARI Larix laricina X 7 -3 Tamarack N T ree LATLATI Lathyrus latifolius I 5 -1 Everlasting Pea A Forb LATPALU Lathyrus palustris R1 6 -3 Marsh Pea N Forb LATPRAT Lathyrus pratensis Ir 3 -1 Yellow Vetchling A Forb LECVILL Lechea villosa VU 9 5 S3 Hairy Pinweed N Forb LEEORYZ Leersia oryzoides X 3 -5 Rice Cut Grass N Grass

A5 - 16 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 92 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

SP_CODE SCI_NAME MIDD CC CW SRANK WEED COM_NAME PHYSIOG LEEVIRG Leersia virginica X 6 -3 W hite Grass N Grass LEMMINO Lemna minor X 2 -5 Com mon Duckweed N Forb LEMT RIS Lemna trisulca X 4 -5 Star D uckweed N Forb LEOAUTU Leontodon autumnalis Ir 5 -1 Fall Hawkbit A Forb LEOCARD Leonurus cardiaca Ic 5 -2 Motherwort A Forb LEPACUM Leptochloa acuminata Ir -5 -1 Sprangletop A Grass LEPCAMP Lepidium campestre I 5 -1 Field Pepper-grass A Forb LEPDENS Lepidium densiflorum X 0 -2 Common Pepper-grass A Forb LEPVIRG Lepidium virginicum R4 0 4 Poor-man's Pepper-grass N Forb LESCAPI Lespedeza capitata VU 7 3 Round-headed Bush-clover N Forb LESHIRT Lespedeza hirta VU 9 5 Hairy Bush-clover N Forb LESINTE Lespedeza intermedia VU 8 5 S4 W andlike Bush-clover N Forb LEUMULT Leucospora multifida Ir 8 0 S1 Conobea N Forb LEUVULG Leucanthemum vulgare Ic 5 -1 Ox-eye Daisy A Forb LEYAREN Leymus arenarius Ir 3 -1 European Dune Grass A Grass LIAASPE Liatris aspera ? 10 5 S2 Rough Blazing-star N Forb LIASPIC Liatris spicata R1 9 0 S3 Spiked Blazing Star N Forb LIGVULG Ligustrum vulgare I 1 -2 Privet A Shrub LILMICH Lilium michiganense U 7 -1 Michigan Lily N Forb LILPHIL Lilium philadelphicum R3 8 1 W ood Lily N Forb LINBENZ Lindera benzoin X 6 -2 Spicebush N Shrub LINBORE Linnaea borealis R3 7 0 Twinflower N Forb LINDUBI Lindernia dubia var. dubia VU 7 -5 FALSE PIMPERNEL N Forb LINGENI Linaria genistifolia Ir 5 -1 Dalmatian Toadflax A Forb LINPERE Linum perenne Ih 5 -1 Perennial Flax A Forb LINVULG Linaria vulgaris Ic 5 -1 Butter-and-eggs A Forb LIPLILI Liparis liliifolia R1 8 4 S2 Lily-leaved Twayblade N Forb LIPLOES Liparis loeselii X 5 -4 Loesel's Twayblade N Forb LIRTULI Liriodendron tulipifera U 8 2 S3 Tulip-tree N T ree LISCORD Listera cordata R1 8 -3 Heart-leaved Twayblade N Forb LITCANE Lithospermum canescens R1 10 5 S5 Hoary Puccoon N Forb LITLATI Lithospermum latifolium VU 9 5 S2 Am erican G romwell N Forb LITOFFI Lithospermum officinale I 5 -1 European Gromwell A Forb LOBCARD Lobelia cardinalis X 7 -5 Cardinal Flower N Forb LOBINFL Lobelia inflata X 3 4 Indian-tobacco N Forb LOBKALM Lobelia kalmii R3 9 -5 S5 Kalm 's Lobelia N Forb LOBSIPH Lobelia siphilitica X 6 -4 Great Lobelia N Forb LOBSPIC Lobelia spicata R4 8 0 Pale-spiked Lobelia N Forb LOLPERE Lolium perenne I 3 -1 Perennial Rye Grass A Grass LONCANA Lonicera canadensis X 6 3 Fly Honeysuckle N Shrub LONDIOI Lonicera dioica X 5 3 W ild Honeysuckle N Vine LONHIRS Lonicera hirsuta R1 7 0 Hairy Honeysuckle N Shrub LONJAPO Lonicera japonica Ir 3 -2 Japanese Honeysuckle A Vine LONMAAC Lonicera maackii Ir 5 -2 Am ur H oneysuckle A Shrub LONMORR Lonicera morrowii Ir 5 -1 Morrow's Honeysuckle A Shrub LONOBLO Lonicera oblongifolia R2 8 -5 Swamp Fly-honeysuckle N Shrub LONTATA Lonicera tatarica I 3 -3 Tartarian Honeysuckle A Shrub LONXYLO Lonicera xylosteum Ir 5 -2 European Fly-honeysuckle A Shrub LOTCORN Lotus corniculatus I 1 -2 Birdfoot Trefoil A Forb LUDPALU Ludwigia palustris X 5 -5 W ater-purslane N Forb LUPPERE Lupinus perennis R3 10 5 S3 W ild Lupine N Forb

A5 - 17 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 93 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

SP_CODE SCI_NAME MIDD CC CW SRANK WEED COM_NAME PHYSIOG LUZACUM Luzula acuminata X 6 1 Pointed Wood-rush N Forb LUZMULT Luzula multiflora X 6 3 Common Wood-rush N Forb LYCAMER Lycopus americanus C 4 -5 American W ater-horehound N Forb LYCANNO Lycopodium annotinum R1 7 0 Stiff Clubmoss N Fern LYCBARB Lycium barbarum Ih 5 -1 Matrimony Vine A Vine LYCCLAV Lycopodium clavatum R2 6 0 Running Clubmoss N Fern LYCDIGI Lycopodium digitatum C 5 5 Crowfoot Clubmoss N Fern LYCINUN Lycopodium inundatum R3 9 -5 Bog Clubmoss N Fern LYCLUCI Lycopodium lucidulum X 7 -1 Shining Clubmoss N Fern LYCOBSC Lycopodium obscurum X 6 3 Ground-pine N Fern LYCTRIS Lycopodium tristachyum R1 8 5 Ground-cedar N Fern LYCUN IF Lycopus uniflorus C 5 -5 Bugleweed N Forb LYCVIRG Lycopus virginicus R3 8 -5 S1 Virginia Water-horehound N Forb LYSCILI Lysimachia ciliata X 4 -3 Fringed Loosestrife N Forb LYSNUMM Lysimac hia nummularia I -4 -3 Moneywort A Forb LYSQUAD Lysimachia quadriflora R2 8 5 Prairie Loosestrife N Forb LYSTERR Lysimac hia terrestris R3 6 -5 Swamp Candles N Forb LYSTHYR Lysimachia thyrsiflora X 7 -5 Tufted Loosestrife N Forb LYSVULG Lysimac hia vulgaris Ir -2 -1 Garden Loosestrife A Forb LYTALAT Lythrum alatum VU 5 -5 S3 W inged Loosestrife N Forb LYTSALI Lythrum salicaria Ic -5 -3 Purple Loosestrife A Forb MAICANA Maianthemum canadense X 5 0 W ild Lily-of-the-valley N Forb MAIRACE Maianthemum racemosum X 4 3 False Solomon's-seal N Forb MAISTEL Maianthemum stellatum X 6 1 Starry False Solomon's-seal N Forb MAITRIF Maianthemum trifolium R4 10 -5 Three-leaved False Solomon's-seal N Forb MALCORO Malus coronaria X 5 5 W ild Crab N T ree MALMOSC Malva moschata I 5 -1 Musk M allow A Forb MALNEGL Malva neglecta I 5 -1 Com mon Mallow A Forb MALPUMI Malus pumila I 5 -1 Apple A T ree MALROTU Malva rotundifolia Ir 5 -1 Round-leaved Mallow A Forb MALUNIF Malaxis unifolia R2 6 0 Green Adder's-mouth N Forb MARVULG Marrubium vulgare Ir 0 -1 Common Horehound A Forb MATPERF Matricaria perforata Ir 5 -1 Scentless C hamomile A Forb MATSTRU Matteuccia struthiopteris X 5 -3 American Ostrich Fern N Fern MEDLUPU Medicago lupulina Ic 1 -1 Black Medick A Forb MEDSATI Medic ago sativa Ic 5 -1 Alfalfa A Forb MEDVIRG Medeola virginiana X 7 5 Indian C ucumber-root N Forb MELALBA Melilotus alba Ic 3 -3 W hite Sweet-clover A Forb MELLINE Melampyrum lineare R3 6 1 Cow-wheat N Forb MELOFFI Melilotus officinalis Ic 3 -1 Yellow Sweet-clover A Forb MENARVE Mentha arvensis X 3 -3 Field Mint N Forb MENCANA Menispermum canadense X 7 0 Moonseed N Vine MENSPIC Mentha spicata I -4 -1 Spearmint A Forb MENSUAV Mentha suaveolens Ir -3 -1 Round-leaved Mint A Forb MENT RIF Menyanthes trifoliata VU 9 -5 Bogbean N Forb MENXPIP Mentha x piperita I -5 -1 (M. aquatica X M. spicata) A Forb MERVIRG Mertensia virginica R3 9 -3 S2 Virginia Bluebells N Forb MILEFFU Milium effusum X 8 4 S5 W ood Millet N Grass MIMRING Mimulus ringens X 6 -5 Square-stemmed Monkey-flower N Forb MIRNYCT Mirabilis nyctaginea I 5 -1 W ild Four-o'clock A Forb MISSACC Miscanthus sacchariflorus I 5 -1 Plume Grass A Grass

A5 - 18 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 94 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

SP_CODE SCI_NAME MIDD CC CW SRANK WEED COM_NAME PHYSIOG MITDIPH Mitella diphylla X 5 2 Bishop's-cap N Forb MITNUDA Mitella nuda X 6 -3 Naked Mitrewort N Forb MITREPE Mitchella repens X 6 2 Partridge-berry N Shrub MOLVERT Mollugo verticillata Ir 0 -2 Carpetweed A Forb MONDIDY Monarda didyma U 8 3 S3 Oswego Tea N Forb MONFIST Monarda fistulosa C 6 3 W ild Bergamot N Forb MONHYPO Monotropa hypopithys R1 6 5 Pinesap N Forb MONPUNC Monarda punctata R1 9 5 S1 Spotted Horsemint N Forb MO NU NIF Monotropa uniflora X 6 3 Indian Pipe N Forb MORALBA Morus alba I 0 -3 W hite Mulberry A T ree MORRUBR Morus rubra R1 10 1 S2 Red Mulberry N T ree MUHASPE Muhlenbergia asperifolia Ir 5 SE -1 Scratch Grass A Grass MUHFRON Muhlenbergia frondosa X 5 -3 W ire-stemmed Muhly N Grass MUHGLOM Muhlenbergia glomerata X 7 -4 Marsh W ild-timothy N Grass MUHMEXI Muhlenbergia mexicana X 1 -3 Satin Grass N Grass MUHSCHR Muhlenbergia schreberi X 1 0 S4 Nimble W ill N Grass MUHTENU Muhlenbergia tenuiflora R3 9 5 S2 Slender Satin Grass N Grass MUSBOTR Muscari botryoides Ir 5 -1 Grape Hyacinth A Forb MYOAQUA Myosoton aquaticum Ir -1 -1 Giant Chickweed A Forb MYOLAXA Myosotis laxa X 6 -5 Smaller Forget-me-not N Forb MYOSCOR Myosotis scorpioides I -5 -1 True Forget-me-not A Forb MYOSTRI Myosotis stricta Ir 5 -1 Forget-me-not A Forb MYOSYLV Myosotis sylvatica Ir 5 -1 Forget-me-not A Forb MYRSIBI Myriophyllum sibiricum R4 6 -5 Northern W ater-milfoil N Forb NAJFLEX Najas flexilis R1 5 -5 Bushy Naiad N Forb NARCIS. Narcissus sp. I -1 Daffodil species A Forb NASOFFI Nasturtium officinale I -5 -1 W ater Cress A Forb NEMMUCR Nemopanthus mucronatus X 8 -5 Mountain Holly N Shrub NEPCATA Nepeta cataria Ic 1 -2 Catnip A Forb NUPADVE Nuphar advena R1 7 -5 S2 Yellow Pond-lily N Forb NUPVARI Nuphar variegata X 4 -5 Bullhead Lily N Forb NYMODOR Nymphaea odorata X 5 -5 Fragrant W ater-lily N Forb NYSSYLV Nyssa sylvatica R2 9 -4 S3 Black-gum N T ree OENBIEN Oenothera biennis R1 0 3 Hairy Yellow Evening-primrose N Forb OENCLEL Oenothera clelandii R1 9 5 S1 Cleland's Evening-primrose N Forb OENLACI Oenothera laciniata Ir 3 -1 Cut-leaved Evening-primrose A Forb OENOAKE Oenothera oakesiana Rh 8 5 Evening-primrose N Forb OENPARV Oenothera parviflora X 1 3 Small-flowered Evening-primrose N Forb OENPERE Oenothera perennis R4 6 0 Sundrops N Forb OENPILO Oenothera pilosella R2 8 1 S2 Meadow Sundrops N Forb ONOACAN Onopordum acanthium I -1 Scotch Thistle A Forb ONOMOLL Onosmodium molle R3 8 5 S2 False Gromwell N Forb ONOSENS Onoclea sensibilis X 4 -3 Sensitive Fern N Fern OPHPUSI Ophioglossum pusillum R1 6 3 Northern Adder's-tongue Fern N Fern ORIVULG Origanum vulgare Iu 5 -2 W ild Marjoram A Forb ORNUMBE Ornithogalum umbellatum Ir 1 -1 Star-of-Bethlehem A Forb ORO UN IF Orobanche uniflora VU 8 5 One-flowered Cancer-root N Forb ORTSECU Orthilia secunda R2 5 -1 One-sided Pyrola N Forb ORYASPE Oryzopsis asperifolia X 6 5 Rough-leaved Mountain-rice N Grass ORYPUNG Oryzopsis pungens R1 8 5 S5 Sharp-leaved Oryzopsis N Grass ORYRACE Oryzopsis racemosa X 7 5 Mountain-rice N Grass

A5 - 19 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 95 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

SP_CODE SCI_NAME MIDD CC CW SRANK WEED COM_NAME PHYSIOG OSDCINN Osmunda cinnamomea X 7 -3 Cinnamon Fern N Fern OSDCLAY Osmunda claytoniana X 7 -1 Interrupted Fern N Fern OSDREGA Osm unda regalis X 7 -5 American Royal Fern N Fern OSMCLAY Osm orhiza claytonii X 5 4 Sweet-cicely N Forb OSMLONG Osm orhiza longistylis X 6 4 Long-styled Sweet-cicely N Forb OSTVIRG Ostrya virginiana C 4 4 Hop-hornbeam N T ree OXACORN Oxalis corniculata Ir 3 -1 Creeping W ood-sorrel A Forb OXADILL Oxalis dillenii X 0 3 Com mon Yellow W ood-sorrel N Forb OXALIS. Oxalis sp. Ic 0 3 W ood-sorrel species N Forb OXASTRI Oxalis stricta X 0 3 European W ood-sorrel N Forb PANBORE Panicum boreale R1 7 2 S4 Northern Panic Grass N Grass PANCAPI Panicum capillare X 0 0 W itch Grass N Grass PANCLAN Dichanthelium clandestinum R2 8 -3 S2 Hidden Panic Grass N Grass PANCOLU Panicum columbianum R1 6 5 S5 Columbia Panic Grass N Grass PANDEPA Panicum depauperatum R1 6 5 S4 Impoverished Panic Grass N Grass PANDICF PANICUM DICHOTOMIFLORUMIc -2 -1 PANIC GRASS A Grass PANDICH Dichanthelium dichotomum R2 9 1 S2 Forked Panic Grass N Grass PANFLEX Panicum flexile R4 8 -4 S4 W iry Witch Grass N Grass PANGATT Panicum gattingeri U 3 0 S3 Gattinger's Witch Grass N Grass PANIMPL Panicum implicatum C 2 0 Hairy Panic Grass N Grass PANLATI Panicum latifolium X 6 3 Broadleaf Panic Grass N Grass PANLIND Panicum lindheimeri R1 8 -5 Lindheimer's Panic Grass N Grass PANLINE Panicum linearifolium VU 6 5 Narrow-leaved Panic Grass N Grass PANMILI Panicum miliaceum Ir 5 -1 Com mon Millet A Grass PANO LIG Panicum oligosanthes VU 7 3 S4 Few-flowered Panic Grass N Grass PANO LIG Panicum oligosanthes VU 7 3 Few-flowered Panic Grass N Grass PANPERL Panicum perlongum Rh 10 5 S1 Round-fruited Panic Grass N Grass PANPRAE Panicum praecocius R2 9 5 S2 Panic Grass N Grass PANQ UIN Panax quinquefolius R2 9 5 S3 American Ginseng N Forb PANRIGI Panicum rigidulum R1 9 -3 S2 Stiff Panic Grass N Grass PANSPHA Dichanthelium sphaerocarpon R3 8 3 S3 Panic Grass N Grass PANT RIF Panax trifolius VU 8 5 Dwarf Ginseng N Forb PANTUCK Panicum tuckermanii R2 8 -3 Tuckerman's Witch Grass N Grass PANVIRG Panicum virgatum X 6 -1 S4 Switch Grass N Grass PARGLAU Parnassia glauca X 8 -5 Grass-of-Parnassus N Forb PARINSE Parthenocissus inserta X 3 3 Virginia Creeper N Vine PARPENS Parietaria pensylvanica VU 3 3 Pellitory N Forb PARQ UIN Parthenocissus quinquefolia X 6 1 Virginia Creeper N Vine PASSATI Pastinaca sativa I 5 -3 W ild Parsnip A Forb PASSETA Paspalum setaceum R1 8 5 S2 Paspalum N Grass PEDCANA Pedicularis canadensis X 7 2 W ood-betony N Forb PEDLANC Pedicularis lanceolata X 9 -4 S4 Swamp Lousewort N Forb PENDIGI Penstem on digitalis X 6 1 Foxglove Beard-tongue N Forb PENHIRS Penstemon hirsutus R3 7 5 Hairy Beard-tongue N Forb PENSEDO Penthorum sedoides X 4 -5 Ditch Stonecrop N Forb PENTUBA Penstemon tubaeflorus Ir -1 Tubular-flowered Beard-tongue A Forb PETCR IS Petroselinum crispum Ir 5 -1 Com mon Parsley A Forb PETFRIG Petasites frigidus R1 8 -3 Sweet Coltsfoot N Forb PHAARUN Phalaris arundinacea X 0 -4 Reed Canary Grass N Grass PHACANA Phalaris canariensis I 3 -1 Canary Grass A Grass PHECONN Phegopteris connectilis R1 8 5 Northern Beech Fern N Fern

A5 - 20 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 96 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

SP_CODE SCI_NAME MIDD CC CW SRANK WEED COM_NAME PHYSIOG PHEHEXA Phegopteris hexagonoptera R1 9 1 S3 Southern Beech Fern N Fern PHLDIVA Phlox divaricata X 7 3 Blue Phlox N Forb PHLPANI Phlox paniculata Ir 3 -1 Garden Phlox A Forb PHLPRAT Phleum pratense Ic 3 -1 Timothy A Grass PHLSUBU PHLOX SUBULATA Rh 5 -1 MOSS PHLOX; MOSS or ROSE PINK A Forb PHRAUST Phragm ites australis X 0 -4 Com mon Reed N Grass PHRLEPT Phryma leptostachya X 6 5 Lopseed N Forb PHYALKE Physalis alkekengi Ir 5 -1 Chinese Lantern A Forb PHYAMER Phytolacca americana X 3 1 Pokeweed N Forb PHYHETE Physalis heterophylla X 3 5 Clammy Ground-cherry N Forb PHYOPUL Physocarpus opulifolius X 5 -2 Ninebark N Shrub PHYSUBG Physalis subglabrata X 6 5 Smooth Ground-cherry N Forb PHYVIRG Physostegia virginiana R2 8 -3 False Dragonhead N Forb PICABIE Picea abies I 5 -1 Norway Spruce A T ree PICGLA* PICEA GLAUCA I 3 -1 WHITE SPRUCE (PLANTED) A T ree PICGLAU Picea glauca I 6 3 W hite Spruce N T ree PICHIER Picris hieracioides I 5 -1 Ox-tongue A Forb PICMARI Picea mariana R1 8 -3 Black Spruce N T ree PILFONT Pilea fontana VU 5 -3 Clearweed N Forb PILPUMI Pilea pumila X 5 -3 Clearweed N Forb PINBANK Pinus banksiana I 9 3 Jack Pine N T ree PINRES* PINUS RESINOSA Ir 3 -1 RED PINE (PLANTED) A T ree PINRESI Pinus resinosa Ir 8 3 Red Pine N T ree PINSTRO Pinus strobus X 4 3 W hite Pine N T ree PINSYLV Pinus sylvestris Ir 5 -3 Scots Pine A T ree PLABLEP Platanthera blephariglottis Rh 10 -5 S3 W hite Fringed-orchid N Forb PLACLAV Platanthera clavellata R1 8 -4 Little Club-spur O rchid N Forb PLACORD Plantago cordata R1 9 -5 S1 Heart-leaved Plantain N Forb PLADILA Platanthera dilatata R2 10 -3 Tall W hite Bog O rchid N Forb PLAHOOK Platanthera hookeri R2 8 -1 Hooker's Orchid N Forb PLAHYPE Platanthera hyperborea VU 5 -4 Tall Northern Green O rchid N Forb PLALACE Platanthera lacera X 6 -3 Ragged Fringed-orchid N Forb PLALANC Plantago lanceolata Ic 0 -1 English Plantain A Forb PLALEUC Platanthera leucophaea R2 10 -4 S2 Prairie Fringed-orchid N Forb PLAMAJO Plantago major Ic -1 -1 Common Plantain A Forb PLAMEDI Plantago media Ir 5 -1 Hoary Plantain A Forb PLAOCCI Platanus occidentalis X 8 -3 Sycamore N T ree PLAPSYC Platanthera psycodes R4 8 -3 Sm all Purple Fringed-orchid N Forb PLARUGE Plantago rugelii C 1 0 Rugel's Plantain N Forb POAALSO Poa alsodes X 7 -2 W oodland Poa N Grass POAANNU Poa annua Ic 1 -2 Annual Blue Grass A Grass POABULB Poa bulbosa Ivu 0 -1 Bulbous Poa A Grass POACOMP Poa compressa X 0 2 Canada Blue Grass N Grass POALANG Poa languida VU 8 5 S3 Languid Poa N Grass POANEMO Poa nemoralis Ir 0 -1 W ood Blue Grass A Grass POAPALU Poa palustris X 5 -4 Fowl Meadow Grass N Grass POAPRAT Poa pratensis C 0 1 Kentucky Blue Grass N Grass POASYLV Poa sylvestris R1 10 0 S1 W oodland Poa N Grass PO AT RIV Poa trivialis I -3 -1 Rough Blue Grass A Grass PODPELT Podophyllum peltatum X 5 3 May-apple N Forb POGOPHI Pogonia ophioglossoides R2 10 -5 Rose P ogonia N Forb

A5 - 21 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 97 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

SP_CODE SCI_NAME MIDD CC CW SRANK WEED COM_NAME PHYSIOG POLACHO Polygonum achoreum VU 0 5 Striate Knotweed N Forb POLACRO Polystichum acrostichoides X 5 5 Christmas Fern N Fern POLAMPH Polygonum amphibium X 5 -5 W ater Smartweed N Forb PO LAVIC Polygonum aviculare Ic 1 -1 Prostrate Knotweed A Forb PO LAVIC Polygonum aviculare Ic 1 -1 Knotweed A Forb POLBIFL Polygonatum biflorum R1 8 3 S4 Solomon's-seal N Forb POLBUXI Polygonum buxiforme R1 0 5 Knotweed N Forb POLCANA Polymnia canadensis R3 8 5 S4 Leafcup N Forb POLCONV Polygonum convolvulus I 1 -1 W ild Buckwheat A Vine POLCUSP Polygonum cuspidatum Iu 3 -1 Japanese Knotweed A Forb POLEREC Polygonum erectum Rh 2 3 S1 Erect Knotweed N Forb POLHYDD Polygonum hydropiperoides X 4 -5 Mild W ater-pepper N Forb POLHYDR Polygonum hydropiper I 4 -5 W ater-pepper N Forb POLLAPA Polygonum lapathifolium X 2 -4 Pale Smartweed N Forb POLMULT Polygonatum multiflorum Ir -1 Great Solomon's-seal A Forb PO LORIE Polygonum orientale Ir 5 -1 Prince's Feather A Forb POLPAUC Polygala paucifolia VU 6 3 Fringed Polygala N Forb POLPENS Polygonum pensylvanicum X 3 -4 Pinkweed N Forb POLPERS Polygonum persicaria I -3 -1 Lady's-thumb A Forb POLPOLY Polygala polygama R1 9 4 Racemed Mikwort N Forb POLPUBE Polygonatum pubescens X 5 5 Hairy Solomon's-seal N Forb POLPUNC Polygonum punctatum X 4 -5 Smartweed N Forb POLSAGI Polygonum sagittatum R4 5 -5 Arrow-leaved Tear-thumb N Forb POLSCAN Polygonum scandens X 3 0 Climbing False Buckwheat N Vine POLSENE Polygala senega VU 7 3 Seneca Snakeroot N Forb POLTENU Polygonum tenue R1 10 5 S2 Slender Knotweed N Forb POLVERT Polygala verticillata Rh 7 5 W horled Milkwort N Forb POLVIRG Polygonum virginianum X 6 0 Jumpseed N Forb POPALBA Populus alba I 5 -3 W hite Poplar A T ree POPBALS Populus balsamifera X 4 -3 Balsam Poplar N T ree POPDELT Populus deltoides X 4 -1 Cottonwood N T ree POPGRAN Populus grandidentata X 5 3 Large-toothed Aspen N T ree POPNIGR Populus nigra I 5 -1 Lombardy Poplar A T ree POPTREM Populus tremuloides X 2 0 Trembling Aspen N T ree POROLER Portulaca oleracea X 0 1 Common Purslane N Forb POTAMPL Potamogeton amplifolius R4 5 -5 Large-leaved Pondweed N Forb POTANSE Potentilla anserina X 5 -4 Silverweed N Forb POTARGE Potentilla argentea I 3 -2 Silvery C inquefoil A Forb POTBERC Potamogeton berchtoldii R2 4 -5 Small Pondweed N Forb PO TCR IS Potamogeton crispus I -5 -3 Curly-leaved Pondweed A Forb POTFOLI Potamogeton foliosus R2 4 -5 Leafy Pondweed N Forb POTFRUT Potentilla fruticosa R1 9 -3 Shrubby Cinquefoil N Shrub POTGRAM Potamogeton gramineus R2 4 -5 Variable-leaved Pondweed N Forb POTILLI Potamogeton illinoensis R1 6 -5 Illinois Pondweed N Forb POTINCL Potentilla inclinata I 5 -1 Downy Cinquefoil A Forb POTNATA Potamogeton natans R2 5 -5 Floating Pondweed N Forb POTNODO Potamogeton nodosus R1 7 -5 Knotty Pondweed N Forb POTNORV Potentilla norvegica I 0 0 Rough Cinquefoil N Forb POTPALU Potentilla palustris R3 7 -5 Marsh Cinquefoil N Forb POTPECT Potamogeton pectinatus X 4 -5 Sago Pondweed N Forb POTPUSI Potamogeton pusillus R1 5 -5 Small Pondweed N Forb

A5 - 22 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 98 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

SP_CODE SCI_NAME MIDD CC CW SRANK WEED COM_NAME PHYSIOG POTRECT Potentilla recta I 5 -2 Rough-fruited Cinquefoil A Forb POTRICH Potamogeton richardsonii R2 5 -5 Richardson's Pondweed N Forb POTSIMP Potentilla simplex X 3 4 Common Cinquefoil N Forb POTSTRI Potamogeton strictifolius R1 8 -5 S4 Slender Pondweed N Forb POTZOST Potamogeton zosteriformis R1 5 -5 Flat-stemmed Pondweed N Forb PREALBA Prenanthes alba X 6 3 W hite-lettuce N Forb PREALTI Prenanthes altissima X 5 3 Tall White-lettuce N Forb PROPALU Proserpinaca palustris R4 7 -5 Merm aid-weed N Forb PRUAMER Prunus americana X 6 5 S4 W ild Plum N T ree PRUAVIU Prunus avium Ir 5 -2 Sweet Cherry A T ree PRUDOME Prunus domestica I 5 -1 Common Plum A T ree PRUNIGR Prunus nigra X 4 4 Canada Plum N T ree PRUPENS Prunus pensylvanica X 3 4 Pin Cherry N T ree PRUPERS Prunus persica Ir 5 -1 Peach A T ree PRUSERO Prunus serotina C 3 3 W ild Black Cherry N T ree PRUVIRG Prunus virginiana C 2 1 Choke Cherry N Shrub PRUVULG Prunella vulgaris C 0 -1 Heal-all A Forb PTEANDR Pterospora andromedea Rh 9 5 S1S2 Pine-drops N Forb PTEAQUI Pteridium aquilinum X 2 3 Eastern Bracken N Fern PT ET RIF Ptelea trifoliata Ir 9 2 S3 Hop-tree N Shrub PUCDIST Puccinellia distans Ic -5 -1 Reflexed Saltmarsh Grass A Grass PUCNUTT Puccinellia nuttalliana Ir 0 -1 Nuttall's Alkali Grass A Grass PYCTENU Pycnanthemum tenuifolium R2 8 0 Mountain-mint N Forb PYCVIRG Pycnanthemum virginianum VU 8 -4 Virginia Mountain-mint N Forb PYRAMER Pyrola americana R2 7 1 Round-leaved Pyrola N Forb PYRASAR Pyrola asarifolia R3 7 -3 Pink Pyrola N Forb PYRCOMM Pyrus com munis I 5 -1 Pear A T ree PYRELLI Pyrola elliptica X 5 5 Shinleaf N Forb QUEALBA Quercus alba C 6 3 W hite Oak N T ree QUEBICO Quercus bicolor X 8 -4 S4 Swamp W hite Oak N T ree QUEMACR Quercus macrocarpa C 5 1 Bur Oak N T ree QUERUBR Quercus rubra C 6 3 Red Oak N T ree QUEVELU Quercus velutina X 8 5 Black Oak N T ree RANABOR Ranunculus abortivus C 2 -2 Kidney-leaved Buttercup N Forb RANACRI Ranunculus acris Ic -2 -2 Common Buttercup A Forb RANBULB Ranunculus bulbosus Ih -3 -1 Bulbous Buttercup A Forb RANFASC Ranunculus fascicularis R2 9 3 S4 Early Buttercup N Forb RANFICA Ranunculus ficaria Ir -2 -1 Lesser-celandine A Forb RANFLAB Ranunculus flabellaris VU 7 -5 Yellow W ater Buttercup N Forb RANHISC Ranunculus hispidus C 5 -5 Swamp Buttercup N Forb RANLONG Ranunculus longirostris R2 5 -5 W hite W ater Crowfoot N Forb RANPENS Ranunculus pensylvanicus X 3 -5 Bristly Crowfoot N Forb RANRECU Ranunculus recurvatus X 4 -3 Hooked Buttercup N Forb RANREPE Ranunculus repens Ih -1 -1 Creeping Buttercup A Forb RANRHOM Ranunculus rhomboideus R3 10 5 S4 Prairie Buttercup N Forb RANSCEL Ranunculus sceleratus X 2 -5 Cursed Crowfoot N Forb RATPINN Ratibida pinnata R2 9 5 S2 Gray-headed Coneflower N Forb RHAALNI Rhamnus alnifolia X 7 -5 Alder-leaved Buckthorn N Shrub RHACATH Rhamnus cathartica Ic 3 -3 Common Buckthorn A T ree RHAFRAN Rhamnus frangula Iu -1 -3 Glossy Buckthorn A Shrub RHERHAB Rheum rhabarbarum I 5 -1 Rhubarb A Forb

A5 - 23 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 99 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

SP_CODE SCI_NAME MIDD CC CW SRANK WEED COM_NAME PHYSIOG RHUAROM Rhus aromatica R1 8 5 Fragrant Sumac N Shrub RHUCOPA Rhus copallinum R1 7 5 S3 Shining Sumac N Shrub RHUGLAB Rhus glabra VU 7 5 Smooth Sumac N T ree RHURADI Rhus radicans C 0 0 Poison-ivy N Vine RHURANE Rhus radicans X 5 -1 Climbing Poison-ivy N Vine RHUTYPH Rhus typhina C 1 5 Staghorn Sumac N T ree RHUVERN Rhus vernix R3 8 -5 Poison Sumac N Shrub RHUXPUL Rhus x pulvinata R1 2 5 (Rhus glabra X R . typhina) N T ree RHYALBA Rhynchospora alba R2 10 -5 W hite Beak-rush N Sedge RHYCAPI Rhynchospora capillacea R1 10 -5 Hair-like Beak-rush N Sedge RIBAMER Ribes americanum C 4 -3 W ild Black Currant N Shrub RIBCYNO Ribes cynosbati C 4 5 Prickly Gooseberry N Shrub RIBHIRT Ribes hirtellum X 6 -3 Swamp Gooseberry N Shrub RIBNIGR Ribes nigrum Ir 5 -1 Garden Black Currant A Shrub RIBODOR Ribes odoratum Ir 1 -1 Golden Currant A Shrub RIBRUBR Ribes rubrum Ir 5 -2 Garden Red Currant A Shrub RIBTRIS Ribes triste X 6 -5 Swamp Red Currant N Shrub ROBPSEU Robinia pseudo-acacia Ic 4 -3 Black Locust A T ree RORSYLV Rorippa sylvestris I -5 -1 Creeping Yellow Cress A Forb RO SACIC Rosa ac icularis R1 7 3 Prickly Wild Rose N Shrub ROSBLAN Rosa blanda X 3 3 Smooth Wild Rose N Shrub ROSCARO Rosa carolina R1 6 4 Carolina Rose N Shrub ROSMULT Rosa multiflora I 3 -3 Multiflora Rose A Shrub ROSPALU Rosa palustris X 7 -5 Swamp Rose N Shrub ROSRUBI Rosa rubiginosa I 5 -1 Sweetbrier A Shrub ROSSETI Rosa setigera R1 5 2 S3 Prairie Rose N Shrub RUBALLE Rubus allegheniensis C 2 2 Common Blackberry N Shrub RUBCANA Rubus canadensis R1 7 5 Smooth Blackberry N Shrub RUBFLAG Rubus flagellaris R4 4 4 Northern Dewberry N Shrub RUBHISP Rubus hispidus R4 6 -3 Swamp Dewberry N Shrub RUBIDAE Rubus idaeus X 0 -2 W ild Red Raspberry N Shrub RUBOCCI Rubus occidentalis X 2 5 Black Raspberry N Shrub RUBODOR Rubus odoratus R4 3 5 Purple-flowering Raspberry N Shrub RUBPUBE Rubus pubescens X 4 -4 Dwarf Raspberry N Forb RUDHIRT Rudbeckia hirta C 0 3 Black-eyed Susan N Forb RUDLACI Rudbeckia laciniata X 7 -4 Cut-leaved Coneflower N Forb RU DT RIL Rudbeckia triloba Ir 1 -1 Thin-leaved Coneflower A Forb RUMACET Rumex acetosella Ic 0 -2 Sheep Sorrel A Forb RUMALTI Rumex altissimus R1 8 -2 Pale Dock N Forb RUMLONG Rumex longifolius Ir 0 -1 House Dock A Forb RUMOBTU Rumex obtusifolius I -3 -1 Bitter Dock A Forb RUMORBI Rumex orbiculatus X 6 -5 Great Water Dock N Forb RUMSANG Rumex sanguineus Ir -3 -1 Dock A Forb RUMVERT Rumex verticillatus VU 7 -5 W ater Dock N Forb SAGCUNE Sagittaria cuneata R1 7 -5 Arrowhead N Forb SAGITA. Sagittaria sp. C 4 -5 ARROWHEAD SPECIES (UNSPECIFIED) N Forb SAGLATI Sagittaria latifolia C 4 -5 Com mon Arrowhead N Forb SAGPROC Sagina procumbens Ir -3 -1 Pearlwort A Forb SALALBA Salix alba I -3 -2 W hite W illow A T ree SALAMYG Salix amygdaloides X 6 -3 Peach-leaved W illow N T ree SALBEBB Salix bebbiana X 4 -4 Bebb's W illow N Shrub

A5 - 24 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 100 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

SP_CODE SCI_NAME MIDD CC CW SRANK WEED COM_NAME PHYSIOG SALCAND Salix candida R1 10 -5 Hoary W illow N Shrub SALCINE Salix cinerea Ir 5 -1 Gray W illow A Shrub SALCOLL Salsola collina Ir 5 -1 Russian-thistle A Forb SALCORD Salix cordata R1 9 -1 Heart-leaved W illow N Shrub SALDISC Salix discolor X 3 -3 Pussy W illow N Shrub SALERIO Salix eriocephala X 4 -3 Heart-leaved W illow N Shrub SALEXIG Salix exigua C 3 -5 Sandbar W illow N Shrub SALFRAG Salix fragilis I -1 -3 Crack W illow A T ree SALHUMI Salix humilis R3 7 3 Upland W illow N Shrub SALKALI Salsola kali I 3 -1 Russian-thistle A Forb SALLUCI Salix lucida X 5 -4 Shining W illow N Shrub SALMYRI Salix myricoides R1 10 -3 Blue-leaved W illow N Shrub SALNIGR Salix nigra X 6 -5 Black W illow N T ree SALPEDI Salix pedicellaris R1 9 -5 Bog W illow N Shrub SALPENT Salix pentandra Ir 5 -1 Bay-leaved W illow A T ree SALPETI Salix petiolaris X 3 -4 Slender W illow N Shrub SALPURP Salix purpurea I -3 -2 Basket W illow A Shrub SALPYRI Salix pyrifolia R1 10 -4 Balsam W illow N Shrub SALSERM Salix serissima VU 6 -5 Autumn W illow N Shrub SALXRUB Salix x rubens Ir -4 -3 (S. alba X S. fragilis) A T ree SAMCANA Sam bucus canadensis X 5 -2 Com mon Elder N Shrub SAMPUBE Sambucus racemosa X 5 2 Red-berried Elder N Shrub SAMVALE Samolus valerandi VU 8 -5 W ater Pimpernel N Forb SANCACA Sanicula canadensis R4 7 2 Canada Snakeroot N Forb SANCANA Sanguinaria canadensis X 5 4 Bloodroot N Forb SANCANG Sanicula canadensis Rh 7 2 SH Long-styled Canada Snakeroot N Forb SANMARI Sanicula marilandica X 5 3 Black Snakeroot N Forb SANMINO Sanguisorba minor I 0 -1 Garden Burnet A Forb SANODOR Sanicula odorata X 6 -1 Yellow Snakeroot N Forb SANT RIF Sanicula trifoliata X 7 5 S5 Large-fruited Snakeroot N Forb SAPOFFI Saponaria officinalis I 3 -3 Bouncing Bet A Forb SARPURP Sarracenia purpurea R4 10 -5 Pitcher-plant N Forb SASALBI Sassafras albidum X 6 3 S4 Sassafras N T ree SAUCERN Saururus cernuus VU 8 -5 Lizard's-tail N Forb SAXVIRG Saxifraga virginiensis R2 6 1 Early Saxifrage N Forb SCHPALU Scheuchzeria palustris Rh 10 -5 Bog-bean N Forb SCHPURP Schizachne purpurascens X 6 2 Purple Melic Grass N Grass SCHPURP Schizachne purpurascens X 6 2 Hairy False Melic Grass N Grass SCHSCOP Schizachyrium scoparium X 7 3 Little Bluestem N Grass SCIACUT Scirpus acutus R3 6 -5 Hard-stemmed Bulrush N Sedge SCIATRO Scirpus atrovirens C 3 -5 Dark Green Bulrush N Sedge SCIATRO Scirpus atrovirens C 3 -5 Dark Green Bulrush N Sedge SCICYPE Scirpus cyperinus C 4 -5 W ool-grass N Sedge SCIFLUV Scirpus fluviatilis R1 7 -5 Bulrush N Sedge SCIMICR Scirpus microcarpus R3 4 -5 Red-sheathed Bulrush N Sedge SCIPEDI Scirpus pedicellatus R1 8 -5 Pedicellate Wool-grass N Sedge SCIPEND Scirpus pendulus C 3 -5 Nodding Bulrush N Sedge SCIPUNG Scirpus pungens U 6 -5 Threesquare N Sedge SCISMIT Scirpus smithii R1 10 -5 S2 Smith's Club-rush N Sedge SCIVALI Scirpus validus C 5 -5 Soft-stem Bulrush N Sedge SCLANNU Scleranthus annuus I 3 -1 Knawel A Forb

A5 - 25 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 101 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

SP_CODE SCI_NAME MIDD CC CW SRANK WEED COM_NAME PHYSIOG SCLTRIG Scleria triglomerata Rh 10 0 S1 Tall Nut-rush N Sedge SCRLANC Scrophularia lanceolata R1 7 2 Lance-leaved Figwort N Forb SCRMARI Scrophularia marilandica X 7 4 S4 Carpenter's-square N Forb SCUGALE Scutellaria galericulata X 6 -5 Com mon Skullcap N Forb SCULATE Scutellaria lateriflora X 5 -5 Mad-dog Skullcap N Forb SCUPARV Scutellaria parvula var. parvula R1 9 0 LEONARD'S SMALL SKULLCAP N Forb SECCERE Sec ale cereale I 5 -1 Rye A Grass SEDACRE Sedum acre I 5 -3 Mossy Stonecrop A Forb SEDSPUR Sedum spurium Ir 5 -1 False Stonecrop A Forb SEDTELE Sedum telephium Ir 5 -1 Live-forever A Forb SELAPOD Selaginella apoda X 7 -4 Northern Meadow Spikemoss N Fern SELRUPE Selaginella rupestris R1 8 5 Rock Spikemoss N Fern SENAURE Senecio aureus X 7 -3 Golden Ragwort N Forb SENPAUP Senecio pauperculus VU 7 -1 Balsam Ragwort N Forb SENVISC Senecio viscosus Ir 5 -1 Sticky Ragwort A Forb SENVULG Senecio vulgaris I 5 -1 Com mon Groundsel A Forb SETFABE Setaria faberi Ic 2 -1 Giant Foxtail A Grass SETPUMI Setaria pumila I 0 -1 Yellow Foxtail A Grass SETVERT Setaria vertic illata (L.) P. Beauv. I 0 -1 Bristly Foxtail A Grass SETVIRI Setaria viridis I 5 -1 Green Foxtail A Grass SHECANA Shepherdia canadensis R2 7 5 Soapberry N Shrub SICANGU Sicyos angulatus X 5 -2 Bur Cucumber N Vine SILANTI Silene antirrhina R4 3 5 Sleepy Catchfly N Forb SILDICH Silene dichotoma Ih 5 -1 Forking Catchfly A Forb SILLATI Silene latifolia I 5 -2 W hite Cockle A Forb SILNOCT Silene noctiflora I 5 -1 Night-flowering Catchfly A Forb SILPERF Silphium perfoliatum R1 9 -2 S2 Cup-plant N Forb SINARVE Sinapis arvensis I -1 Charlock A Forb SISALTI Sisymbrium altissimum I 3 -1 Tumble Mustard A Forb SISANGU Sisyrinchium angustifolium R3 6 -2 S4 Narrow-leaved Blue-eyed Grass N Forb SISMONT Sisyrinchium montanum X 4 -1 Little Blue-eyed Grass N Forb SISMUCR Sisyrinchium mucronatum R4 10 -2 Blue-eyed Grass N Forb SISOFFI Sisymbrium officinale I 5 -1 Hedge Mustard A Forb SIUSUAV Sium suave C 4 -5 W ater-parsnip N Forb SMIECIR Smilax ecirrhata R1 6 5 Carrion-flower N Forb SMIHERB Smilax herbacea X 5 0 Carrion-flower N Forb SMIHISP Smilax hispida X 6 0 Bristly Greenbrier N Vine SMILASI Smilax lasioneura X 5 5 Carrion-flower N Vine SOLALTI Solidago altissima U 1 3 Late Goldenrod N Forb SOLARGU Solidago arguta R1 8 3 S2 Sharp-leaved Goldenrod N Forb SOLBICO Solidago bicolor R1 8 5 Silverrod N Forb SOLCAES Solidago caesia X 5 3 Blue-stem Goldenrod N Forb SOLCANA Solidago canadensis X 1 3 Canada Goldenrod N Forb SOLCARO Solanum carolinense I 4 -1 Horse Nettle A Forb SOLDULC Solanum dulcamara Ic 0 -2 Climbing Nightshade A Vine SOLFLEX Solidago flexicaulis X 6 3 Zig-zag Goldenrod N Forb SOLGIGA Solidago gigantea X 4 -3 Tall Goldenrod N Forb SOLHISP Solidago hispida R1 7 5 Hairy Goldenrod N Forb SOLJUNC Solidago juncea X 3 5 Early Goldenrod N Forb SOLNEMO Solidago nemoralis X 2 5 Gray Goldenrod N Forb SO LOHIO Solidago ohioensis R1 10 -5 S4 Ohio Goldenrod N Forb

A5 - 26 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 102 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

SP_CODE SCI_NAME MIDD CC CW SRANK WEED COM_NAME PHYSIOG SOLPATU Solidago patula X 8 -5 S4 Rough-leaved Goldenrod N Forb SOLPTAR Solidago ptarmicoides R1 9 5 Upland W hite Aster N Forb SOLPTYC Solanum ptycanthum X 0 -1 Eastern Black Nightshade A Forb SOLRIDD Solidago riddellii R3 10 -5 S2 Riddell's Goldenrod N Forb SOLRIGI Solidago rigida U 9 4 S3 Stiff-leaved Goldenrod N Forb SOLRUGO Solidago rugosa X 4 -1 Rough G oldenrod N Forb SOLSQUA Solidago squarrosa Rh 10 5 Stout Goldenrod N Forb SOLTUBE Solanum tuberosum I 5 -1 Potato A Forb SO LULIG Solidago uliginosa R1 9 -5 Bog Goldenrod N Forb SOLULMI Solidago ulmifolia Rh 9 5 (S1) Elm-leaved Goldenrod N Forb SONARVE Sonchus arvensis I 1 -1 Perennial Sow-thistle A Forb SONASPE Sonchus asper I 0 -1 Spiny-leaved Sow-thistle A Forb SONOLER Sonchus oleraceus I 3 -1 Annual Sow-thistle A Forb SORAUCU Sorbus aucuparia I 5 -2 European Mountain-ash A T ree SORBICO Sorghum bicolor Ir 5 -1 Sorghum A Grass SORHALE Sorghum halepense I 3 -1 Johnson Grass A Grass SORNUTA Sorghastrum nutans X 8 2 Indian Grass N Grass SORSORB Sorbaria sorbifolia Ir 5 -1 False Spiraea A Shrub SPAAMER Sparganium americanum R2 6 -5 American Bur-reed N Forb SPAANDR Sparganium androcladum R1 6 -5 S2 Branching Bur-reed N Forb SPAEMER Sparganium emersum VU 5 -5 Green-fruited Bur-reed N Forb SPAEURY Sparganium eurycarpum X 3 -5 Giant Bur-reed N Forb SPANATA Sparganium natans R1 8 -5 Small Bur-reed N Forb SPAPECT Spartina pectinata X 7 -4 Tall Cord Grass N Grass SPEMARI Spergularia marina Ir -5 S1 -1 Sea-spurrey A Forb SPEMEDI Spergularia media Ir 3 -1 Sand-spurrey A Forb SPHINTE Sphenopholis intermedia X 6 0 Slender Wedge Grass N Grass SPIALBA Spiraea alba X 3 -4 Meadowsweet N Shrub SPICERN Spiranthes cernua X 5 -2 Nodding Ladies'-tresses N Forb SPIJAPO Spiraea japonica Ir 5 -1 Japanese Spiraea A Shrub SPILUCI Spiranthes lucida R1 9 -4 Shining Ladies'-tresses N Forb SPIMAGN Spiranthes magnicamporum R1 8 -3 S2 Great Plains Ladies'-tresses N Forb SPIOCHR Spiranthes ochroleuca VU 9 3 S2 Yellow Nodding Ladies'-tresses N Forb SPIPOLY Spirodela polyrhiza VU 4 -5 Greater Duckweed N Forb SPIROMA Spiranthes romanzoffiana R1 9 -4 Hooded Ladies'-tresses N Forb SPOASPE Sporobolus asper U 2 5 S1 Rough Dropseed N Grass SPOCRYP Sporobolus cryptandrus X 2 4 S5 Sand Dropseed N Grass SPONEGL Sporobolus neglectus X 1 5 S5 Overlooked Dropseed N Grass SPOVAGI Sporobolus vaginiflorus X 1 5 Ensheathed Dropseed N Grass SPOVAGI Sporobolus vaginiflorus X 1 5 Dropseed N Grass STAHISP Stachys hispida R2 7 -4 Rough Hedge-nettle N Forb STAPALU Stachys palustris I -5 -1 Marsh Hedge-nettle A Forb ST AT RIF Staphylea trifolia X 7 0 Bladdernut N Shrub STEGRAM Stellaria graminea I 5 -2 Grass-leaved Stitchwort A Forb STELONG Stellaria longifolia X 2 -4 Long-leaved Chickweed N Forb STEMEDI Stellaria media Ic 3 -1 Com mon Chickweed A Forb STISPAR Stipa spartea R1 10 5 S3 Needle Grass N Grass STRROSE Streptopus roseus VU 7 0 Rose T wisted-s talk N Forb STYDIPH Stylophorum diphyllum R2 9 5 S1 W ood Poppy N Forb SUACALC Suaeda calceoliformis Ir -3 S2 -1 Sea-blite A Forb SYMALBU Symphoricarpos albus X 7 4 Snowberry N Shrub

A5 - 27 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 103 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

SP_CODE SCI_NAME MIDD CC CW SRANK WEED COM_NAME PHYSIOG SYMFOET Symplocarpus foetidus C 7 -5 Skunk-cabbage N Forb SYMOFFI Symphytum officinale I 5 -1 Com mon Comfrey A Forb SYMORBI Symphoricarpos orbiculatus Ir 3 -1 Coralberry A Shrub SYRVULG Syringa vulgaris I 5 -2 Com mon Lilac A Shrub TAEINTE Taenidia integerrima VU 9 5 Yellow-pimpernel N Forb TANVULG Tanacetum vulgare I 5 -1 Tansy A Forb TARERYT Taraxacum erythrospermum Ir 5 -1 Red-seeded Dandelion A Forb TAROFFI Taraxacum officinale Ic 3 -2 Com mon Dandelion A Forb TARPALU Taraxacum palustre Ivu -5 -1 Marsh Dandelion A Forb TAXCANA Taxus canadensis X 7 3 American Yew N Shrub TEUCANA Teucrium canadense R3 6 -2 WOOD SAGE N Forb THADASY Thalictrum dasycarpum R1 8 -2 Purple Meadow-rue N Forb THADIOI Thalictrum dioicum X 5 2 Early Meadow-rue N Forb THAPUBE Thalictrum pubescens X 5 -2 Tall Meadow-rue N Forb THENOVE Thelypteris noveboracensis X 7 -1 New York Fern N Fern THEPALU Thelypteris palustris X 5 -4 Marsh Fern N Fern THLARVE Thlaspi arvense Ic 5 -1 Penny Cress A Forb THUOCCI Thuja occidentalis X 4 -3 W hite Cedar N T ree THYPULE Thymus pulegioides Ir 5 -1 Wild Thyme A Forb TIACORD Tiarella cordifolia X 6 1 Foamflower N Forb TILAMER Tilia americana C 4 3 Basswood N T ree TORJAPO Torilis japonica Ir 5 -3 Hedge Parsley A Forb TRADUBI Tragopogon dubius I 5 -1 Goat's-beard A Forb TRAPORR Tragopogon porrifolius Ir 5 -1 Common Salsify A Forb TRAPRAT Tragopogon pratensis I 5 -1 Yellow Goat's-beard A Forb TRIAEST Triticum aestivum Ir 5 -1 Com mon W heat A Grass TRIAURA Triosteum aurantiacum X 7 5 Horse-gentian N Forb TRIAURE Trifolium aureum I 5 -1 Hop Clover A Forb TRIBORE Trientalis borealis X 6 -1 Starflower N Forb TRICAMP Trifolium campestre I 5 -1 Low H op Clover A Forb TRIEREC Trillium erectum X 6 1 Red Trillium N Forb TRIFLEX Trillium flexipes R1 10 1 S1 Bent Trillium N Forb TRIFRAS Triadenum fraseri VU 7 -5 Marsh St. John's-wort N Forb TRIGRAN Trillium grandiflorum X 5 5 W hite Trillium N Forb TRIHYBR Trifolium hybridum I 1 -1 Alsike Clover A Forb TRIMARI Triglochin maritimum Ir 8 -5 Arrow-grass N Forb TRIPRAT Trifolium pratense I 2 -2 Red Clover A Forb TRIREPE Trifolium repens I 2 -1 W hite Clover A Forb TSUCANA Tsuga canadensis X 7 3 Eastern Hemlock N T ree TUSFARF Tussilago farfara Ic 3 -2 Coltsfoot A Forb TYPANGU Typha angustifolia X 3 -5 Narrow-leaved C attail N Forb TYPLATI Typha latifolia X 3 -5 Common Cattail N Forb TYPXGLA Typha x glauca R1 3 -5 (T. angustifolia x T. latifolia) N Forb ULMAMER Ulmus americana X 3 -2 Am erican Elm N T ree ULMPUMI Ulmus pumila Ir 5 -1 Siberian Elm A T ree ULMRUBR Ulmus rubra X 6 0 Slippery Elm N T ree ULMTHOM Ulmus thomasii VU 6 -1 Rock Elm N T ree URTDIDI URTICA DIOICA SSP. DIOICA Ir -1 -1 NETTLE A Forb URTDIOG Urtica dioica C 2 -1 Am erican Stinging N ettle N Forb URTUREN Urtica urens Ih 5 -1 Dwarf Nettle A Forb UTRCORN Utricularia cornuta R1 9 -5 Horned Bladderwort N Forb

A5 - 28 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 104 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

SP_CODE SCI_NAME MIDD CC CW SRANK WEED COM_NAME PHYSIOG UTRVULG Utricularia vulgaris VU 4 -5 Common Bladderwort N Forb UVUGRAN Uvularia grandiflora X 6 5 Large-flowered Bellwort N Forb UVUSESS Uvularia sessilifolia R2 7 1 Merrybells N Forb VACANGU Vaccinium angustifolium X 6 3 Lowbush Blueberry N Shrub VACCORY Vaccinium corymbosum X 8 -3 Highbush Blueberry N Shrub VACMACR Vaccinium macrocarpon R3 10 -5 Large Cranberry N Shrub VACMYRT Vaccinium myrtilloides R4 7 -2 Velvet-leaf Blueberry N Shrub VACOXYC Vaccinium oxycoccus R1 10 -5 Small Cranberry N Shrub VACPALL Vaccinium pallidum R1 9 5 S4 Dryland Blueberry N Shrub VALAMER Vallisneria americana R2 6 -5 Tape-grass N Forb VALEDUL Valeriana edulis Rh 10 -5 S1 Edible Valerian N Forb VALOFFI Valeriana officinalis Ir 2 -1 Heliotrope A Forb VERAMER Veronica americana X 6 -5 American Brooklime N Forb VERANAG Veronica anagallis-aquatica I -5 -1 W ater Speedwell A Forb VERARVE Veronica arvensis I 5 -1 Corn Speedwell A Forb VERBECC Veronica beccabunga Ir -5 -1 Brooklime A Forb VERBLAT Verbascum blattaria Ic 4 -1 Moth Mullein A Forb VERBRAC Verbena bracteata R 2 3 Prostrate Vervain N Forb VERCHAM Veronica chamaedrys Ir 5 -1 Bird's-eye Speedwell A Forb VERFILI Veronica filiformis Ir 5 -1 Slender Speedwell A Forb VERHAST Verbena hastata C 4 -4 Blue Vervain N Forb VERLONG Veronica longifolia Ir 5 -1 Long-leaved Speedwell A Forb VEROFFI Veronica officinalis I 5 -2 Common Speedwell A Forb VERPERE Veronica peregrina VU 0 -4 Purslane Speedwell N Forb VERPERS Veronica persica Ir 5 -1 Persian Speedwell A Forb VERPOLI Veronica polita Ir 5 -1 Speedwell A Forb VERSCUT Veronica scutellata R2 7 -5 Marsh Speedwell N Forb VERSERP Veronica serpyllifolia I 0 -3 Thyme-leaved Speedwell N Forb VERSTRI Verbena stricta R4 7 5 Hoary Vervain N Forb VERTHAP Verbascum thapsus Ic 5 -2 Common Mullein A Forb VERURTI Verbena urticifolia X 4 -1 W hite Vervain N Forb VIBACER Viburnum acerifolium X 6 5 Maple-leaved Viburnum N Shrub VIBCASS Viburnum cassinoides X 7 -3 W ild-raisin N Shrub VIBLANA Viburnum lantana Ir 5 -1 W ayfaring T ree A Shrub VIBLENT Viburnum lentago C 4 -1 Nannyberry N Shrub VIBOPUL Viburnum opulus Ir 0 -1 European Highbush-cranberry A Shrub VIBRAFI Viburnum rafinesquianum X 7 5 Downy Arrow-wood N Shrub VIBTRIL Viburnum trilobum X 5 -3 Highbush-cranberry N Shrub VICCRAC Vicia cracca I 5 -1 Cow Vetch A Forb VICSATI Vicia sativa I 4 -1 Common Vetch A Forb VICTETR Vicia tetrasperma I 5 -1 Sparrow Vetch A Forb VICVILL Vicia villosa I 5 -1 Hairy Vetch A Forb VINMINO Vinca minor Ir 5 -2 Common Periwinkle A Shrub VIOAFFI Viola affinis R2 6 -3 S4 Le Conte's Marsh Violet N Forb VIOARVE Viola arvensis I 5 -1 Field Pansy A Forb VIOBLAN Viola blanda X 6 -2 Sweet W hite Violet N Forb VIOCANA Viola canadensis X 6 5 Canada Violet N Forb VIOCONS Viola conspersa X 4 -2 Dog Violet N Forb VIOCUCU Viola cucullata X 5 -5 Marsh Violet N Forb VIOMACL Viola macloskeyi R2 6 -5 Smooth W hite Violet N Forb VIONEPH Viola nephrophylla R1 7 -4 Northern Bog Violet N Forb

A5 - 29 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 105 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

SP_CODE SCI_NAME MIDD CC CW SRANK WEED COM_NAME PHYSIOG VIOODOR Viola odorata Ir 5 -1 Sweet Violet A Forb VIOPALM Viola palmata R1 9 5 S2 W ood Violet N Forb VIOPUBE Viola pubescens C 5 4 Yellow Violet N Forb VIORENI Viola renifolia ? 7 -3 Kidney-leaved Violet N Forb VIOROST Viola rostrata X 6 3 Long-spurred Violet N Forb VIOROTU Viola rotundifolia Rh 10 0 S1 Round-leaved Violet N Forb VIOSAGI Viola sagittata X 9 -2 S4 Arrow-leaved Violet N Forb VIOSORO Viola sororia X 4 1 Com mon Blue Violet N Forb VIOSTRI Viola striata U 8 -3 S3 Striped Violet N Forb VIO TRIC Viola tricolor Ir 5 -1 Johnny-jump-up A Forb VIOXBRA Viola x brauniae R1 8 (V. rostrata X V. striata) N Forb VITAEST Vitis aestivalis VU 7 3 S4 Summer Grape N Vine VITLABR Vitis labrusca R3 3 3 Fox Grape N Vine VITRIPA Vitis riparia C 0 -2 Riverbank Grape N Vine W ALFRAG W aldsteinia fragarioides R4 5 5 Barren Strawberry N Forb WOLBORE W olffia borealis VU 4 -5 Dotted W ater-meal N Forb W OLCOLU W olffia columbiana VU 4 -5 W ater-meal N Forb WOOVIRG W oodwardia virginica R1 10 -5 Virginia Chain-fern N Fern XANSPIN Xanthium spinosum Ih 3 -1 Cocklebur A Forb XANSTRU Xanthium strumarium C 2 0 Cocklebur N Forb ZANAMER Zanthoxylum americanum C 3 5 Prickly-ash N Shrub ZEAMAYS Zea mays Ir 5 -1 Corn A Grass ZIZAPTE Zizia aptera Rh 9 3 S1 Heart-leaved Alexanders N Forb ZIZAURE Zizia aurea X 7 -1 Golden Alexanders N Forb

A5 - 30 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 106 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

APPENDIX 6

DESCRIPTION OF THE GEODATABASE DIGITAL MAPPING LAYERS

A6 - 1 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 107 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

NATURAL HERITAGE GEODATABASE londonesa83: City of London Environmental Significant Areas (Corporation of City of London 2002) buffer_of_londonesa83: 750 m buffer on londonesa83 (UTRCA 2002) esa_lamb83: Lambton County Environmental Significant Area 33L "Sydenham River Corridor" (Lambton County Official Plan 1996) buffer_of_esalamb83: 750 m buffer on esa_lamb83 (UTRCA 2002) prov_ansi83: Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (Life Science) as defined in the Middlesex County Official Plan (1997) (Natural Heritage Information Centre) buffer_of_prov_ansi83: 750 m buffer on prov_ansi83 (UTRCA 2002) sna_op83: Significant Natural Areas as defined in the Middlesex County Official Plan (1997) (Hilts and Cook 1982) buffer_of_sna_op83: 750 m buffer on sna_op83 (UTRCA 2002) Wetlands_2003: Provincially Designated Wetlands (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2003) Buffer_of_Wetands_2003: 750 m buffer on Wetlands_2003 (UTRCA 2003) BPcorridor_middlesex: Big Picture Natural Heritage Corridor in Hills’ (1959) Site Region 7E (Natural Heritage Information Centre 1999) Bigger_Picture_Corridor: Big Picture Natural Heritage Corridor incorporating Hills’ (1959) Site Region 6E (Natural Heritage Information Centre 2003) Buffer_ of_ Bigger_Picture_Corridor: 200 m buffer on Bigger_Picture_Corridor (UTRCA 2003) Middlesex_ABCA_Corridor: Natural Heritage Corridor (Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority Watershed Management Strategy 1995) Buffer_of_Thames_Corridor: 200 m buffer on Thames River (Woodfern Research 1991) Middlesex_Natural_HeritageCorridor: Final Natural Heritage Corridor - comprised of parts from: Big_Picture_Corridor,

A6 - 2 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 108 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

Buffer_ of_ Bigger_Picture_Corridor, Middlesex_ABCA_Corridor Buffer_of_Thames_Corridor (UTRCA 2003) middlesex_flow: Surface and subsurface drainage and natural watercourses. ABCA and UTRCA removed subsurface segment from digital layer. Original info provided by OBM 1:10,000 1983 but updated by photography of the following years: Ausable Bayfield 1999 Lower Thames River 1983 Kettle Creek 1997 Upper Thames River 1989 St. Clair River 1992 buffer_of_middlesex_flow: 50 m buffer on middlesex_flow (UTRCA 2002) middlesex_waterpoly: Waterbodies and wetland features (OBM 1983) Middlesex_prairie_grasslands: Areas of grassland Prairie (Tall Grass Ontario Files)

PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY GEODATABASE

Mid_soil_83: Middlesex County soils information (Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food 1985) Soils_fs83, _fsl83, _sl83, _vfsl83: Soils types extracted from Mid_soil_83 to define areas of possible recharge (Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food 1985) midphys_83: Middlesex County Physiography (Chapman and Putnam 1972) middlesex_landuse: Middlesex County Agriculture Land Use (Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food 1983 survey) Middlesex_Geographic: County boundary including City of London and First Nations Reserves as one file (Municipal Housing and Affairs 2002) Middlesex_proper: Middlesex County boundary not including City of London nor the First Nations (Municipal Housing and Affairs 2002) Middlesex_FN_London: Middlesex_Geographic including First Nations and City of London Boundaries as separate entities (Municipal Housing and Affairs 2002)

A6 - 3 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 109 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

Middlesex_Geographic2km: 200m boundary on outside of Middlesex_Geographic (UTRCA 2002)

VEGETATION GEODATABASE vegmodelalldec2: Updated vegetation layer (woodland patches) (UTRCA 2002) Buffer_of_vegmodel83alldec2_2: 100m buffer of vegmodelalldec2 on inside of polygon only (UTRCA 2002) vegmodel_interior: forest edge and interior attribute information (UTRCA 2002) interior_forest: all interior forest segments except segments less than 2000m2 (UTRCA 2002) interior_calculation: information regarding size of individual woodlands including total area, edge and amount of interior (UTRCA 2002) veg_gt_10ha: Vegetation patches greater than 10 hectares extracted from vegmodelalldec2 (UTRCA 2002) buffer of veg_gt_ha: 100 m buffer on veg_gt_10ha (UTRCA 2002)

A6 - 4 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 110 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

APPENDIX 7

TREE SPECIES BY PHYSIOGRAPHIC TYPE

A7 - 1 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 111 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

SPECIES BEACH CLAY KAME PEAT SAND SPILL TILLMOR TILLPLA TOTAL CODE

ACENEGU 13 3 3 19

ACENIGR 1 1 1 3

ACERUBR 1 6 4 4 13 6 4 14 52

ACESACC 17 8 2 53 86 46 78 290

ACESACN 3 4 1 2 19 35 12 43 119

BETALLE 3 3 8 1 2 17

BETPAPY 1 1 3 3 8

CARCORD 4 2 6 16 13 24 65

CAROVAT 1 1 1 1 2 2 8

CELOCCI 1 1 1 3

CRATAE 1 1 3 1 1 7

FAGGRAN 1 4 17 4 14 40

FRAAMER 4 2 14 54 22 43 139

FRANIGR 1 2 2 5

FRAPENN 5 4 2 3 4 18

FRAXIN 4 4 1 2 5 5 16 37

GLETRIA 1 1 2

JUGCINE 1 1

JUGNIGR 2 2 2 2 11 5 8 32

LARLARI 5 1 1 7

MALPUMI 2 1 3

OSTVIRG 2 2

PICABIE 1 1

PINRESI 1 1 2

PINSTRO 3 2 4 6 4 5 24

PINSYLV 4 3 3 10

PLAOCCI 3 3

POPALBA 1 1

POPBALS 2 1 1 4

POPDELT 1 1 1 5 2 3 13

POPGRAN 1 4 3 3 11

POPTREM 4 2 8 42 13 27 96

A7 - 2 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 112 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

PRUSERO 2 4 1 1 8

QUEALBA 1 3 1 5

QUEMACR 2 2 4 1 5 14

QUERUBR 1 4 4 1 10

QUEVELU 1 1

ROBPSEU 2 2 1 5

SALIX 1 2 4 2 9

SALXRUB 2 7 28 14 20 71

THUOOCI 1 1 18 5 25

TILAMER 4 3 2 9

TSUCANA 1 1 7 9

ULMAMER 5 3 1 6 37 20 45 117

# TYPES 24 12 10 7 32 56 45 43 229

# COMM 57 41 22 11 156 454 207 377 1325

DIVERSITY 0.87 0.94 0.95 0.84 0.74 0.78 0.82 0.75 N / A

A7 - 3 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 113 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

APPENDIX 8

LANDOWNER FOLLOW-UP PACKAGE

A8 - 1 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 114 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

Date: Landowner Name Landowner Address

Dear Landowner:

As you recall, your woodlot/natural area was inventoried in the summer of 2001 as part of the Middlesex Natural Heritage Study. We were very pleased with the positive response from landowners such as you who granted permission for our staff to inventory 68 woodlots within the County. We have analyzed the data and now have a better understanding of the extent, health and characteristics of the woodlands in Middlesex County. We would like to share some of the results with you, as promised.

Attached you will find: < a summary of the findings from the Middlesex Natural Heritage Study < a summary of data collected from your woodlot including a list of the species (Note: if the woodlot is owned by more than one owner, the data has been summarized for the woodlot as a whole instead of by individual properties) < a map of your woodlot showing the vegetation community boundaries < information flyers on forestry services, woodlot owner’s association and Carolinian Canada

If you have any questions about the attached information or would like a copy of the full technical report, please contact me at (519) 451-2800 ext. 261 or [email protected] The information from this study is helping County Council plan for the future of our natural resources. With only 12.3% forest cover, every woodlot is important. Congratulations on helping to preserve a piece of the county’s natural heritage system.

Thank you again for your valuable assistance in this study.

Yours truly, UPPER THAMES RIVER CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

Tara Tchir Planning Ecologist

Encl.

A8 - 2 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 115 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

Middlesex Natural Heritage Study Summary of Findings-Spring 2003

In the summer of 2001, 68 woodlots were inventoried Basal Area throughout Middlesex County. The following is a Basal area (BA) measures the area in m2 taken up by summary of some of the key findings about the state of the trees in a hectare of forest. The table below compares County’s forests. the Provincial Forestry Standards for BA against the Middlesex County averages for BA. Forest Cover 12.3% of Middlesex County is covered in forest including Provincial Middlesex treed swamps. Scientists estimate 25-35% forest cover is Forestry County Average needed in southern Ontario to ensure the long term Tree Size (dbh) Standard (m2/ha) (m2/ha) survival of our native plants and animals and to protect the Small (<25 cm) 5 9 quality of the water and air. Medium (25-50 cm) 9 9 There has been a slight increase in forest cover in the county since the 1950s due to tree planting efforts and Large (>50 cm) 6 1 the retirement of marginal farmland. *dbh = diameter at breast height

Woodlot Size Most Middlesex woodlots have an over abundance of There are approximately 8600 woodlots in Middlesex small and medium sized trees and too few large trees. County. The vast majority (60%) are less than 2 hectares This size class structure negatively affects the rate and (ha) in size and another 22% are between 2 and 10 ha. quality of new growth. The lack of large trees may be Only 18% of the woodlots are over 10 ha, but these due to the practice of diameter limit cutting which takes account for most of the forest cover. Many declining bird most of the large, healthy trees. Diameter limit cutting species require large woodlots with interior forest. is not considered good forestry practice. Interior forest is the protected core of a forest more than 100 metres away from any edge. Most woodlots under Canopy Cover Change 10 ha do not contain interior forest. Dominant tree canopy types found in 2001 were compared with types documented in historic Area (ha) % of County conservation authority reports from the 1950s to 1960s. The data show that there has been a definite shift in the Middlesex County 284,464 -- species of trees that dominate woodlands in Middlesex. Forest Cover 39,989 12.3 There have been increases in the relative dominance of silver and red maple, ash, tamarack, Interior Forest 11,378 4.0 hickory and aspen. Conversely, there have been decreases in beech, black cherry, oak and white elm. Forest Age This trend is similar to that found in other areas in Forest age across the county is generally young. Only southern Ontario. 36% of the forest vegetation communities surveyed The change is likely due to logging practices that were described as mid-aged or older. Older growth change the age of the forest and favour some species forests are becoming increasingly rare, along with the over others as well as drainage practices. For example, wildlife that rely on them. the increase in ash and aspen is likely due to the fact

A8 - 3 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 116 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

that forests are younger today and these species are Some Southern Tree Species early successional trees (e.g. they come in when the Middlesex County spans the Carolinian Life Zone to the canopy is open and there is a lot of light). south and the Great Lake St. Lawrence Forest Region to On the other hand, valuable lumber trees such as the north. The Carolinian Life Zone is one of the most beech, black cherry and oak are often removed and ecologically diverse regions in Canada. Below is a seldom regenerate. The decrease in elm is more likely summary of some of the interesting tree species with a the result of the rapid spread of Dutch Elm disease. southern affinity found in the inventoried woodlots: The relative dominance of sugar maple, yellow bitternut hickory swamp white oak birch and basswood has stayed the same. Sugar maple shagbark hickory black oak continues to be a favoured tree owing to its use in maple witch hazel bur oak syrup production. black walnut blue-beech sweet cherry tulip tree Native versus Non-native Plants 450 plant species were recorded in the study, only 29% of the known flora for Middlesex County. Of the 450 species, 376 (84%) were native species and 74 (16%) were non-natives (aliens). There was a strong relationship between woodlot size and the number of native plant species. Larger woodlots support a greater number of native plant species both in absolute numbers and proportionally to their size. However, there was no relationship between woodlot size and non-native species. Most of the alien species were not widespread and only found in a few woodlots. The most common non-native plants were garlic mustard and herb robert. Garlic mustard was Black walnut leaves and nuts found in 75% of the woodlots, indicating many sites have experienced enough disturbance to allow this invasive weed to gain a strong foothold.

Information

For more detailed information on the Middlesex Natural Heritage Study, please contact:

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority 1424 Clarke Road, London, ON N5V 5B9 Phone: (519) 451-2800 Fax: (519) 451-1188 Email: [email protected] Website: www.thamesrviver.on.ca A botanist records tree species in a wooded swamp. A8 - 4 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014Middlesex CountyPage Natural117 of 121Heritage Study Attachment 3 Woodland Survey Findings

STATS: WOODLOT ID # DATE SURVEYED WOODLOT AREA (ha) FOREST INTERIOR (ha)

VEGETATION COMMUNITY # SYSTEM MOISTURE ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION TYPE COMMUNITIES: 1 (see map) 2

DISTURBANCES: NON-NATIVE SPECIES WINDTHROW DISEASE CANOPY GAPS BROWSE

NUMBER OF TREES SPECIES SMALL TREES MEDIUM TREES LARGE TREES TOTAL IN PRISM SWEEPS: (<25 cm dbh) (25-50 cm dbh) (>50 cm dbh)

CALCULATED BASAL AREA (m2/ha) =

IDEAL BASAL AREA FOR ONTARIO (m2/ha) = 5 9 6 20

RECOMMENDATIONS:

PLANT LIST: SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Trees, Shrubs and Woody Vines Wildflowers and Herbaceous Plants

... continued A8 - 5 11.B.7 - CW

SUMMARYOCTOBER #14, SPECIES 2014 # NATIVESPage 118 # NON-NATIVES of 121 MEAN CONSERVATISMAttachment COEFFICIENT 3 OF PLANTS:

ANIMAL LIST: (incidental sightings)

GLOSSARY

WOODLOT ID #: - a unique number assigned to each woodlot in the county for the purpose of this study only

FOREST INTERIOR: - a computerized mapping calculation of the area of forest remaining after the outer 100 metres is removed from all sides (min 0.5 ha);

forest interior is the protected core of a woodlot or forest that many declining bird species need to nest successfully.

SYSTEM: - Wetland or Terrestrial. Wetlands are lands that are seasonally or permanently saturated and contain wetland plants.

Terrestrial systems are all others (e.g. upland woods).

MOISTURE: - the moisture content of the soil (e.g. wet, moist, fresh, dry) and whether it is organic or mineral in nature; organic soils form

in association with wetlands (bogs, swamps, fens, marshes).

ECOLOGICAL LAND - a system developed by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources that standardizes how vegetation communities are

CLASSIFICATION: described and categorized across the province

PRISM SWEEPS: - a forester's technique using a special wedge prism to calculate basal area, volume of wood and relative dominance of tree species;

the forester pivots from a fixed point and records all of the trees not offset from the natural image seen in the prism.

dbh: - diametre breast height. Tree size is measured by wrapping a measuring tape around the tree at the breast height of a person.

BASAL AREA: - the area of a forest taken up by trees (e.g. volume of wood in m2 per hectare)

IDEAL BASAL AREA: - guidelines set by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources to maintain forest health

LICENCED MARKER: - a forester who successfully completes the Provincial Tree Marking Course set by the OMNR and signs a Code of Ethics

NATIVES: - plant species that occurred in the region before European settlement

NON-NATIVES: - plant species that did not occur in the region before European settlement, but instead were brought in from other parts of the world

or province, intentionally or accidentally

MEAN CONSERVATISM - a conservatism coefficient between 0 and 10 is assigned to each native plant species, reflecting each species' faithfulness to a

COEFFICIENT particular habitat type, or the likelihood that it will be found in a pristine or undisturbed site. A plant with a high conservatism

score such as 9 or 10 is considered very conservative, with a low probability that it will be found in a disturbed habitat. A plant with a low score

such as 0 - 3 might be found in a range of habitats, either disturbed or not. The mean conservatism score reflects the complete native

plant species list recorded for a woodlot.

ANIMAL LIST: - this list records incidental observations of animals, seen or heard. Specific effort was not made to find animals in this study.

A8 - 6 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 119 of 121 Attachment 3

T h e M i d d l e s e x N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e S t u d y

APPENDIX 9

RECOGNIZED NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES IN MIDDLESEX COUNTY

A9 - 1 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBERRecognized 14, 2014 Natural PageHeritage 120 Sitesof 121 in Middlesex CountyAttachment 3

Environmentally Significant Areas Site Name Area (ha) Site Name Area (ha)

Adelaide Woodlot 90 Longwoods Woodlot 834 Ailsa Craig Woodlot 59 Lucan Woodlot 75 Ausable River ANSI 1124 Maple Lodge Woodlot 38 Below Parkhill Dam Woodlot 396 Melbourne Marsh 28 Big Munday Creek 129 Morrogh Creek Woods 74 Brimsley Woodlot 48 Mud Lakes ANSI 84 Camp Kee-Mo-Kee 28 Nairn Woodlot 197 Caradoc Heronry 51 Newbury North Woodlot 108 Caradoc North Woods 94 Oneida Ravine 73 Centralia Woodlot 88 Parkhill Creek Valley Complex 543 Coldstream Woodlot 70 Rookery Woodlot 22 DeJong Woodlot 43 Sharon Creek Ravine 58 Delaware Bottomland Forest 45 Shields Woods 123 Delaware Northeast Woodlot 309 Skunks Misery ANSI 1210 Denfield Woodlot 34 South Ilderton Woodlot 49 Devizes Woodlot 48 South Moray Woodlot 136 Dingman Creek Woods 99 South of Greenway Woodlot 129 Dorchester Swamp ANSI 559 South of Parkhill Woodlot 59 Ekfrid Ravine 103 South Parkhill Creek Woods 87 Elginfield Woodlot ANSI 37 Southwold Station Woodlot 46 Five Points Woods 88 Springers Creek Woodlot 144 Foster Ponds 44 St. Ives Floodplain 147 Glanworth Woods 70 Telfer Woodlot 40 Harrietsville Station Woodlot 26 Thames River Floodplain ANSI 344 Ivan Woodlot 63 Thamesford Woodlot 193 Kains Road Forest 55 Thorndale River Valley 188 Kerwood Woods 111 Vanneck Woods 52 Kilworth Bluff 21 West McGillivray Woodlot 537 Knapdale Woods 228 West of Arkona Woodlot 22 Komoka Bluff 45 West Parkhill Creek Woods 77 Komoka Bridge Woodlot 41 Wyton Station Woods 58 Komoka Park Reserve ANSI 189 TOTAL AREA 10207 * Does not include City of London ESAs

Evaluated Wetlands Wetland Name Area (ha) Designation Wetland Name Area (ha) Designation

Airport Wetlands 4 LSW McGill 4 56 LSW Allan White Wetland 11 LSW Meadowlilly Woods Wetlands 5 LSW Arva Moraine Wetland 66 PSW Melbourne Marsh 154 PSW Ballymote Wetlands 8 LSW Melwood CA 3 LSW Biddulph 12 Wetland 10 LSW MN-4 5 LSW Big Swamp Wetlands 130 PSW MN-5 4 LSW Bobcat Swamp Wetland 223 PSW Mud Lake 100 PSW Campbellville Swamp 93 PSW ND17E 9 PSW Delaware Woodlot 5 PSW ND32E 15 LSW Dingman Creek - N. Dorchester Wetland 135 PSW North Dorchester Swamp 306 PSW .... continued A9 - 2 11.B.7 - CW OCTOBER 14, 2014 Page 121 of 121 Attachment 3 Tallgrass Prairies & Savannas Site Name Area (ha)

Komoka Feed Mill Prairie 50 Dorchester Mill Pond ? Komoka Park Reserve ? Camp Kee-Mo-Kee ? Ausable River Valley ANSI ? Lucan to Thedford CN Prairies 2

Life Science ANSIs Earth Science ANSIs Site Name Area (ha) Site Name Area (ha)

Ausable River Valley Life 1020 Elginfield Area Moraines 2018 Dorchester Swamp 491 Glencoe Lake Arkona 17 Komoka Park Reserve 265 Kilworth Shoreline 32 Mud Lakes - Dingman Lakes 84 Komoka Shorlines 38 Skunk's Misery 1204 TOTAL AREA 2105 Thames River Floodplain 147 TOTAL AREA 3211

NOTES Short Forms: LSW - Locally Significant Wetland; PSW - Provincially Significant Wetland; ANSI - Area of Natural and Scientific Interest Sources Hilts, SG and FS Cook. 1982. Significant Natural Areas of Middlesex County. Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, Wetland Files. Tallgrass Ontario files. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1984. Life Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest in Site District 7-6 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1984. Life Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest in Site District 7-2. A9 - 3