The URL can be used to link to this page

2018-089 Adopt an amendment to the Official Plan of the Township of Oro-Medonte OPA No. 41 (1911745 Ontario Ltd)Official Plan Amendment No. 41 (1911745 Ontario Limited) Township of Oro-Medonte Amendment No. 41 to the Official Plan of the Township of Oro-Medonte The attached explanatory text and Schedule "A" constituting Amendment Number 41 to the Official Plan for the Township of Oro-Medonte, was prepared and adopted by the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte, by By-law Number 2018-089 in accordance with the provisions of Sections 17, 21 and 22 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P.13, as amended. ayor — H. S. H ghes Dep' y Clerk — J. Teeter 2 Certification Certified that the above is a true copy of By-law No. 2018-089 as enacted and passed by Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte on the 3rd day of October, 2018. e�uty Clerk, J. Teeter The Corporation of the Township Of Oro-Medonte By -Law No. 2018-089 A By-law to Adopt An Amendment to the Official Plan of the Township of Oro-Medonte OPA No. 41 (1911745 Ontario Limited) Whereas The Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte is empowered to Amend its Official Plan as required; And Whereas Sections 17, 21, and 22 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P. 13, as amended, provide Council such authority to amend its Official Plan; And Whereas the policies of the Official Plan of the Township of Oro-Medonte are approved and in force and effect at this time; And Whereas Council has considered the appropriateness of amending the Official Plan in regard to lands within Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe And Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte deems it necessary and desirable to adopt an amendment to the Official Plan of the Township of Oro-Medonte; Now Therefore the Council of the Corporation of the Township of Oro-Medonte enacts as follows: 1. That the attached explanatory text and Schedule "A", which constitute Amendment Number 41 to the Official Plan, is hereby adopted; 2. That the Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to make application to the County of Simcoe for approval of the aforementioned Amendment No. 41 to the Official Plan of the Township of Oro-Medonte; and, 3. That this By-law shall come into effect upon the date of passage therefore subject to the provisions of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended. By -Law read a first, second and third time, and passed this 3rd day of October, 2018. The Corporation of the Township Of Oro-Medonte Dep ty Clerk, J. Teeter The Constitutional Statement The following Amendment to the Official Plan for the Township of Oro-Medonte consists of three parts: Part 1 — The Preamble Part 2 — The Amendment Part 3 — The Appendices Consists of the purpose, location and basis for the Amendment and does not constitute part of the actual Amendment. Consisting of the following text and Schedule "A" constitute Amendment No. 41 to the Official Plan of the Township of Oro- Medonte. Consists of the background information and planning considerations associated with this Amendment. This section does not constitute part of the actual amendment. 5 Introduction Part 1 - Official Plan Amendment No. 41 The Preamble 1.1 Purpose 1.2 Location 1.3 Basis Part 2 - The Amendment 2.1 Preamble 2.2 Details of the Amendment 2.2.1 — Text Amendment 2.2.2 — Map Amendment 2.3 Implementation 2.4 Interpretation Schedule 'A' Part 3 - Appendices 3.1 Planning Justification Report — The Jones Consulting Group Ltd. (June 2018) 3.2 Scoped Environmental Impact Study - Azimuth Environmental Consulting Inc. (June 2018) 3.3 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Property Assessment - AMICK Consultants Limited (May 30, 2018) 6 Part 1 — The Preamble 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this Official Plan Amendment is to amend the permitted uses within the Horseshoe Valley — Resort Facility designation within the Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan in order to permit the proposed development and to amend Schedule D — Horseshoe Valley in the Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan. The intent of the Official Plan Amendment is to insert additional permitted uses within Section C14.3.5 — Horseshoe Valley Resort Facility designation as they specifically apply to the subject site in order to permit the development of a commercial plaza with a variety of commercial uses. 1.2 Location The lands affected by this Amendment are legally described as Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe. 1.3 Basis The purpose of this Official Plan Amendment is to permit a variety of commercial uses on the subject. As a broad basis, the purpose of the Official Plan is to state the long term vision for the Township, assist Council in determining future policies and actions in all matters relating to the development of the Township, set out goals and objectives which will contribute to the achievement of the vision and municipal structure, encourage development in appropriate areas of the Township and with an appropriate mix of development types, recognize the importance of agricultural lands in the Township, provide for the preservation of the natural environment and to ensure that growth and development occurs in a manner that minimizes any impact on public health and safety concerns, and the protection of watersheds in the Township. The subject lands are currently designated Horseshoe Valley — Resort Facility. The designation of the land recognizes the site's proximity and previous ties to Horseshoe Valley Resort despite being somewhat isolated from the Resort area. A limited range of land uses are permitted in this current designation which do not facilitate the establishment of a complete community in a predominately residential area in need of more commercial goods and services. Additional 7 commercial land uses are needed in the community to support the needs of residents. Developing the lands with only the Resort Facility permitted uses would not be logical given the locational relationship to the resort and lack of commercial uses in the immediate area. A wider range of commercial uses permitted on the lands will contribute to the establishment of a complete community within the settlement area. The proposed development would be serviced by municipal water services and private on -site septic system. The septic system is an interim solution to providing sewer services to the property prior to municipal sewer services being available. Once municipal sewer services are available, the lands will be required to utilize them and the septic system will be decommissioned. An Official Plan Amendment has been submitted to designate the lands to Horseshoe Valley — Resort Facility Exception which proposes to permit additional land uses on the site, in addition to the uses currently permitted by the existing designation. Additional uses are proposed that include Retail Stores, Personal Service Shops, Business Offices, Medical Clinics, Financial Service Establishments and Fruit and Vegetable Markets. The Amendment will permit a greater range and variety of commercial uses on the lands to facilitate the development of a commercial plaza that will be an asset to the community. The Official Plan Amendment reflects the change in permitted uses proposed site -specifically to the Horseshoe Valley — Resort Facility designation as it would apply to the subject lands. The proposed development will introduce additional goods and services to the immediate community and Township to serve the needs of residents and tourists. The commercial uses established will provide new business opportunities within the Township. The Official Plan Amendment will facilitate the lands being developed for commercial uses to foster the Township's business climate, facilitate additional and diversified commercial opportunities, and ensure a limited number of employment opportunities in the neighbourhood, all of which will contribute toward the creation of a more complete community in this Settlement Area. 8 Part 2 — The Amendment 2.1 Preamble 2.1 All of this part of the document entitled "Part 2 — The Amendment" consisting of the following text and map schedule "A" constitute Amendment No. 41 to the Official Plan for the Township of Oro-Medonte. The lands affected by this Amendment are legally described as Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe. 2.2Details of the Amendment 2.2.1 Text Amendment Section C14.3.5 of the Official Plan is amended by adding the following new Sections: "C14.3.5.1 Exceptions C14.3.5.1.1 — Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Oro) a) Notwithstanding the policies of Section C14.3.5 — Horseshoe Valley Resort Facility Designation, in addition to the permitted uses identified in Section C14.3.5, the following uses shall be permitted: Retail Stores; Personal Service Shops; Business Offices; Medical Clinics; Financial Services Establishments; Fruit and Vegetable Markets. b) Notwithstanding the policies of Section C14.3, which encourages the development of the lands within Horseshoe Valley, primarily on full sewer and water services, development in the Resort Facility Exception designation shall be permitted to proceed on private individual on -site sewage services and private Stormwater management facilities if municipal services are not available. It is understood that once municipal sewage services and stormwater management facilities are available, the development will be required to connect to these services. At such time as this occurs, the private individual septic bed lands may be developed or re -developed for other uses permitted in the Resort Facility designation, subject to the owner obtaining all required Planning Act approvals and other agency permissions. c) Development of the subject lands shall be subject to site plan control approval and a site plan control agreement. The application for site plan control shall be accompanied by the appropriate supporting technical studies and/or reports as required by the Township of Oro-Medonte pursuant to the Township's 9 Development Engineering Policies, Process and Design Standards, including the following: 1. Traffic Impact Brief to the satisfaction of the Township and the County of Simcoe; 2. Stormwater Management Report to the satisfaction of the Township and the County of Simcoe; 3. Functional Servicing Report to the satisfaction of the Township and the County of Simcoe; and, 4. Hydrogeological Evaluation to the satisfaction of the Township and the County of Simcoe." 2.2.2 Map Amendment Schedule D — Horseshoe Valley is hereby amended by re -designating the lands as shown on Schedule "A" attached hereto from the "Horseshoe Valley Resort Facility" designation to the "Horseshoe Valley Resort Designation Exception" designation and indicating the lands shown on Schedule "A" attached hereto as subject to Section C14.3.5.1.1 2.31mplementation The provisions of the Official Plan regarding the implementation of that Plan shall also apply to this Amendment. Furthermore, this Amendment shall be implemented through an Amendment to the Township of Oro-Medonte's Zoning By-law No. 97-95, as amended, passed pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P 13, and through application(s) for Site Plan Control Approval pursuant to Section 41 of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P 13. 2.4lnterpretation The provisions of the Official Plan as amended from time to time shall apply in regard to this Amendment. 10 Part 3 — Appendices Consists of the background information and planning considerations associated with this Amendment. This section does not constitute part of the actual amendment. The following reports have been completed in support of this application: 3.1 Planning Justification Report — The Jones Consulting Group Ltd. (June 2018) 3.2 Scoped Environmental Impact Study - Azimuth Environmental Consulting Inc. (June 2018) 3.3 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Property Assessment - AMICK Consultants Limited (May 30, 2018) 11 rA Schedule "A" Lands to be Redesignated from Horseshoe Valley - Resort Facility to Horseshoe Valley - Resort Facility Exception and Subject to Section C.14.3.5.1.1 Mayor Deputy Clerk J. Teeter Township of Oro-Medonte (Application 2018-OPA-01, 2018-ZBA-13) Scoped Environmental Impact Study Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 Township of Oro-Medonte County of Simcoe Prepared for: Virginia & Ray Gingras Prepared by: Azimuth Environmental Consulting, Inc. June 2018 AEC 18-153 AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. Environmental Assessments & Approvals June 14, 2018 AEC 18-153 Virginia & Ray Gingras 53 Fairway Court Oro-Medonte, ON LOL 2L0 Attention: Virginia Gingras Re: Scoped Environmental Impact Study for a Property Located at Lot 1, Concession 5 (Roll No. 4346-010-002-30000), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe Dear Mrs. Gingras: As requested, Azimuth Environmental Consulting, Inc. (Azimuth) has prepared the following Scoped Environmental Impact Study to evaluate proposed future development of a `Neighborhood Plaza' on a property located at Lot 1, Concession 5 in the Township of Oro-Medonte. It is our understanding that this study is required by the Township of Oro-Medonte and the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority to evaluate the potential impacts of development on mapped natural heritage features, and to assess conformity with applicable legislation and/or policy. The following report outlines Azimuth's study process, describes natural heritage features identified on the property, and provides an assessment of potential impacts of proposed development on confirmed features. The results of the study indicate that proposed development will avoid adverse impacts to any potential significant natural heritage features and associated functions. Based on our understanding of the proposed works, the proposed development would be considered consistent with the policies set out in current applicable municipal and provincial plans, and compliant with the regulations set out within Ontario's Endangered Species Act, 2007. 642 Welham Road, Barrie, Ontario L4N 9A1 telephone: (705) 721-845 1 - fax: (705) 721-8926 • info@azimuthenvironmental.com • www.azimuthenvironmental.com Yours truly, AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. Mik 'Fran s, H.B.Sc., M.E.S. Terrestria cologistBotanist Attach: cc: M:\18 Projects118-153 4th Line, Oro NHE\05.0 - Reporting\05.3 - Final\Files\AEC18- 153_4th Line Oro, EIS_Final_June14_2018b.docx AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 11 Table of Contents page Letter of Transmittal 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 PLANNING CONTEXT 1 2.1 Provincial Planning Policy 1 2.2 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2 2.3 Township of Oro-Medonte 2 2.4 Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority 3 2.5 Endangered Species Act 3 3.0 STUDY APPROACH 3 3.1 Scope of Work 3 3.2 Study Area 3 3.3 Background Data 4 3.4 Vegetation Community Mapping and Surveys 4 3.5 Wildlife Surveys 4 3.5.1 General 4 3.5.2 Birds 4 3.6 Species at Risk 5 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5 4.1 Land Use 5 4.1.1 On -site Land Use 5 4.1.2 Adjacent Land Use 5 4.2 Terrestrial Resources 5 4.2.1 Vegetation 5 4.2.2 Wetlands 5 4.2.3 General Wildlife 6 4.2.4 Birds 6 4.2.5 Amphibians 6 4.3 Species at Risk 6 5.0 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND FUNCTIONS 6 5.1 Candidate Significant Woodland 6 5.2 Candidate Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species 7 5.2.1 END Bat Species 7 5.3 Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat 7 AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 111 5.3.1 Candidate Bat Maternity Colony Habitat 7 5.3.2 Candidate Habitat for Special Concern and Rare Wildlife Species 8 5.4 Natural Heritage Features & Functions Summary 8 6.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 8 7.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT 8 7.1 Candidate Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species 8 7.1.1 END Bat Species 8 7.2 Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat 9 7.2.1 Candidate Bat Maternity Colony Habitat 9 7.2.2 Candidate Habitat for Special Concern and Rare Wildlife Species 9 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 9 8.1 Wildlife Impact Mitigation 9 8.2 Sediment Controls 10 9.0 CLOSURE 10 10.0 REFERENCES 11 AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. IV ;4/ Figure 1 Study Area Location Figure 2 Environmental Features Figure 3 Proposed Development Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 List of Figures List of Tables Vascular Plant Data Ecological Land Classification Data Significant Wildlife Habitat Assessment (6E) Species at Risk Screening Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Appendix E: List of Appendices Provincial Natural Heritage System Mapping Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan Schedules NVCA Regulated Area Mapping NVCA Terms of Reference Concept Development Plan AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. V 1.0 INTRODUCTION Azimuth Environmental Consulting, Inc. (Azimuth) was retained by the owners of the property to prepare a scoped Environmental Impact Study (EIS). The property location is outlined in Figure 1. The purpose of this report is to document the natural heritage features of the property and provide an evaluation of the potential natural heritage impacts associated with the proposed development. From this, we provide an assessment of the conformity of proposed activities with applicable legislation and/or policy. 2.0 PLANNING CONTEXT 2.1 Provincial Planning Policy The Planning Act requires that planning decisions shall be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 (PPS). According to the Section 2.1.4 of the PPS, development and site alteration shall not be permitted in: • Significant wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E; and • Significant coastal wetlands. Similarly, Section 2.1.5 of the PPS states that unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions, development and site alteration shall not be permitted within: • Significant woodlands in Ecoregions 6E and 7E; • Significant valleylands in Ecoregions 6E and 7E; • Significant wildlife habitat; • Significant areas of natural and scientific interest; and • Coastal wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E that are not subject to policy 2.1.4(b) Section 2.1.6 of the PPS states that development and site alteration is not permitted in fish habitat except in accordance with federal and provincial requirements. Section 2.1.7 of the PPS states that development and site alteration shall not be permitted in habitat of endangered (END) and threatened (THR) species, except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements. Furthermore, under Section 2.1.8 of the PPS, no development and site alteration will be permitted on lands adjacent to natural heritage features and areas defined above unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 1 demonstrated there will be no negative impacts on the natural features and ecological functions. It is ultimately the responsibility of the Province and/or Municipality to designate areas identified within Section 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 of the PPS as significant. The Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR, 2010) and Ecoregion 6E Significant Wildlife Habitat Criterion Schedule (MNRF, 2015a) were used to identify candidate features considered applicable to the property and adjacent lands. 2.2 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe [(2017) the `Growth Plan] dictates where development and site alteration is permitted to occur within the `Greater Golden Horseshoe', a planning area which includes the County of Simcoe, and thus, includes the property. As per mapping produced by the Natural Heritage Information Center [(NHIC) MNRF 2018), the property is contained within the Horseshoe Valley settlement area and not within an area designated by the province as `Natural Heritage System' (Appendix A). Section 4.2.2(6) of the Growth Plan states that: "beyond the Natural Heritage System, including within settlement areas, the municipality: a. will continue to protect any other natural heritage features in a manner that is consistent with the PPS; and b. may continue to protect any other natural heritage system or identify new systems in a manner that is consistent with the PPS". 2.3 Township of Oro-Medonte As per Schedule A of the Town OP (Appendix B), the property is contained within a settlement area. Due to this settlement area designation, the property is not subject to natural heritage designations such as `Environmental Protection' or `Core/Corridor Area', as depicted in Schedule B of the Town OP (Appendix B). Schedule D of the Town OP (Appendix B) specifically outlines land use designations within the settlement area known as the `Horseshoe Valley Development Node'. As per Schedule D, the property is zoned as `Resort Facility'. Regarding the Resort Facility designation, Section C14.3.5 states that: Small scale resort -related facilities are permitted on lands designated Horseshoe Valley Resort Facility as shown on Schedule D. Permitted uses include alpine and nordic ski areas, driving ranges, stables, dining and entertainment lounges, restaurants or snack bars, physical fitness and sports centres, pro shops and tack shops, administrative offices and workshops and repair garages for resort equipment. A small-scale training conference centre may be permitted on lands located at the southwest corner of the 4th Line and Horseshoe Valley Road. Conditions for AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 2 approval of development within the Horseshoe Valley Resort Facility designation are in Section C14.3.8. 2.4 Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority Lands regulated by the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) are subject to Ontario Regulation (O. Reg.) 172/06. The property is not located within the regulated area of the NVCA (Appendix C), and thus, an NVCA work permit is not required prior to any development and/or site alteration. 2.5 Endangered Species Act Ontario's Endangered Species Act, 2007 provides regulatory protection to END and THR species, prohibiting harassment, harm and/or killing of individuals and destruction of their habitats. Habitat is broadly characterized within the ESA as the area prescribed by a regulation as the habitat of the species or an area on which the species depends, directly or indirectly, to carry on its life processes including reproduction, rearing of young, hibernation, migration or feeding. The various schedules of the ESA identify SAR in Ontario. Species identified include those listed as Extirpated (EXP), END, THR and species of Special Concern (SC). Only species listed as END and THR receive protection from harm and destruction to habitat on which they depend. Species listed under O. Reg. 230/08 of the ESA are addressed in this report. 3.0 STUDY APPROACH 3.1 Scope of Work Azimuth prepared a scope of work expected to satisfy agency requirements based on a preliminary evaluation of natural heritage features located on the property, and the scope of proposed development. This `Terms of Reference' was submitted to NVCA, and approved by NVCA planning staff (Appendix D). Site visits were conducted on April 28th and May 9th by Azimuth staff. 3.2 Study Area The proposed development is located in Ecoregion 6E. For the purpose of this report, the study area includes the single assessment parcel on which development is being proposed (Figures 1-3), and is hereafter referred to as the `property'. AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 3 3.3 Background Data • Aerial images (Google, VuMap); • MNRF's Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) Make -A -Map: Natural Heritage Areas application [https://www.ontario.ca/page/make-natural- heritage-area-map]; • Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario (OBBA) [http://www.birdsontario.org/atlas/index.jsp]; • MNRF's Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) list (updated to Jan 31 st, 2018; • Ontario Nature — Ontario Reptile and Amphibian Atlas [https ://www. ontarionature. org/protect/spec ies/herpetofaun al_atl as. ph p] ; • Dobbyn, J. (1994) — Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario; and • Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan [2007 (see Appendix B for applicable schedules)]. 3.4 Vegetation Community Mapping and Surveys The Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario (ELC; Lee et al., 1998) was used to classify vegetation community types within the property. Prior to undertaking field studies, Azimuth completed a preliminary delineation and classification of vegetation communities using recent air photo imagery for the property. A survey was conducted on May 9th, 2018 (M. Francis, Azimuth) to refine vegetation communities based on the conditions present on the property. A single vascular plant survey has been completed for all vegetation community types on the property (May 9th, 2017; M. Francis, Azimuth). This assessment was focused on detecting any provincially designated vascular plant species, notably SAR as identified in the schedules of O. Reg. 230/08. 3.5 Wildlife Surveys 3.5.1 General A list of mammals potentially utilizing the property was compiled from direct observations and interpretations of signs of mammalian activity (i.e., tracks, scats, evidence of feeding). Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) functions were evaluated according to provincial criteria outlined in the Ecoregion 6E Criterion Schedule (MNRF, 2015a). 3.5.2 Birds Only incidental bird observations were recorded for the property, and no formal breeding bird surveys were conducted. For SAR birds with potential to occur on the property, applicable areas of potential habitat are considered `candidate habitat' for the purpose of AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 4 this report. Given that the presence of these species was not ruled out, impacts of the proposed development are considered based on the assumption that such species could be found where suitable habitat exists. 3.6 Species at Risk Azimuth conducted a SAR screening for the property, where species with potential to occur in the overall planning area were assessed for their potential to occur on the property. This screening focused on potential habitat features present on the property, based primarily on property and landscape -level patterns of vegetation communities. Background information was obtained through the NHIC database, which records historic and/or recent documented occurrences of SAR to the accuracy of 1 km2. Targeted SAR surveys were not expected to be required based on the vegetation communities present on the property and were, thus, not conducted as a component of this study. 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 4.1 Land Use 4.1.1 On -site Land Use The property is currently undeveloped and has no existing use (Figure 2). 4.1.2 Adjacent Land Use Adjacent lands are comprised of a mix of land uses. Active roadways exist directly to the north (Horseshoe Valley Rd.) and east (4th Line) of the property. Woodlot communities are present directly to the south and west of the property. 4.2 Terrestrial Resources 4.2.1 Vegetation Table 1 contains a list of vascular plants documented on the property to date, and Table 2 contains the names and general descriptions of all vegetation communities identified on the property. Figure 2 depicts the locations and boundaries of each of these described vegetation communities. Scientific names for all referenced vascular plant species are included in Table 1. None of the vascular plant species documented on the property are designated SAR. None of the vegetation communities are ranked as provincially -rare. 4.2.2 Wetlands Provincial mapping designates significant areas of the property as unevaluated wetland (NHIC, 2018). However, site surveys by an OWES -certified ecologist (M. Francis, Azimuth) determined that this mapping is inaccurate. Areas mapped as unevaluated AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 5 wetland were identified as coniferous plantation (CUP3-9) and upland hardwood forest (FOD5-3) (see Figure 2). No further evaluation is undertaken in regards to wetland. 4.2.3 General Wildlife Surveys have documented evidence for the following mammal species on the property: Grey Squirrel, Red Squirrel, Chipmunk, and White-tailed Deer. None of these species are of local or provincial conservation concern. As discussed, candidate SWH functions were evaluated according to provincial criteria outlined in the Ecoregion 6E Criterion Schedule (MNRF, 2015a). Table 3 contains our SWH assessment, and SWH functions considered relevant to the property are discussed in detail in Section 5.3. 4.2.4 Birds No formal surveys have been conducted to assess bird activity on the property. Habitat features on the property are assumed to have limited potential function for bird species of conservation concern. No nesting activity of raptors and/or colonially -nesting birds has been documented on the property. 4.2.5 Amphibians The property contains no features with potential to function as amphibian breeding habitat. As such, no formal surveys have been conducted to assess amphibian activity on the property. No further assessment is undertaken in regards to amphibians. 4.3 Species at Risk No SAR have been directly observed or otherwise documented on the property. Azimuth's SAR screening for the property can be viewed in Table 4. Vegetation present on the property provides potential habitat for Endangered Bats and Eastern Wood -pewee. These species are further evaluated in -text, in Sections 5.2.1 and Section 5.3.2 respectively. Habitat requirements, appropriate designations (END, THR, or SC), and scientific names for all species included in the screening are outlined in Table 4. 5.0 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES AND FUNCTIONS 5.1 Candidate Significant Woodland It is the responsibility of individual Townships (or other planning authorities) to designate and map areas of Significant Woodland. To our knowledge, the property is not designated as Significant Woodland by the Township or other planning authority. It is also omitted from any `Core' or `Corridor' areas within the Town, as depicted in AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 6 Schedule B of the Town OP (Schedule B). Based on provincial criteria outlined in the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (MNRF 2010), an objective assessment would likely determine that woodland features of the property do not qualify as Significant Woodland. The property is contained within a contiguous woodland feature estimated to be <15ha in area, and is of insufficient size to provide any `interior' function. Further, it is fragmented and subdivided by multiple major roadways and residential development areas. There is no expectation that this block of woodland contains any other significant feature or function that would afford it a status of Significant Woodland. No further assessment is undertaken in regards to this candidate feature. 5.2 Candidate Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species Features with potential to function as habitat for the following SAR are associated with the property, based on criteria outlined in our preliminary SAR screening (Table 3). These species include: • Candidate END bat species roosting habitat. 5.2.1 END Bat Species Areas of deciduous forest on the property have potential to function as general and maternity roosting habitat for END bat species, including Little Brown Bat, Northern Myotis, and Tri-colored Bat. The assessment of bat habitat function determined that only the FOD5-3 community on the property contains features with potential to function as habitat for END bat species. Therefore, the FOD5-3 community is considered candidate habitat for END bat species, and potential impacts to this candidate function are discussed further in Section 7.1.1. 5.3 Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat Features with potential to function as SWH were evaluated in our preliminary assessment [Table 4 (4.1 — 4.5)], based on criteria outlined in the SWH Criterion Schedule for Ecoregion 6E (MNRF, 2015). Based on this assessment and data collected to date, our findings indicate the potential for the following SWH functions within the property: 5.3.1 Candidate Bat Maternity Colony Habitat A general assessment of bat habitat function determined that only the FODS-3 community on the property contains features with potential to function as significant Bat Maternity Colony habitat. Therefore, the FOD5-3 community is considered candidate significant Bat Maternity Colony habitat, and potential impacts to this candidate SWH function are discussed further in Section 7.2.1. AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 7 5.3.2 Candidate Habitat for Special Concern and Rare Wildlife Species Eastern Wood-oewee Breeding bird surveys have not been conducted to confirm presence or absence of this species on the property. Based on breeding habitat preferences for this species, it is likely that potential habitat function on the property is limited to the small area of deciduous forest (FOD5-3). Therefore, the FOD5-3 community on the property is considered candidate habitat for this species, and potential impacts to this candidate function are discussed further in Section 7.2.2. 5.4 Natural Heritage Features & Functions Summary Based on the above evaluation, the following natural heritage features and/or functions are confirmed or have potential to occur on the property and/or adjacent lands, and thus, are considered within the Impact Assessment of this report: • Candidate Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species o Candidate END bat habitat (Little Brown Myotis, Northern Myotis, Tri-colored Bat) • Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat o Candidate Bat Maternity Roosting habitat o Candidate Habitat for Special Concern and Rare Wildlife Species ■ Candidate Eastern Wood -pewee habitat 6.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Proposed development includes the construction of a `neighborhood plaza', consisting of multiple mixed -use storefront units. As per Figure 3 and Appendix E, the development plan includes parking areas and a septic bed for wastewater management. Development would encompass the eastern half of the property, with some natural features in the western half of the property to be retained. Access to the proposed development would be from 4th Line. 7.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT 7.1 Candidate Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species 7.1.1 END Bat Species One forest community on the property, FOD5-3, has the potential to function as habitat for END bat species. The area of this community located on the property is estimated to be 0.2 ha. This community contains second -growth hardwood forest, with canopy trees averaging 20-30cm DBH. Scattered mature trees represent potential snag features, although the exact number of these has not been quantified. The proposed concept plan AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 8 for the property has taken this community into consideration, with areas of FOD5-3 being retained in an effort to maintain potential habitat function for END bats. Other forest communities on the property are described as plantation forest and are considered generally unsuitable as potential habitat for END bat species. Clearance of these communities is not expected to result in a contravention of Section 10 of the ESA. However, to ensure no incidental harm to END bats during the development process which could result in an accidental contravention of Section 10 of the ESA, mitigation measures are recommended for tree clearing. This includes ensuring that tree removal take place occur only within a specific timing window (recommended in this report) when bats would not be active in the general area. 7.2 Candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat 7.2.1 Candidate Bat Maternity Colony Habitat One forest community on the property, FOD5-3, has the potential to function as Bat Maternity Colony Habitat. The area of this community located on the property is estimated to be 0.2 ha. This community contains relatively immature hardwood forest, with canopy trees averaging <20cm DBH. Scattered mature trees with `snag' features are present within this community. The proposed concept plan for the property has taken this community into consideration, with areas of FOD5-3 being retained in an effort to maintain potential habitat function for bat maternity roosts. 7.2.2 Candidate Habitat for Special Concern and Rare Wildlife Species The FOD5-3 forest community has potential to function as nesting habitat for Eastern Wood -pewee and, as such, is considered as candidate habitat for species of special concern. The proposed concept plan for the property has taken this community into consideration, with areas of FOD5-3 being retained in an effort to maintain potential habitat function. 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1 Wildlife Impact Mitigation Where woody vegetation removal is required (e.g. tree clearance), timing windows should be respected to avoid damaging active wildlife habitat, including nesting birds and transient bats. In general, vegetation removal should be restricted to outside the window of —mid April — late October. Removal of trees and vegetation within this time window may result in a contravention to the Migratory Birds Convention Act and/or the Endangered Species Act. AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 9 8.2 Sediment Controls The property is located on sandy soils and, proposed construction activities have the potential to result in excessive off -site sedimentation during storm events. To mitigate this, it is recommended that sediment and erosion controls be installed around the work area prior to site excavations. Such controls should be employed for the duration of the construction period, and upon completion of construction until such time as disturbed areas are re -vegetated to preconstruction conditions or better. Any fencing, including sediment and erosion controls, should avoid the use of wire materials which have the potential to trap wildlife. We recommend that disturbed/exposed soils are restored as soon as possible following construction, and that restoration plantings use only native, site -appropriate trees, shrubs, grasses or other suitable native vegetation. Azimuth would be pleased to prepare a native species planting plan for the property upon request. 9.0 CLOSURE This study was undertaken for a Property Located at Lot 1, Concession 5 (Roll No. 4346- 010-002-30000), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe. Based on our interpretation of the environmental conditions of the existing Town OP, the development of the proposed Neighborhood Plaza is consistent with the OP. The proposed development would result in the partial loss of woodland cover on the property; however, it is our opinion that the area of woodland proposed to be removed does not contribute to any significant features or protected natural function on the landscape. Our field investigations determined that, contrary to provincial mapping applications, the property contains no wetland communities. Finally, based on our assessment, there is no expectation that the proposed works would result in a contravention to Sections 9 and 10 of the ESA, assuming proposed mitigation measures are followed. AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 10 10.0 REFERENCES Cadman, M., D. Sutherland, G. Beck, D. Lepage and A. Couturier. 2007. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario 2001-2005. Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature. Toronto. 706 pp. Available: httn://www.birdsontario.org/atlas/index.isn COSEWIC. 2012. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Eastern Wood -pewee Contopus virens in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. x + 39 pp. COSEWIC. 2013. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus, Northern Myotis Myotis septentrionalis and Tri-colored Bat Perimyotis subfalvus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xxiv + 93 pp. Dobbyn, J. 1994. Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario. Endangered Species Act. 2007. Available: httn://www.e- laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws statutes_07e06_e.htm Government of Canada. 2009. Species at Risk List. Available at: http://www.registrelep- sararegistry.gc.ca/sar/index/default e.cfm Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario. First Approximation and its Application.Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch.SCSS Field Guide FG-02. Migratory Birds Convention Act. 1994. Available: http://laws- lois. iustice. gc.ca/en a/acts/m-7.01 / Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). 2014. Provincial Policy Statement. 56pp. Available: httn://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page215.asnx Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. Available: https://www.ontario.caldocument/guide-significant-wildlife- habitat Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2015a. Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedules For Ecoregion 6E. AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 11 httas://dr6 i 45 i k9xcm k. c loudfront.net/documents/4775/schedule-6e-i an-2015 -access-ver- final-s.pdf Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2015b. Technical Note for Species at Risk (SAR) Bats. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2016. http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/species-risk Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2018. Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) Make -A -Map: Natural Heritage Areas application: httas://www.ontario.ca/aaee/make-natural-heritage-area-man Ontario Nature. 2018. Ontario Reptile and Amphibian Atlas web application: httas://www.ontarionature.ora/protect/species/heroetofaunal atlas.oha AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. 12 Approx. Property Boundary ■,MINIIIMuu II E N- O E 0 0 0 HORIZONTAL SCALE Study Area Location 0 N C J 0 0 U- „,ea u 162 ¢I_ w 0 U 3 CJ JO4. so aP IOId I un6I4 4.1 M:\18 Proiects\18-153 4th Line Oro NHE104.0 - Draftinal18-153.dwn d I— 6041:.'f4l-Yl\6411.0 — 01,0\3HN op Yyl 41Y iS1-91\nM(e41 alb sx 7n gl& 'rl Ann uo A3nluvorr Xa w iold N A z i z LL Ci al C lt1 O En ilul g IB0 2 W N iTs 4 Ixo • ropos - • 'eve • • ment Pla • •• .. ••w ••,, uace""i.iw[� �Tw `�iiuw"i�K 4 iniw Conserva ion Rank Information ELC Code - Corresponding to Figure 2 Table 1: Vascular Plant List Scientific Name caS ZZZZ z z Z Z z Z Z Z Z Z Z z z Z z z z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ZZZ ZZZZZ 71 V3 � V) C700(— v-1 h h N to h .11 4'1 11 Vl 0 L 0 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Acer saccharum N U 8 b C N N N N N 8 8 U ro ` Ltd. O td ai N 5 a ,i to kin V) col z h V vn h e ce) 111 Col v en '^ c ri)ti � � kn v1 to v1 v1 v1 v1 to 1n v) h to to v1 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 t7 C7 C7 6 6 C7 o o , o o o o X X X X XXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X E E e. 'i E A N 0 N ? U E o i a C .S 2 cci E E E E OA a � O 'C td E E U8. aO O ..+ .+ N !; x R U •EN C c otot , t0 ttl 0) a.) U 8 2.1 07,811 N o ,: tl o f ,c E E co es E E T b0 E•m td A U U U U A w a a a a as as E a.)E coas es as OgO E C g.),t4d c0 }y.A N a) N ,� 4) 0 0 E A C C A aa2-o0` AC44 X X X X X X X X X X X X X V' b .2 LI V] as R N td as 12 td y N O O N N N to c es 2 a a R N td 03 C G4L�00 fL C N 8 C 3 7 m 0tl C Ket v. at C C m v. at Conservation Rank Information z zzz N GO Co) c7 ELC Code - Corresponding to Figure 2 0, U X X X X a x X Scientific Name m 6) T 8 8 E R i° v N a a R V t t N n G C. U O O ,R U 4.0 I I a bitat Criteria Schedule for Ecoregion 6E 'able 3.1 Seasonal Concentrations of Areas of Animals w ^� E „ o Y Z _ C c E C u m WV;°C. Y Y 16 o .5 t •o 0 ov O $._'a1 Y = P 8 °. Y • u .Y. -. p t. Y O W G 0 0. W ,O W .d O 3 `' a �i U o m .5 ,ate ta E a o U `g -0 i s o W �, 3 aEi ¢� E c d> A •- 3 m .E T E 5w° 3 Y w c 8'obo a a c a w a o Y g bo Y a°3 C ;III1I1ufl1vJh!1 ;2 .� w€ ,o C •C ; 'e • a my y A b8 43m a>� AE 5° •OEut�uv°'°8r)). 0> 0 U.o 'w1k1ma= St.i u°==v�'E'�W�U a x3 Y�+a ac § S3 � ill g 3 rn� � a o v; 2 `� pp x a o: p ��e.c'E e � o g�3 �aA�bgv'g-u.,-Eyaa�o3m' d aSg7�o W •o 1, i-A E 8 _ .S w' U i rn z 3 a 3 b `g 3� g l w z; O? Z 3 w w w i • • S • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • Y o 8.4 i" m 5'i wo ?! 5ia iy rn 7 t Y '3 N .o 'L O ' c o E o•$W 4 ° '�'-� me°�� 0.4 ° 'O b sY V= W _ 3 ? Y Mill Yd'OC'0NEid o a.y cv"8^:uao°avuc }g "6 •° ° 4MalylgvCa.Yiu A �2 v my as Co2 4 40 3c `g•oo d Vq u T K m y c .r. Oo i e 1 5� �� y a x 5 o?� - eE 5 • ijI!}IIJJHIH fl o gwa° .E v a Y v o r° a h G c :4010.Sg.58 ,g :ae•�a0ge3:a'HwxaS...,� �oY i 8 6w . . • w • • • • • • • ▪ u 1O0.0 oa ,t o. ab hi 08 a� ° a °'a 43 °o 8y 53 0 A E E o.oa "w a 5 u R m� >= VAN' U e c o V Y a o y h D o O. t E 3 .� o R 3 a Y Y a Y C_ a z Z Si = 4 `� •- ° 5 a c e h c A .5 5 Y a a .g6 "°a ,q2 Iyv 't b Ado ..0 ``-3;.° .o g' E C Y L 5bo Wildlife Species Wildlife Habitat cosite Codes �e�7N�"�aw3333333 G y G7 y fA fn y CO COCol. GI 0 C ffi ` c mQ '0. Y 3E Y'a m++Y,--• peC yUa1 g = b UrCm FE.me 'N4•O 2 O(7 AmYY”liYbw.0 V, 11 ✓ boO E 0Cu% UCaHg Y 8$h'�C•>vmac3uttu3gb.np1T =CCAU2¢3vmua.°3w0aaaaua a a 0 a a 5w228Ea ° ti o o E 5 o 8° 3 .E E`C=HF'gv c E Io = 0. ° C3a$Ec.fnCr.-.'v Wildlife Species /# i �£3 `w]./_2 2 LJ B 0cn 1 . w$%f G /e8�]ƒ !1u �E/2o=/ k\/�® 1'`-� 5 §2]`G c =3 k§R\}!k 'w-w-®- 5§5§5 .6E — ]w.! oo�eecegE«< < k)o o ®/ T §222.9 @@@Sgg22g2222 =uoarna2 f3 ±}EE§|A ` ��° H �a \}�)©k�[/t�E ;- ° )�®f ;�a-��=& E..5� E ■�� _A)s!%11). .a=� - \£§ o 4ƒ))22§f)k)()f]/722)/ /2{q3 22\ 2 lFg74 `1�2Q�©aa�1.0M 'a «» a m m§t$]§;§{/§a�\2222`■2 \4)ma 522 o�!=c<�=��a=��2«2R;�c !22<� m�a 15 Wildlife Habitat • 1 o 24 o g yy o m 4i • f i N G p • • • O O • • • • • • • • • T p 4p G 0 y `� >' 4- pao L Ind E o o 4 4. `1 ,o § Q .b o :: y 1 o c A 5 E g.. E o A ii E§ .5 •O m ,� 'Lo.o.9 b u c3 d .' S °' c 6 w U a 4) .° u oe S ° W c a E a, ° W R ° an °o ; c 0 5 �• '° u C W " t+ 'E > o m ''°' .E $ a°' s ' E 3 ;? m $ 'L � 15 E W. E g g a02 A... .da .S i `y,',i E ^' 3 S .� 3a 3 'v .° ti F. tJ iL N U C p h C G W y E d C W N 'H Lid '.' U p.5 o a e, E 0 ecgE o2 m •.p5o b °v c $ °' ' "� d c°' a 1 0 ou aW g .s t y O yjijj 2 m ° a,, a' a as 7 .o `1waW .�C ,o,•c ,o, ao �.a' s d o �'' 5> 0 0 .S S G ^u E0 w6 u 0 W o .a o�,,,, W A u :4 `' A p a u p s S 0 b �'F>n m m illiiillill •3•� $e a.°gp3CEw•12›,8y° y m � c o E° o g„,44o� na..§Au gwp. 5 aiu^vo"�Sg 11111 �yyu 0°g c fn W 8' 1 0 y c u c-g°§ ° io m r c', 0 'Q 'a° �°•' '.� c°' E a ,L-' ° o .. -g T ... ,- .O in '" y, 8 o e � •010 o �°n . v ys. •5 W � 9 A W p m ra W p, y o t` t' o m W y E c .- i' $ W o •e w W o m E6va 8p�at Em.b E.Lm..v 'C .4go W 6-11,88''V O VOlPigtSg 04°z � p x o o .L 3 'a o o go' .n > o o :: :? v 'fig a g o g a U ' 8a .. I `"'a�ZxOUD i > ,9n8, ti oy E i Ro dr7E W 84.90 Di 3 0 W.-1 d $owZ p Y� iI 7 • U A p fl1! y a 0 0 u pi ei t� _� t �W ax W o x °v' i ii;ii V AN..5550 OHp to!.21;°:v •�W a v"vos D 9 �E 'Su uW Wj:a .E a �'ffivU gg w2ciry0.d�Y5 v7a� W6A�A 1GUH> A mouuu ° p '•' y Ooo33 a'E o C<0 o i, >� ° mwUUU.c°i u� QUta<.u.v'm fnn.uuww. z3'G 3 m Wildlife Species Wildlife Habitat Bat Hibernacula W 0 a Midland Painted Turtle m • 5 a c d E p w O h a A. Tb o c u EE 0 L R a' ._'3 •o 0 Fd g(3-1) c= ti Wildlife Species Wildlife Habitat \ a= ; § /, ) S \ p p .O o y O0 > .. N v bA A 0 u .0 2 C yw ° aCi 0 O '••' T Y ° , .� 1 TatO d C Y T 7 Vl ' v Y° >` G b .O 0 8 U ....5 O^ v t .a ° 3U• a CT 0yv$.d m-.y,o=E aE OOb '5cJy HO ..4 °dM$c0h.ErO8o3°i'a0.;. cu-AE. €sa da 85osF- spo.y E •.Y-o a x-w ^. E u$ c} E m eU5....5 A. 'O y d i� fl 'O m Q o v.91 c a 1 U o Y O 3 8 E °. Zle o 5° v 9 �'E . f 0 F 'o 'C Y 1. 6 8 m E c d 0, P. m s 'a ^, 49 g U :9 a y a c2 0 O° g• — Q e;g WU R y E Y v aoi x A a N w u 13 T P b •° .g 8 h a Z• ° Y v a b . v3i ° a. E a�i 'o a •o w a m o •S w� E 0 el't tp O b y a a'�5a0tim aUxza.Q vi Y a, O . 7 ', y 'a `° g, 0' O 0� g -s W L a Wildlife Habitat U EIF• Z o 8 z eg.8 a 0 c w V a • V Y Y .1 O .d gao a.�0 V d d 0 O y>, e U 'o ° 8 U g 5 >,y a 5.. 1! 0 0 2 x °o s o Yz d g 8 .E e u A b 3 c o'� > � 2 o o 0 aQ c,5 .�� mAir. 1.3 0'8 3 d E° 0 d z u ,.. 2 8== m •5`ay� a ° = 5 an Al b Y O 138 :r. cE-.t. § 3�•Z63� E., mivm e m ..-5Ee..8°ax7 'N2 0py dKiopa pwz8Am5au02Up w 7 0 0 y ° • 'o a x 3 U oo—ac oi�,8� o 1rb5 �,5ym u : F`�„ 3e 0 Z p A�b Fo' sv r� �LLLiAACOGOn �� aCig � � �° � .Line] 3333333333E qq> �' `9 °" gs vlv7fnrnW0,),4v W0EnW ¢ ai i^ Mil 0 it L�ZUUU OD '0 W V Y 0 7 O b u u 0°= y 3 v 8i p R o o >i C �t�ptlp z, E i mp Y ..a ° a' , 8 UOazF a u.P.a. o.5 W O y oy J i Ai vl y LC !is O � ° E N 7 N 7 V y p u O d C 00 00 gO go ba .bs - 4,0 v �enc�o�'y o� u A°�R G•° d E G ''= v `3 .°o u y a ,S V S15g, Pia c 'Opp o° .S 1111, E T a o v F p G� •� a w > mO �°, d eo �� x—aoi ° 6 .0 W ,9 o y a E A b z r R 0 b u - m 9• U s20 °-•Ao d C121° o4 E $ ys y a�°i�°= 3 S �e ut-.1�C'c��v oQ °� nEF a°�yco )F 'q ° O ,2 E g i° m y ^o E E Q ° 0. °o i ' ^a E,a a d'v c % A l so A i3 u ti� C- UO wQ ° °� o a E o° o axi E 59 v a ab y o3 axi 0° � P $0oy c° ggt-E E�op c c ova aE �o 14 „!2 •� p.2 tz i $ v°-w c E °Po 4 § 1'! ° ° T,t0i +Graff RELI • E" u ° E a e ▪ 'o ° ° Eo ° ° 3 ° E ,00 av rj °' atC ° ,°o �i° a E y voi >.O $ 1 a'y vi g 41g1 o � h ¢ E(7 v>'i E GO • • • v� E v ° 3 "o's° "- "- 00 o w E W E 3 a c o E3 E 9 E 8 g oo-'cw- ilii• i11IJuii; II I.lelg HiIuEH g9vaauo FFa .2E2Ego x cv . €g.43 • o n 7 3 v MC A wm4r =5 0:RQE N'°° O ¢H = wl oaa5 4p'4Jo w y wv6ac5 q vvoct,00_v vorgc o 'r,Ed U C ▪ I0pmsvi°NomEv :00lc▪ b09tlo N E o°« 1),-o° o E. o° E 'E or RTyhao c ° o U a3 • s3 ia°w C•• • • • 1gy av !_a'E aa..• • Wildlife Species "iiHy =000 wuvu 'uC]ia oOOOV )l ° ° V V N .� V 'C N av, a n G w E'w i. e, a3 5n . [E °0[ 5'0 0 c C ¢UO QUO n 0 0 ca 'a 3 � c a � o, o v t, .E T'C Q t) y y ^ C •C E y A` o .opyy0 g o 0 0•; a� e o O L " 7 t«7 ''I'' NFL ° .y ° O 'p0 'O r m L .ef11.0 eU ig 81og§AVal2 cA E E N"' 1c C°moOT$pe o N 7 r4 4 as C O AN w O .N+ T§ 4 ai 1UC 11 'O TN 0 Z Ng A .0 ,a "a�' d 1 m~ O • E 3 g Y s.E'a7 ai t.^H a p "4! gg,2 E S b e. ; E t c' 0 2 5. 08CO nawm oNY M.E3> T e0 l '6=b0b8:$beil .5g w ou W O = m -g 00.N u -'gTgO'c- ^ygaZNE '' y.yOp0 O Tagu 1daAcy csti 3 c o g w 3 3 T c� 0. d 3 v w_ .: hI o_° 0a) •a C Fduo>E E cy34,5 a aryl 3 �`n3E3aE739��U3a°�ao.5 s 0� 8.3 auaG ubu c ��c u E ga gv Wildlife Species Wildlife habitat White-tailed Deer ea c A 1 Q ZZ - O 3 w c A o '3 0 o ►a 4' C 1 v N G 1^ O t a � ,�� r�a YE oEm.v, . o t" r € c ` �i' . 0.o u H a"i 3'°'� cN o� o a„ �g e 3 E E^ E o -0v a Z ag d ° N x ; A a N a/ r�.• o .c •c v F- 9 : 3j��a°.. •c' o; • E"C Ga°y. Me �� 04 CO o 0 5D � •E g' . g N y p p p OD v o ' .O N ik E A 'O .L N T 2 0 o a`� N g 7 x E EVT3oa,6c�c.s0 So •a N o ,8 s arCi ec y c g' x c d 6 5E a 8Ea'�w' un>.33Qcv3�A y o �i �.y m gV3�.EEHdd."Eo a cu3.0 , A 3 .g S v� a,13 g a h > g . g 2 p O a _ m D N ,$ C@ A . 3y wt. oo : d '' -• Ot N 0 8._ 4 : r J a ra a �gg F' o''" 0 E 9 0�• otb 3. .a0 b u I.5 g a,� 3 o •b >b s w3 a ,o 1 .a9 c a 8 o. u. .sb C A 4 f C 2 O = -0 6 u w 5 c m o •o 5.' t y g:o 0% e8a.° t M�3 V" _ E e'eF o o$a $oar vo g,gFO 3v aewAan 2.43x€ n 4. • • 5 White-tailed Deer Table 3.2.1 Rare Vegetation Communities Assessment x a 3y E b1 V G Val C' V R C a 0 0 .12 C 3 c V 0 a • • v 8 i 0 E y g o • y o v T00 ara6'0;5Yuag 11111011114M11 '2xcog ',o 6,TT�o �o$ 6JaT C `a4? qaCinel 'jU Oa'G^= TO:.Cg-C2Gi2>w -fERg 8t 0.a.o aEn!>E.000.1 >a°i k atmEE �A 0.] -aG' � oc� m, 0C 3 wm >o y5A D °'F a°;'o o o ;°YqCOeOuvn 0OOVr•oo A.pn EV °L?"aIyoay a0.oc°aoo> onob ¢ -oo4..63 �e>ao v O 5 d u u $ c 3 y A . 0 o U ' u� � V E U 5^ w o u 2 .aF a a U FOrnF npa•A ,3r^ pa VI WE w. =0.°-ter TEOrn Co¢¢¢.a.- UOpF upmE3 ¢uFFFuuu.0 >.k7,.;,.1-1 V V › A O ,= V N °' o 0 0 o F Sand Barren $ 2 U Q C o o ? W d 4.C` togs ^Q soaS ° L= QIl e V E}Eo 0 W2 L oWCO ° nr °E?A00 ±Og.0'OsC VQ4OyCy iOii E.5 0Cs', wCbWoOMgE G.CgpoWE V o AA°°loO > nmW°no CC CgA EoOa AEC18-153 U U U W W W 3Qoz E. az3z a��o P5'o. •o c a cacwa v a '- q C �� a a G `q G.. 1 yyO E 9 O yC ) ro 1 Ogg O ; y O ° >j O ° >° a a a o O a O c `• o a._ `c a °' °'� °oo ' 4. so 3 �ca>j g8Fa"i ca>i • ••c G 38 e O O E L F. b'O :E 028 61�c.dO 5 .p E9 '^ O T^ .21 ° ° '�F .oa A dun aaoWVxjja ...es aoa ,€b v'$o� $iaoTyS •cL>gc a $zyx!v .ya • .om ' S cV xaaEa a' a «o4yraEoQ_9aoE,ucg $Q .,. $11• OE5o. a 1ao•E ma•� oaOo O 'Laelo4 mp#ao.5L5 O#A Um tdcova.d auo,0.ng3o 0U d>a • • E.m. ° add �� Em 3 .r'ci . .5c •`a r� y o .o o `� a> a o `a - a y• - '9oebwRail'm6Q aEdx`!v , -E'.z= oz� !'i.1.! E b o o, m y a ej o a° y u 3 v W u o y iL• • • w-.5oo • • i%.9a 3 w w .411 'S2�R lOOwUvj c� S 2So w R o R uw 3 3. w: z a 2••• z c 3• ••• a n v u 8 ;e _ U n 5 a>�j 1°V' > l51 a E1 �ao° ii E.t.a.Vu a ,.„ F.A � .•o R •$ w a y°? J 0 a :O OF.,8riaaiEA3 <A= o •3 E Z O R! .10 R 1,113 .5 qq a o oo o rj• 3 L° •C • '' 44.t a. A a c u 4 ° 3 n E o o= 3'.3 0 0 E ^ o y �.� .� 3 ;; 4abe a'hE • w a' O .0 O R: o ° t m U° } U° 0,... O> y p 5 0 R a 7 q c o .9 c g E .c .g m E .c •a A R aj .E V U Ypl- eO.r R R Si R to w °E a° Rr�j°T qpp `o �5 yp'pa �o �5 s �.�. P4 Ca V 0- 0 �7 O R 2 W °M R V- a°. RI 07 E. O V •• � Tn c k. g '$ E •S � h '' c . i:i; "NyO ii1Ji1 fl:flfl IfliIhJ N EFE-) E-F F O a ww Tallgrass Prairie '0 0 c 'a .W : C v d O o E to t 0 T O 0 us, o a ▪ ? a REF a o� ' o t $ E c o Cen 0 ._ c r. • w2 . • b a o v x 0 E -" v c • • OT, •- iL f 3 • • 3.2.2 Specialized Habitat for Wildlife Assessment ELC Ecosite Codes Wildlife Species b m ea •,ca 'a 'O 'a G — tl T a G 0 2 'tl a y aN. X u •O'- 0 N o = c a N 3 u aui a 0 H? .0 s E 7^ v A 'C V a W 0 R L E a M Y0. A O � 3)i m Io3y3.sA�$oNa > m .F t d Eboe ` E =cEA IU!i1A E o c o'er ?,n c X c gO O 6O' V-2 A 7 'I N m a a c ')i gliii- L E : E mw 43a g'epE .E'a9 •0 a a CO • • • • R g 30 a A A O w o= c o t0 T O Y N N 1 42 8O O S g o °�' a 3 a o� P.- tOi d o E o d d e Fd p E a N Y CN O ,3 ••� p A > p N 3 a m 3 O N w O M a .s E E a N t0 C N •'Op F F? y€ 'dj' y n 3 3 .a § o f > L c o E W,E'oas `'xv L _a o y. S '� -.7 W 3" . 7 C Y y N . E 0. v o O }} h .a O— a� C C ',- — u yjbr: '� 7 'O C1 7 7� as G O O 1 7 G N 8 RI 7 SD N O ma W.R,).u0a-o3.0CA0.0 a4U 3)4 ao ,Q Q 3 3 R.E 3 • = . • o u �y 'rppJ 'Na O y N e0 v e m o a y a •0 e0 N 'a ta_ v. N c cAg `e9 50v wTV EE .ao°Mb S C o :n a anE OS NR EEa N.6 13 ydT,a >O E.OTO =O ea.w=1 m ga 3 c'cl.G= W.E A L N .54 y 0.o y N y u o g e , .= o 3 o •o y1,2212E4a H�,sE5cg;5 t'ec�LUa�i .00 °ffio u a a: 0y.:e 3 $Q Ep o ov '° o a 0 0 E s °' g c agi c eq'O a ai u g a CM H^> o ,a,,, v 3• .0 �x : r A E P 'o c .o c at u y'1^ aci TO,, WN a2i . o ' C s39 m v> v " ° v 5 a c ° en 8 o a u `:a•a°b a'ao0wt0c, oo c F.E tmE a,"•a0 os c �a'= 4 c �b"'g'A'B'Eo o o �n o •00•Var,E. 10 c y v 2 bo 4ovo, E3a o 3.Et°aa 5[-o.s ? oc0 Qu]M a rn • • • • • • • • C a1 y y H a N N -_>_ � 2 T 'a no '� u EE O O .0 OO O U W ; z �vj.' N C 3 O �N O 11111 'W O .5 O '00 d . 7 Vrd A. 5 ;1112 ONa m d E m T N G. €' OuOc >, a.°'� c by •' H p o .=I t 6 = K x a w o 0 0 0. c u o 0, a,, a 22, c GGbn � u u G 8 � u � S � � � ebi no i it• i7l.6• l '�r iO aj' W E ipuCp.'O > G p ,."'•,. L' t o i a A d u `° , o a. z o o• A s g y co , u o W b z .E u€ z u 0 2 ,rs2 s z O U W w U ti. z 3 A. • • a. • • T C ,g41 d 3 O a u .0 'C W ,� a. 01 7 NU .-FN E 'er o - s'e 40 s'S 43 •aia :L1'g "2-6 121 0 O 1 m 'u C '� _ N M [1' V1 ,O C i C O 0 m 2 i4U±invNiv`"w5w`A3vgq yijU ag Q W0) 22yir¢h2i i5,v3iv3Fnv3v32 $'0wenc W g N Y . 0 0o G F c:: as E•o E'� � CE32.3ccac°y TT. ¢' 2 S co a IRcatgWpgu w Oe R.NbmEC0. ECcTL0Oc'^Y CzOlGIcTa. M1 0 0 AEC18-153 Wildlife Species Wildlife Habitat T 0 .dt S ▪ 7 .0 A N a R O NN Y3 G E 4 •P rT. 7 �'7` y. C 3 oF" R o 0 3 0 •y ax NE �a • INS eg s8 Eg 8 • W s ¢ c E a a.7,•z aciY ° cxa E E v Y o ra. a ,d 'a o 0 Q R ei d m2 x v E° 0 i- o °;, a e=cw� z8'8 8 �b� 41 E NdnNae3R V�req rivky•O}g 4d vc1c eo a c gt�3•a v rt•Ea A m m`•5 �nU 7°J c. 8 2 0 . . . . V] ..• 72 —3 O O 'a aJ • �, 1 C t>=i A .g Q 7 L W N 0 Fa ag R•E c.o8 o AEC18-153 e u B u Wildlife Species Wildlife Habitat e seeps/springs should be ea tu u `� E v _ pE g O T O C E N �' G •O o /+ C.. 'C 2 A • U 7 Seeps and Springs Wild Turkey Ruffed Grouse Rationale; Spruce Grouse Seeps/Spnngs are White-tailed Deer typical of Salamander spp. headwater areas and are often at the source of coldwater streams 0 0 a AEC18-153 Wildlife Species Wildlife Habitat t2t 2 | a)\aTb40 / )■22(]ue _Ee 7,.,0 . tletl§$\ ]f2�ozer.is:o2= 3.3 Habitat for Species of Conservation Concern (Not includine Endaneered or Threatened So I c o - x N R Y3 a U N m T _R L 3 m E y 'x . 0 •0 h=y4:yx p, gmg 'y a) C° h c 3 ?Q p enuv o y p 5 3 GC v c Mi� q .m_. .Om. E 9t p a� O 0. ,, C C E 2° 7 U y y 0 7 m oow_c�u>7ax30 Tjk co °' °0 ,„ m N u E 4. F� 5 L >�j�' 0« O'A o m� e C V O C �. W C 'W 'L c a o c°i y 1" 'O g b' m E o � ° § ; R•53... 8z� aim _ um0 s 5 01. c ' •o a R y m W �° o 4 C yam R O p 4,2 • d O 'O 8 FiY g 3' E " o r o'ec -o 2:. o N 0 W E0.•y > O .0 9 .me V d m C C e0 4' , O _ O y } 12 °.0 . mu RR 0 4° o o. p .m. .6 .64 L O 0. N m ° y ij Hil O m ° x 3 _3 .-y F E m ° � O o y_ c 'O N= 1 b R .p y o d p.0 a:: m 10 c m °o'5 E >'S _ •c. 'Q c°,gu m a Wm0 E 113 4.. • • • • y a;, 2 o m, m v, yy O 'C 'L > O W " O m E1 R A N - C c m >� y X b Yn > C .m.. L R o. 5, L t h p • y w R° •d O (J VI m C m L p Ri u % OO .G T m a b' c u 2 E c .e R .. y E O o F 3 N,o v O 2 'c a a� °' m.a o J7 ° O m •v > p S a0 T C x u .� O.. O.L..^ E m a^, o a>, m R ° > o E 0 e �°a c>i ° y. E 3 0 ° o c ai —� m E ° o R a, •° E A .L ' W .° s N z •o m g o g �s gym, .0 d 1O m E w B 'O .o w w 5 ..mc.. m b i m c. « ."0. 'o3.p, 0 1O E ;o 0.. mm E m o V m m a, m .a . d 0 n a s � a 3 5 m_ ° o i A o .o a ,°1 6 8 m c m b m x t i.2 t r c N Y y 'm 3 E v U CC o l« c a> A v°.' 6-, a g .52pq N ..0 o o e d o m 5 C 1 2" aci v c paw z� r'o °e = a, ss�j'1 5 5 5 5 00, :a .c �'o a, 3 p' V G R L 5 0 N C a o L 0 V m R CO O C N 7 z¢ 3w da 8 €0, zc000 avR0 R o0,3 ag 63€4,.a0oGQ • . • ° . • • • • ._ E . • • 5 . • • Wildlife Species Wildlife Habitat a, 0 V o0 V Y a¢¢¢QQ¢¢¢¢WO $�j uU S r a e Ca 'v U4 F v a W 0. a •fieI. k o 0 0. mm $a_—.330= d UaEiot�0v'EA 1,i aEi 00 9 54 v E OD O Y e ecm t x L ., 24 R L 05 m ^ 5 `, _a m O 'L 8 yc a �v a� Y e} ttl m , ' O j• 'C •E G Z N VJ V C A O 5•3 •C O y 0 V .N_. 4e7 Rv0.i .e'yvU 5 m c'm a, mw o. w E a e 0 C u O g O C 1 V V « 9a, w r 0 0 ° o E 0 •E o v 8 : m m Um-, v C n 0 v O o o O2 V 3 a m E. V m c 1 o m o « .. 0 3 m o a- • mdw°.d a O o e ., x ._ .c ,o ,.� • c 0 3 5 3 034ie'_' • 4.a2 mm5m .,'mom 0 0 c y 0- «'o Ew c 5 C t N ,1,1 .D N .R.. « O . Y y �,d y 9 7 L .5 R V. p .0 '_ L 8>E:_ •oa m¢ 3xgjLu 1:: WC7cn E 73 0. • field areas succeeding to shrub and thicket habitats 10ha in • R a, o 'vN •o - a g : R a O .4.1.t o..m. 0 N O y V 4 a= a 8 a Z o m w A m Q :; m E 0. °T u V 4W O Y .T y y p F 0 -p 1 5 42 •7 m o a`, 9m a � � V°•E vo 0. =° . .i V C 0 R v > U C R V • p O 0 Ci p v •� ate, Lpp ^ L , = U R cm,a omvrv, i , Q y « b '' C T .. O 1 V m l o 9.5.4-m'_ 1abo '� a U 'a .p O� Rj -` C y �� o•$ R Z a Y T R E y 0 7 :O CC I O 2a2 .0 m y p L .yV.� Y O tJ. L m p s h.g.a FRF E, C 4e�j O m . R lA . R C Q ., O ,4 4 • y• • • G. . . • 0050 a uUuuuu I. v u c. y 2 n.0. 3 s R R c °u 3p o4.0 °o E u 3 �, C •o ;; o 9 E s ao°waauw3 AEC18-153 Confirmed SWH Wildlife Species Wildlife Habitat Defining Criteria ° ,0 N G .A N V Y p§ ee Q aV. O R O i� w N p ! 7; 3 O i L t N m 3 C 30 6y ✓I W ._ .�0.V°e9 t0 U inrnngqF �v6 '�Q°1O � ¢¢ 33 ��R'A_d� 2 2 2 u .E 5 i C ¢Rio 0 O a Y O a a U T E•u 5w z noA 3.4 Animal Movement Corridors • • U p z. Pi U a a o 1 a m a) O E C t �0 'O 8Ad O oy E o m o 8 a z G F N G �y ' 'Cf1 L O V .r.a N U • U E u= E E _€ p z _ � > a= a 3 0 � E o E w, as . Op d ^��QF o zauw- o A w 22. .5•.• • �7 P. um.klAAA _.0 .O •G 'per •y py G 0. A L �+ G c E A E�.� gw2 °'� m 1 W E 2 g U °o o' ..w F deA. Wildlife Species Wildlife Habitat b on ,v o § 'e g g"i o o A y•o ov `J v, o 0 0,80q E wai y v E 2 T f c Y 6 o d7 R wdanmmAx3zk.0.Ci2m White-tailed Deer E -a 2 .5 . .R. °� E'c•L o off E � E E ¢43 a° 3.5 Excentions for EcoReaion 6E 0 z R z b •a — Y .5 e u m '5 i d E 41 O 'YO 81 r°,,0 0o iv •-. m Ci T Gj L Y Y N �.. N c T ce0 T c E — 3 , P. m Ao nb a E .: V .0 p -0 C r- m t EO gb d r.i " `0'S 2 y a ' u o' Q n gs z i i o Yon 8 aid pgp 5 a ° >, a a1 o o Up oqa v UvaO.o—abs.0 5801 d eo O .po A o 5 2b •'b',c j 3 i ;girl 'R A g 'O O F N $ b x �v v E�E w Y0C� Y �� tJ' O O �bv oa' 10�—1.0p,oaO o c a1. 45a c7A• • wo.. w 'C `,.eaTrn EVal w c Y 5 ' EOrn ..rate, R00 UUCJ a m R u p w L m.. A R L m .k ro O EcoDistrict O R AEC18-153 Table 4: Species at Risk Habitat Summary Key Habitats Used By Species' E z 1 E z 0 E E U Broadly speaking, this species is associated with hardwood deciduous vegetation units ESA Protection: Species and regulated habitat protection C 21 Restncted Species •Y ESA Protection: Species and general habitat protection N Vi W N z z z Riparra riparra Bank Swallow Barn Swallow Chlidonias urger 8 Emydoidea blandingil Blanding's Turtle g $. o E 2 13 C .b C W �7 t V t ° o r o > A N U y o C°'y > 8 2 o E ^ v c y w S 8 3 S • G w t1 ▪ 'O G g t 7 b m Oti 2 V 'C Oq d .0 • a v o _9 s , Q. .p O N m u t val c: � 9a N ° N O 0. y 41 F. U 2 e E 0 u C O C, w > a. .i fn v m• C u 3 _ 0 0 8 .0 a C GUl .^. U N Q O 'C r ❑ N tk7 w o � z ¢ 5b y s r CR. O z 0 to ESA Protection. Species and general habitat protection Table 4: Species at Risk Habitat Summary Initial Assessment Key Habitats Used By Species` E E z E E U ESA Protection: Species and general habitat protection O Ii AA! r9 0 q .� A ttt oX 4• c C v e ? 'gz E QL . 2p V Y y' mg Dv A O N Du gE 16 N 0 3 p s-0 7 C ..0a 41 el 2 •O a▪ a ▪ o 3 w O u coco u VJ W Phygopteris hexagonoptera Broad Beech Fern E I Dendroica cerulea ESA Protection: Species and general habitat protection 5 5 A a ESA Protection: Species and general habitat protection Species not known to occur in the vicinity of the property. C, O o F 0 o g .ga 01 S T a oa gl 4 T 5 §N o ;S aR O s O a v A g 0 E' e b o o mow co co Plesliodonfaseratus Chordeiles minor ESA Protection: N/A es not known to occur in the vicinity of the property. x F- Heterodon planrhmos Eastern Hog -nosed Snake ESA Protection: Species and general habitat protection Table 4: Species at Risk IL Initial Assessment Key Habitats Used By Species' 0 Common Name Vennivora chrysoptera Golden -winged Warbler -0., 2� B 'a c' �T S f], U p, . U Z LO. S. w ... O .5 d Q •ra o. d Q 'a o d S o d w a o o 2 u N N W 3 t b o nut 4 o 9 I a' b aw 8 a••- u 8 4 ! 0 9 L. 6 � � 9 2Q El 0 A▪ z az• 0 'S 8zg 8 7 duur 5 t'' U G 5 t U a u v a� t U 8 e N ar w w 1a v raw ;, aa.a ,o Z 0 5 0 0 0 0 ° o 0 'O °1 2 sla ea 0 o o = • o $ •b o 3 o t u P e L L M Sep E 1• E MOO a' a a' Ed a a p 8- a 8 E 0, '� 0 o. U m n 8 5; u E 0 0 •oz o•o O D 0 0 O 0 p O p Q y_ Q C W p O U_ 'w OW • m N O Y U N !A E. fn °�1)E. i L 0. w V G > 5 >5 >a > w"' a °.080 m a 3 0 m z b u 0 too °a.N It x8 H 'p1..) r°i V O U O « U a . g.5 W v5 0 5 R i 'L a �0• p ui pC ,�73 V ` E+'s, q- °.Jsa $dE Em} O 10�CJa8zL , apU b, 7. 8 UO _ 'b C H O y'Y.VN 'I 'O ▪ oq O N p '` '� 2 .1). 9 O 3 O O 8.., O 5 9° Egi itt.0 . L N .0 .0 lg Q o 8 5 E 8 121, nn E 1 gfl Ci w r W E vs -� w o at �' A 50 ° w° Qa °n .� 9 ' V Z ' 'Ea 5 mo o • aguo 8 G w b S �U�, YS w 6 m c+a 8 aa� '6q w z 'S]� z 8.5 1418 v1 81� ti K, ti s a N 8 m' C v ^� O U .� � O � � O "' = O fS !`-0 N O O .�gY V1 O .5 N O 1 ,•,�� gM a i3 ii th w o 5 o >o U d t'§ t u. 1 •0 •6 . 2,41 °o o Q o �o s o �, 0 3 o C o '5 r� og3 ffi a m o a 3 °' a .3 m �) .5 y a at 5 as Q .. Q p Q 04 S Q y :o0o Q 1m Q w§ — uM. • •y u"i• c� g w a a W �? w 3" 5 G m� u`� �°. 2 6] U w 0 w Ammodramus henslowli Somatochlora hineana Hine's Emerald 2 0 lxobrychus exilis Least Bittern 9 w Myotis lucifugus Little Brown Myotis ESA Protection: Species and general habitat protection Table 4: Species at Risk Habitat Summary Initial Assessment Key Habitats Used By Species' z S Parkesia motacilla Louisiana Waterthmsh ti 00 I ESA Protection N/A z W zz Myotis septentrio Northern Myotis ESA Protection: Species and general habitat protection Grapetemys geographica Northern Map Turtle ESA Protection: N/A ESA Protection: N/A F- U h Snapping Turtle ESA Protection: N/A Table 4: Species at Risk Habitat Summary Initial Assessment Key Habitats Used By Species' § f ) \ u k8 J 2 Perimyotis subflavus Tri-colored Bat Hylocichla mustelina ) § Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Appendix E: APPENDICES Provincial Natural Heritage System Mapping Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan Schedules NVCA Regulated Area Mapping NVCA Terms of Reference Concept Development Plan AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. APPENDIX A Provincial Natural Heritage System Mapping AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. Notes: NHIC - Natural Heritage Features 4th Line, Oro - NHE a c• C M y. 'e a A to • 4 a i w $,: 8 G• 8 10 H 1i —6 Scale: 1 : 4,513 U) 0) E O N O C— m p N N p w O Q o N N c - m • u W o m i N = a ▪ V D m c m o C LL N 'o O z o • a) 0 N m 0 CD < LL • C z Z .5. a) • N y = O j O L 9 d D O T O_ b Y t O 2 A a cb • U V L_ p in 1.113 o a U p 0 O N O O Z 0.0 U) o a O d ▪ co o .C11 U orn 0 N N a E m U _C7 OO m 0 O O N m E N m N L f.co c cc O C Z 0 O °E `o s p m LL N o 2 o ono' w m. o8E N O • N m N m . 3 V > � U Z� m ,0 y O d m O C O 'O C .O d ▪ 2 S' d `m O a,0 c ,2 m L T 1— as o 3 L c o m m E m 5 L c Q © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2014 APPENDIX B Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan Schedules AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. LEGEND ru - I l H 1111 I I Rural Agricultural Residential Rural Settlement Area Rural Residential Restricted Rural Industrial =�. Commercial Shoreline Recreational Major Open Space Environmental Protection One Environmental Protection Two Oro Moraine Core/Corridor Area Oro Moraine Enhancement Area Mineral Aggregate Resources - Licenced Mineral Aggregate Resources - Potential Airport Mt St Louis Moonstone Hawkestone Expansion Area Hawkestone Residential Area Edgar Centre Special Policy Area Special Purpose Community Area Eighth Line Special Policy Area Open Waste Disposal Area Closed Waste Disposal Site Oro Moraine Boundary Oro Moraine Planning Area cSr • Township of Oro-Medonte Official Plan Land Use Schedule A dfr Lake Simcoe Office Consolidation April 2017 gFr 500 0 1000 2000 3000m Scale C0f0.10 Peen /•t, ‘olt f 0 *0$AlleA ,. p &wi cur Ai ooliiir le. t.',0% 1 Sj3 10 10 ' 1444" :4:A• -1* :ow,. 0 . 0,#4.40 .4.-wir...t-* 4.-44:14 0 , 404-4)44 #4•0>Ipivii..1--- .4)4 :"E.•••,4 *00- li,•.".0.13* 41C;,,,001)14,4°••4040A4‘-•-**A.-*. • vofrw* Olyitle.0 ## . 0011•Sipreitkrfr • fo , 4 . 44* A 16.0%,01•,04-tre , .. • A „ 1*i* 41#040•+.144.4cRik--4 ##A4P.f e 11.. Avis, $.4,46b 4100,4 sioitos t,, c No v* --. .. 111yr 4 ,,,Piwilk 110 40- 4r 04,614T 411t Niii0.* ' ft) 40 sib 4;400' . 004- A* 4%#tle- **eo *WO fivirpfrI400t. #404VA•414..,9 • 04,Ate4 COM411019=0 111610111M AIMAIXAMPrt LEGEND 177.9 ..... Provincially Significant Wetlands (EP1) Other Wetlands (EP1) Provincially Significant ANSI's (EP1) Other ANSI's (EP2) Core Deer Wintering Area Publicly Owned Lands Significant Woodlands Environmental Protection 2 Oro Moraine Core Areas Oro Moraine Corridor Areas Oro Moraine Potential Re -Vegetation and Enhancement Areas Oro Moraine Outliers Oro Moraine Boundary Oro Moraine Planning Area Boundary COIDOol Antaa an4 Ott.• ar• contr.. Syn.. Woo. ands te- mrv0 • )., lc-5---4.-***c;,,...1.14.fks. .. 4A-014........0....r ,*-44 ,v... .,,,„11....., ...i.. • fro. ,4,0•0, . ,,,,*„...* 4 LS' 4" :40 *V °,-. ' #iVii- TAO 401,0.0r,,,.400, 4 • ,s ,Avr • ,..•11. ....11V 401114.—AikepalPt • . St itlet • di‘f jo, ilk<P-40..,,,:itistAve4 . t‘Oi0,41044 4 c '1W1#44744., <AV; •& • -.-, iis . eiirop .4.ir , OALSUMUM Ca+,114 Townshb of Oro-Medonte Official Dian Natural Features Schedule B VANII 1:041.011 VAT Lake Simcoe Office Consolidation ficornt4r 2015 57 0 1003 2030 3000in Township of Oro-Medonte Horseshoe Valley Schedule D III See Section — C14.3.6."I9--. r CD See Section C 14.3.6.1 See Section t14.;S.b.1 U N. Legend IV Horseshoe Valley - Low Density Residential Horseshoe Valley - Medium Density Residential Horseshoe Valley- Resort Facility Horseshoe Valley Village r — 0' Z 0 a V 2 1 Horseshoe Varrey Rcd 1 2 3 JCC Sections C14.3.6.1- 4 C14.3.6.9 Not to Scale WARecreational Oro Moraine Boundary Note: Numbers are dealt with in Section C14.4.1 Office Consolidation December 2015 APPENDIX C NVCA Regulated Area Mapping AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. NVCA - Regulated Areas co 5_ HO — Hs..shoe Valley (,-„? Er" r.y .c* • This mop, either In whole or In part. may not be reproduced without the written authority from 0 The Corporation of the County of Smicoe. This map It intended for personal use, has been produced using data from a variety of sources Produced (In part) under license from. 0 Her Majesty the Queen In RIght of Canada, Department of Natural Resources- 0 Queens Pnnter. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources o Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers: 0 Members of the Ontario Geospatial Data Exchange. AS rights reserved THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY, Cakr° 8 10 r. _)-\ e\'`e ,00e Property Location 0 0.275 0.55 1:1 8,0 56 00 1.1 km May 15,2018 22 , ,000e,,tt) Jr) 35° 111 APPENDIX D NVCA Terms of Reference AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. Mike Francis From: Amy Knapp [aknapp@nvca.on.ca] Sent: June 1, 2018 11:57 AM To: Mike Francis Subject: RE: EIS Terms of Reference Request: 4th Line, Oro Importance: High Good Morning Mike, I apologize for the delay in responding you. Please accept this email as confirmation that the NVCA accepts the terms of reference for the above noted EIS/Project. If you have any questions, please let me know. Amy Knapp I Planner II Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority 8195 8th Line, Utopia, ON LOM 1T0 T 705-424-1479 ext.233 I F 705-424-2115 aknapp@nvca.on.ca I nvca.on.ca This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the original message. From: Mike Francis fmailto:mfrancis(azimuthenvironmental.coml Sent: Friday, May 4, 2018 12:03 PM To: Amy Knapp <aknaco nvca.on.ca>; Chris Hibberd <c.hibberdPnvca.on.ca> Subject: FW: EIS Terms of Reference Request: 4th Line, Oro Hello Amy/Chris: I understand based on Lee's out of office reply that she will be away until later in the month. In her absence, would one of you be able to address the EIS Terms of Reference inquiry below, or forward to a more appropriate contact. Thank you, -Mike Mike Francis Terrestrial Ecologist/Botanist H.B.Sc. Azimuth Environmental Consulting, Inc 642 Welham Road Barrie, ON L4N 9A1 Phone: (705) 721 - 8451 ext.220 Cell: (705) 627 - 3588 Fax: (705) 721 - 8926 www.azimuthenvironmental.com Providing services in hydrogeology, terrestrial and aquatic ecology & environmental engineering 1 From: Mike Francis Sent: May 4, 2018 11:48 AM To: 'Ibull@nvca.on.ca' Subject: EIS Terms of Reference Request: 4th Line, Oro Hello Lee: I hope you're well. I'm emailing to inquire about an EIS that Azimuth is preparing for a property located in Oro-Medonte at the corner of the 4ch Line and Horseshoe Valley Rd. I understand that Dave Featherstone is away on leave, and so I'm reaching out to you for confirmation of a study Terms of Reference. If someone else is stick -handling these inquiries at the moment, please excuse this email and forward to the appropriate person. In summary, the subject property is located within the Horseshoe Valley settlement node and, therefore, outside of the provincial natural heritage system. The property is zoned under the Township Official Plan as 'Resort Facility'. Although the property contains areas mapped as unevaluated wetland (see attached), a recent site survey confirmed that no wetland communities are present. The dominant natural feature is woodland, which is comprised primarily of immature and mid -aged coniferous plantation. I've attached some background documentation to assist in providing context, including a map of the property location, pre -consultation notes from both NVCA and the Township, and a summary document of proposed development plans. Given the zoning details and the limited natural heritage features present, Azimuth is proposing a very scoped study, including the following: Conduct a single site visit (May 2018) to document/characterize the following: o Identify candidate Key Natural Heritage Features on the property, including features with potential to function as habitat for Species at Risk and Significant Wildlife Habitat; o Evaluate vegetation communities using protocols of the Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario (Lee et al. 1998. Ecological land classification for southern Ontario: first approximation and its applications. SCSS Field Guide FG-02); o Record a list of vascular plants and incidental wildlife observations. - Conduct a Species at Risk (SAR) screening for the property including a review of the habitat types used by SAR as defined by the MNRF and determine if the habitat types utilized by the SAR are present in the study area, - Assess wildlife habitat function of the property, including potential function of the property as Significant Wildlife Habitat, as per the Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedules for Ecoregions 6E; Map vegetation communities and other environmental features on current air photos; Prepare a scoped EIS report to: o Assess the potential direct and indirect impacts of development on identified natural heritage features; o Assess conformity of the proposed activities with applicable legislation and/or policy; o Recommend and develop an appropriate avoidance/mitigation/restoration strategy to address the potential environmental impacts. Please confirm that the above EIS Terms of Reference is satisfactory to NVCA and/or make recommended adjustments as necessary. Thanks for your time, and please don't hesitate to call and discuss further. Regards, 2 Mike Francis Terrestrial Ecologist/Botanist H.B.Sc. Azimuth Environmental Consulting, Inc 642 Welham Road Barrie, ON L4N 9A1 Phone: (705) 721 - 8451 ext.220 Cell: (705) 627 - 3588 Fax: (705) 721 - 8926 www.azimuthenvironmental.com Providing services in hydrogeology, terrestrial and aquatic ecology & environmental engineering 3 APPENDIX E Concept Development Plan AZIMUTH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. -1IPS OF ORO & MEDONTE 11111111111111111111111 S1331IH3 V WSI OAD No. 22) • "P9 I • m 0 0 Celebrating ul Service Excellence 199C1 C 1.0 PROJECT REPORT COVER PACE LICENSEE INFORMATION: Contact Information: Licensee: Ontario Archaeology Licence: PROJECT INFORMATION: Corporate Project Number: MTCS Project Number: Investigation Type: Project Name: Project Location: Project Designation Number: MTCS FILING INFORMATION: Site Record/Update Form(s): Date of Report Filing: Type of Report: Michael B. Henry CD BA FRAI FRSA Marilyn E. Cornies BA CAHP Southwestern District Office 553 Dufferin Avenue London, ON N6B 2A5 Phone: (519) 432-4435 Email: mhenry@amick.ca/mcornies@amick.ca www.amick.ca Michael B. Henry CD BA FRAI FRSA P058 18562 P058-1659-2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Property Assessment 4th Line and Horseshoe Valley. Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe Not Currently Available N/A May 30, 2018 ORIGINAL ORIGINAL 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe (AMICK File #18562/MTCS File #1'058-1659-2018) 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report describes the results of the 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe, conducted by AMICK Consultants Limited. This study was conducted under Professional Archaeologist License #P058 issued to Michael Henry by the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport for the Province of Ontario. This assessment was undertaken as a requirement under the Planning Act (RSO 1990) and the Provincial Policy Statement (2014) in order to support a Site Plan and companion Zoning By-law Amendment application as part of the pre -submission process. Within the land use planning and development context, Ontario Regulation 544/06 under the Planning Act (1990b) requires an evaluation of archaeological potential and, where applicable, an archaeological assessment report completed by an archaeologist licensed by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS). Policy 2.6 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS 2014) addresses archaeological resources. All work was conducted in conformity with Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC) Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTC 2011), the Ontario Heritage Act (RSO 1990a). AMICK Consultants Limited was engaged by the proponent to undertake a Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of lands potentially affected by the proposed undertaking and was granted permission to carry out archaeological fieldwork. The entirety of the study area was subject to property inspection and photographic documentation concurrently with the Stage 2 Property Assessment high intensity test pit methodology at a five -metre interval between individual test pits on 10 May 2018. All records, documentation, field notes, photographs and artifacts (as applicable) related to the conduct and findings of these investigations are held at the Lakelands District corporate offices of AMICK Consultants Limited until such time that they can be transferred to an agency or institution approved by the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) on behalf of the government and citizens of Ontario. As a result of the property Assessment of the study area physical evidence of human activity in the past was observed but is too recent to qualify as an archaeological resource and is of no Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI). Accordingly, no archaeological resources were documented. Consequently, the following recommendations are made: 1. No further archaeological assessment of the study area is warranted; 2. The Provincial interest in archaeological resources with respect to the proposed undertaking has been addressed; 3. The proposed undertaking is clear of any archaeological concern. AMICK Consultants Limited Page 2 ORIGINAL 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe (AMICK File #18562/MTCS File #P058-1659-2018) 3.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT REPORT COVER PAGE 1 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 3.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 4.0 PROJECT PERSONNEL 3 5.0 PROJECT CONTEXT 4 6.0 FIELD WORK METHODS AND WEATHER CONDITIONS 14 7.0 RECORD OF FINDS 17 8.0 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS 17 9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 27 10.0 ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION 29 11.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES 30 12.0 MAPS 32 13.0 IMAGES 38 4.0 PROJECT PERSONNEL AMICK CONSULTANTS LIMITED PARTNERS Michael Henry (MTCS Professional Archaeologist Licence #P058) Marilyn Cornies (MTCS Professional Archaeologist Licence #P038) AMICK CONSULTANTS LIMITED BUSINESS MANAGER Melissa Maclean BBA email mmacleanna.amick.ca PROJECT COORDINATOR Melissa Maclean PROJECT LICENSEE ARCHAEOLOGIST Michael Henry (MTCS Professional Archaeologist Licence #P058) PROJECT FIELD DIRECTORS Dylan Morningstar (MTCS Applied Research Archaeologist Licence #R1166) PROJECT FIELD ASSISTANTS Garrett Gribbin Diego Jimenez PROJECT REPORT PREPARATION Nick Kaluzny PROJECT GRAPHICS Nick Kaluzny Mary Watson PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHY Dylan Morningstar (MTCS Applied Research Archaeologist Licence #R1166) AMICK Consultants Limited Page 3 ORIGINAL 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe (AMICK File #18562/MTCS File #P058-1659-2018) 5.0 PROJECT CONTEXT 5.1 DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT This report describes the results of the 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe, conducted by AMICK Consultants Limited. This study was conducted under Professional Archaeologist License #P058 issued to Michael Henry by the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport for the Province of Ontario. This assessment was undertaken as a requirement under the Planning Act (RSO 1990) and the Provincial Policy Statement (2014) in order to support a Site Plan and companion Zoning By-law Amendment application as part of the pre -submission process. Within the land use planning and development context, Ontario Regulation 544/06 under the Planning Act (1990b) requires an evaluation of archaeological potential and, where applicable, an archaeological assessment report completed by an archaeologist licensed by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS). Policy 2.6 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS 2014) addresses archaeological resources. All work was conducted in conformity with Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC) Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTC 2011), the Ontario Heritage Act (RSO 1990a). AMICK Consultants Limited was engaged by the proponent to undertake a Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of lands potentially affected by the proposed undertaking and was granted permission to carry out archaeological fieldwork. The entirety of the study area was subject to property inspection and photographic documentation concurrently with the Stage 2 Property Assessment high intensity test pit methodology at a five -metre interval between individual test pits on 10 May 2018. All records, documentation, field notes, photographs and artifacts (as applicable) related to the conduct and findings of these investigations are held at the Lakelands District corporate offices of AMICK Consultants Limited until such time that they can be transferred to an agency or institution approved by the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) on behalf of the government and citizens of Ontario. The proposed development of the study area includes a commercial lot with 2 main buildings and a large parking lot to serve them. A preliminary plan of the proposed development has been submitted together with this report to MTCS for review and reproduced within this report as Map 4. 5.2 HISTORICAL CONTEXT 5.2.1 GENERAL HISTORICAL OUTLINE In the seventeenth century Simcoe County was home to the Huron. With the arrival of French priests and Jesuits, missions were established near Georgian Bay. After the destruction of the missions by the Iroquois and the British, Algonquin speaking peoples occupied the area. After the war of 1812, the government began to invest in the military defences of Upper AMICK Consultants Limited Page 4 ORIGINAL 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe (AMICK File #18562/MTCS File #P058-1659-2018) Canada, through the extension of Simcoe's Yonge Street from Lake Simcoe to Penetanguishene on Georgian Bay (Garbutt 2010). The First Nations along the bank of Hawkestone Creek and Ridge Road originally established the Township of Oro. By the 1830s settlers from the British Isles started to arrive, as Richard Hodges began to establish a landing for settlers. This landing would be referred to as Hodges's Landing and would see the development of hotels, a tavern and other service industries. Many of the communities in the area were located along Penetanguishene Road. As a result the communities often grew quickly providing much needed services to travellers along the road and former portage route. By 1871, the railroad reached Hawkestone and a large train station was built here to handle the shipping of freight. By the early 20t' century another railway line was built through Craighurst. This provided the community with further opportunities to ship goods to other communities and provided easier transportation for its residents and future residents (Wikipedia 2010). Map 2 is a facsimile segment from Hoga's Man of the County of Simcoe (Hogg 1871). Map 2 illustrates the location of the study area and environs as of 1871. The study area is shown to belong to W. Quail; there are no structures shown to be within or near the study area. In addition, this map illustrates two settlement roads adjacent to the study area, one to the north and another to the west. The northern road is the current Horseshoe Valley Road while the western road roughly corresponds to 4 Line North, though the current alignment of the road travels around the eastern boundary of the study area. Map 3 is a facsimile segment of the Township of Oro map reproduced from The Simcoe Supplement in Illustrated Atlas of the Dominion of Canada (Belden, H. & Co. 1881). Map 3 illustrates the location of the study area and environs as of 1881. The study area is not shown to belong to anyone and there are no structures shown to be within or near to the study area. In addition, this map illustrates two settlement roads adjacent to the study area, one to the north and another to the west. The northern road is the current Horseshoe Valley Road while the western road roughly corresponds to 4 Line North, though the current alignment of the road travels around the eastern boundary of the study area. It must be borne in mind that inclusion of names of property owners and depictions of structures and other features within properties on these maps were sold by subscription. Property owners paid to include information or details about their properties. While information included within these maps may provide information about the occupation of a property at a specific moment in time when the information was collected, the absence of such information does not necessarily indicate that the property was not occupied. 5.2.2 CURRENT CONDITIONS The present use of the study area is as open woodlot. The study area is roughly 3.08 hectares in area. The study area includes within it entirely woodlot. There is a modern building foundation and some surrounding refuse in the western half of the study area, but the material was found to be too recent to hold any Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI) based on AMICK Consultants Limited Page 5 ORIGINAL 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe (AMICK File #18562/MTCS File #P058-1659-2018) the professional judgement of the Field Director and the Project License Archaeologist. The remainder of the study area is a wooded area. The study area is bounded on the north by Horseshoe Valley Road, on the east by 4 Line North, and on the west and south by woodlot. The study area is adjacent and to the southwest of the intersection of Horseshoe Valley Road and 4 Line North. A plan of the study area is included within this report as Map 4. Current conditions encountered during the Stage 1-2 Property Assessment are illustrated in Maps 5 & 6. 5.2.3 SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL CONTEXT The brief overview of readily available documentary evidence indicates that the study area is situated within an area that was close to historic transportation routes and therefore has potential for sites relating to early Post -contact settlement in the region. 5.3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT The Archaeological Sites Database administered by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) indicates that there are two (2) previously documented sites within 1 kilometre of the study area. However, it must be noted that this is based on the assumption of the accuracy of information compiled from numerous researchers using different methodologies over many years. AMICK Consultants Limited assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of site descriptions, interpretations such as cultural affiliation, or location information derived from the Archaeological Sites Database administered by MTCS. In addition, it must also be noted that a lack of formerly documented sites does not indicate that there are no sites present as the documentation of any archaeological site is contingent upon prior research having been conducted within the study area. On the basis of information supplied by MTCS, no archaeological assessments have been conducted within 50 metres of the study area. AMICK Consultants Limited assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of previous assessments, interpretations such as cultural affiliation, or location information derived from the Archaeological Sites Database administered by MTCS. In addition, it must also be noted that the lack of formerly documented previous assessments does not indicate that no assessments have been conducted. Data contained in previous archaeological reports in close proximity to the study area that is relevant to Stage 1 Background Study is defined within the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists in Section 7.5.8 Standard 4 as follows: "Provide descriptions of previous archaeological fieldwork carried out within the limits of or immediately adjacent to the project area, as documented by all available reports that include archaeological fieldwork carried out on the lands to be impacted by this project, or where reports document archaeological sites immediately adjacent (Le., within 50 m) to those lands." osiMTrc ?ni 1 • 196 Pmrhacic addPri) AMICK Consultants Limited Page 6 ORIGINAL 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe (AMICK File #I8562/MTCS File #P058-1659-2018) In accordance with data supplied by MTCS for the purposes of completing this study, there are no previous reports detailing, "archaeological fieldwork carried out on the lands to be impacted by this project", nor do any previous reports document known archaeological sites within 50 metres of the study area. The Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists stipulates that the necessity to summarize the results of previous archaeological assessment reports, or to cite MTCS File Numbers in references to other archaeological reports, is reserved for reports that are directly relevant to the fieldwork and recommendations for the study area (S & Gs 7.5.7, Standard 2, MTC 2011: 125). This is further refined and elaborated upon in Section 7.5.8, Standards 4 & 5, MTC 2011: "4. Provide descriptions of previous archaeological fieldwork carried out within the limits of or immediately adjacent to the project area, as documented by all available reports that include archaeological fieldwork carried out on the lands to be impacted by this project, or where reports document archaeological sites immediately adjacent (Le., within 50m) to those lands." "5. If previous findings and recommendations are relevant to the current stage of work, provide the following: a. a brief summary of previous findings and recommendations b. documentation of any differences in the current work from the previously recommended work c. rationale for the differences from the previously recommended work" (Emphasis Added) The study area is situated in area for which there is no archaeological master plan. It must be further noted that there are no relevant plaques associated with the study area, which would suggest an activity or occupation within, or in close proximity to, the study area that may indicate potential for associated archaeological resources of significant CHVI. 5.3.1 PRE -CONTACT REGISTERED SITES A summary of registered and/or known archaeological sites within a 1-kilometre radius of the study area was gathered from the Archaeological Sites Database, administered by MTCS. As a result it was determined that there is one (1) archaeological site relating directly to Pre - contact habitation/activity formally registered within the immediate vicinity of the study area. However, the lack of formally documented archaeological sites does not mean that Pre - contact people did not use the area; it more likely reflects a lack of systematic archaeological research in the immediate vicinity. Even in cases where one or more assessments may have been conducted in close proximity to a proposed landscape alteration, an extensive area of physical archaeological assessment coverage is required throughout the region to produce a AMICK Consultants Limited Page 7 ORIGINAL 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe (AMICK File #18562/MTCS File #P058-1659-2018) representative sample of all potentially available archaeological data in order to provide any meaningful evidence to construct a pattern of land use and settlement in the past. All previously registered Pre -contact sites are briefly described below in Table 1: Site Name Cooke TABLE 1 PRE -CONTACT SITES WITHIN 1KM Borden # BdGv-10 Site Type Village Cultural Affiliation Indeterminate Pre -Contact None of the above noted archaeological sites are situated within 300 metres of the study area. Therefore, they have no impact on determinations of archaeological potential for further archaeological resources related to Pre -contact activity and occupation with respect to the archaeological assessment of the proposed undertaking. There are no surface water features within 300 metres of the study area. Table 2 illustrates the chronological development of cultures within southern Ontario prior to the arrival of European cultures to the area at the beginning of the 17th century. This general cultural outline is based on archaeological data and represents a synthesis and summary of research over a long period of time. It is necessarily generalizing and is not necessarily representative of the point of view of all researchers or stakeholders. It is offered here as a rough guideline and as a very broad outline to illustrate the relationships of broad cultural groups and time periods. TABLE 2 PRE -CONTACT CULTURAL CHRONOLOGY FOR SOUTHERN ONTARIO Years ago Period Southern Ontario 250 Terminal Woodland Ontario and St. Lawrence Iroquois Cultures 1000 Initial Woodland Princess Point, Saugeen, Point Peninsula, and Meadowood 2000 Cultures 3000 4000 Archaic Laurentian Culture 5000 6000 7000 8000 Palaeo-Indian Plano and Clovis Cultures 9000 10000 11000 (Wright 1972) 5.3.2 POST -CONTACT REGISTERED SITES A summary of registered and/or known archaeological sites within a 1-kilometre radius of the study area was gathered from the Archaeological Sites Database, administered by MTCS. As a result it was determined that there are no (0) archaeological sites relating directly to AMICK Consultants Limited Page 8 ORIGINAL 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe (AMICK File #18562/MTCS File #P058-1659-2018) Post -contact habitation/activity formally registered within the immediate vicinity of the study area. 5.3.3 REGISTERED SITES OF UNKNOWN CULTURAL AFFILIATION A summary of registered and/or known archaeological sites within a 1-kilometre radius of the study area was gathered from the Archaeological Sites Database, administered by MTCS. As a result, it was determined that there is one (1) archaeological site relating directly to an unknown cultural affiliation habitation/activity formally registered within the immediate vicinity of the study area. All previously registered sites of unknown cultural affiliation are briefly described below in Table 3: TABLE 3 Site Name Borden # Coldwater 2 BdGw-33 REGISTERED SITES WITHIN 1KM Site Type Other Findspot Cultural Affiliation Other None of the above noted archaeological sites are situated within 300 metres of the study area. Therefore, they have no impact on determinations of archaeological potential for further archaeological resources related to Pre- or Post -contact activity and occupation with respect to the archaeological assessment of the proposed undertaking. 5.3.4 LOCATION AND CURRENT CONDITIONS The study area is described as Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe, conducted by AMICK Consultants Limited. This assessment was undertaken as a requirement under the Planning Act (RSO 1990) and the Provincial Policy Statement (2014) in order to support a Site Plan and companion Zoning By-law Amendment application as part of the pre -submission process. The present use of the study area is as open woodlot. The study area is roughly 3.08 hectares in area. The study area includes within it entirely woodlot. There is a modern building foundation and some surrounding refuse in the western half of the study area, but the material was found to be too recent to hold any Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI) based on the professional judgement of the Field Director and the Project License Archaeologist. The remainder of the study area is a wooded area. The study area is bounded on the north by Horseshoe Valley Road, on the east by 4 Line North, and on the west and south by woodlot. The study area is adjacent and to the southwest of the intersection of Horseshoe Valley Road and 4 Line North. A plan of the study area is included within this report as Map 4. Current conditions encountered during the Stage 1-2 Property Assessment are illustrated in Maps 5 & 6. 5.3.5 PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGION AMICK Consultants Limited Page 9 ORIGINAL 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe (AMICK File #18562/MTCS File #P058-1659-2018) The study area is situated within the Simcoe Uplands physiographic region. The Simcoe Uplands is described as a series of broad, rolling till plains separated by steep -sided, flat - floored valleys, indicating they were islands in Lake Algonquin. The till is composed of mainly Precambrian rock, the texture of which is a gritty loam that becomes sandier toward the north; more calcareous till occurs near Lake Simcoe and near Midland. Although the dominant soil in the uplands is a sandy loam, smaller areas near the sandy ridges of the Oro Moraine and the Hendrie forest feature extremely pervious soil areas, sometimes with dry depressions many feet in depth. The loose sandy texture of the surface soil is conducive to wind erosion when vegetation has been removed (Chapman and Putnam 1984: 182-183). 5.3.6 SURFACE WATER Sources of potable water, access to waterborne transportation routes, and resources associated with watersheds are each considered, both individually and collectively to be the highest criteria for determination of the potential of any location to support extended human activity, land use, or occupation. Accordingly, proximity to water is regarded as the primary indicator of archaeological resource potential. The Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists stipulates that undisturbed lands within 300 metres of a water source are considered to have archaeological potential (MTC 2011: 21). There are no surface water features within 300 metres of the study area. 5.3.7 CURRENT PROPERTY CONDITIONS CONTEXT Current characteristics encountered within an archaeological research study area determine if property Assessment of specific portions of the study area will be necessary and in what manner a Stage 2 Property Assessment should be conducted, if necessary. Conventional assessment methodologies include pedestrian survey on ploughable lands and test pit methodology within areas that cannot be ploughed. For the purpose of determining where property Assessment is necessary and feasible, general categories of current landscape conditions have been established as archaeological conventions. These include: 5.3.7.1 BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURAL FOOTPRINTS A building, for the purposes of this particular study, is a structure that exists currently or has existed in the past in a given location. The footprint of a building is the area of the building formed by the perimeter of the foundation. Although the interior area of building foundations would often be subject to property Assessment when the foundation may represent a potentially significant historic archaeological site, the footprints of existing structures are not typically assessed. Existing structures commonly encountered during archaeological assessments are often residential -associated buildings (houses, garages, sheds), and/or component buildings of farm complexes (barns, silos, greenhouses). In many cases, even though the disturbance to the land may be relatively shallow and archaeological resources may be situated below the disturbed layer (e.g. a concrete garage pad), there is no practical means of assessing the area beneath the disturbed laver. However. if there were AMICK Consultants Limited Page 10 ORIGINAL 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe (AMICK File #18562/MTCS File #P058-1659-2018) evidence to suggest that there are likely archaeological resources situated beneath the disturbance, alternative methodologies may be recommended to study such areas. There is a modern building foundation and some surrounding refuse in the western half of the study area, but the material was found to be too recent to hold any Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI) based on the professional judgement of the Field Director and the Project License Archaeologist. The foundation also did not affect the test pitting grid. Maps 5 & 6 of this report illustrate the location of this feature. 5.3.7.2 DISTURBANCE Areas that have been subjected to extensive and deep land alteration that has severely damaged the integrity of archaeological resources are known as land disturbances. Examples of land disturbances are areas of past quarrying, major landscaping, and sewage and infrastructure development (MTC 2011: 18), as well as driveways made of gravel or asphalt or concrete, in -ground pools, and wells or cisterns. Surfaces paved with interlocking brick, concrete, asphalt, gravel and other surfaces meant to support heavy loads or to be long wearing hard surfaces in high traffic areas, must be prepared by the excavation and removal of topsoil, grading, and the addition of aggregate material to ensure appropriate engineering values for the supporting matrix and also to ensure that the installations shed water to avoid flooding or moisture damage. All hard surfaced areas are prepared in this fashion and therefore have no or low archaeological potential. Major utility lines are conduits that provide services such as water, natural gas, hydro, communications, sewage, and others. These major installations should not be confused with minor below ground service installations not considered to represent significant disturbances removing archaeological potential, such as services leading to individual structures which tend to be comparatively very shallow and vary narrow corridors. Areas containing substantial and deeply buried services or clusters of below ground utilities are considered areas of disturbance, and may be excluded from Stage 2 Property Assessment. Disturbed areas are excluded from Stage 2 Property Assessment due to no or low archaeological potential and often because they are also not viable to assess using conventional methodology. "Earthwork is one of the major works involved in road construction. This process includes excavation, material removal, filling, compaction, and construction. Moisture content is controlled, and compaction is done according to standard design procedures. Normally, rock explosion at the road bed is not encouraged. While filling a depression to reach the road level, the original bed is flattened after the removal of the topsoil. The fill layer is distributed and compacted to the designed specifications. This procedure is repeated until the compaction desired is reached. The fill material should not contain organic elements, and possess a low index of plasticity. Fill material can include gravel and decomposed rocks of a particular size, but should not consist of huge clay lumps. Sand clay can be used. The area is considered to be adequately compacted when the roller movement does not create a noticeable deformation. The road surface finish is reliant on the economic aspects, and the estimated usage." [Emphasis Added] AMICK Consultants Li►nited Page II ORIGINAL 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe (AMICK File #18562/MTCS File #P058-1659-2018) (Goel 2013) The supporting matrix of a hard paved surface cannot contain organic material which is subject to significant compression, decay and moisture retention. Topsoil has no engineering value and must be removed in any construction application where the surface finish at grade requires underlying support. Installation of sewer lines and other below ground services associated with infrastructure development often involves deep excavation that can remove archaeological potential. This consideration does not apply to relatively minor below ground services that connect structures and facilities to services that support their operation and use. Major servicing corridors will be situated within adjacent road allowances with only minor, narrow and relatively shallow underground services entering into the study area to connect existing structures to servicing mainlines. The relatively minor, narrow and shallow services buried within a residential property do not require such extensive ground disturbance to remove or minimize archaeological potential within affected areas. The study area does not contain previous disturbances. 5.3.7.3 LOW-LYING AND WET AREAS Landscape features that are covered by permanently wet areas, such as marshes, swamps, or bodies of water like streams or lakes, are known as low-lying and wet areas. Low-lying and wet areas are excluded from Stage 2 Property Assessment due to inaccessibility. The study area does not contain low-lying and wet areas. 5.3.7.4 STEEP SLOPE Landscape which slopes at a greater than (>) 20 degree change in elevation, is known as steep slope. Areas of steep slope are considered uninhabitable, and are excluded from Stage 2 Property Assessment. Generally, steep slopes are not assessed because steep slopes are interpreted to have low potential, not due to viability to assess, except in cases where the slope is severe enough to become a safety concern for archaeological field crews. In such cases, the Occupational Health and Safety Act takes precedence as indicated in the introduction to the Standards and Guidelines. AMICK Consultant Limited policy is to assess all slope areas whenever it is safe to do so. Assessment of slopes, except where safety concerns arise, eliminates the invariably subjective interpretation of what might constitute a steep slope in the field. This is done to minimize delays due to conflicts in such interpretations and to increase the efficiency of review. The study area does not contain areas of steep slope. AMICK Consultants Limited Page 12 ORIGINAL 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe (AMICK File #18562/MTCS File #P058-1659-2018) 5.3.7.5 WOODED AREAS Areas of the property that cannot be ploughed, such as natural forest or woodlot, are known as wooded areas. These wooded areas qualify for Stage 2 Property Assessment, and are required to be assessed using test pit survey methodology. The entirety of the study area is woodlot. Maps 5 & 6 of this report illustrate the locations of these features. 5.3.7.6 PLOUGHABLE AGRICULTURAL LANDS Areas of current or former agricultural lands that have been ploughed in the past are considered ploughable agricultural lands. Ploughing these lands regularly turns the soil, which in turn brings previously buried artifacts to the surface, which are then easily identified during visual inspection. Furthermore, by allowing the ploughed area to weather sufficiently through rainfall, soil is washed off of exposed artifacts at the surface and the visibility of artifacts at the surface of recently worked field areas is enhanced markedly. Pedestrian survey of ploughed agricultural lands is the preferred method of physical assessment because of the greater potential for finding evidence of archaeological resources if present. The study area does not contain any ploughable lands. 5.3.7.7 LAWN, PASTURE, MEADOW Landscape features consisting of former agricultural land covered in low growth, such as lawns, pastures, meadows, shrubbery, and immature trees. These are areas that may be considered too small to warrant ploughing, (i.e. less than one hectare in area), such as yard areas surrounding existing structures, and land -locked open areas that are technically workable by a plough but inaccessible to agricultural machinery. These areas may also include open area within urban contexts that do not allow agricultural tillage within municipal or city limits or the use of urban roadways by agricultural machinery. These areas are required to be assessed using test pit survey methodology. The study area does not contain any areas of lawn, pasture or meadow. 5.3.8 SUMMARY Background research also suggests potential for archaeological resources of Post -contact origins based on proximity to a historic roadway. The entirety of the study area does exhibit archaeological potential and therefore a Stage 2 Property Assessment is required. AMICK Consultants Limited Page 13 ORIGINAL 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe (AMICK File #18562/MTCS File #P058-1659-2018) Archaeological potential does not indicate that there are necessarily sites present, but that environmental and historical factors suggest that there may be as yet undocumented archaeological sites within lands that have not been subject to systematic archaeological research in the past. 6.0 FIELD WORK METHODS AND WEATHER CONDITIONS This report confirms that the study area was subject to Stage 2 Property Assessment by high intensity test pit methodology at a five -metre interval between individual test pits on 10 May 2018. The fieldwork undertaken as a component of this study was conducted according to the archaeological fieldwork standards and guidelines (including weather and lighting conditions). Weather conditions were appropriate for the necessary fieldwork required to complete the Stage 2 Property Assessment and to create the documentation appropriate to this study. The locations from which photographs were taken and the directions toward which the camera was aimed for each photograph are illustrated in Maps 5 & 6 of this report. Upon completion of the property inspection of the study area, it was determined that select areas would require Stage 2 Property Assessment. It must be noted that AMICK Consultants Limited has been retained to assess lands as specified by the proponent. As such, AMICK Consultants Limited is constrained by the terms of the contract in place at the time of the Archaeological Assessment and can only enter into lands for which AMICK Consultants Limited has received consent from the owner or their agent(s). The proponent has been advised that the entire area within the planning application must be subject to archaeological assessment and that portions of the planning application may only be excluded if they are of low potential, are not viable to assess, or are subject to planning provisions that would restrict any such areas from any form of ground altering activities. 6.1 PROPERTY INSPECTION A detailed examination and photo documentation was carried out on the study area in order to document the existing conditions of the study area to facilitate the Stage 2 Property Assessment. All areas of the study area were visually inspected and select features were photographed as a representative sample of each area defined within Maps 5 and 6. Observations made of conditions within the study area at the time of the inspection were used to inform the requirement for Stage 2 Property Assessment for portions of the study area as well as to aid in the determination of appropriate Stage 2 Property Assessment strategies. The locations from which photographs were taken and the directions toward which the camera was aimed for each photograph are illustrated in Maps 5 & 6 of this report. 6.2 TEST PIT SURVEY AMICK Consultants Limited Page 14 ORIGINAL 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County ofSimcoe (AMICK File #18562/MTCS File #P058-1659-2018) In accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists, test pit survey is required to be undertaken for those portions of the study area where deep prior disturbance had not occurred prior to assessment or which were accessible to survey. Test pit survey is only used in areas that cannot be subject to ploughing or cultivation. This report confirms that the conduct of test pit survey within the study area conformed to the following standards: 1. Test pit survey only on terrain where ploughing is not possible or viable, as in the following examples: a. wooded areas [All wooded areas were test pit surveyed at an interval of 5 m between individual test pits] b. pasture with high rock content [Not Applicable - The study area does not contain any pastures with high rock content] c. abandoned farmland with heavy brush and weed growth [Not Applicable - The study area does not contain any abandoned farmland with heavy brush and weed growth] d. orchards and vineyards that cannot be strip ploughed (planted in rows 5 m apart or less), gardens, parkland or lawns, any of which will remain in use for several years after the survey [Not Applicable - The study area does not contain any of the above -mentioned circumstances] e. properties where existing landscaping or infrastructure would be damaged. The presence of such obstacles must be documented in sufficient detail to demonstrate that ploughing or cultivation is not viable. [Not Applicable - The study area does not contain the above -mentioned circumstances] f narrow (10 m or less) linear survey corridors (e.g., water or gas pipelines, road widening). This includes situations where there are planned impacts 10 m or less beyond the previously impacted limits on both sides of an existing linear corridor (e.g., two linear survey corridors on either side of an existing roadway). Where at the time offieldwork the lands within the linear corridor meet the standards as stated under the above section on pedestrian survey land preparation, pedestrian survey must be carried out. Space test pits at maximum intervals of 5 m (400 test pits per hectare) in areas less than 300 m from any feature of archaeological potential. [Not Applicable — The study area does not contain any linear corridors] AMICK Consultants Limited Page 15 ORIGINAL 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe (AMICK File #18562/MTCS File #P058-1659-2018) 2. Space test pits at maximum intervals of 5 m (400 test pits per hectare) in areas less than 300 m from any feature of archaeological potential. [All test pits were spaced at an interval of 5m between individual test pits] 3. Space test pits at maximum intervals of 10 m (100 test pits per hectare) in areas more than 300 m from any feature of archaeological potential. [The entirety of the test pitted areas of the study area were assessed using high intensity test pit methodology at an interval of 5 metres between individual test pits] 4. Test pit to within 1 m of built structures (both intact and ruins), or until test pits show evidence of recent ground disturbance. [Test pits were placed within lm of all built structures] 5. Ensure that test pits are at least 30 cm in diameter. [All test pits were at least 30 cm in diameter] 6. Excavate each test pit, by hand, into the first 5 cm of subsoil and examine the pit for stratigraphy, cultural features, or evidence of fill. [Regardless of the interval between individual test pits, all test pits were excavated by hand into the first 5 cm of subsoil where possible and examined for stratigraphy, cultural features, or evidence of fill. In areas where topsoil was not present, test pits were excavated to a minimum of 30cm in depth to ensure that suspected subsoils, if present, were not layers of fill or waterborne materials overlying buried topsoil. If these areas consisted of fill soils, test pits were also excavated a minimum of 30 cm below grade in order to ensure disturbance extended below even deep topsoil layers such as those encountered in agricultural fields to ensure that the depth of disturbance was sufficient to remove archaeological potential in most contexts. Where other evidence indicates locations of potentially significant archaeological sites that may include cultural deposits below fill soils, alternative strategies to explore beneath the fill layers found in some areas may be necessary to complete the Stage 2 Property Assessment. In such cases, further Stage 2 Property Assessment may be recommended following completion of the property survey under conventional methodologies.] 7. Screen soil through mesh no greater than 6 mm. [All soil was screened through mesh no greater than 6 mm] 8. Collect all artifacts according to their associated test pit. [Not Applicable - No archaeological resources were encountered] 9. Backfill all test pits unless instructed not to by the landowner. [All test pits were backfilled] (MTC 2011: 31-32) AMICK Consultants Limited Page 16 ORIGINAL 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County ofSimcoe (AMICK File #18562/MTCS File #P058-1659-2018) Approximately 100% of the study area consisted of woodland that was test pit surveyed at an interval of 5 metres between individual test pits. 7.0 RECORD OF FINDS Section 7.8.2 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTC 2011: 137-138) outlines the requirements of the Record of Finds component of a Stage 2 report: 1. For all archaeological resources and sites that are identified in Stage 2, provide the following: a. a general description of the types of artifacts and features that were identified b. a general description of the area within which artifacts and features were identified, including the spatial extent of the area and any relative variations in density c. a catalogue and description of all artifacts retained d. a description of the artifacts and features left in the field (nature of material, frequency, other notable traits). 2. Provide an inventory of the documentary record generated in the field (e.g. photographs, maps, field notes). 3. Submit information detailing exact site locations on the property separately from the project report, as specified in section 7.6. Information on exact site locations includes the following: a. table of GPS readings for locations of all archaeological sites b. maps showing detailed site location information. 7.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES As a result of the 2018 Stage 1-2 Property Assessment of the study area no archaeological resources were encountered. The structural foundation and modern refuse around it were determined to be too recent to hold any Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI) by the professional judgement of the Field Director and the Project License Archaeologist. 7.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELDWORK DOCUMENTATION The documentation produced during the field investigation conducted in support of this report includes: one sketch map, one page of photo log, one page of field notes, and 14 digital photographs. 8.0 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS AMICK Consultants Limited was engaged by the proponent to undertake a Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of lands potentially affected by the proposed undertaking and was granted permission to carry out archaeological fieldwork. The entirety of the study area wac enl r.t to prnnerty incpection and phntngaphir, dnenmentatinn enncurrentl1, with the AMICK Consultants Limited Page 17 ORIGINAL 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe (AMICK File #18562/MTCS File #P058-1659-2018) Stage 2 Property Assessment on 10 May 2018, consisting of high -intensity test pit survey at an interval of five metres between individual test pits. All records, documentation, field notes, photographs and artifacts (as applicable) related to the conduct and findings of these investigations are held at the Lakelands District corporate offices of AMICK Consultants Limited until such time that they can be transferred to an agency or institution approved by the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) on behalf of the government and citizens of Ontario. 8.1 STAGE 1 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS As part of the present study, background research was conducted in order to determine the archaeological potential of the proposed project area. "A Stage 1 background study provides the consulting archaeologist and Ministry report reviewer with information about the known and potential cultural heritage resources within a particular study area, prior to the start of the field assessment." (OMCzCR 1993) The evaluation of potential is further elaborated Section 1.3 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologist (2011) prepared by the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture: " The Stage 1 background study (and, where undertaken, property inspection) leads to an evaluation of the property's archaeological potential. If the evaluation indicates that there is archaeological potential anywhere on the property, the next step is a Stage 2 assessment." (MTC 2011: 17) Features or characteristics that indicate archaeological potential when documented within the study area, or within close proximity to the study area (as applicable), include: " - previously identified archaeological sites water sources (It is important to distinguish types of water and shoreline, and to distinguish natural from artificial water sources, as these features affect site locations and types to varying degrees.): o primary water sources (lakes, rivers, streams, creeks) o secondary water sources (intermittent streams and creeks, springs, marshes, swamps) o features indicating past water sources (e.g., glacial lake shorelines indicated by the presence of raised sand or gravel beach ridges, relic river or stream channels indicated by clear dip or swale in the topography, shorelines of drained lakes or marshes, cobble beaches) o accessible or inaccessible shoreline (e.g., high bluffs, swamp or marsh fields by the edge of a lake, sandbars stretching into marsh) elevated topography (e.g., eskers, drumlins, large knolls, plateaux) pockets of well -drained sandy soil, especially near areas of heavy soil or rocky ground AMICK Consultants Limited Page 18 ORIGINAL 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe (AMICK File #18562/MTCS File #P058-1659-2018) distinctive land formations that might have been special or spiritual places, such as waterfalls, rock outcrops, caverns, mounds, and promontories and their bases. There may be physical indicators of their use, such as burials, structures, offerings, rock paintings or carvings. resource areas, including: o food or medicinal plants (e.g., migratory routes, spawning areas, prairie) o scarce raw materials (e.g., quartz, copper, ochre or outcrops of chert) o early Post -contact industry (e.g., fur trade, logging, prospecting, mining) areas of early Post -contact settlement. These include places of early military or pioneer settlement (e.g., pioneer homesteads, isolated cabins, farmstead complexes), early wharf or dock complexes, pioneer churches and early cemeteries. There may be commemorative markers of their history, such as local, provincial, or federal monuments or heritage parks. Early historical transportation routes (e.g., trails, passes, roads, railways, portage routes) property listed on a municipal register or designated under the Ontario Heritage Actor that is a federal, provincial or municipal historic landmark or site property that local histories or informants have identified with possible archaeological sties, historical events, activities, or occupations" (MTC 2011: 17-18) The evaluation of potential does not indicate that sites are present within areas affected by proposed development. Evaluation of potential considers the possibility for as yet undocumented sites to be found in areas that have not been subject to systematic archaeological investigation in the past. Potential for archaeological resources is used to determine if property assessment of a study area or portions of a study area is required. "Archaeological resources not previously documented may also be present in the affected area. If the alternative areas being considered, or the preferred alternative selected, exhibit either high or medium potential for the discovery of archaeological remains an archaeological assessment will be required." (MCC & MOE 1992: 6-7) "The Stage 1 background study (and, where undertaken, property inspection) leads to an evaluation of the property's archaeological potential. If the evaluation indicates that there is archaeological potential anywhere on the property, the next step is a Stage 2 assessment." (MTC 2011: 17) In addition, archaeological sites data is also used to determine if any archaeological resources had been formerly documented within or in close proximity to the study area and if these same resources might be subject to impacts from the proposed undertaking. This data was also collected in order to establish the relative cultural heritage value or interest of any resources that might be encountered during the conduct of the present study. For example, the relative rarity of a site can be used to assign an elevated level of cultural heritage value or AMICK Consultants Limited Page 19 ORIGINAL 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot I, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe (AMICK File #18562/MTCS File #P058-1659-2018) interest to a site that is atypical for the immediate vicinity. The requisite archaeological sites data of previously registered archaeological sites was collected from the Programs and Services Branch, Culture Programs Unit, MTCS and the corporate research library of AMICK Consultants Limited. The Stage 1 Background Research methodology also includes a review of the most detailed available topographic maps, historical settlement maps, archaeological management plans (where applicable) and commemorative plaques or monuments. When previous archaeological research documents lands to be impacted by the proposed undertaking or archaeological sites within 50 metres of the study area, the reports documenting this earlier work are reviewed for pertinent information. AMICK Consultants Limited will often modify this basic methodology based on professional judgment to include additional research (such as, local historical works or documents and knowledgeable informants). Section 7.7.3 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTC 2011: 132) outlines the requirements of the Analysis and Conclusions component of a Stage 1 Background Study. 1) "Identf and describe areas of archaeological potential within the project area. 2) Identify and describe areas that have been subject to extensive and deep land alterations. Describe the nature of alterations (e.g., development or other activity) that have severely damaged the integrity of archaeological resources and have removed archaeological potential." CHARACTERISTICS INDICATING ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL Section 1.3.1 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists specifies the property characteristics that indicate archaeological potential (MTC 2011: 17-18). Factors that indicate archaeological potential are features of the local landscape and environment that may have attracted people to either occupy the land or to conduct activities within the study area. One or more of these characteristics found to apply to a study area would necessitate a Stage 2 Property Assessment to determine if archaeological resources are present. These characteristics are listed below together with considerations derived from the conduct of this study. 1) Previously Identified Archaeoloeical Sites Previously registered archaeological sites have not been documented within 300 metres of the study area. 2) Water Sources Primary water sources are described as including lakes, rivers streams and creeks. Close proximity to primary water sources (300 metres) indicates that people had access to readily available sources of potable water and routes of waterborne trade and communication should the study area have been used or occupied in the past. There are no identified primary water sources within 300 metres of the study area. AMICK Consultants Limited Page 20 ORIGINAL 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe (AMICK File #18562/MTCS File #P058-1659-2018) Secondary water sources are described as including intermittent streams and creeks, springs, marshes, and swamps. Close proximity (300 metres) to secondary water sources indicates that people had access to readily available sources of potable water, at least on a seasonal basis, and in some cases seasonal access to routes of waterborne trade and communication should the study area have been used or occupied in the past. There are no identified secondary water sources within 300 metres of the study area. 3) Features Indicating Past Water Sources Features indicating past water resources are described as including glacial lake shorelines indicated by the presence of raised sand or gravel beach ridges, relic river or stream channels indicated by clear dip or swale in the topography, shorelines of drained lakes or marshes, and cobble beaches. Close proximity (300 metres) to features indicating past water sources indicates that people had access to readily available sources of potable water, at least on a seasonal basis, and in some cases seasonal access to routes of waterborne trade and communication should the study area have been used or occupied in the past. There are no identified features indicating past water sources within 300 metres of the study area. 4) Accessible or Inaccessible Shoreline This form of landscape feature would include high bluffs, swamp or marsh fields by the edge of a lake, sandbars stretching into marsh, etc. There are no shorelines within 300 metres of the study area. 5) Elevated Topography Features of elevated topography that indicate archaeological potential include eskers, drumlins, large knolls, and plateaux. There are no identified features of elevated topography within the study area. 6) Pockets of Well -drained Sandv Soil Pockets of sandy soil are considered to be especially important near areas of heavy soil or rocky ground. The soil throughout the study area is brown sandy topsoil overlying a golden brown sand subsoil, which is consistent with the wider area surrounding the property. Therefore, the presence of this soil has no impact on potential within the study area, as the wider area is not known for clay soils or exposed bedrock. The image below (Kuhlmann, Stacy 2017) shows the consistencies of soil types and how they compare to one another. The lower percentage of clay allows the soil to AMICK Consultants Limited Page 21 ORIGINAL 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe (AMICK File #18562/MTCS File #P058-1659-2018) break up from the action of ploughing alone when not compacted or bound by extensive root masses. 0 ": clay 100% clay O% silt 75% clay try -' 40% silt SO% clay andy Clay Silty Clay 60% silt 73% silt 25% clay Clay Loam Sandy Clay Loam Silty Clay Loam 8$% slh Sandy Loam Loam Silt Loam 100%silt SAND Loamy Sand S' 10094 sand 85% sand 70% Sand b0% sand 20% sand 0% sand (Kuhlmann, Stacy 2017) 7) Distinctive Land Formations These are landscape features that might have been special or spiritual places, such as waterfalls, rock outcrops, caverns, mounds, and promontories and their bases. There may be physical indicators of their use, such as burials, structures, offerings, rock paintings or carvings. There are no identified distinctive land formations within the study area. 8) Resource Areas Resource areas that indicate archaeological potential include food or medicinal plants (e.g., migratory routes, spawning areas, and prairie), scarce raw materials (e.g., quartz, copper, ochre or outcrops of chert) and resources of importance to early Post - contact industry (e.g., logging, prospecting, and mining). There are no identified resource areas within the study area. 9) Areas of Early Post -contact Settlement These include places of early military or pioneer settlement (e.g., pioneer homesteads, isolated cabins, and farmstead complexes), early wharf or dock complexes, pioneer churches and early cemeteries. There may be commemorative markers of their history, such as local, provincial, or federal monuments or heritage parks. The study area is not situated in close proximity to any historic structure identified on the historic atlas map. 10) Early Historical Transportation Routes This includes evidence of trails, passes, roads, railways, portage routes. AMICK Consultants Limited Page 22 ORIGINAL 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonfe, County of Simcoe (AMICK File #18562/MTCS File #P058-1659-2018) The study area is situated within 100 metres of two early settlement roads that appear on the Historic Atlas Maps of 1871 and 1881. These historic roads correspond to the roads presently known as Horseshoe Valley Road and 4 Line North. 11) Heritage Property Property listed on a municipal register or designated under the Ontario Heritage Act or is a federal, provincial or municipal historic landmark or site. There are no listed or designated heritage buildings or properties that form a part of the study area. There are no listed or designated heritage buildings or properties that are adjacent to the study area. 12) Documented Historical or Archaeological Sites This includes property that local histories or informants have identified with possible archaeological sites, historical events, activities, or occupations. These are properties which have not necessarily been formally recognized or for which there is additional evidence identifying possible archaeological resources associated with historic properties in addition to the rationale for formal recognition. There are no known heritage features, or known historic sites, or known archaeological sites within the study area in addition to those formally documented with the appropriate agencies or previously noted under a different criterion. CHARACTERISTICS INDICATING REMOVAL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL Section 1.3.2 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists specifies the property characteristics which indicate no archaeological potential or for which archaeological potential has been removed (MTC 2011: 18-19). These characteristics are listed below together with considerations derived from the conduct of this study. The introduction of Section 1.3.2 (MTC 2011: 18) notes that "Archaeological potential can be determined not to be present for either the entire property or a part(s) of it when the area under consideration has been subject to extensive and deep land alterations that have severely damaged the integrity of any archaeological resources. This is commonly referred to as `disturbed' or `disturbance', and may include:" 1) Quarrying There is no evidence to suggest that quarrying operations were ever carried out within the study area. 2) Major Landscaping Involving Grading Below Topsoil Unless there is evidence to suggest the presence of buried archaeological deposits, such deeply disturbed areas are considered to have lost their archaeological potential. Properties that do not have a long history of Post -contact occupation can have archaeological potential removed through extensive landscape alterations that AMICK Consultants Limited Page 23 ORIGINAL 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County ofSimcoe (AMICK File #18562/MTCS File #P058-1659-2018) penetrate below the topsoil layer. This is because most archaeological sites originate at grade with relatively shallow associated excavations into the soil. Pre -contact sites and early historic sites are vulnerable to extensive damage and complete removal due to landscape modification activities. In urban contexts where a lengthy history of occupation has occurred, properties may have deeply buried archaeological deposits covered over and sealed through redevelopment activities that do not include the deep excavation of the entire property for subsequent uses. Buildings are often erected directly over older foundations preserving archaeological deposits associated with the earlier occupation. There is no evidence to suggest that major landscaping operations involving grading below topsoil were ever carried out within the study area. Surfaces paved with interlocking brick, concrete, asphalt, gravel and other surfaces meant to support heavy loads or to be long wearing hard surfaces in high traffic areas, must be prepared by the excavation and removal of topsoil, grading, and the addition of aggregate material to ensure appropriate engineering values for the supporting matrix and also to ensure that the installations shed water to avoid flooding or moisture damage. All hard surfaced areas are prepared in this fashion and therefore have no or low archaeological potential. Disturbed areas are excluded from Stage 2 Property Assessment due to no or low archaeological potential and often because they are also not viable to assess using conventional methodology. 3) Building Footprints Typically, the construction of buildings involves the deep excavation of foundations, footings and cellars that often obliterate archaeological deposits situated close to the surface. There is a structural footprint within the study area. A modern building foundation was found within the western half of the study area, but it was determined to be too recent to hold any Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI). 4) Sewage and Infrastructure Development Installation of sewer lines and other below ground services associated with infrastructure development often involves deep excavation that can remove archaeological potential. There is no evidence to suggest that substantial below ground services of any kind have resulted in significant impacts to any significant portion of the study area. Major utility lines are conduits that provide services such as water, natural gas, hydro, communications, sewage, and others. These major installations should not be confused with minor below ground service installations not considered to represent significant disturbances removing archaeological potential, such as services leading to individual structures which tend to be comparatively very shallow and vary narrow corridors. Areas containing substantial and deeply buried services or clusters of AMICK Consultants Limited Page 24 ORIGINAL 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe (AMICK File #18562/MTCS File #P058-1659-2018) below ground utilities are considered areas of disturbance, and may be excluded from Stage 2 Property Assessment. "Activities such as agricultural cultivation, gardening, minor grading and landscaping do not necessarily affect archaeological potential." (MTC 2011: 18) "Archaeological potential is not removed where there is documented potential for deeply buried intact archaeological resources beneath land alterations, or where it cannot be clearly demonstrated through background research and property inspection that there has been complete and intensive disturbance of an area. Where complete disturbance cannot be demonstrated in Stage 1, it will be necessary to undertake Stage 2 assessment." (MTC 2011: 18) SUMMARY Table 4 below summarizes the evaluation criteria of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) together with the results of the Stage 1 Background Study for the proposed undertaking. Based on the criteria, the property is deemed to have archaeological potential on the basis the location of early historic settlement roads adjacent to the study area. AMICK Consultants Limited Page 25 ORIGINAL 2(118 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assess►nennt of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Sinncoe (AMICK File #18562/MTCS File #P058-1659-2018) TABLE 4 EVALUATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL FEATURE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL 1 Known archaeological sites within 300m PHYSICAL FEATURES 2 2a 2b 2c 2d 3 4 Is there water on or near the property? Primary water source within 300 m. (lakeshore, river, large creek, etc.) Secondary water source within 300 m. (stream, spring, marsh, swamp, etc.) Past water source within 300 m. (beach ridge, river bed, relic creek, etc.) Accessible or Inaccessible shoreline within 300 m. (high bluffs, marsh, swamp, sand bar, etc.) Elevated topography (knolls, drumlins, eskers, plateaus, etc.) Pockets of sandy soil in a clay or rocky area Distinctive land formations (mounds, caverns, 5 waterfalls, peninsulas, etc.) HISTORIC/PREHISTORIC USE FEATURES Associated with food or scarce resource harvest areas (traditional fishing locations, 6 agricultural/berry extraction areas, etc.) 7 Early Post -contact settlement area within 300 m. Historic Transportation route within 100 m. 8 (historic road, trail, portage, rail corridors, etc.) Contains property designated and/or listed under the Ontario Heritage Act (municipal heritage 9 committee, municipal register, etc.) APPLICATION -SPECIFIC INFORMATION Local knowledge (local heritage organizations, 10 Pre -contact, etc.) Recent disturbance not including agricultural cultivation (post-1960-confirmed extensive and intensive including industrial sites, aggregate 11 areas, etc.) YES NO N N N N N/A COMMENT If Yes, potential determined If Yes, what kind of water? If Yes, potential determined If Yes, potential determined If Yes, potential determined If Yes, potential determined If Yes, and Yes for any of 4- 9, potential determined If Yes and Yes for any of 3, 5-9, potential determined If Yes and Yes for any of 3- 4, 6-9, potential determined If Yes, and Yes for any of 3- 5, 7-9, potential determined. If Yes, and Yes for any of 3- 6, 8-9, potential determined If Yes, and Yes for any 3-7 or 9, potential determined If Yes and, Yes to any of 3- 8, potential determined If Yes, potential determined If Yes, no potential or low potential in affected part N (s) of the study area. If YES to any of 1, 2a-c, or 10 Archaeological Potential is confirmed If YES to 2 or more of 3-9, Archaeological Potential is confirmed If YES to 11 or No to 1-10 Low Archaeological Potential is confirmed for at least a portion of the study area. AMICK Consultants Limited Page 26 ORIGINAL 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe (AMICK File #18562/MTCS File #P058-1659-2018) 8.2 STAGE 2 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS Section 7.8.3 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeolo fists (MTC 2011: 138-139) outlines the requirements of the Analysis and Conclusions component of a Stage 2 Property Assessment. 1. Summarize all finding from the Stage 2 survey, or state that no archaeological sites were identified. 2. For each archaeological site, provide the following analysis and conclusions: a. A preliminary determination, to the degree possible, of the age and cultural affiliation of any archaeological sites identified. b. A comparison against the criteria in 2 Stage 2: Property Assessment to determine whether further assessment is required c. A preliminary determination regarding whether any archaeological sites identified in Stage 2 show evidence of a high level cultural heritage value or interest and will thus require Stage 4 mitigation. No archaeological sites or resources were found during the Stage 2 survey of the study area. 9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 9.1 STAGE 1 RECOMMENDATIONS Under Section 7.7.4 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTC 2011: 133) the recommendations to be made as a result of a Stage 1 Background Study are described. 1) Make recommendations regarding the potential for the property, as follows: a. if some or all of the property has archaeological potential, ident0) areas recommended for further assessment (Stage 2) and areas not recommended for further assessment. Any exemptions from further assessment must be consistent with the archaeological fieldwork standards and guidelines. b. if no part of the property has archaeological potential, recommend that the property does not require further archaeological assessment. 2) Recommend appropriate Stage 2 assessment strategies. 9.2 STAGE 2 RECOMMENDATIONS Under Section 7.8.4 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTC 2011: 139) the recommendations to be made as a result o f a Stage 2 Property Assessment are described. AMICK Consultants Limited Page 27 ORIGINAL 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe (AMICK File #18562/MTCS File #P058-1659-2018) 1) For each archaeological site, provide a statement of the following: a. Borden number or other identO/ing number b. Whether or not it is offurther cultural heritage value or interest c. Where it is offurther cultural heritage value or interest, appropriate Stage 3 assessment strategies 2) Make recommendations only regarding archaeological matters. Recommendations regarding built heritage or cultural heritage landscapes should not be included. 3) If the Stage 2 survey did not identify any archaeological sites requiring further assessment or mitigation of impacts, recommend that no further archaeological assessment of the property be required. As a result of the property Assessment of the study area physical evidence of human activity in the past was observed but is too recent to qualify as an archaeological resource and is of no Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI). Accordingly, no archaeological resources were documented. Consequently, the following recommendations are made: 1. No further archaeological assessment of the study area is warranted; 2. The Provincial interest in archaeological resources with respect to the proposed undertaking has been addressed; 3. The proposed undertaking is clear of any archaeological concern. AMICK Consultants Limited Page 28 ORIGINAL 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe (AMICK File #18562/MTCS File #P058-1659-2018) 10.0 ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION While not part of the archaeological record, this report must include the following standard advisory statements for the benefit of the proponent and the approval authority in the land use planning and development process: a. This report is submitted to the Minister of Tourism and Culture as a condition of licensing in accordance with Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18. The report is reviewed to ensure that it complies with the standards and guidelines issued by the Minister, and that the archaeological fieldwork and report recommendations ensure the conservation, protection and preservation of the cultural heritage of Ontario. When all matters relating to archaeological sites within the project area of a development proposal have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Tourism and Culture, a letter will be issued by the ministry stating that there are no further concerns with regard to alterations to archaeological sites by the proposed development. b. It is an offence under Sections 48 and 69 of the Ontario Heritage Act for any party other than a licensed archaeologist to make any alteration to a known archaeological site or to remove any artifact or other physical evidence of past human use or activity from the site, until such time as a licensed archaeologist has completed archaeological fieldwork on the site, submitted a report to the Minister stating that the site has no further cultural heritage value or interest, and the report has been filed in the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports referred to in Section 65.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act. c. Should previously undocumented archaeological resources be discovered, they may be a new archaeological site and therefore subject to Section 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act. The proponent or person discovering the archaeological resources must cease alteration of the site immediately and engage a licensed archaeologist to carry out archaeological fieldwork, in compliance with sec. 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act. d. The Cemeteries Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4 and the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c.33 (when proclaimed in force) require that any person discovering human remains must not fy the police or coroner and the Registrar of Cemeteries at the Ministry of Consumer Services. e. Archaeological sites recommended for further archaeological fieldwork or protection remain subject to Section 48 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act and may not be altered, or have artifacts removed from them, except by a person holding an archaeological licence. AMICK Consultants Limited Page 29 ORIGINAL 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe (AMICK File #18562/MTCS File #P058-1659-2018) 11.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES Belden, H. & Co. (1881). Simcoe Supplement in Illustrated Atlas of the Dominion of Canada. H. Belden & Co.: Toronto. Chapman, L.J. & D.F. Putnam. (1984). The Physiography of Southern Ontario (Third Edition). Ontario Geological Survey, Special Report #2. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto. Esri. "Topographic" [basemap]. Scale Not Given. "World Topographic Map". April 12, 2018. http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=30e5fe3149c34df1 ba922e6f5bbf808f. (April 12, 2018). Garbutt, Mary. (2010). About Simcoe County. Simcoe County Branch- Ontario Genealogical Society. Retrieved 12 May 2010, from URL: http://www.simcoebogs.com/About/ab_simcoe.html Goel, Tarun (2013). Road Construction: History and Procedure. Bright Hub Engineering. Retrieved 24 May 2015 from URL: http://www.briehthubeneineerine.com/structural- eneineeri ne/59665-road-construction-history-and-procedure/ Google Earth (Version 6.0.3.2197) [Software]. (2009). Available from http://www.google.com/earth/index.html. Google Maps. (2012). Available from: http://maps.google.ca/?utm_campaign =en&utm_source=en- ha-na-ca-bk-gm&utm_medium=ha&utm term =google%20maps. Hogg, John. (1871). Hogg's Map of the County of Simcoe [map]. John Hogg, Collingwood. Retrieved January 23, 2017, from the Ontario Historical County Maps Project in association with University of Toronto Map and Data Library URL: http://maps.librarv. utoronto.ca/hei s/countvmaos/s i mcoe/index.html. Kuhlmann, Stacy. (2017). Types of SoiL Diagram of Soil Types available from http://www.tes.com/lessons/AKChU3fbaKo9g/types-of-soil. Ontario Heritage Act, RSO 1990a, Government of Ontario. (Queen's Printer, Toronto). Ontario Heritage Amendment Act, SO 2005, Government of Ontario. (Queen's Printer, Toronto). Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation (OMCzCR). (1993). Archaeological Assessment Technical Guidelines, Stages 1-3 and Reporting Format. (Queen's Printer for Ontario 1993) Ontario Ministry of Culture (MCL). (2005). Conserving a Future for Our Past: Archaeology, Land Use Planning & Development in Ontario (An Educational Primer and Comprehensive Guide for Non -Specialists). (Heritage & Libraries Branch, Heritage Operations Unit: Toronto). Ontario Ministry of Culture and Communications (MCC) & Ministry of Environment (MOE). (1992). Guideline for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental ArsAc.rments. (Cultural Programs Branch. Archaeolcwv and Heritage Planning• Toronto). AMICK Consultants Limited Page 30 ORIGINAL 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe (AMICK File #18562/MTCS File #P058-1659-2018) Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture (MTC). (2011). Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologist. (Programs and Services Branch: Culture Programs Unit, Toronto). Ontario Planning Act, RSO 1990b, Government of Ontario. (Queen's Printer, Toronto). Provincial Policy Statement (2014). Government of Ontario. (Queen's Printer, Toronto). Township of Oro-Medonte. (2018). Executive Summary for Pre -Consultation. Township of Oro- Medonte., Oro-Medonte. Wikipedia.org (2010). Oro-Medonte. Retrieved December 17, 2010 from URL: htth://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oro-Medonte. Wright, J.V. (1972). Ontario Prehistory: an Eleven -thousand -year Archaeological Outline. Archaeological Survey of Canada. National Museum of Man, Ottawa. AMICK Consultants Limited Page 31 ORIGINAL 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe (AMICK File #18562/MTCS File #P058-1659-2018) 12.0 MAPS MAP 1 LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA (ESRI 2018) AMICK Consultants Limited 1 1 • Page 32 ORIGINAL 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe (AMICK File #18562/MTCS File #P058-1659-2018) \// 7/i/ �, .yet ,w'� it. 1' I r. NIP Map is Not to Scale MAP 2 FACSIMILE SEGMENT OF HOGG'S MAP OF THE COUNTY OF SIMCOE (HOGG 1871) AMICK Consultants Limited ORIGINAL 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe (AMICK File #18562/MTCS File #P058-1659-2018) �iili�ii► Study Area N's '•"'"'"'le"""'" "I] °:.* NJ710 Ilextoit, 6e0i (sYYan. i me • 'wow {f : Q. Map1. st is Not to Scale Q &got Lott 21.r.5 r Are MAP 3 FACSIMILE SEGMENT OF THE HISTORIC ATLAS MAP OF THE TOWNSHIP OF ORO (BELDEN, H. & CO. 1881) f • , • AMICK Consultants Limited Page 34 ORIGINAL 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-4ledonte, County gffSintcoe (AMICK File #18562/MTCS File #P058-1659-2018) 0 6 c0 .x MAP 4 APPENDIX B — SITE PLAN (TOWNSHIP OF ORO-MEDONTE 2018) AMICK Consultants Limited E 0 co Page 35 ORIGINAL 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe (AMICK File # 18562/MTCS File #P058-1659-2018) MAP 5 AERIAL PHOTO OF THE STUDY AREA (GOOGLE EARTH 2U11) AMICK Consultants Limited Page 36 ORIGINAL 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe (AMICK File #18562/MTCS File #P058-1659-2018) MAP 6 DETAILED PLAN OF THE STUDY AREA AMICK Consultants Litnited Page 37 ORIGINAL 2018 Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of Part of Lot 1, Concession 5 (Geographic Township of Oro), Township of Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe (AMICK File #18562/MTCS File #P058-1659-2018) 13.0 IMAGES IMAGE 1 BUILDING FOUNDATION IMAGE 2 BUILDING FOUNDATION IMAGE 3 TEST PIT CONDITIONS IMAGE 4 CREW AT WORK AMICK Consultants Limited Page 38