Appendix A-4 Forks of the Thames EIS DRAFT

ONE RIVER MASTER PLAN FORKS OF THE THAMES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY CITY OF LONDON THAMES RIVER

Report Prepared for: JACOBS AND THE CITY OF LONDON

Prepared by: MATRIX SOLUTIONS INC.

Version 0.3 March 2019 Guelph, Ontario

7B- 650 Woodlawn Road West Guelph, Ontario N1K 1B8 T 519.772.3777 F 519.648.3168 www.matrix-solutions.com DRAFT

ONE RIVER MASTER PLAN FORKS OF THE THAMES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY

Report prepared for Jacobs and The City of London, March 2019

reviewed by Karen Reis, B.E.S. (Hons) Arnie Fausto, M.Sc. Ecologist Senior Ecologist

contributor Martine Esraelian, B.Sc. Terrestrial Ecologist

DISCLAIMER

Information collected in the EIS may be used by the City of London to contribute to its programs as well as those of the Conservation Authorities, other member municipalities and the province. Matrix Solutions Inc. certifies that this report is accurate and complete and accords with the information available during the project. Information obtained during the project or provided by third parties is believed to be accurate but is not guaranteed. Matrix Solutions Inc. has exercised reasonable skill, care, and diligence in assessing the information obtained during the preparation of this report. This report was prepared for Jacobs and The City of London. The report may not be relied upon by any other person or entity without the written consent of Matrix Solutions Inc. and of Jacobs and The City of London. Any uses of this report by a third party, or any reliance on decisions made based on it, are the responsibility of that party. Matrix Solutions Inc. is not responsible for damages or injuries incurred by any third party, as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this report.

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx ii Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

VERSION CONTROL Version Date Issue Type Filename Description V0.1 29-Oct-2018 Draft 24504-528 Back to the River EIS 2018-10-29 draft V0.1.docx Issued to client for review V0.2 05-Dec-2018 Draft 24504-528 Back to the River EIS 2018-12-05 draft V0.2.docx Issued to client for review with revisions V0.3 29-Mar-2019 Draft 24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft Issued to client for review with revisions V0.3.docx TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviations Description BSC Bird Studies Canada CBC Christmas Bird Count COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada COSSARO Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario The Forks Confluence of the North and South Thames Rivers DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Study ELC Ecological Land Classification END Endangered ESA Environmentally Significant Areas ESA, 2007 Endangered Species Act, 2007 FBI Family Biotic Index MNRF Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry NAR Not at Risk NHIC Natural Heritage Information Centre NSRI Natural Resource Solutions Inc. OBA Ontario Butterfly Atlas OBBA Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas OMA Ontario Mammal Atlas OOA Ontario Odonata Atlas ORAA Ontario Reptile and Amphibian Atlas PPS Provincial Policy Statement Project Site The Forks of the Thames River River Thames River SAR Species at Risk SARA Species at Risk Act SARO Species at Risk Ontario SC Special Concern SCC Species of Conservation Concern SLSR Subject Land Status Report SRANK Subnational Rank Study Area Project Site and the 120 m setback The City City of London THR Threatened UTRCA Upper Thames River Conservation Authority WSC Water Survey of Canada

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx iii Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Matrix Solutions Inc. was retained by the City of London (the City) in March 2018 to complete an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) to support the Municipal Class Schedule B Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Fork of the Thames. The Schedule B Class EA is being conducted as part of Stage 2 of the One River Master Plan EA (Master Plan). The Schedule B EA was initiated by the City, after the completion of Stage 1 of the Master Plan, upon confirmation by City Council in January 2018 that Springbank Dam will not be re-instated. The preferred Forks of the Thames alternative has been defined as a suspended walkway and softscape terracing along the eastern shoreline of the Thames River. The design is intended to re-shape the existing parkland, drawing the community to the urban centre along the waterfront.

The EIS describes the significant natural heritage features and functions within the Study Area and identifies what potential impacts the preferred alternative may have on the significant features and functions. Based on the assessment, the EIS recommends strategies to avoid or mitigate the potential impacts which are incorporated into the project approval.

Matrix combined information gathered from the ecological field studies with relevant information from previous background studies to characterize the natural heritage setting and identify significant features within the Study Area. The results of the significance and sensitivity analysis indicated the presence of several natural heritage features and functions, including Significant Valleylands, Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH), fish and aquatic habitat, and Species at Risk (SAR) within the Study Area.

The potential effects that may be caused by the implementation of the preferred alternative (i.e., suspended walkway ribbon design, combined with softscape bank terracing) were evaluated against the identified natural heritage features. The results of the assessment indicated that the potentially negative impacts associated with the preferred alternative are low if mitigation measures and recommendations are followed. The softscape terracing and suspended walkway, along with construction access, staging, and vegetation clearing are expected to alter the existing vegetation communities in Ivey Park. The alteration of these communities is not anticipated to have long-term negative impacts, as it primarily affects non-native and invasive vegetation species which are currently present within the project area. The non-native and invasive species will be removed as part of the London Invasive Plant Management Strategy, and replaced with native trees and shrub plantings throughout the Park as part of the softscape design. The removal of the gabion baskets along the eastern edge of the river will improve the connection between the aquatic and terrestrial environment, as well as provide more stable slope conditions along the bank.

As the completed works are expected to increase the level of pedestrian activity within Ivey Park, this should not result in additional impacts as this park is already an area of high human presence. Strategic accessibility, monitoring, and signage are recommended during the detailed design phase to direct the

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx iv Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

public away from any sensitive areas within the Thames River. No SAR or Species of Conservation Concern are expected to be directly impacted by the design; however, it is important to direct access to the river away from sensitive areas to avoid any indirect impacts from the public. It is recommended that consultation and permitting/approvals discussion with the appropriate regulatory authorities be conducted before any construction work is commenced.

This document was reviewed by Matrix Solutions Senior Ecologist, Arnel Fausto. Their comments and recommendations have been incorporated into this report.

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx v Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... iv 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Report Purpose ...... 2 1.2 Project Study Area ...... 3 1.3 Environmental Impact Study Objectives ...... 5 2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ...... 5 2.1 Federal Legislation ...... 5 2.1.1 Fisheries Act ...... 6 2.1.2 Migratory Birds Convention Act ...... 7 2.2 Provincial Legislation ...... 7 2.2.1 Environmental Assessment Act ...... 7 2.2.2 Provincial Policy Statement ...... 8 2.2.3 Endangered Species Act ...... 8 2.2.4 Conservation Authorities Act ...... 8 2.2.5 Upper Thames Conservation Authority ...... 8 2.2.5.1 UTRCA Environmental Planning Policy Manual ...... 9 2.3 Municipal Legislation ...... 9 2.3.1 The London Plan (City of London Official Plan) ...... 9 2.3.2 City of London Environmental Management Guidelines ...... 10 2.3.3 Thames Valley Corridor Plan ...... 10 3 STUDY APPROACH ...... 11 3.1 Background Review...... 11 3.1.1 Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Records ...... 11 3.1.3 Relevant Background Reports ...... 13 3.2 Field Investigations ...... 14 3.2.1 Vegetation...... 15 3.2.1.1 Ecological Land Classification ...... 15 3.2.1.2 Botanical Inventory ...... 15 3.2.1.3 Invasive Species ...... 16 3.2.1.4 Tree Inventory ...... 16 3.2.2 Wildlife Communities ...... 16 3.2.2.1 Breeding Birds ...... 16 3.2.2.2 Incidental Wildlife ...... 17 3.2.3 Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 17 3.2.3.1 Fisheries Community Assessment ...... 17 3.2.3.2 Fish Habitat Assessment ...... 19 3.2.4 Hydraulics and Geomorphology ...... 19 3.3 Analysis of Significance and Sensitivity ...... 20

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx vi Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

3.3.1 Natural Area Designations ...... 20 3.3.2 Significant Wildlife Habitat Screening ...... 20 3.3.3 Species at Risk Screening ...... 21 4 DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENT ...... 22 4.1 Terrain Setting ...... 22 4.1.1 Hydrology and Hydraulics ...... 24 4.1.2 Geomorphology and Natural Hazards ...... 24 4.2 Natural Heritage Features ...... 25 4.2.2 Vegetation...... 28 4.2.2.1 Ecological Land Classification ...... 28 4.2.2.2 Botanical Inventory ...... 31 4.2.2.3 Invasive Species ...... 31 4.2.2.4 Tree Inventory ...... 33 4.2.3 Wildlife Communities ...... 35 4.2.3.1 Birds ...... 35 4.2.3.2 Herpetofauna ...... 35 4.2.3.3 Mammals ...... 36 4.2.3.4 Insects ...... 36 4.2.4 Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 36 4.2.4.1 Fish Community Assessment ...... 36 4.2.4.2 Fish Habitat Assessment ...... 39 4.2.4.3 Mussels ...... 41 4.2.4.4 Benthic Macroinvertebrate ...... 41 5 EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND FUNCTIONS ...... 42 5.1 Significant Valleylands and Corridors ...... 43 5.2 Significant Wildlife Habitat ...... 43 5.2.1 Seasonal Concentration Areas of Animals ...... 44 5.2.2 Specialized Habitats of Wildlife ...... 44 5.2.3 Habitat of Species of Conservation Concern ...... 44 5.3 Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 45 5.4 Linkages and Corridors ...... 45 5.5 Species at Risk ...... 45 6 DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ...... 49 6.1 Preferred Alternative ...... 49 6.2 Project Activities ...... 49 7 EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ...... 50 7.2 Mitigation Measures ...... 55 7.2.1 Timing Windows/Working In the Dry ...... 55 7.2.2 Best Construction Practices ...... 55 7.2.3 Prevention of Wildlife Mortality and Disturbance ...... 56

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx vii Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

7.2.4 Prevention of Terrestrial Disturbance ...... 56 7.2.5 Prevention of Fish Mortality ...... 57 7.2.6 Erosion and Sedimentation Control ...... 57 8 RESIDUAL IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION ...... 58 9 PERMITS AND AUTHORIZATIONS ...... 59 10 CONCLUSIONS ...... 60 11 REFERENCES ...... 61

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1.1 Study Area ...... 4 FIGURE 3.1 Locations of Survey Stations ...... 18 FIGURE 4.1 Hazards and Natural Resources from the City’s Official Plan Map 6 ...... 23 FIGURE 4.2 Natural Heritage Features from the City’s Official Plan Map 5 ...... 27 FIGURE 4.3 Ecological Land Classification Map ...... 30 FIGURE 4.4 Invasive Species Map ...... 32 FIGURE 4.5 Trees Inventory Map within the Project Site ...... 34 FIGURE 4.6 Fish Habitat Map ...... 40 FIGURE 5.1 SAR and SWH within the Study Area ...... 48

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 3.1 Databases Reviewed for the Study Area ...... 12 TABLE 3.2 Relevant Background Documents ...... 13 TABLE 3.3 Field Inventory, Dates, and Staff ...... 14 TABLE 4.1 Vegetation communities identified during the 2018 inventories...... 28 TABLE 4.2 Tree Inventory Summary ...... 33 TABLE 4.3 Fisheries Inventory Summary ...... 38 TABLE 4.4 Mussel Species Identified during the 2017 Field Observation...... 41 TABLE 4.5 Summary of the Benthic Results from UTRCA (UTRCA 2018) ...... 42 TABLE 5.1 Provincially and Locally Significant Natural Heritage Features ...... 42 TABLE 5.2 SWH based on the ELC Communities where the SCC were Observed and/or where Candidate Habitat Exists ...... 44 TABLE 7.1 Impacts, Mitigations and Net Effects of the Preferred Alternative ...... 52

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx viii Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

APPENDICES APPENDIX A Approved Terms of Reference APPENDIX B Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Letter APPENDIX C Curriculum Vitae of Authors APPENDIX D Summary of Ecological Data APPENDIX E Ecological Land Classification Data Sheets APPENDIX F Species of Conservation Concern Assessment APPENDIX G Tree Inventory Results APPENDIX H Breeding Bird Survey Results APPENDIX I Thames River Benthic Data APPENDIX J Significant Wildlife Habitat Assessment APPENDIX K Species at Risk Assessment

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx ix Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

1 INTRODUCTION The Thames River is one of the largest river systems in Southern Ontario. The river is composed of three main branches: South Thames, North Thames, and main Thames River, with the confluence occurring near the centre of the City of London (the City), known as “the Forks.” The Thames River was recognized as a Canadian Heritage River in 2001, whereupon it is widely acknowledged as a river of great natural, cultural, and recreational importance, and plays a significant role in the lives of people in the City (Dillon and D.R. Poulton & Associates Inc. 2011).

The Springbank Dam was constructed in the 1870s on the Thames River to provide more recreational opportunities upstream. The Dam provided consistent higher water levels, allowing for a range of uses including recreational canoeing and boating. The current Springbank Dam structure was constructed in 1929, and was used to backwater the river for approximately 7 km upstream, reaching the confluence of the North and South Thames Rivers. In 2000, the Springbank Dam was overtopped during a flood event, which prompted safety concerns. A Schedule “B” Class Environmental Assessment (EA) was initiated by the City to rehabilitate the Dam, following an engineering study (Acres 2003) which recommended that erosion protection works and sluice gate replacements would be required. The Dam rehabilitation EA was completed in 2003, and construction began in 2006. The Dam rehabilitation finished in 2008 with the installation of new steel gates; however, one of the four steel gates failed to function during commissioning. In 2015, the City reached a legal settlement with the rehabilitation consulting engineers and construction company, allowing the City to examine the future role for the Springbank Dam through this Master Plan

The Thames River has been free-flowing through the Springbank Dam since 2006. Although the Dam was typically operational between May and October for recreation, non-operation of the Dam during the past 10 years has resulted in a physical transformation of the immediate upstream areas of the river as a result of the unimpeded water levels encountered during the open water season. The free-flowing system has allowed more sediment transport and vegetation growth, which has created a new upstream aquatic environment and allowed for unobstructed movement of aquatic life.

In June 2016, the City Council adopted The London Plan (City of London 2016a), which identifies the City’s vision and direction for growth. In 2015, the London Community Foundation, in partnership with the City and Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA), held a “Back to the River” design competition. The purpose of this competition was to seek ideas on revitalizing a 5 km stretch of the Thames River radiating from the Forks. The competition jury members selected the Civitas/Stantec team’s “Ribbon of the Thames” as the winning design for the Forks. This design encouraged the public’s interaction with the river at the Forks, including overlooks and pedestrian pathways. In early 2016 City Council endorsed the vision of the “Ribbon of the Thames.”

In March 2017, the Master Plan was initiated by the City to meet Phases 1 and 2 of the Class EA process, and to integrate the outcomes of the Springbank Dam, Ribbon of the Thames Design, and other various

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 1 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

improvement projects along the Thames River and adjacent valley corridor. The goal of the Master Plan EA is to evaluate the projects as a whole and determine the feasibility of implementing specific projects in consideration of others. The Master Plan identifies the preferred strategy for the Thames that will serve to enhance the overall social, cultural, environmental, and economic health of the River. Objectives of the Master Plan are to:

• Develop the “One River Strategy” river management plan, which incorporates the future role of the Springbank Dam and vision for the Forks.

• Identify the preferred future role of the Springbank Dam.

• Coordinate with the Back to the River design team to incorporate the “Ribbon of the Thames” vision for the Forks - called “Forks of the Thames.”

To support the Master Plan, detailed environment field investigations and assessments were conducted throughout the Study Area, with a focus on characterizing the current conditions at Springbank Dam and the Forks. The purposes of the background environment field investigations were to document the existing ecological conditions, identify opportunities for ecological restoration, and to assess the proposed alternatives. These field investigations, along with an extensive public, First Nations, and stakeholder consultation program, aim to provide a firm foundation on which to base environmentally sound recommendations that reflect the current and future vision of the Thames River within the City.

1.1 Report Purpose The Master Plan was carried out in two Stages. Stage 1 of the Master Plan examined the future function of Springbank Dam and evaluated whether a free-flowing river or re-instatement of the Dam was preferred based on natural, social/cultural, and technical/economic criteria. Stage 1 concluded in January 2018 with the decision by council to decommission the Springbank Dam to allow the free-flowing river system to continue (Jacobs 2018). Now that natural water levels are to remain in the River, included in Stage 2 of the Master Plan is a Municipal Class Schedule B EA to select the preferred option for “Forks” component of the Back to the River initiative. The “Forks of the Thames” design includes four ribbon walkway alternatives, two terracing alternatives, and a do nothing option, described further in (Jacobs 2018). Consequently, the suspended walkway with vegetated terracing was selected as the preferred alternative based on natural, social/cultural, and technical/economic criteria (Jacobs 2018).

The City requires that an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) be completed for the preferred alternative if the proposed works are to be completed within a 5 year timeline and are within trigger distances of the City’s Official Plan Natural Heritage System. It is intended that the EIS will provide the background and detailed habitat assessment required for the preparation of applications for approvals of recommended works in the Master Plan under the Conservation Authorities Act (Government of Ontario 2018a),

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 2 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

Ontario Water Resources Act (Government of Ontario 2018b), Fisheries Act (Government of Canada 2016), Endangered Species Act (Government of Ontario 2008), and the Species at Risk Act (Government of Canada 2018), if it is required. Requirements for the EIS are outlined in the City of London Environmental Management Guidelines (Section 1.0; City of London 2013), and are to be consistent with the objectives of the City’s Official Plan Environmental Policies.

This Forks of the Thames EIS (hereinafter referred to as “EIS”), along with accompanying attachments, has been prepared to support the preliminary preferred alternative for Forks of the Thames Schedule B Class EA that is being carried out as part of the Master Plan. This EIS has been completed in accordance with the June 15, 2018 Terms of Reference approved by the City of London with participation from UTRCA and Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee (EEPAC; Appendix A).

1.2 Project Study Area The Forks of the Thames component of the London Community Foundation’s “Back to the River” design, centres around the confluence of the North and South Thames River branches, near the downtown area. Although there were many award-winning features within the Ribbon of the Thames Design, the Schedule B EA focuses on the eastern bank of the confluence in Ivey Park.

Ivey Park has a long history of land use disturbance, and was historically the site of the industrial facility, Penmans Limited. Penmans Limited was established in 1919 to perform finishing operations on certain textiles. This facility closed on March 31, 1968, and the building was sold to Shelby Knitwear Limited, which later closed in 1976. The building was then demolished in 1978 as part of the Thames Forks beautification project (London Public Library 2012). Since 1978, this area has been repurposed into manicured parkland with multi-use pathways for public access. Sections of the park’s native gardens and trees have been maintained, but there is also an abundance of non-native and invasive species that have since inhabited the area, more significantly along the riparian corridor. Additional details on the historical and current land use in the study area are provided in the One River Master Plan EA document (Jacobs 2018).

Elements of the Forks design include a suspended walkway that extends from the eastern bank, out toward the river before looping back in. No in-channel structures are required to support the walkway design. The walkway will be combined with landscaped terracing along the eastern bank, providing a more gradual, stable slope from the water’s edge, up toward the park pathways.

For the purposes of this EIS, the Project Site includes the areas south of Kensington Bridge, north of King Street Bridge, and east of Wharncliffe Road North. The Study Area includes the surrounding environment within 120 m of the project area. A 120 m setback was selected, as it is aligns with the City’s and the Province’s adjacent lands distance for environmental study for components of the Natural Heritage System.

A map showing the project Site and Study Area is provided in Figure 1.1.

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 3 Matrix Solutions Inc.

Easting(m)

478555 478955 479355 ProjecSiteAre t a Harris StudyAre a Park Highway Road W Dyke

DRAFTF FlowDire c tion Sewer Outfall Type

jk Santiation

!( Storm F

KensingtonBridge

4758822 4758822 Index Map Northing (m) Northing

er Riv Thames Wha rncl i f f e R oa d S ou t h

O xfordStre eWe t st ive Dr k an ve gb Dri rin id e Sp e rs Riv

Bole r Road

u o

d a o R 1:3,000 e m e tre s ff F li c 30 r0n 30 60 Refere ncContains e : inform ationlice nsedund ethe rOpe nGovernm eLice nt nc e–Ontario. a Image ryService Laye rCre © d2018 Microsoft its: Corporation ©2018DigitalGlobe ©CNES NADh1983UTM Zone 17N (2018) Distribution (2018) Airbus DS W

Jacobsand theLondCity of on O neRiver Natural Heritage Characterization

Project Site and Study Area

Date: Projec t: Submitter: Reviewer: O c tober,2018 24504 Reis K. Fausto A. DisclaimeThe r: inform ationcontaine dhe re inmay becom piledfrom nume rousthird party materials are subjecpethat to riod t icchange

478555 478955 479355 4758422 Figure withoutprior notification. While every hasbeeeffort nmade byMatrix Solutions ensureto Inc . theacc uracytheinformof ationpre sented at thetime publication, at of MatrixSolutions assumeInc . no s liability forany errors, om issions,orinacc uraciesinthethird party material.

I:\Jacobs\24504\Figure sAnd Tables\MPEA\2018\Report\Forks\Figure -1-Projec t_Site_ and _ Study_Are a.mxd - Tabloid_ L - 29-Oc t-18, 02:47 PM - ehollinge r - TID005 - r ehollinge - PM 02:47 t-18, 29-Oc - L Tabloid_ - a.mxd _ and Study_Are t_Site_ -1-Projec Tables\MPEA\2018\Report\Forks\Figure sAnd I:\Jacobs\24504\Figure 1.1 DRAFT

1.3 Environmental Impact Study Objectives The objectives of the Forks of the Thames EIS include:

• Defining the natural heritage features (Terrestrial, Aquatic, Semi-aquatic, and Species at Risk [SAR]) and functions of the Thames River within the Study Area. • Predicting impacts based on the preferred alternative identified in the Master Plan. • Providing mitigation measures during construction, operation, and post-construction. • Identifying residual impacts.

2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Regulatory framework provides guidance on the protection of natural heritage features and evaluation of significance. Features identified within the Study Area were evaluated against the relevant federal, provincial, and municipal planning policies applicable to the Study Area in London, Ontario.

2.1 Federal Legislation Species classified as Extirpated, Endangered, and Threatened in Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA; Government of Canada 2018) are protected under the provisions of that Act. This includes protection to the species and their critical habitat. Critical habitat is defined as those habitats necessary for the survival or recovery of a listed species, as identified in the recovery strategy or in an action plan for the species. While SARA applies to species on federal land, such as Canadian oceans and waterways, national parks, national wildlife areas, some migratory bird sanctuaries, and First Nations reserve lands, it also applies to SAR migratory birds protected under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (MBCA; Government of Canada 2017) and fish, anywhere they occur. Therefore, SARA would only apply to SAR migratory birds, fish, and mussels for this project.

The following are key prohibitions of the Act:

• General prohibitions (does not apply to special concern species except for provisions related to EAs, in which case, all Schedule 1 species apply)

 kill, harm, harass, capture, or take an individual of a species listed in Schedule 1 of SARA as Endangered, Threatened, or Extirpated (Section 32[1] of SARA)

 possess, collect, buy, sell, or trade an individual, or any part or derivative of a species listed in Schedule 1 of SARA as Endangered, Threatened, or Extirpated (Section 32[2] of SARA)

 damage or destroy the residence (e.g., nest or den) of one or more individuals of a species listed in Schedule 1 of SARA as Endangered or Threatened, or that an activity is listed as Extirpated, if a recovery strategy has recommended the reintroduction of the Extirpated species (Section 33 of SARA)

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 5 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

• Destruction of critical habitat of any listed Endangered species or of any listed Threatened species if the following apply:

 the critical habitat is on federal land, in the exclusive economic zone of Canada, or on the continental shelf of Canada

 the listed species is an aquatic species

 the listed species is a species of migratory birds protected by the MBCA, 1994 (Section 58[1] of SARA)

• General Habitat (necessary for the species survival and recovery) (S.80) by Emergency Order only:

 applies to all species, including aquatic and migratory birds on federal land or Exclusion Economic Zone (relates to the sea)

 migratory birds on non-federal lands or Exclusion Economic Zone (relates to the sea)

 all species, except aquatic and migratory birds, on non-federal lands or Exclusion Economic Zone (relates to the sea)

2.1.1 Fisheries Act The Fisheries Act sets out provisions to protect fish and fish habitat. In 2012, amendments were made to the Act with the aim to provide for the sustainability and ongoing productivity of commercial, recreational, and Aboriginal fisheries (Government of Canada 2016). Section 35.1 prohibits serious harm to commercial, recreational, and Aboriginal fisheries, as well as fish habitat supporting those fisheries. An additional provision is stated in Section 36, Fisheries Protection and Pollution Prevention, prohibiting the deposit of deleterious substances.

The Fisheries Act requires that projects avoid causing serious harm to fish unless authorized by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) or a designated representative. The determination of risk for serious harm to fish is typically done through a self-assessment process. The self-assessment lists a number of criteria which identify whether or not the project may have serious harm to fish and fish habitat (DFO 2018).

If the self-assessment indicates that the project cannot avoid serious harm to fish, then a formal request for review must be submitted to DFO. The request for review must include all finalized construction drawings including grading plan, erosion and sediment controls, construction details, dewatering plans, and replanting plans (DFO 2018).

If serious harm to fish cannot be avoided or mitigated then an Application for Authorization may be required pending the outcome of the request for review. It is recommended that an Application for Authorization only be pursued after a project review has been completed (DFO 2018).

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 6 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

2.1.2 Migratory Birds Convention Act The MBCA and associated Regulations have the goal of ensuring the conservation of migratory bird populations by regulating potentially harmful human activities (Government of Canada 2017). Section 5 of the MBCA includes protection of aquatic and other habitats used by migratory birds. The MBCA prohibits depositing (or allowing to be deposited) substances harmful to migratory birds, including in areas frequented by migratory birds or that has the potential to enter waters where they occur.

Environment and Climate Change Canada administers the MBCA through the Migratory Birds Regulations and Migratory Birds Sanctuary Regulations. Any tree removals would need to be completed outside of the breeding bird season (April 1 to August 25) to avoid disturbing active nests of migratory birds protected under the MBCA (Government of Canada 2017).

2.2 Provincial Legislation

2.2.1 Environmental Assessment Act The Environmental Assessment Act (Government of Ontario 2010) was created to provide for the protection, conservation, and wise management in Ontario of the environment.

The Act applies to:

• (a) enterprises or activities or proposals, plans or programs in respect of enterprises or activities by or on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Ontario or by a public body or public bodies or by a municipality or municipalities;

• (b) major commercial or business enterprises or activities or proposals, plans or programs in respect of major commercial or business enterprises or activities of a person or persons, other than a person referred to in clause (a), designated by the regulations;

• (c) an enterprise or activity or a proposal, plan or program in respect of an enterprise or activity of a person or persons, other than a person or persons referred to in clause (a), if an agreement is entered into under Section 3.0.1 in respect of the enterprise, activity, proposal, plan or program. R.S.O. 1990, c. E.18, s. 3; 2001, c. 9, Sched. G, s. 3 (3).

The Master Plan (Jacobs 2018) will identify the preferred strategy for the Thames River that will serve to enhance the overall social, cultural, environmental, and economic health of the River. To support the Master Plan, a detailed environment field investigation and assessment program was conducted and included the Forks of the Thames EIS.

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 7 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

2.2.2 Provincial Policy Statement The 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS; MAH 2014) is issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act. This updated document became effective April 30, 2014, and applies to planning decisions made on or after that date. The PPS addresses the need to protect natural heritage features to ensure Ontario’s long-term prosperity, environmental health, and social well-being. The following sections of the PPS include objectives which are relevant to this project:

• Section 1.5 outlines Public Spaces, Recreation, Parks, Trails, and Open Space policies. • Section 2.1 outlines the Natural Heritage policies.

2.2.3 Endangered Species Act The Endangered Species Act (ESA, 2007) provides for the conservation and protection of fauna and flora species within the Province of Ontario that are threatened with extinction (Government of Ontario 2008). Section 9 (1) of the ESA, 2007 prohibits the killing, harming, harassment, capture, taking, possession, transport, collection, buying, selling, leasing, trading, or offering to buy, sell, lease or trade species listed as Extirpated, Endangered, or Threatened on the Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List. Section 10 (1) prohibits damaging or destroying habitat of Endangered or Threatened species on the SARO List, and may apply to Extirpated species through special regulations. General habitat protection applies to all Endangered and Threatened species. Species-specific habitat protection is also given to those species with regulated habitat, as identified in Ontario Regulation 242/08. Species designated as Special Concern are not given species or habitat protection under the Act.

The ESA, 2007 does include provisions for permits under Section 17 (2) (c) that would otherwise contravene the Act. Permits related to habitat destruction would require an Overall Benefit Permit.

2.2.4 Conservation Authorities Act Section 28(1) of the Conservation Authorities Act (Government of Ontario 2018a) empowers Conservation Authorities with the ability to make regulations governing development that can have an impact to watercourses and water bodies, including wetlands. The Study Area is located within the UTRCA watershed, and is regulated under Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses (Ontario Regulation 157/06).

2.2.5 Upper Thames Conservation Authority Under O.Reg. 157/06, UTRCA may grant permission to straighten, change, divert, or interfere with the existing channel of a river, creek, stream, or watercourse, or to change or interfere with a wetland under conditions outlined in the regulation (Government of Ontario 2013). Consultation with the UTRCA will be required to discuss mitigation measures along the Thames River.

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 8 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

2.2.5.1 UTRCA Environmental Planning Policy Manual The UTRCA Environmental Planning Policy Manual was approved on June 28, 2006 (UTRCA 2006).The purpose of the Policy Manual is to provide local Upper Thames watershed policies which will guide development and site alteration while protecting, preserving, and enhancing the natural environment (UTRCA 2006).

The document identifies natural hazards (floodplains and slopes) and natural heritage resources (wetlands, woodlands, valleylands, wildlife habitat, Threatened and Endangered species, aquatic/fish habitat, and life science area) and illustrates the UTRCA protection and preservation policies for these features. The goal of this planning document is to protect natural heritage features from negative impacts, and to maintain, restore, and enhance the bio-diversity, ecological function, and connectivity of natural heritage features within the watershed (UTRCA 2006).

2.2.5.2 Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Under O.Reg 413/12: Integrated Accessibility Standards, accessibility provides for the development, implementation and enforcement of accessibility standards to achieve accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities with respect to goods, services, facilities, accommodation, employment, buildings, structures and premises on or before January 1, 2025 under (Government of Ontario 2012).

2.3 Municipal Legislation

2.3.1 The London Plan (City of London Official Plan) The London Plan (City of London 2016a) is the City’s new Official Plan, adopted by City Council on June 23, 2016, and was approved by Minister on December 28, 2016 (City of London 2016a). The plan establishes a policy framework to guide the city’s growth and development. The objectives and policies of this Plan have been drafted by Council to assist in making decisions for the physical development of the Municipality while having regard for relevant social, economic, and environmental matters.

The City has mapped the natural heritage system and identified areas as Green Space or Environmental Review Place Types. Natural heritage areas that are within the Green Space Place Type represent significant natural features and ecological functions. Natural heritage features and areas and other areas included in the Green Space Place Type include:

• fish habitat • habitat of endangered species and threatened species • provincially significant wetlands and wetlands • significant woodlands and woodlands • significant valleylands • significant wildlife habitat

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 9 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

• areas of natural and scientific interest • water resource systems • environmentally significant areas • upland corridors • potential naturalization areas • adjacent lands

Natural heritage features and areas included in the Environmental Review Place Type include:

• unevaluated wetlands • unevaluated vegetation patches • other vegetation patches larger than 0.5 ha • valleylands • potential environmentally significant areas

The environmental policies section of The London Plan (City of London 2016a) further describes the natural heritage features, as well as the permitted and unpermitted development and alternation within these features.

2.3.2 City of London Environmental Management Guidelines In 2007, the City completed and approved a set of six Environmental Management Guidelines. (City of London 2013). These guidelines provide a consistent template which has clear expectations and ensures that relevant issues are not overlooked and that unnecessary items are excluded (City of London 2013).

The City’s Guidelines for the Preparation and Review of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) (City of London 2003) was utilized most extensively during the planning process for this project to determine the scope of the EIS (City of London 2017). The project was subject to EIS requirements as it is located within a Significant River Corridor (among other components discussed in Section 5). The EIS guidelines were followed, including the pre-consultation and collaboration with members from UTRCA and EEPAC. Review of the EIS Issues Summary Checklist was completed to scope the EIS and identify ecological data gaps within the Study Area, The EIS final Terms of Reference was approved by the City on June 15, 2018 (Appendix A).

2.3.3 Thames Valley Corridor Plan The Thames Valley Corridor Plan (Dillon 2011) recommends measures to protect and enhance the natural features within the Thames River valley in support of The London Plan (City of London 2016a). A key ecological goal of the Thames Valley Corridor Plan is to preserve, enhance, and create ecological corridors and linkages between natural features in order to establish a continuous corridor along the Thames River and enhance linkages to tributary watersheds (Dillon 2011).

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 10 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

3 STUDY APPROACH The purpose of the Forks of the Thames EIS is to describe and evaluate the significant natural heritage features and functions within the Study Area, determine what potential impacts the preferred alternative may have on the significant features are functions, and recommend strategies to avoid or mitigate the potential impacts which are incorporated into the project approval.

The EIS approach follows the City’s guideline for preparation and review. Pre-consultation with the UTRCA and EEPAC included discussion on what components of the EIS will include and what is not required. A detailed background review of previous studies was completed to determine if sufficient information was available from other sources. Consultation with the City’s ecologist was ongoing to maintain a clear understanding of the study approach. A site visit with the City ecologist was completed to observe the existing conditions within the Study Area. A summary of the preferred alternative is provided in Section 5, with additional details provided in the Master Plan (Jacobs 2018). The assessment of impacts is detailed in Section 7, identifying both direct and indirect impacts and recommendations for protection, mitigation, and monitoring.

The Thames River and valley corridor is well-characterized, and has been subject to numerous studies by the City, UTRCA, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), and DFO. Many of background reports, particularly around the West London Dyke rehabilitation projects, provided context on the ecological setting and potential presences of significant features and species within the Study Area. Obtaining comprehensive environmental baseline data to predict impacts resulting from the Springbank Dam Decommissioning requires an understanding of habitat utilization by a number of aquatic and terrestrial species during various seasons and life stages. In some cases, the habitat utilization will vary spatially and seasonally with the availability of spawning/breeding sites, hibernacula, refugia, juvenile rearing, and nursery sites. Any environmental data gaps identified during the consultation with the Technical Committee were addressed through additional field inventories and analysis. Efforts were made within the constrained timeline to evaluate and confirm year-round conditions within the Study Area.

3.1 Background Review The following information sources were reviewed for records related to natural heritage features that have the potential or are known to occur within the Study Area.

3.1.1 Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Records The following information sources from the MNRF were reviewed for records related to natural heritage features within the 1 km2 map squares that overlap the project Site and Study Area:

• MNRF Aylmer District - a project screening request was sent to the Aylmer District MNRF. The project screening request was required to determine the likelihood of SAR and/or their habitat

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 11 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

to occur within the Study Area or be impacted by the change in land use. A response was received from MNRF on August 26, 2016, and indicated the potential SAR on the subject lands based on MNRF’s screening /review of aerial photography and the available habitat onsite (Appendix B).

• The Natural Heritage Areas Make-a-Map (NHA MaM) - is a web application that provides information on provincial parks, conservation reserves, and natural heritage features (i.e., Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest [ANSIs], wetlands, woodlands, natural heritage systems related to provincial policy plan areas, such as the Niagara Escarpment, Oak Ridges Moraine, and Greenbelt Plans). The NHA MaM also provides Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) data, which is organized into 1 km2 map squares, and includes information on plant communities, wildlife concentration areas, natural areas, provincially tracked species, Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) and SAR. The map squares that overlap the Study Area and that were reviewed include: 17MH7958, 17MH7858 (NHIC 2018a).

• Land Information Ontario (LIO) - data is maintained by the MNRF and provides key provincial geospatial data for Ontario. Shapefiles obtained from the LIO open datasets were used to show the natural heritage features within the Study Area. Key datasets that were reviewed for the Study Area include policy plan areas, municipal land use designations, ANSIs, provincial parks and conservation areas, wetlands, woodlands, and watercourses (MNRF 2018a).

3.1.2 Other Publically Available Databases All of the data sources, except for the Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario (Dobbyn 1994), are organized into 10 × 10 km2 map squares, and include records from online users (or citizen scientists) who submit their observations to be included in the database. The data is reviewed by the database owner prior to making it available to the public. The information from each of the data sources (e.g., atlases) were reviewed for the map square that overlaps the Study Area (i.e., 17MH75; see Table 3.1), specifically for records related to SCC and SAR that could occur within the Study Area. An assessment of presence/absence and habitat suitability for SAR identified in the Study Area will be discussed further in Section 5.9.

TABLE 3.1 Databases Reviewed for the Study Area Atlas Source Description Atlas of the Dobbyn J.S. 1994, The Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario shows the Mammals of Federation of Ontario geographic distribution of mammals for three time Ontario Naturalists periods: pre-1900, 1900 to 1969, and 1970 to 1993. A review of the 1970 to 1993 period was completed. Ontario Reptile and Ontario Nature 2015 The ORAA provides known ranges of reptiles and Amphibian Atlas amphibian species in Ontario based on historic and current (ORAA) species occurrences. Ontario Breeding Cadman et al. 2007 The OBBA provides a list of bird species that have been Bird Atlas (OBBA) observed during surveys completed between 1981 and 1985 and 2001 and 2005. Species that were documented

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 12 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

Atlas Source Description between 2001 and 2005 were considered as part of this EIS. Ontario Butterfly Toronto Entomologist The OBA collects observations of butterflies within Atlas (OBA) Association 2018 Ontario. Sightings were reviewed from 2016 onward. The CBC was reviewed to determine birds that might Annual Christmas National Audubon possibly use the Study Area for part of their life cycle or for Bird Count (CBC) Society 2017 migration. Important Bird Important Bird Areas of The IBA was reviewed to determine if there are any IBAs Areas (IBA) Canada 2018 within the Study Area

The following additional resources were also reviewed:

• Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) Wildlife Species Assessment (COSEWIC 2017) • Distribution of Fish Species at Risk Maps (DFO 2017) • UTRCA, DFO, Royal Ontario Museum, and MNRF sampling records (UTRCA 2015a)

3.1.3 Relevant Background Reports Background review material for the Study Area has been obtained from available published reports. The majority of background information was provided by the City and UTRCA. Although numerous reports are available, the focus of the background review was put on studies that were completed within the last 5 years (2013 and onward), as well as studies that encompass the majority of the Study Area. A list of background reports reviewed as part of this EIS is provided in Table 3.2, below.

TABLE 3.2 Relevant Background Documents

Report Title Author Year

Site-specific Studies West London Dykes Subject Land Status Report UTRCA 2015b West London Dyke Master Repair Plan (2 reports) Stantec 2016, 2013 “West London Dyke Environmental Impact Study” (Draft) Stantec 2016 London RT Project - Subject Lands Status Report WSP Canada Inc. 2017 Regional Studies Aquatic Species at Risk in the Thames River Watershed, Cudmore et al. 2004 Ontario Freshwater Mussel Communities of the Thames River Morris and Edwards 2007 Ontario: 2004-2005 Thames Valley Corridor Plan - City of London Dillon and D.R. Poulton 2011 & Associates Inc. The Forks: 2012 Watershed Report Card UTRCA 2012 Subject Lands Status Report Hydro Lands Natural Resource 2013a Solutions Inc. (NRSI) Subject Lands Status Report Harris Park NRSI 2013b The Thames River, Ontario, Canadian Heritage Rivers System UTRCA 2013

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 13 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

Report Title Author Year

Ten Year Monitoring Report 2000-2012 Middlesex Natural Heritage Systems Study UTRCA 2014a Botanical Inventory of the Thames River Dykes UTRCA 2014b of London, Ontario Conservation Master Plan for the Coves ESA North-South 2014 Environmental Inc. Central Thames Subwatershed Background Study PARISH 2014 Upper Thames River Source Protection Area Assessment Thames-Sydenham & 2015 Report Region Source Protection Committee Riverview Dyke: Subject Land Status Report UTRCA 2015c City of London Water Quality Monitoring. Thames Matrix Solutions Inc. 2017 River - 2016 Final Report Blackfriars Bridge Environmental Assessment Study Dillon 2016 London Earth Dykes Feasibility Study of Design Alternatives AECOM 2016 “The City of London Dyke System” UTRCA 2017a “Thames South Branch Dykes Subject Lands Status Report” UTRCA 2017b (Draft)

3.2 Field Investigations Field inventories were completed within the Study Area by Matrix staff during the spring and summer of 2017 and 2018. These field inventories were completed to address data gaps from the background review. The field investigations followed provincial and federal protocols which met or exceeded the City’s Data Collection Standards for Ecological Inventory. The names and field inventories completed by each staff is provided in Table 3.3. Detailed descriptions of each field lead’s qualifications are presented in Appendix C.

TABLE 3.3 Field Inventory, Dates, and Staff Field Inventory Date Name Vegetation (ELC, Botanical Inventory, Invasive June 1, 2018 Karen Reis Species) June 26, 2018 Martine Esraelian Natasha August 15, 2018 Cyples Breeding Bird June 1, 2018 Karen Reis June 12, 2018 Martine Esraelian Fish and Fish Habitat* June 7, 2017 Erica Wilkinson September 6 and 7, 2017 Arnel Fausto Incidental Observations June 7, 2017 Karen Reis September 6 and 7, 2017 Martine Esraelian June 1, 2018 Erica Wilkinson June 12, 2018 June 26, 2018 August 15, 2018 August 31, 2018 Note: * Mussel Identification was completed by Brydon MacVeigh

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 14 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

The following sections detail the methodologies used to assess the terrestrial, aquatic, and semi-aquatic flora and fauna during the field inventories.

3.2.1 Vegetation

3.2.1.1 Ecological Land Classification Vegetation communities were generally characterized following the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) System for Southern Ontario (Lee et al. 1998). The second approximation of ELC (Lee 2008) was also used, but only when there was no code available for a specific community type in the first approximation.

Prior to undertaking field surveys, vegetation communities were mapped through aerial photograph interpretation, with polygons delineated using ArcGIS at a scale of 1:5,000. Although the ELC protocol indicates a minimum size of 0.5 ha for mapping polygons, given the linear nature of the project, all visible changes in communities were mapped. Where codes were not available in either the first or second approximations, a new code was created. For example, the code SHTM1-2 (Manitoba Maple Mineral Treed Shoreline) was created to show a dominant Manitoba Maple canopy.

The field inventories included verifying and refining the boundaries mapped during the desktop exercise, with communities characterized to the ecosite and vegetation type levels. Additional data was collected on disturbances and wildlife species presence within each of the polygons. The vegetation communities were also assessed to determine if candidate or Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) is present (this includes rare vegetation community types). Dates of the field inventories are provided in Table 3.3.

3.2.1.2 Botanical Inventory A botanical inventory was completed during the field inventories for each of the vegetation communities. The field investigations were completed during spring and summer on June 1, June 26, and August 15, 2018. A list of species was compiled to determine the presence of SCC, SAR, and invasive species. Habitats of SCC, SAR, and invasive species identified during the field inventories were mapped for the ELC community in which they encompassed.

Plants were identified to family, genus, species, sub-species, and hybrid level according to the Newmaster (1998) Ontario Plant List, cross-referenced with the Database of Vascular Plants of Canada (Canadaensys 2018) for scientifically accepted nomenclature. As defined in Section 2.1.1 (SARA) and Section 2.2.2 (ESA, 2007), SAR for vegetation only applies to provincially designated species listed as Extirpated, Endangered, and Threatened and protected under the ESA, 2007; the SARA does not apply to vegetation on non-federal land, except in rare situations where special provisions or executive orders are made, none of which have been identified for the project. SCC is defined in this EIS for the following provincial and federal conservation status and designations:

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 15 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

• Provincial - Special Concern listed on the SARO List under the ESA, 2007 and MNRF provincial S-ranks (S1-S3).

• Federal - Special Concern, Extirpated, Endangered, or Threatened by COSEWIC and/or listed on Schedule 1 of SARA.

3.2.1.3 Invasive Species A general assessment of invasive species was completed within the Study area, with a focus on key species identified within the London Invasive Plant Management Strategy (City of London 2016b) such as Common Reed (Phragmites australis australis), Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica),Glossy buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula), Japanese Knotweed (Fallopia japonica), Dog Strangling Vine (Vincetoxicum rossicum), and Giant Hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum).

Invasive species were recorded as part of the ELC and botanical inventories, and their relative abundance identified (i.e., rare, occasional, abundant, and dominant) for each vegetation community. Invasive species mapping was completed for key species only, and for those that were identified as abundant or dominant within an ELC vegetation community. In such cases, the general area mapped included the ELC community in which they were found. Dates of the field inventories are provided in Table 3.3.

3.2.1.4 Tree Inventory Trees located within the Study Area with diameters greater than or equal to 40 cm at breast height (dbh) were documented and located using a handheld Garmin GPS Unit, which had an accuracy of ±5 m. Dates of the field inventories are provided in Table 3.3.

3.2.2 Wildlife Communities

3.2.2.1 Breeding Birds Breeding bird surveys were conducted following the protocol outlined in the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas Guide for Participants (2001). The protocol states that two rounds of surveys should be completed between May 24 and July 10, between 05:00 and 10:00, and under reasonable weather conditions. Surveys should not be completed if there is heavy rain, heavy fog, or if winds are greater than 3 on the Beaufort scale (i.e., >19 km/hr). A total of three stations were surveyed to reflect the different habitats within the area (Figure 3.1). These stations were spaced approximately 300 m apart to reduce any overlap in observations between stations. Observations were made using direct (visual observation) and indirect (songs and alarm call) methods to identify the level of breeding evidence. Observations of breeding evidence for each species were recorded based on the definitions provided by the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas Guide of Participants (2001). Dates of the field inventories are provided in Table 3.3.

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 16 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

3.2.2.2 Incidental Wildlife All incidental wildlife observations were recorded throughout field surveys. Observations included visual and auditory identification of species, as well as evidence of presence (i.e., herbivory, scat, tracks, and trails). Particular attention was paid to presence of SAR and rare wildlife. Dates of the field inventories are provided in Table 3.3.

3.2.3 Fish and Fish Habitat

3.2.3.1 Fisheries Community Assessment Matrix staff obtained a Scientific Collectors Permit as well as a SARA permit before any fisheries work was completed within the Thames River. The Scientific Collectors Permit was obtained from the Aylmer District MNRF on April 18, 2018. The license includes set terms and conditions to collect fish for scientific purposes. The SARA Permit was obtained from the DFO on August 10, 2017. The permit allows for the capture and handling of SAR identified within the permit, as well as habitat disruption from sampling. All fish species are to be returned to the water after sampling assessments are completed.

Sampling included active methods, which involved the use of seine nets to actively capture fish in shallow riffle and flats areas, as well as umbrella nets to actively capture fish that are using specific areas of cover. The targeted fish community are small bodied resident fish species consisting of members of the minnow and perch families found mainly in moving waters, as well as members of the sunfish family that are oriented to cover. The stations selected for sampling consisted of relatively shallow, wadeable riffle zones, with minimal areas of shoreline cover available.

The seine net used for the project consisted of a 30 foot bag seine with ¼ inch mesh to sample wadeable riffles and flats. Each haul was approximately 40 m in duration, and approximately 10 to 15 seine hauls were completed at each site. Sampling was completed in 2017 at three locations which included one location within the South Branch of the Thames River and two within the Study Area at the Forks of the Thames River (Figure 3.1). Dates of the field inventories are provided in Table 3.3.

After fish were captured, fish were transferred in Rubbermaid bins and processed. All fish with well-defined identification makings or morphometric characteristics were photographed and enumerated, and released unharmed back to the river as much as possible. For fish that require further examination for positive identification, photographs were taken and a small number of voucher specimens were retained in preservative solution for further analysis.

Under the SARA Permit, special handling and sorting methods were conducted for any SAR species found and included the following:

• sorting SAR from non-SAR species in order to process SAR species first and return them to the River • holding fish in buckets which included an aerator to maintain dissolved oxygen levels • covering buckets to reduce stress and limit temperature increase from sun exposure

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 17 Matrix Solutions Inc.

Easting(m)

478555 478955 479355 ProjecSiteAre t a StudyAre a Highway Road W DRAFTF FlowDire c tion Field Survey Locations

Bre e d ingBird Observation Station

FishSampling Loc ation F

4758822 4758822 Index Map Northing (m) Northing

er Riv Thames Wha rncl i f f e R oa d S ou t h

O xfordStre eWe t st ive Dr k an ve gb Dri rin id e Sp e rs Riv

Bole r Road

u o

Jacobsand theLondCity of on ForkstheThameof EIS EA- s

Field Survey Locations

I:\Jacobs\24504\Figure sAnd Tables\MPEA\2018\Report\Forks\Figure -3.1-Field_ Survey_Loc ations.mxd - Tabloid_ L - 29-Oc t-18, 04:11 PM - ehollinge r - TID005 - r ehollinge - PM 04:11 t-18, 29-Oc - L Tabloid_ - ations.mxd Survey_Loc -3.1-Field_ Tables\MPEA\2018\Report\Forks\Figure sAnd I:\Jacobs\24504\Figure 3.1 DRAFT

3.2.3.2 Fish Habitat Assessment A qualitative assessment of the habitat potential based on a modified Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (OSAP; Stanfield 2013) was conducted on the Thames River within the Study Area. The objective of this assessment was to characterize the local aquatic habitat and assign a qualitative habitat potential ranking. Characteristics of high quality aquatic habitat include natural sinuosity with a well-defined riffle/pool sequence, variability in water depth and bed substrate, naturally occurring woody debris, undercut banks, and natural riparian vegetation overhanging the banks that provides food for various aquatic organisms. The greater the quantity of preferred habitat features present, the higher potential aquatic habitat ranking. The River was inventoried throughout the reach for a variety of geomorphic features (i.e., riffles, pools, and runs). The modified qualitative OSAP approach included documentation and assessment of the following watercourse conditions:

• general watercourse characteristics (i.e., stream pattern and gradient) • channel characteristics (i.e., wetted width and depth, bankfull width and depth, and depth of riffles/pools/run) • substrate and bank materials • other pertinent habitat features (i.e., spawning, nursery, and refuge areas, barriers to fish movement, and macrophyte growth)

After the completion of the aquatic habitat assessment, field data was summarized to determine the overall habitat potential.

3.2.4 Hydraulics and Geomorphology A hydraulic and geomorphic assessment of the Master Plan Study Area was completed in 2017 and 2018 by Matrix, which included the EIS Study Area around the Forks. Previous hydraulic and geomorphic assessments have been completed within the Thames River in the Study Area, including the West London Dyke Master Repair Plan (Stantec 2013, 2016) and the Central Thames Subwatershed Study (PARISH 2014). Information on the hydraulic conditions near the Forks was also provided by UTRCA during project meetings.

Detailed hydraulic and geomorphic characterization for the Thames River in the Master Plan Study Area is provided in “River Characterization Report” (Matrix 2018). Field assessments and hydraulic modelling have been completed to evaluate sediment movement, bedform evolution, and channel hydraulics under a range of flow conditions to understand the current aquatic habitat condition and how it may adjust over time with changes in the flow regime.

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 19 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

3.3 Analysis of Significance and Sensitivity The ecological features identified within the Study Area are evaluated to determine the significance of each feature. Significance is based on regional, provincial, and federal designations, which are described below.

3.3.1 Natural Area Designations Natural area designations are those areas that are recognized as significant on official plans or in other policy planning documents. This includes: ANSIs (provincially, regionally, or other), significant wetlands (provincially, regionally, or locally), significant woodlands, and Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs). ANSIs and ESAs are evaluated by the province or municipality, while of these designations, only wetlands and woodlands can be assessed for significance by non-government organizations.

3.3.2 Significant Wildlife Habitat Screening The MNRF provides specific guidance on identifying and assessing wildlife habitat in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedules for Ecoregion 7E (MNRF 2015), Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR 2010), and Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (SWHTG; MNR 2000). The MNRF recognizes five main categories of wildlife habitat, each with several wildlife habitat types, and criteria to evaluate significance. A description of each of the wildlife habitat categories is provided below.

• Seasonal Concentration Areas of Animals - defined as "areas where animals occur in relatively high densities for the species at specific periods in their life cycles and/or in particular seasons" and areas that are "localized and relatively small in relation to the area of habitat used at other times of the year" (OMNR 2010).

• Rare Vegetation Communities - defined as "areas that contain a provincially rare vegetation community and areas that contain a vegetation community that is rare within the planning area" (OMNR 2010).

• Specialized Habitat for Wildlife - defined as "areas that support wildlife species that have highly specific habitat requirements, areas with high species and community diversity, and areas that provide habitat that greatly enhances species' survival" (OMNR 2010).

• Habitat for SCC - defined as "habitats of species that are designated at the national level as Endangered or Threatened by COSEWIC, which are not protected in regulation under Ontario's ESA, 2007; habitats of species listed as special concern under the ESA, 2007 on the SARO List (formerly referred to as "Vulnerable" in the SWHTG); and habitats of species that are rare or substantially declining, or have a high percentage of their global population in Ontario" (OMNR 2010). The SWHTG (MNR 2000) defines SCC (i.e., Rare Species) at six levels: globally, nationally, provincially, regionally, locally (within a Site District).

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 20 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

 Globally Rare Species - These species are assessed by NatureServe and assigned a global conservation status rank (G-rank) of G1 to G3.

 Nationally Rare Species - These species are designated by the COSEWIC as Endangered or Threatened, and not protected in regulation under the ESA or SARA.

 Provincially Rare Species - These species are designated by MNRF and assessed under two categories: species listed as Special Concern on the SARO List; and species that are assigned a provincial (i.e., sub-national) conservation status rank of S1 to S3, and are not on the SARO List. There are species that can be found in both categories.

 Regionally or Locally Rare Species - These species are not assigned a formal designation; however, have been recognized as declining within a planning jurisdiction by government and/or non-government authorities.

• Animal Movement Corridors - defined as “elongated, naturally vegetated parts of the landscape used by animals to move from one habitat to another” (MNR 2000).

3.3.3 Species at Risk Screening The background review identified potential SAR that could occur within the project. All SAR identified were screened to determine the likelihood of occurrence and whether suitable habitat is present.

As discussed in Section 2.1.1 (SARA) and Section 2.2.2 (ESA, 2007), SAR is defined in this report to include the following provincial and federal designations:

• Endangered Species Act (Provincial) - All provincially designated species that are listed as Extirpated, Endangered or Threatened on the SARO List and protected under the ESA, 2007; species listed as Special Concern are considered a SCC as they are not protected under the ESA, 2007.

• SARA (Federal) - Only applies to fish and migratory birds protected under the MBCA, anywhere they occur (e.g., includes non-federal land), that are designated as Extirpated, Endangered, and/or Threatened under SARA. All other species are only protected if special provisions or executive orders are made.

To determine if suitable habitat for SAR is available within the Study Area, the preferred habitat requirements for reported SAR were compared to vegetation communities, aquatic habitats, and niche habitats identified during field inventories and the background review. The results of the SAR habitat screening are provided in Section 5.9.

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 21 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

4 DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENT The information contained in this section describes the natural environment features and functions within the project Site and Study Area based on a review of background documents and field inventories performed by Matrix staff. A list of flora and fauna (including SAR) identified during the field studies and background review has been compiled and is provided in Appendix D. The details from this section will identify candidate and/or confirmed significant natural heritage features which will be evaluated in Section 5.

4.1 Terrain Setting The Study Area is located in the Thames River, one of the largest river systems in southern Ontario. The Thames River was recognized as Canadian Heritage River in 2001. It is acknowledged to be a river of great natural, cultural, and recreational importance, and plays a significant role in the lives of people in the City (Dillon and D.R. Poulton & Associates Inc. 2011).

The Thames River is set in southern Ontario in the Carolinian Zone (Eco Region 7E) which extends from Windsor to Toronto. The Carolinian Zone is the most human-populated zone in Canada, and hosts more species than any other region in Canada (Carolinian Canada Coalition 2016). However, development over the past few hundred years had reduced the biodiversity of the eco region by over 90%. Ongoing conservation measures and expanding urban populations and development makes this zone uniquely situated for governance and regulatory measures.

The Study Area is located within the Caradoc Sand Plains and London Annex physiographic regions of southern Ontario. This region generally consists of gravel alluvium which is spread over the Thames River, and includes fox fine sandy loam, berrien sandy loam, and burford gravely loam. (Chapman and Putnam 1984).

Hazards and natural resources from the City’s Official Plan Map 6 are provided in Figure 4.1. As shown, the project area is largely contained with the 2006 floodlines and maximum hazards lines surrounding the Thames River. Significant groundwater recharge areas are located within the Study Area boundaries on the North side. The Study Area is also contained within a highly vulnerable aquifer area.

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 22 Matrix Solutions Inc.

Easting(m)

478555 478955 479355 ProjectAreaSite StudyArea W ater BodWater y Highway W Road

DRAFTF FlowDirection City of London Official Plan Map 6 - Hazards and Natural Resources SignificantGround Recharge water Area ConservationAuthority Regulated Area PotentialSpecial Policy Area HighlyVulnerable Aquifer

MaximumHazard Line

Flood line(2006) F

4758822 4758822 Index Map Northing (m) Northing

er Riv Thames Wha r ncl i f f e R oa d S ou t h

O xfordStreet West ive Dr k an ve gb Dri rin id e Sp ers Riv

Boler Road

u o

d a o R 1:3,000 e m etres ff li c F 30 0n 30 60 r ReferencContains e: information licensed undOp the er enGovernm Licenc ent –Ontario. e a ImageryService Layer ©Credits: 2018 Microsoft Corporation ©2018DigitalGlob ©CNES e NADh1983UTM Zone 17N (2018) Distribution (2018) AirbusDS W

Jacoband s Citytheof Lond on ForksofThamesthe EIS EA-

Hazards and Natural Resources

Date: Project: Subm itter: Reviewer: O c2018 tob er, 24504 Reis K. Fausto A. Disclaimer:Theinformation contained herein may becom p iledfrom numeroussubject period toare materialsthirdpartythat ic change

478555 478955 479355 4758422 Figure withoutpriornotification. While hasefforteverybeen made by MatrixSolutions accensurethe to Inc uracy . ofinformationthe presented at the timetheof publication, at MatrixSolutions assumesInc no . liability om forany errors, issions, inaccor uraciesmaterial.thirdinpartythe

I:\Jacob s\24504\FiguresAnd Tables\MPEA\2018\Report\Forks\Figure-3-Hazards_and _Natural_Resources.mxd - Tabloid_L - 29-Oc t-18, 03:28 PM - ehollinger - TID005 - ehollinger - PM 03:28 t-18, 29-Oc - Tabloid_L - _Natural_Resources.mxd Tables\MPEA\2018\Report\Forks\Figure-3-Hazards_and s\24504\FiguresAnd I:\Jacob 4.1 DRAFT

4.1.1 Hydrology and Hydraulics The Study Area is located at the confluence of the North and South Thames River branches. The North Thames River originates near Mitchell and flows through St. Mary’s before reaching Fanshawe Dam approximately 13 km upstream of the Forks. The North Thames River is regulated by Fanshawe Dam with one unregulated tributary, Medway Creek, contributing natural flows downstream of the reservoir. The South Thames branch begins near Tavistock, and flows through Woodstock and Ingersoll before joining the North Branch. Flows on the South Thames branch are also regulated by the Pittock Dam, which was constructed in 1967 to augment summer low flows. A summary of seasonal, peak and low flows for each Thames branch is provided in the River Characterization Report (Matrix 2018).

Together, the upstream watersheds convey a drainage area approximately 3,000 km2, within a landscape dominated by fine-grained soils and agricultural land use. As a result, the river flow tends to show a rapid hydrologic response (quick peak and decline of the hydrograph) to rainfall events. While there are isolated areas that sustain groundwater discharge, the rivers are generally seen as an overland runoff dominated system that does not generate large amounts of baseflow during periods of dry weather.

The majority of land use within the immediate vicinity of the Study Area is urban, and local surface runoff is largely conveyed to the river through existing urban drainage infrastructure (i.e., sewer systems and outfalls). Within the Study Area, there are seven outfalls, including two sanitary. With the exception of one outfall along the western bank of the South Thames River, all outfalls are located along the eastern banks.

Additional hydrologic and hydraulic characterization of the Thames River in the Study Area is provided in the River Characterization Report (Matrix 2018).

4.1.2 Geomorphology and Natural Hazards Through the City, the river valleys are surrounded by urban land use, and confined by several flood protection dykes and natural and constructed slopes (PARISH 2014). The West London Dyke, in particular, is present along the entire right bank extent of the Study Area (looking downstream; Photograph 1). The Dyke was initially built in the 1880s to protect the adjacent lands from flooding. In 2007, a 300 m portion of the West London Dyke was replaced after structural deficiencies were noted (Stantec 2013). Along the eastern edge of the confluence, the bank is engineered with vertically stacked gabion baskets (Photograph 1).

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 24 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

Photograph 1 Gabion Baskets along the Eastern Banks of the Forks confluence, looking upstream toward the South Thames Branch.

In the North Thames branch, sediment transport in the river has been disrupted by the position of Fanshawe Dam, creating a “sediment starved” system. When a system is deprived of upstream sediment, it has a higher potential for erosion as it attempts to gain sediment back in by eroding the bed and banks of the channel (PARISH 2014). This is evident through the portion of the North Thames River upstream of the Study Area adjacent to the West London Dyke, where scour has occurred due to the bank constrictions.

On the South Thames branch, approximately 1,500 m upstream of the confluence the Charles Hunt Weir, built in 1856, also hinders upstream sediment movement. Again, the river attempts to increase sediment within the reach through scour and bank erosion. The channel setting through this reach is within a fairly confined valley with steep slopes and engineered banks, many of which were recorded during the 2018 erosion inventory (Matrix 2018). Bridge scour is noted around many of the structures upstream of the Study Area.

At the confluence, a deep channel scour hole has formed, which is typical of converging rivers, and the 2018 bathymetry survey revealed depths over 6 m at some points along the bed. Downstream of the confluence, the channel develops into a wide, uniform section. A large mid-channel bar has formed on the north side of the channel. The material deposited here is similar in composition to the eroded material from the upstream scour hole.

4.2 Natural Heritage Features The Thames River and valley corridor is known as a unique area for biological diversity that attracts various wildlife species. The combination of water, riparian areas, and vegetation communities provides an area where species occupy a multitude of habitats. Natural heritage features are illustrated within

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 25 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

the City’s Official Plan Map 5 and are provided in Figure 4.2. As shown, the Study Area includes a number of important natural heritage features such as Significant Valleylands.

An assessment of natural heritage features was based on a background review with field studies completed by Matrix staff in 2017 and 2018 to address data gaps. The following sections identify the results of the studies completed by Matrix, as well as the observations and data collected from previous studies and databases.

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 26 Matrix Solutions Inc.

Easting(m)

478555 478955 479355 ProjectAreaSite StudyArea W ater BodWater y Highway W DRAFTRoad F FlowDirection

City of London Official Plan Map 5 - Natural Heritage Features

SignificantValley Land F

4758822 4758822 Index Map Northing (m) Northing

er Riv Thames Wha r ncl i f f e R oa d S ou t h

O xfordStreet West ive Dr k an ve gb Dri rin id e Sp ers Riv

Boler Road

u o

d a o R 1:3,000 m etres fe F if l c 30 r0n 30 60 ReferencContains e: information licensed undOp the er enGovernm Licenc ent –Ontario. e a ImageryService Layer ©Credits: 2018 Microsoft Corporation ©2018DigitalGlob ©CNES e NADh1983UTM Zone 17N (2018) Distribution (2018) AirbusDS W

Jacoband s Citytheof Lond on ForksofThamesthe EIS EA-

Natural Heritage Features

Date: Project: Subm itter: Reviewer: Decemb2018 er, 24504 Reis K. Fausto A. Disclaimer:Theinformation contained herein may becom p iledfrom numeroussubject period toare materialsthirdpartythat ic change

I:\Jacob s\24504\FiguresAnd Tables\MPEA\2018\Report\Forks\Figure-4.2-Natural_Heritage_Features.mxd - Tabloid_L - 04-Dec-18, 10:37 AM - ehollinger - TID005 - ehollinger - AM 10:37 04-Dec-18, - Tabloid_L - Tables\MPEA\2018\Report\Forks\Figure-4.2-Natural_Heritage_Features.mxd s\24504\FiguresAnd I:\Jacob 4.2 DRAFT

4.2.2 Vegetation

4.2.2.1 Ecological Land Classification Matrix completed vegetation field inventories in the spring and summer of 2018 (Table 4.1). A summary of vegetation communities (and dominant vegetation) identified within the Study Area is provided in Table 4.1 and Figure 4.3. The species are listed by common name with their scientific name and conservation status, provided in Appendix D. The majority of vegetation communities were associated with the Thames River, including the riparian zone and beach bars. The Project Site includes a mix of parkland and treed shoreline and meadow communities. The treed shoreline is primarily dominated by Eastern Cottonwood and/or Manitoba Maple, with the meadow communities dominated by a mix of grasses and herbs. Exotic and invasive species were often the dominant vegetation within the ELC polygons identified. Field notes from the vegetation inventories are provided in Appendix E.

TABLE 4.1 Vegetation communities identified during the 2018 inventories.

ELC Code Name Description CGL_4 Recreational Labatt Park CGL_2 Parkland Ivey Park CGL Greenlands Green Space (excluding parklands) CVC Commercial and This community is located on the east side of the Thames River within Institutional the Study Area only. CVS_1 Education HMCS Prevost CVI_1 Transportation Roadways CVR_3 Single Family This community type is located on the north side of the Thames River Residential within the Study Area only. BB Beach Bar Small barren beach bar located on the north side of the Thames River. BBS1-2 Willow Gravel Shrub Canopy: *Willow spp, *Manitoba Maple, Silver Maple, Red-osier Beach Bar Dogwood, Common Buckthorn, American Elm, Ash spp. Understory: N/A Ground Cover: *Aster spp., *Bladder Campion, *Hedge Bindweed, Common Burdock, Riverbank Grape, Virginia Creeper, Purple Jewelweed (Himalayan Balsam) CUM1 Mineral Cultural This community is located within the Study Area only, and was Meadow characterized through aerial photograph interpretation as a cultural meadow. MEMM4 Fresh-Moist Mixed Canopy: N/A Meadow Understory: N/A Ground Cover: *Grasses, *Smooth Brome, *Hedge Bindweed, *Aster spp., *Woodland Chervil, *Canada Goldenrod, *Common Yarrow, *Tansy, *Goldenrod spp., *Wild Carrot, * Common Milkweed, *Garlic Mustard, *Butter-and-eggs, *Japanese Knotweed, New England Aster, Orchard Grass, Cow Vetch, White Campion, Dames Rocket, European Swallowwort (Dog strangling vine). THCM Treed Coniferous Eastern White Cedar hedgerow Hedgerow

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 28 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

ELC Code Name Description SHTM1-1 Cottonwood Canopy: *Eastern Cottonwood, *Manitoba Maple, *Hackberry, Ash spp., Mineral Treed Willow spp., Black Walnut, Black Locust, Norway Maple, Northern Shoreline Catalpa Understory: *Hackberry, *Manitoba Maple, * Common Buckthorn, *White Mulberry, *Honeysuckle spp., Norway Maple, Silver Maple, Black Walnut, White Poplar, Staghorn Sumac, , Willow spp. Ground Cover: *Grasses, *Kentucky Blue-grass, *Aster spp., *Wild Carrot, * Alsike Clover,* Hedge Bindweed, *Butter-and-eggs, *Garlic Mustard, Dames Rocket Herb Robert, Common Burdock, Birds-foot Trefoil, Yellow Rocket, Red Raspberry, Common Dandelion, Ox-eye Daisy, Tansy, Alfalfa, Catnip, European Swallowwort SHTM1-2 Manitoba Maple Canopy: *Manitoba Maple, *Norway Maple, Hackberry, Black Walnut, Mineral Treed Black Locust, Eastern Cottonwood, Northern Catalpa, Crack Willow. Shoreline Understory: *Manitoba Maple, *Hackberry, Common Buckthorn, White Mulberry, Honeysuckle spp. Ground Cover: *Woodland Chervil, *Garlic Mustard, Common Burdock, Wild Grape, Poison Ivy, Red Raspberry, Wood Sorrel WOD Deciduous This community is located within the Study Area only, and was Woodland characterized through aerial photograph interpretation as a deciduous woodland. WODM5 Fresh-Moist Canopy: *Eastern Cottonwood, *Manitoba Maple, Crack Willow, Deciduous Hackberry, Black Walnut Woodland Understory: *Manitoba Maple, *White Mulberry, Silver Maple, Norway Maple, American Elm, Hackberry, Common Buckthorn, Staghorn Sumac Ground Cover: *Grasses, *Garlic Mustard, *Virginia Creeper, *Aster spp., Wild Carrot, Dames Rocket, Black Medick, Bittersweet Nightshade, Herb Robert, Smooth Brome, Common Burdock Notes: * dominant species Italics indicates non-native and/or invasive species

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 29 Matrix Solutions Inc.

Easting(m)

478555 478955 479355 ProjectAreaSite StudyArea ELCPatch Numb er Highway W DRAFTRoad MinorContour (5m) Ind exContour (20m)

F FlowDirection ELC Type WillowGravelShrub Beach (BBS1-2)Bar Beach(BB)Bar

ManitobMaple a Mineral TreedShoreline (SHTM1-2)

CottonwoodMineral TreedShoreline (SHTM1-1) F Fresh-MoistDeciduous Wood land(WO DM5) Fresh-MoistMixed Meadow (MEMM4) DeciduousWood land(WO D) MineralCulturalMeadow (CUM1) TreedConiferous Hedgerow (THCM) Greenland(CGL) s Parkland(CGL_2) Recreational(CGL_4) Transportation(CVI-1) Education(CVS_1) Com m ercialand Ind(CVC) ustrial Residentialand Com m ercial(CV) SingleFamily Residential (CVR_3)

4758822 4758822 Index Map Northing (m) Northing

er Riv Thames Wha r ncl i f f e R oa d S ou t h

O xfordStreet West ive Dr k an ve gb Dri rin id e Sp ers Riv

Boler Road

u o

d a o R 1:3,000 e m etres ff F li c 30 r0n 30 60 ReferencContains e: information licensed undOp the er enGovernm Licenc ent –Ontario. e a ImageryService Layer ©Credits: 2018 Microsoft Corporation ©2018DigitalGlob ©CNES e NADh1983UTM Zone 17N (2018) Distribution (2018) AirbusDS W

Jacoband s Citytheof Lond on ForksofThamesthe EIS EA-

Ecological Land Classification

I:\Jacob s\24504\FiguresAnd Tables\MPEA\2018\Report\Forks\Figure-4-Ecological_Land _Classification.mxd - Tabloid_L - 29-Oc t-18, 03:38 PM - ehollinger - TID005 - ehollinger - PM 03:38 t-18, 29-Oc - Tabloid_L - _Classification.mxd Tables\MPEA\2018\Report\Forks\Figure-4-Ecological_Land s\24504\FiguresAnd I:\Jacob 4.3 DRAFT

4.2.2.2 Botanical Inventory Based on the background studies and database inquiries, there were a total of 541 flora species which had the potential to occur within the Study Area, including 12 SAR and 19 SCC (Appendix D). The 12 potential SAR are discussed further within Section 5.9. The potential SCC were not observed during the botanical inventories.

Of these 541 species identified within the background studies, a total of 118 were confirmed by Matrix staff during the 2018 botanical inventories (Appendix D). The results of the botanical inventory indicated that the flora species observed are considered to be common and secure within Ontario (S4-S5). No SAR or SCC were identified during the 2018 inventory.

4.2.2.3 Invasive Species As noted in Section 3.2.1.3, invasive species mapping focussed on key species such as Common Reed (Phragmites australis australis), Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), Glossy buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula), Japanese Knotweed (Fallopia japonica), Dog Strangling Vine (Vincetoxicum rossicum), and Giant Hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum). Overall, several invasive and non-native species were noted throughout the inventories. The key species noted included Garlic Mustard, Common Buckthorn, European Swallowwort, and Periwinkle. The ELC communities where these species were identified are provided in Figure 4.4.

The invasive species mapping will aid the London Invasive Plant Management Strategy (City of London 2016b) by creating a benchmark for future management activities as well as the ability to monitor the spread and reduction of priority invasive plants within the Study Area.

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 31 Matrix Solutions Inc.

Easting(m)

478555 478955 479355 ProjectAreaSite StudyArea Highway Road W DRAFTF FlowDirection Invasive Species Type Periwinkle GarlicGarlic&Mustar Mustard

GarlicMustardJapanese& Knotweed

GarlicComMustard, m onBuckthorn Japanese& Knotweed F

4758822 4758822 Index Map N orthing (m) N orthing

er Riv Thames Wha r ncl i f f e R oa d S ou t h

OxfordStreet West ive Dr k an ve gb Dri rin id e Sp ers Riv

Boler Road

u o

d a o R 1:3,000 e m etres ff F li c 30 r0n 30 60 ReferencContains e: information licensed undOpen the er Governm Licenc ent –Ontario. e a ImageryService Layer ©Credits: 2018 Microsoft Corporation ©2018DigitalGlob ©CN e ES N ADh1983UTM Zone 17N (2018) Distribution (2018) AirbusDS W

Jacoband s Citytheof Lond on ForksofThamesthe EIS EA-

Invasive Species

Date: Project: Subm itter: Reviewer: Octob2018 er, 24504 Reis K. Fausto A. Disclaimer:Theinformation contained herein may becom p iledfrom numeroussubject period toare materialsthirdpartythat ic change

I:\Jacob s\24504\FiguresAnd Tables\MPEA\2018\Report\Forks\Figure-4.4-Invasive_Species.mxd - Tabloid_L - 29-Oct-18, 04:07 PM - ehollinger - TID005 - ehollinger - PM 04:07 29-Oct-18, - Tabloid_L - Tables\MPEA\2018\Report\Forks\Figure-4.4-Invasive_Species.mxd s\24504\FiguresAnd I:\Jacob 4.4 DRAFT

4.2.2.4 Tree Inventory The results of the tree inventory within the Study Area indicated the presence of 35 trees which were which were greater than or equal to 40 cm (Appendix G). Figure 4.5 shows the eight different tree species were recorded with dbh ranging from 52 to 196 cm. Eastern Cottonwood (Populus deltoides) was the most common species identified within the Study Area (Table 4.2).

The majority of species observed are considered common and secure within Ontario (S4-S5). No SAR or SCC were observed during the inventory. Several non-native tree species including Crack Willow, and Norway Spruce were observed within the Study Area.

TABLE 4.2 Tree Inventory Summary

Common Name Scientific Name S-Rank Number of Species Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis S4 2 Crack Willow Salix euxina SNA 4 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides S5 22 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia SNA 1 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo S5 2 Norway Spruce Picea abies SNA 2 Red Oak Quercus rubra S4 1 Tulip Tree Liriodendron tulipifera S4 1

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 33 Matrix Solutions Inc.

Easting(m)

478728 478778 478828 478878 478928 478978 479028 479078 479128 ProjecSiteAre t a StudyAre a Highway Road 4758985 4758985 W mn DRAFTTre e 4758935 4758935 4758885 4758885 4758835 4758835 Northing (m) Northing

4758785 4758785 Index Map

er Riv Thames Wha rncl i f f e R oa d S ou t h

O xfordStre eWe t st ive Dr k an ve gb Dri rin id e Sp e rs Riv 4758735 4758735

Bole r Road

1:1,500 m e tre s

10 0 10 20 Refere ncContains e : inform ationlice nsedund ethe rOpe nGovernm eLice nt nc e–Ontario. NAD1983UTM Zone 17N Image ryService Laye Cre r ©2018Microsoft d its: Corporation ©2018DigitalGlobe ©CNES 4758685 4758685

Jacobsand theLondCity of on ForkstheThameof EIS EA- s

Tree Inventory

478728 478778 478828 478878 478928 478978 479028 479078 479128 4758635 Figure withoutprior notification. While every hasbeeeffort nmade byMatrix Solutions ensureto Inc . theacc uracytheinformof ationpre sented at thetime publication, at of MatrixSolutions assumeInc . no s liability anyfor errors, om issions,orinacc uraciesinthethird party material.

I:\Jacobs\24504\Figure sAnd Tables\MPEA\2018\Report\Forks\Figure -4.5-Tre e _ Inventory.mxd - Tabloid_ L - 04-Dec -18, 04:38 PM - ehollinge r - TID005 - r ehollinge - PM 04:38 -18, 04-Dec - L Tabloid_ - e _ Inventory.mxd -4.5-Tre Tables\MPEA\2018\Report\Forks\Figure sAnd I:\Jacobs\24504\Figure 4.5 DRAFT

4.2.3 Wildlife Communities

4.2.3.1 Birds Based on the background studies and database inquiries, there were a total of 119 avian species which had the potential to occur within the Study Area, including 20 SAR and 5 SCC (Appendix D). Of these 119 species identified within the background studies, a total of 24 species were confirmed by Matrix staff during field surveys within the Study Area. The species identified included 2 of the 20 potential SAR, and did not indicate any SCC. The breeding bird summary and breeding evidence is presented in Appendix H.

The confirmed SAR included the Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagica), which is classified as Threatened under the ESA, 2007 and SARA, and Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica), which is classified as Threatened under the ESA, 2007 and SARA. The confirmed and potential SAR are discussed further within Section 5.9.

The five potential SCC were assessed to identify if their preferred habitats were present within the Study Area (Appendix F). The results of the assessment indicated that three species were considered to be unlikely within the Study Area, and two were considered to potentially occur within the Study Area. The SCC considered to be potentially occurring within the Study Area include: Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and Eastern Wood-pewee (Contopus virens). These species are considered as having candidate SWH and are discussed further in Section 5.6.

4.2.3.2 Herpetofauna Based on the background studies and database inquiries, there were a total of 22 herpetofauna species which had the potential to occur within the Study Area, including 7 SAR and 3 SCC (Appendix D). Matrix staff recorded incidental wildlife observations during each site visit and confirmed the presence of 2 herpetofauna species. An additional herpetofauna species was confirmed within the Study Area by UTRCA staff. (Appendix D). The species confirmed within the Study Area included one 1 SAR and 2 SCC.

The confirmed SAR included Eastern Spiny Softshell (Apalone spinifera) (within 1 km of the Study area), which is classified as Endangered under the ESA, 2007. The confirmed and potential SAR are discussed further within Section 5.9.

The two confirmed SCC included Common Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentine serpentine) and Northern Map Turtle (Graptemys geographica). These species are considered to have confirmed SWH in the Study Area, and are discussed further in Section 5.6. The remaining potential SCC were assessed to identify if their preferred habitats were present within the Study Area (Appendix F). The results of the assessment indicated that the remaining SCC (Eastern Ribbonsnake; Thamnophis sauritus sauritus) were considered to potentially occur within the Study Area (Section 5.6).

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 35 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

Reptile surveys were completed by Stantec in 2016 along the northern bank of the Thames River within the Study Area in support of the West London Dyke EIS (Stantec 2016). The results of the surveys indicated that no snakes were observed during the reptile emergent surveys.

4.2.3.3 Mammals Based on the background studies and database inquiries, there were a total of 13 mammal species which had the potential to occur within the Study Area, including 4 SAR, which are discussed further in Section 5.9. No SCC were identified as potentially occurring within the Study Area.

Matrix staff recorded incidental wildlife observations during each site visit and confirmed the presence of two mammal species (Appendix D). No SAR or SCC were identified within the Study Area.

4.2.3.4 Insects Based on the background studies and database inquiries, there were a total of 53 insect species which had the potential to occur within the Study Area, which included 1 SAR and 6 SCC. The SAR is discussed further in Section 5.9

The six SCC were assessed to identify if their preferred habitats were present within the Study Area (Appendix F). The results of the assessment indicated that of the six species identified, four were considered to be unlikely to occur within the Study Area, and two were considered to be potentially occurring within the Study Area, including: Hackberry Emperor (Asterocampa celtis) and Tawny Emperor (Asterocampa clyton). These species are considered to have candidate SWH and are discussed in Section 5.6.

4.2.4 Fish and Fish Habitat

4.2.4.1 Fish Community Assessment Background fisheries data has largely been compiled by fish sampling records from DFO, Royal Ontario Museum, MNRF, and UTRCA between 1967 and 2015. The results of these records indicate the potential for 69 fish species within the Study Area which included 3 SAR and 5 SCC (Appendix D).

Of these 69 species identified within the background studies, a total of 16 species were confirmed by Matrix staff within the Study Area during the 2017 fisheries assessment (Table 4.3; Appendix D). The species identified included 1 of the 3 potential SAR, as well as 2 of the 5 potential SCC.

The confirmed SAR species included Silver Shiner (Notropis photogenis), which is classified as Threatened under the ESA, 2007 and Special Concern under SARA. This species and its protected habitat are discussed in Section 5.9.

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 36 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

The two confirmed SCC included Greater Redhorse (Moxostoma valenciennesi) and Spotfin Shiner (Cyprinella spiloptera). An additional species (Striped Shiner) was captured during a 2015 study within the Study Area. These species are considered to have confirmed SWH within the Study Area, and are discussed further in Section 5.6. The remaining two potential SCC were assessed to identify if their preferred habitats were present within the Study Area (Appendix F). The results of the assessment indicated that the Spotted Sucker (Minytrema melanops) was considered to have candidate SWH within the Study Area.

The fish sampling events which took place at the Forks and the South branch of the Thames River yielded a total of 1,109 and 252 fish, respectively (Table 4.3). A total of 16 fish species were identified, with the majority consisting of Cyprinidae species, which included Emerald Shiner (Notropis atherinoides), Roseyface Shiner (Notropis rubellus), and Common Shiner (Luxilus cornutus). The prevalence of minnows in the samples was likely due to the use of the seining method, which tends to sample schooling fish that prefer areas of open water, as opposed to those that are cover oriented.

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 37 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT TABLE 4.3 Fisheries Inventory Summary Conservation Species Totals Species Totals Priority (June 2017) (September 2017) Common Name Scientific Name South South S-Rank ESA The Forks Thames The Forks Thames Branch Branch Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus S4 2 0 0 0 Blackside Darter Percina maculata S4 0 0 0 0 Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus S5 24 7 16 0 Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum S4 0 0 1 0 Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus S5 489 25 289 6 Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides S5 14 3 4 20 Greater Redhorse Moxostoma valenciennesi S3 0 0 0 0 Greenside Darter Etheostoma blennioides S4 1 0 1 1 Hognose Sucker Hypentelium nigricans S4 0 0 2 0 Least Darter Etheostoma microperca S4 2 0 0 0 Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris S4 15 4 0 0 Rosyface Shiner Notropis rubellus S5 47 11 50 116 Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum S4 0 0 0 0 Silver Shiner Notropis photogenis S5 THR 2 0 116 51 Smallmouth Bass Microterus dolomieu S4 5 0 1 2 Spotfin Shiner Cyprinella spiloptera S2S3 0 1 28 5 Total Number of Fish Captured 601 51 508 201

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 38 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

The species captured during the 2017 studies represent a portion of the potential species present within the Study Area. The fish compositions will change throughout the year during spawning migrations within the Thames River. It is therefore important to consider spring and fall spawning timing windows to ensure that larger fish species are not impeded from accessing spawning grounds.

4.2.4.2 Fish Habitat Assessment When evaluating the quantity and quality of fish habitat within a specific area, it is important to make note of three main features that are required by fish to survive, which includes a food source, areas to spawn/reproduce, and reliable migration routes.

Within the main branch of the Forks Study Area, wetted widths ranged from 69 m to 88 m, with an average width of 78.5 m under flow conditions of 40 m3/s. There was a mixture of geomorphic units present within this system and included riffles, pools, and runs. A large scour hole was identified at the confluence of the South Branch, and the main channel which has been estimated to be 6 m deep. A large sandbar is present just downstream of the confluence, which had two riffles on either side. Apart from these two riffles, the remainder of the channel consisted of pool and run geomorphic features. The substrate found within the transitional areas consisted of a gravel and cobble, while the substrate in the pools was a mixture of coarse sand and gravel. The riffle substrate was very similar in nature to the run substrate, with a coarse sand and cobble composition. Habitat features, including woody debris on the banks and overhanging vegetation were observed in localized areas of the main branch. Although no areas of undercutting were observed, the nearshore areas contained woody debris which provided areas of refuge for fish. The overhanging vegetation not only provides shading and water temperature regulation, but it also provides bank stability and protection against erosion, which could contribute more sediment to the system. Bank erosion was not often observed in this area due to the large amount of hardened surfaces surrounding the channel, including gabion baskets and a retaining wall. Shallow sand bars were recorded within the main channel during the habitat assessment; however, it is known that water levels were higher than baseflow conditions, and that on a regular basis the sand bars are larger and more widespread.

The South Branch of the Thames River had an average wetted width of 31 m, much smaller than the main channel. This area was entirely composed of geomorphic run habitats, and lacked any riffle or pool features. The substrate was composed almost exclusively of silt with sporadic angular cobble. There was overhanging vegetation along the margins of the South branch providing sources of food; however, this system lacked additional habitat features such as woody debris or undercut banks.

There are a variety of habitat features within the Forks Study Area which could fulfill a number of habitat requirements such as spawning, rearing, food supply, and refuge (Figure 4.6). The Thames River also provides an important migration corridor for a variety of species; therefore, it can be designated as high fish habitat potential for warm/cool water species.

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 39 Matrix Solutions Inc.

Easting (m)

478675 478775 478875 478975 479075 479175 Project Site Area Study Area 1 Pool EEETransitional EEE W EEDRAFTERiffle (# Field Note # Water Depth (cm) 2 !

F Flow Direction # Photo Number and Direction

4758946 4758946 Field Notes

ID Comments F 1 Substrate sandy with angular cobble 2 Substrate angular cobble 3 Right side of channel more shallow (avg 50cm) 4 Substrate large gravel, Some angular cobble 5 Rocky-vegetated island extending from bridge footing. Water movement restricted to 1.5m width 6 Very deep pool 7 Substrate large gravel/angular cobble/silt 8 Sandy bar extending from bridge footing (approximately 3m wide) 2 9 Majority of flows coming through center of piers 10 Substrate under bridge is large gravel and angular cobble 11 Aquatic vegetation in this area specifically. Gravel bar with woody debris and vegetation 12 Backwatered area with stagnant water 1 13 Sandbar which extends further into water and gradually gets deeper 14 Substrate gravel/cobble mix 4758846 4758846 15 Water depth reaches 1m only 6m from gabion baskets 16 Drops off quickly 17 Sandy bar. Area closer to fountain is vegetated. The rest is not 18 Microhabitat with backwater and some aquatic vegetation. Known fish area 3 19 Gravel bar. Sometimes connected to other gravel bar but not at the time of fieldwork 20 Along wall - substrate is sandy 21 Substrate small and large gravel 22 Substrate coarse sand and gravel 23 Small rock bar that connects riffle to mid-channel gravel bar during low flows Northing(m) 4 24 Substrate large gravel/angular cobble/silt F Scour Pool

Index Map 4758746 4758746

er Riv Thames Wharncliffe Road South

F Oxford Street West ive Dr k 4 an ve gb Dri rin ide Sp ers Riv

3 Boler Road

1:2,000 metres

4758646 4758646 20 0 20 40 NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Reference: UAV imagery (07 2018) obtained by Jacobs and Matrix Solutions Inc. used under license

Jacobs and the City of London Forks of the Thames EA - EIS

Fish Habitat

Date: Project: Submitter: Reviewer: October, 2018 24504 K. Reis A. Fausto 478675 478775 478875 478975 479075 479175 Disclaimer: The information contained herein may be compiled from numerous third party materials that are subject to periodic change Figure 4758546 without prior notification. While every effort has been made by Matrix Solutions Inc. to ensure the accuracy of the information presented at the time of publication, Matrix Solutions Inc. assumes no liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the third party material.

I:\Jacobs\24504\FiguresAndTables\MPEA\2018\Report\Forks\Figure-4.6-Aquatic_Habitat.mxdehollingerTID005 - - PM 02:54 Tabloid_L 04-Dec-18, - - 4.6 DRAFT

4.2.4.3 Mussels The Thames River hosts the second most diverse freshwater mussel population in Canada (UTRCA 2017d). Data collected from previous studies as well as federal and provincial databases indicated the potential for 24 species of mussels, which include 8 SAR and 6 SCC (Appendix D). The potential SAR will be discussed further within Section 5.9.

During fisheries assessments in 2017, Matrix staff collected relic mussel shells from the fish community sampling areas (Figure 3.1). Of the 24 potential species identified within the background review, a total of 6 mussels were confirmed within the Study Area (Table 4.4). No SAR were confirmed within the Study Area. Two of the six potential SCC were confirmed, and included Elktoe (Alasmidonta marginata) and Mucket (Actinonaias ligamentina). These species are considered to have confirmed SWH, and are discussed further in Section 5.6. The remaining five potential SCC were assessed to identify if their preferred habitats were present within the Study Area (Appendix F). The results of the assessment indicated that all five species were considered to have candidate SWH within the Study Area and included: Black Sandshell (Ligumia recta), Deertoe (Truncilla truncate), Pink Heelsplitter (Potamilus alatus), and Wabash Pigtoe (Fusconaia flava). Those species which are considered to be potentially occurring within the Study Area are identified as having candidate SWH (Section 5.6).

TABLE 4.4 Mussel Species Identified during the 2017 Field Observation.

Common name Scientific Name S-rank1 Creeper Strophitus undulatus S5 Elktoe Alasmidonta marginata S3 Fluted-shell Lasmigona costata S5 Fragile Papershell Leptodea fragilis S4 Mucket Actinonaias ligamentina S3 White Heelsplitter Lasmigona complanata S5 Notes: 1Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC). 2018b. Natural Heritage Information- All Species.

4.2.4.4 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Historical benthic sampling records for the Study Area were obtained from UTRCA staff. The collected benthics were assessed using the Hilsenhoff Family Biotic Index (FBI), which estimates the overall tolerance of the community within a sampled area, weighted by the relative abundance of each taxonomic group (Hilsenhoff 1988). Each taxon is assigned a pollution tolerance value. The scale ranges from 0 to 10, with 0 being the least pollution tolerant and 10 being the most tolerant (Hilsenhoff 1988).

Data was collected from five stations within the Study Area, including the following:

• Station TF04 and TF05, located west of Cavendish Crescent • Station TF09, located east of Wharncliffe Road • Station TF10, located at the south branch of the Forks • Station TF16, located at the north branch of the Forks.

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 41 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

The five stations had FBI scores ranging from fair to poor water quality conditions (Table 4.5). Benthic data from these stations indicated that the benthic community was largely composed of pollution-tolerant Chironomidae and Oligochaete species (Appendix I).

TABLE 4.5 Summary of the Benthic Results from UTRCA (UTRCA 2018) Station Year Hilsenhoff Score TF04 2014 7.08-poor 2015 6.07-fairly poor* TF05 2014 6.88-poor 2015 5.45-fair* TF09 2014 7.50-very poor 2015 6.04-fairly poor TF10 2014 7.37-very poor 2015 6.47-fairly poor TF16 2014 6.69-poor 2015 6.24-fairly poor Notes: * Average based on multiple sampling events

5 EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND FUNCTIONS Natural heritage features considered in the Study Area are outlined in Table 5.1. Each provincial and locally significant feature was assessed for presence within the Study Area based on the results of the background review and field inventories.

TABLE 5.1 Provincially and Locally Significant Natural Heritage Features Provincial/Local Feature Significance Provincially Significant Wetlands Provincial Wetlands and Unevaluated Wetlands Local Endangered or Threatened Species Locations and Significant Habitat of Endangered or Provincial Threatened Species Significant Wildlife Habitat and Special Concern Species Locations Provincial Fish Habitat and Mussel Habitat Provincial Environmentally Significant Areas Local Life Science and Earth Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest Provincial Significant Woodlands Provincial Woodlands Local Significant River, Stream and Ravine Corridors Local/Provincial (Significant Valleylands) Groundwater Recharge Areas Local

The significant features within the Study Area have been identified by City’s Official Plan Natural Heritage Map 5 (Figure 4.2) and the LIO datasets and are discussed further in sections 5.1 to 5.5.

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 42 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

The following significant features were not present within the Study area:

• Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest • Environmentally Significant Areas • Provincially Significant Wetlands • Wetlands of Unevaluated Wetlands • Significant Woodlands

5.1 Significant Valleylands and Corridors Valleylands are linear natural areas that occur in a valley or other landform depression that have water flowing through or standing for some period of the year (OMNR 2010). These areas are important corridors which provide unique features and functions to an area as well as linkages to terrestrial and aquatic habitats.

The City’s Official Plan recognizes Significant Valleylands, which are mapped on Map 5 (Natural Heritage) of The London Plan (City of London 2016a). The Map indicated that the Thames River Valley is considered a Significant Valleyland (Figure 4.2). The natural features within the Significant Valleylands including woodlands are considered to be included within this feature.

5.2 Significant Wildlife Habitat The MNRF provides specific guidance on identifying and assessing wildlife habitat in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedules for Ecoregion 7E (MNRF 2015), Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR 2010) and SWHTG (MNR 2000). The MNRF recognizes five main categories of wildlife habitat, each with several wildlife habitat types, each with criteria to evaluate significance. These five categories were assessed based on the background studies and field investigations performed by Matrix (Appendix J).

The results of the assessment indicated the presence of candidate and confirmed SWH. Within three of the five categories including:

• Seasonal Concentration Areas of Animals • Specialized Habitat for Wildlife • Habitat of SCC

No candidate or confirmed SWH was found in the categories of rare vegetation communities or animal movement corridors.

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 43 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

5.2.1 Seasonal Concentration Areas of Animals The SWH assessment identified three candidate seasonal concentration areas of animals (Section 5.6):

• turtle overwintering habitat • bat maternity colonies

Candidate turtle overwintering habitat is located within the Project Site. Turtle species utilize large, deep pools to overwinter. These pools are a critical part of the turtle’s habitat and life cycle. Several turtle species have been documented within the Study Area; however, it has not been confirmed whether or not these turtles are utilizing the large, deep pool located at the Forks of the Thames River.

The woodlands along the Thames River have been identified as candidate bat maternity habitat. Bat maternity roots often include large snag or cavity trees. These woodlands are not anticipated to be effected by the project activities.

5.2.2 Specialized Habitats of Wildlife One confirmed specialized habitat of wildlife was identified during the SWH assessment, which included turtle nesting areas.

Two turtle nesting areas were identified by UTRCA staff within 1 km of the Study Area.

5.2.3 Habitat of Species of Conservation Concern A total of 7 SCC were confirmed within the Study Area, with an additional 11 considered to have candidate SWH within the Study Area. SWH applies to the ELC communities where species were observed and/or where candidate habitat exists (Table 5.2, Figure 5.2).

TABLE 5.2 SWH based on the ELC Communities where the SCC were Observed and/or where Candidate Habitat Exists

Common Name Scientific Name ELC Community (SHW) Birds (2) Bald Eagle2 Haliaeetus leucocephalus WODM5, SHTM1-1 Eastern Wood-pewee2 Contopus virens WODM5 Herpetofauna (3) Common Snapping Turtle1 Chelydra serpentine serpentine Thames River, BB, BBS1-2 Eastern Ribbonsnake2 Thamnophis sauritus Thames River Northern Map Turtle1 Graptemys geographica Thames River Fish (4) Spotfin Shiner1 Cyprinella spiloptera Thames River Greater Redhorse1 Moxostoma valenciennesi Thames River Spotted Sucker2 Minytrema melanops Thames River Striped Shiner1 Luxilus chrysocephalus Thames River

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 44 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

Common Name Scientific Name ELC Community (SHW) Mussels (7) Black Sandshell2 Ligumia recta Thames River Deertoe2 Truncilla truncata Thames River Elktoe1 Alasmidonta marginata Thames River Mucket1 Actinonaias ligamentina Thames River Pink Heelsplitter2 Potamilus alatus Thames River Purple Wartyback2 Cyclonaias tubeculata Thames River Wabash Pigtoe2 Fusconaia flava Thames River Insect (2) Hackberry Emperor2 Asterocampa celtis SHTM1-1 Tawny Emperor2 Asterocampa clyton SHTM1-1 Note: 1 confirmed SCC 2 candidate SCC

5.3 Fish and Fish Habitat As presented in Section 4.2.3, the Study Area does contain fish, as well as permanent fish habitat within the Thames River. Fish and fish habitat are regulated by DFO under the Fisheries Act. The Fisheries Act requires that projects avoid causing serious harm to fish unless authorized by the Minister or a designated representative. The determination of risk for serious harm to fish is typically done through a self-assessment process.

5.4 Linkages and Corridors Linkages and corridors are important features within a natural system. These features are continuous, often linear bands of vegetation in the landscape which provide opportunities to connect natural areas and provide cover for wildlife movement and dispersal of otherwise isolated populations.

The Thames River Valley has been designated as a Significant Valleyland within The London Plan (City of London 2016a). This area represents a significant linkage for both terrestrial and aquatic organisms. The wooded riparian area along the edge of the Thames River provides a linkage to other natural areas within the Thames River Valley.

5.5 Species at Risk During current and previous field investigations, a total of 55 SAR were identified as potentially occurring within the Study Area. To identify the likelihood of species occurrences within the Study Area, each species was assessed based on their habitat criteria (Appendix K). The results of the assessment indicated that 43 species were unlikely to inhabit the area based on the lack of appropriate habitat. Eight species were identified as potentially occurring within the Study Area, and four species were confirmed (Figure 5.1).

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 45 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

Potentially occurring SAR within the Study Area included Black Redhorse, Eastern Small-footed Bat, Little Brown Bat, Mapleleaf Mussel, Rayed Bean, Rainbow, Round Pigtoe, and Wavy-rayed Lampmussel. These species were not observed during the 2017 surveys conducted by Matrix; however, there is still likelihood that they could be present based on previous observations as well as suitable habitats. The DFO has identified critical habitat for Round Pigtoe within the Study Area (DFO 2018). Although the species was not observed, or any shells found, the field inventories confirmed suitable habitat is present that would provide for each critical life stage.

The species confirmed with the Study Area include Barn Swallow, Chimney Swift, Eastern Spiny Softshell (within 1 km of the Study area), and Silver Shiner. Each of these species are given general habitat protection under the ESA, 2007.

• The Barn Swallow has been classified as “Threatened” under the ESA and SARA. This medium sized songbird lives in close proximity to humans, and builds its nests in human-made structures such as barns, bridges, and culverts (MNRF 2018b). A Barn Swallow colony was observed within the Study Area under Kensington Bridge. Barn Swallow and its critical habitat are protected under SARA, and is granted general habitat protection under the ESA, 2007. Under O.Reg 242/08 of the ESA, 2007: Any activities proposed for the Kensington Bridge must follow measures to minimize the adverse effects of the activity on Barn Swallow and its habitat.

• The Chimney Swift has been classified as “Threatened” under the ESA, 2007 and SARA. This species utilize chimneys for nesting and roosting during the breeding season. This species and its critical habitat are protected under SARA, and is granted general habitat protection under the ESA, 2007. The ESA, 2007 general habitat protection identifies chimneys used for roosting and nesting purposes as critical habitat (MNRF 2018bc). These chimneys are not to be capped or demolished. Within the Study Area, Chimney Swifts were observed flying over the southern banks of the Thames River. There were no potential Chimney Swift habitats located within the 120 m Study Area; therefore, it is assumed that this species is nesting outside of the Study Area.

• The Eastern Spiny Softshell has been classified as “Endangered” under the ESA, 2007. This species uses highly aquatic habitats during its life cycle and prefers sandy substrates for nesting, shallow soft bottom areas for nursery habitat, deep pools for hibernation, and riffle areas for foraging (MNRF 2018d). The Eastern Spiny Softshell is afforded general habitat protection under the ESA, 2007. Habitat and basking areas may occur over a large area to satisfy all habitat requirements for the Eastern Spiny Softshell (MNRF 2018d). This species has been documented within 1 km of the Study Area by UTRCA and Matrix staff.

• Silver Shiner is designated as Threatened under the ESA, 2007 and Special concern under SARA. This aquatic species utilizes deep riffles and pools of large rivers to carry out its lifecycle. The ESA, 2007 general habitat protection identifies three categories of protection which ranges from the lowest tolerance to alteration (Category 1) to the highest tolerance to alteration (Category 3).

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 46 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

Category 1 habitats have been identified as flowing pools, run, and riffles in occupied reaches, Category 2 has been identified as shallow, nearshore habitats, and areas with aquatic vegetation in occupied reaches, and Category 3 has been identified as floodplains and riparian edges adjacent to occupied reaches (MNRF 2018e. This species was captured within the Study Area during the two rounds of fisheries assessments in 2017. For this reason, it is assumed that this species is present within the Study Area year-round. The construction activities associated with the Forks of the Thames are likely to affect Category 2 and Category 3 habitats. Activities in general habitat can continue as long as the function of these areas for the species is maintained and individuals of the species are not killed, harmed, or harassed. Mitigation measures to protect this species are detailed in Section 7.

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 47 Matrix Solutions Inc.

Easting(m)

478555 478955 479355 ProjecSiteArea t StudyArea Highway Road W DRAFTF FlowDirec tion Wildlife Habitat Significance SignificantWildlife Habitat Cand idateSignificant Wildlife Habitat SAR/SCCHabitat ELC_Code Bridge

Beach(BB)Bar

WillowGravel Shrub Beach (BBS1-2)Bar F CottonwoodMine Tree ral dShoreline (SHTM1-1) Fresh-MoistDec iduousWood land(WODM5)

4758822 4758822 Index Map N orthing (m) N orthing

er Riv Thames Wha r ncl i f f e R oa d S ou t h

OxfordStree We t st ive Dr k an ve gb Dri rin id e Sp e rs Riv

Bole r Road

u o

d a o R 1:3,000 e m e tres ff F li c 30 r0n 30 60 a ReferencContains e : information lice nsedund theOpe e r nGovernm eLice nt nc e–Ontario. N ADh1983UTM Zone 17N ImageService ry Laye Cred©2018Microsoft r its: Corporation ©2018DigitalGlob e©CN ES W

Jacoband s theCity of Lond on Forksofthe Thame EIS EA- s

SAR and Significant Wildlife Habitat

Date: Projec t: Subm itter: Reviewer: Octob2018 e r, 24504 Reis K. Fausto A. DisclaimeThe information r: containe dhe reinmay be com p iledfrom nume subjecmaterialsarethirdparty rous pe that to riod t icchange

478555 478955 479355 4758422 Figure withoutpriornotification. While every efforthas be e nmade by MatrixSolutions ensureto Inc theacc . uracyofthe information presented at thetime at ofpublication, MatrixSolutions assumeInc . no s liability omforany errors, issions,inaccor uraciesinthematerial.thirdparty

I:\Jacob s\24504\FiguresAnd Tables\MPEA\2018\Rep ort\Forks\Figure-5.1-SAR_and _Significant_Wildlife_Habitat.mxd - Tabloid_L - 04-Dec -18, 02:43 PM - ehollinge r - TID005 - r ehollinge - PM 02:43 -18, 04-Dec - Tabloid_L - _Significant_Wildlife_Habitat.mxd ort\Forks\Figure-5.1-SAR_and Tables\MPEA\2018\Rep s\24504\FiguresAnd I:\Jacob 5.1 DRAFT

6 DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The Forks of the Thames EA alternatives were categorized into two components where the preferred alternative selected for each component would be combined to create the overall preferred alternative for the Forks. The first component was the “ribbon” design alternatives; which included four options for walkways and lookouts from Ivey Park and Kensington Bridge. The second component was two bank terracing options, one with more impervious hardscaping, and the second with more vegetative softscaping. A “do nothing” alternative was also consider in the evaluation.

Each alternative was evaluated and scored using indicators in categories for natural/environment, social/cultural, and technical/economic. The detailed assessment of the Forks of the Thames alternatives and potential impacts is provided in the Master Plan (Jacobs 2018).

6.1 Preferred Alternative Based on the analysis of alternatives, the suspended walkway ribbon design, combined with softscape bank terracing, was selected as the preferred option (see Master Plan EA [Jacobs 2018]). The creation of a suspended walkway is expected to result in the greatest overall benefit for the community, while limiting the effects to the natural environment.

The construction of the suspended walkway and softscape terracing will involve the removal of existing vegetation which is primarily non-native species (70%) and the wall of gabion baskets along the eastern shoreline within the design footprint. The habitat quality and diversity of native vegetation in the areas will be compensated and enhanced through the creation of more naturalized softscape terraces with native tree and shrub plantings, and implementation of an invasive species management plan. The softscape bank terracing will provide improved bank stability and access to the river at safe and strategic locations; additionally, it will improve the connection between the aquatic and terrestrial environment, as well as provide more stable slope conditions along the bank.

6.2 Project Activities Design of the suspended walkway and softscape terracing is only at the conceptual stage, and detailed design has not yet been completed. It is anticipated that upon further design, the following construction activities will influence the natural environment:

• construction access, staging, and laydown areas • vegetation clearing, earthworks/grubbing and disposal along the eastern shoreline to construct the suspended walkway • removal of the gabion baskets along the eastern shoreline • terracing and grading of the eastern bank • installation of hardscape and landscaping features

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 49 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

The anticipated effects and mitigations of these activities and construction works are discussed further in Section 7.

7 EFFECTS ASSESSMENT The results of the natural heritage assessment indicated that the following features are present within the Study Area:

• Significant Valleylands • SWH • Fish and Aquatic Habitat • SAR

Each of these natural features are significant, as they support flora and fauna communities, linkages between aquatic and terrestrial environments and, in the case of the SAR, support native species that have limited geographical ranges and specialized habitats elsewhere both nationally and provincially. If the preferred alternative damages or interferes with these features and their functions, habitat and species loss can occur; however, this will only likely occur if the recommended mitigation measures and recommendations are not followed.

Both direct and indirect impacts on natural heritage features and functions can occur as a result of the preferred alternative. Impacts and residual effects on natural heritage features were assessed based on the following criteria:

• Duration - long or short-term • Extent - localized or expansive • Timeframe - permanent or temporary • Severity - positive or negative.

Most direct impacts occur during the construction phase of a project and contain localized, short-term, temporary, negative effects that can be reduced through avoidance and proper construction practices. After construction, there may be more long-term, indirect impacts while the site recovers and successional vegetation growth takes place. Typically after the site re-vegetates, there is either a neutral or positive impact due to the placement of intentional native plantings, improved sediment control and surface drainage runoff control.

The preferred alternative will be designed to minimize and avoid impacts on the natural heritage features and functions identified in the Study Area where possible. Predicted potential impacts associated with the preferred alternative are described in the subsections below, including recommended mitigation measures and residual impacts (after mitigation).

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 50 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

7.1 Potential Impacts The construction of the preferred alternative will require construction, permanent land alternation, and re-vegetation of the project site. Table 7.1 illustrates the potential impacts to the natural heritage features, as well as mitigation measures which should be followed to avoid serious harm. Table 7.1 outlines the heritage features within the Study area, which have the potential to be negatively impacted by construction activities if mitigation measures are not implemented. Once the mitigation measures are implemented, the residual effects are assessed to determine their duration, extent, severity, and permanence.

The potential impacts associated with the preferred alternative assumed the following access and area restrictions:

• Access to the eastern bank will utilize the existing paved pathways. • Staging and laydown areas are assumed to occur within the cleared pathways and open areas within the park. • Vegetation removal will be limited to the eastern bank of the Project Site. • No access or construction will be completed on the north or south banks of the project site. • Limited in-water works will be required for construction. • Timing of work will be coordinated to minimize disturbance to the natural environment. • Tree preservation fencing to protect as many native trees where possible. • Temporary wildlife exclusion fencing as required. • Sediment and erosion control fencing to protect the Thames River. • Planting native trees and shrubs in the softscape bank terracing areas to enhance shoreline habitat over current condition of gabion baskets.

It is assumed that the ELC polygon MEMM4 (Fresh-Moist Mixed Meadow) will be permanently altered along the eastern bank during construction, and will likely become an extension of the existing Parkland (CGL_2) community. MEMM4 is currently composed of non-native and invasive species, and it is the intent of this project to replace these species with native trees and shrubs as part of the City's invasive species management objectives. The treed shoreline (SHTM1-2 community) will be protected by the design under the Tree Preservation Plan.

Limited in-water works may need to be considered during the removal of the gabion baskets and stabilization of the bank along the toe of the Thames River. Mitigations will be put in place to avoid serious harm to fish and fish habitat. It is anticipated that the removal of the gabion baskets will improve the connection between the aquatic and terrestrial environment, as well as provide more stable slope conditions along the bank. The existing dock is anticipated to remain in place during the project activities.

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 51 Matrix Solutions Inc.

TABLE 7.1 Impacts, Mitigations and Net Effects of the Preferred Alternative Project Activity Natural Heritage Feature Potential Impacts Mitigation Measures1 DRAFTNet Effects Vegetation clearing, • Significant Valleylands Habitat Loss and/or Alteration: Timing Windows The extent of the tree removals will largely affect the existing park earthworks/grubbing and disposal • (CGL_2). The ELC community MEMM4 along the eastern bank will likely Fish and Aquatic Habitat • temporary and permanent loss of habitat • 1A, 2A along the eastern shoreline to • General Wildlife and Habitat • soil compaction and rutting outside of construction zone be permanently altered and replaced with parkland habitat (CGL_2). construct the suspended walkway. Best Construction Practices • SAR • damage to edge trees (i.e., outside of construction zone) The vegetation clearing, earthworks/grubbing and disposal will result the • 1B-8B • changes in moisture regime loss of the existing habitat and vegetation within MEMM4. However, if • changes to the structure and composition of vegetation Prevention of Terrestrial Disturbance mitigation measures are followed, the resulting habitat will be an overall communities (e.g., introduction of invasive species) • 1D-7D improvement. MEMM4 currently consists largely of non-native and/or • fugitive dust Erosion and Sedimentation Control invasive groundcover. This vegetation will be replaced with native tree • spills (e.g., fuel) and shrub plantings which will improve the quality of flora within this • 1F -5F, 7F -10F • erosion and sedimentation parkland. Disturbance/Avoidance of Habitat: Timing Widows • increased noise during construction • 1A, 2A • increased human presence Prevention of Wildlife Mortality and Disturbance • 1C -5C Injury or Incidental Take (particularly during migration to and/or Timing Widows emergence from hibernacula, nesting sites, or during natural travel 1A, 2A patterns to and from habitats): Prevention of Wildlife Mortality and • increased collision with machinery Disturbance • removal of nests and eggs • 1C-5C • smothering hibernacula or nesting sites Construction access, staging and • Significant Valleylands Habitat Loss and/or Alteration: Timing Windows Construction access and staging will utilize the existing paved pathways in laydown areas. • order to reduce impacts to the natural heritage features. Fish and Aquatic Habitat • soil compaction and rutting outside of construction zone • 1A -2A • General Wildlife and Habitat • damage to edge trees (i.e., outside of construction zone) Best Construction Practices Impacts associated with construction access, staging and laydown areas • spills (e.g., fuel) are anticipated to be localized, temporary, and will not result in • 1B -8B • erosion and sedimentation long-term negative effects. Prevention of Terrestrial Disturbance • 1D -7D Erosion and Sedimentation Control • 1F -5F, 7F -10F Disturbance/Avoidance of Habitat: Timing Widows • increased noise during construction • 1A -2A • increased human presence Prevention of Wildlife Mortality and Disturbance • 1C -5C Injury or Incidental Take (particularly during migration to and/or Timing Widows emergence from hibernacula, nesting sites or during natural travel • 1A, 2A patterns to and from habitats): Prevention of Wildlife Mortality and • increased collision with machinery Disturbance • removal of nests and eggs • • smothering hibernacula or nesting site 1C -5C

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 52 Matrix Solutions Inc.

Project Activity Natural Heritage Feature Potential Impacts Mitigation Measures1 Net Effects Removal of gabion baskets along • Significant Valleylands Habitat Loss and/or Alteration: Timing Windows The removal of the gabion basketsDRAFT will be replaced with a concrete the eastern shoreline. • retaining wall and armourstone seatwalls along the toe, as well as native Fish and Aquatic Habitat • temporary/permanent loss of habitat • 1A -4A • General Wildlife and Habitat • vegetation. This change in habitat is anticipated to improve the soil compaction and rutting outside of construction zone Best Construction Practices • SAR • damage to edge trees (i.e., outside of construction zone) connection between the aquatic and terrestrial environment, as well as • 1B -8B provide more stable slope conditions along the bank through the • changes in moisture regime implementation of native tree and shrub plantings within the riparian • changes to the structure and composition of vegetation Prevention of Terrestrial Disturbance zone. communities (e.g., introduction of invasive species) • 1D -7D • fugitive dust (smothers other plants) Prevention of Fish Mortality No negative effects are anticipated during this activity or long term if the • spills (e.g., fuel) mitigation measures are put in place as identified in section 7.2. • 1E -3E • erosion and sedimentation of slope • temporary impacts to fish habitat during construction in the Erosion and Sedimentation Control vicinity of the eastern bank (during installation for terrace) • 1F -10F Disturbance/Avoidance of Habitat: Timing Widows • increased noise during construction • 1A -4A • increased human presence Prevention of Wildlife Mortality and Disturbance • 1C- 5C Injury or Incidental Take (particularly during migration to and/or Timing Widows emergence from hibernacula, nesting sites, or during natural travel • 1A -4A patterns to and from habitats): Prevention of Wildlife Mortality and • increased collision with machinery Disturbance • removal of nests and eggs • • smothering hibernacula or nesting site 1C- 5C • incidental take of fish species while performing in-water works Prevention of Fish Mortality (removal of gabion baskets at the river’s edge) • 1E -3E Terracing and grading of the • Significant Valleylands Habitat Loss and/or Alteration: Timing Windows Terracing and grading of the eastern bank slope will result in localized, eastern bank. • temporary, disturbance during construction. Fish and Aquatic Habitat • temporary/permanent loss of habitat • 1A -2A • General Wildlife and Habitat • soil compaction and rutting outside of construction zone Best Construction Practices No negative effects are anticipated during this activity or long-term if the • SAR • damage to edge trees (i.e., outside of construction zone) mitigation measures are put in place as identified in section 7.2. • 1B -8B • changes in moisture regime • changes to the structure and composition of vegetation Prevention of Terrestrial Disturbance communities (e.g., introduction of invasive species) • 1D -7D • fugitive dust (smothers other plants) Erosion and Sedimentation Control • spills (e.g., fuel) • 1F -5F, 7F -10F • erosion and sedimentation of slope Disturbance/Avoidance of Habitat: Timing Widows • increased noise during construction • 1A -2A • increased human presence Prevention of Wildlife Mortality and Disturbance • 1C -5C Injury or Incidental Take (particularly during migration to and/or Timing Widows emergence from hibernacula, nesting sites, or during natural travel • 1A, 2A patterns to and from habitats): Prevention of Wildlife Mortality and • increased collision with machinery Disturbance • removal of nests and eggs • • smothering hibernacula or nesting site 1C -5C

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 53 Matrix Solutions Inc.

Project Activity Natural Heritage Feature Potential Impacts Mitigation Measures1 Net Effects Installation of landscaping features. • Significant Valleylands Habitat Loss and/or Alteration: Timing Windows There are no anticipated negativeDRAFT effects associated with the • construction of these features if mitigations measures are followed. Fish and Aquatic Habitat • permanent alteration of habitat • 1A -4A • General Wildlife and Habitat • soil compaction and rutting outside of construction zone Best Construction Practices Pedestrian activity within the area will likely increase as a result of the • SAR • damage to edge trees (i.e., outside of construction zone) proposed design. It is recommended that any designed access to the river • 1B -8B • changes in moisture regime is targeted toward the South branch of the forks, as this area contains • changes to the structure and composition of vegetation Prevention of Terrestrial Disturbance less sensitive habitat communities (e.g., introduction of invasive species) • 1D -7D • fugitive dust (smothers other plants) Prevention of Fish Mortality • spills (e.g., fuel) • 1E -3E • erosion and sedimentation of slope • temporary impacts to fish habitat during construction in the Erosion and Sedimentation Control vicinity of the eastern bank (during installation for terrace) • 1F -10F Disturbance/Avoidance of Habitat: Timing Widows • increased noise during construction • 1A -4A • increased human presence Prevention of Wildlife Mortality and Disturbance • 1C-5C Injury or Incidental Take (particularly during migration to and/or Timing Widows emergence from hibernacula, nesting sites, or during natural travel • 1A -4A patterns to and from habitats): Prevention of Wildlife Mortality and • increased collision with machinery Disturbance • removal of nests and eggs • • smothering hibernacula or nesting site 1C- 5C • incidental take of fish species while performing in water works Prevention of Fish Mortality (installation of terrace hardscape at the river’s edge) • 1E -3E

1Mitigation measures explained in Section 7.2

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 54 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

7.2 Mitigation Measures The following outlines mitigation recommendations for construction and operational effects to the natural heritage features within the Project Site. These mitigation measures are designed to prevent or significantly reduce impacts to terrestrial habitat communities.

7.2.1 Timing Windows/Working In the Dry The magnitude of effects to aquatic habitat and communities is related to the extent, timing, and duration of the project. The following mitigation measures are recommended:

• 1A - Remove trees outside of the breeding bird window of April 1 to August 25 (Government of Canada 2017) and outside periods where other wildlife are migrating/emerging to hibernacula and/or nesting sites through consultation with UTRCA. If tree’s are to be removed during the breeding bird window, then an avian biologist must conduct a nesting survey before tree removals.

• 2A - Confine the Contractor to the minimum area necessary to perform the work.

• 3A - Adhere to the allowable in-water construction timing window (July 1 to March 31; DFO 2013).

• 4A - Complete in-channel work during ‘dry’ conditions.

7.2.2 Best Construction Practices Implementation of best construction practices during construction will reduce the potential for spills or other materials/equipment entering the water. The following measures will be employed:

• 1B - Control all equipment maintenance and refuelling to prevent any discharge of petroleum products. Conduct vehicular maintenance and refuelling at least 30 m from the watercourse, watercourse banks, and natural heritage features.

• 2B - Implement surface protection measures to minimize soil compaction.

• 3B - Store construction material, excess material, construction debris, and empty containers at least 30 m from the watercourse and banks to prevent entry. Storage will occur within the parking lot on River Edge Drive.

• 4B - Enlist an environmental monitor onsite to provide advice and ensure that activities will not have any negative effects. Information for site specific SAR should be posted in construction trailer.

• 5B - Implement a stormwater management plan to maintain pre-construction drainage patterns and flows during all project phases.

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 55 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

• 6B - Implement an emergency and response management plan to address the potential for spills.

• 7B - Develop a 3 year post construction monitoring plan to ensure mitigation and contingency measures are implemented and performance objectives are being met. Monitoring should include geomorphic monitoring, vegetation monitoring and aquatic monitoring of fisheries, benthics and mussels.

• 8B- Implement “Clean Equipment Protocol for Industry” (Halloran et al. 2013) to inspect and clean equipment for the purposes of invasive species prevention.

7.2.3 Prevention of Wildlife Mortality and Disturbance Preventative measures during construction will reduce the potential mortality and disturbance of wildlife within the Study Area, and should include the following:

• 1C - Demarcate wildlife habitat to avoid offsite disturbance and to restrict construction activities to the work areas.

• 2C - Implement traffic limits if onsite vehicle use is required.

• 3C - Install exclusionary fencing to prevent wildlife from entering the construction site. Exclusionary fencing should not prohibit access to nearby habitats. Where required, redirect wildlife to areas where they can avoid the potential for incidental take, and still have access to habitats. Exclusionary fencing should be monitored daily throughout construction.

• 4C - Inspect construction area for wildlife each morning before the commencement of construction activities. Removal of trapped wildlife should be completed by a qualified biologist.

• 5C - Educate workers to be aware of potential wildlife occurrences and measures to take to minimized potential for injury or incidental take. Maintain a log to record and report incidents of injury and/or mortality.

7.2.4 Prevention of Terrestrial Disturbance Preventative measures during construction will reduce the likelihood of disturbance and destruction of the terrestrial features, and should include the following:

• 1D - Identify setbacks from natural features and trees with the installation of tree protection fencing along the disturbance limit (10 m). No construction activities are to occur outside of these fences (including overhead), nor the piling of construction materials.

• 2D - Minimize the construction disturbance area to the extent feasible.

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 56 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

• 3D - Retain an Arborist during detailed design to create a Tree Preservation Plan to protect as many healthy, native trees as possible through the process.

• 4D - Draft and implement an invasive species management plan following an adaptive management approach which should be monitored for three years.

• 5D - Implement a dust management plan for the suppression of fugitive dust.

• 6D - Ensure that temporarily disturbed areas are restored with native vegetation and monitored during construction and post-construction based on UTRCA and the city’s specifications.

• 7D - Replace tree species at a 3:1 tree replacement ratio.

7.2.5 Prevention of Fish Mortality The potential for fish mortality will be mitigated through the following measures:

• 1E - Install intake screen at all pumps to prevent fish mortality.

• 2E - Net any fish trapped during unwatering of the work area by a Fisheries Contract Specialist and release to a suitable habitat within the same watercourse.

• 3E - Limit heavy equipment (wheeled or tracked) from entering the wetted area at any time pre-, during, or post-construction.

7.2.6 Erosion and Sedimentation Control Effective erosion and sedimentation control will be achieved throughout the project with careful planning and design, stringent construction supervision, monitoring of the site, and maintenance of control works throughout their operational life. Erosion and sedimentation control measures will include:

• 1F - Develop an Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) Plan to minimize the potential for erosion and construction-related sediment release into nearby natural features/water bodies, and prepare ESC Plan condition reports as part of the monitoring and maintenance plan.

• 2F - Install ESC measures before ground breaking.

• 3F - Monitor and maintain ESC measures as per specifications.

• 4F - Delineate storage, stockpiling, and staging areas prior to construction and inspected.

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 57 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

• 5F - Install sediment control fence along the channel margins to prevent the entry of sediment into the watercourse.

• 6F – Dewatering plans should follow the Ontario Provincial Standard Specification (OPSS 517). This includes installing intake screens on all pumps during dewatering, and directing discharge to a sediment basin, sediment bag, etc. before release to the watercourse.

• 7F - Avoid construction during high volume rain events or significant snow melts/thaws. Construction will resume once soils have stabilized to avoid risk of erosion, soil compaction, or the potential for sediment release into nearby natural features/watercourses.

• 8F - Direct discharge from sediment clean out to a filter bag or taken offsite for disposal.

• 9F - Implement construction monitoring to ensure ESC measures are in place and working effectively. ESC measures should be checked weekly and after major rain events (>10 mm) to ensure they are installed and functioning properly. Daily monitoring will be completed by the Contractor. Any deficiencies should be repaired immediately. A construction monitoring log should be maintained to ensure any deficiencies and corrective actions are documented.

• 10F - Remove all temporary ESCs following construction, once disturbed areas have stabilized.

8 RESIDUAL IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION The implementation of the Forks of the Thames design will result in the re-shaping of land along the eastern banks of the Forks. The softscape surfaces will be integrated with a suspended walkway overlooking the Thames River as designed to attract more people and recreation to the downtown core.

The analysis of impacts and mitigations provided in Table 7.1 has identified residual impacts which are likely to persist after construction has completed. Residual effects include the following:

• The landscaped terracing will result in a permanent alteration to the existing vegetation communities which include parkland (CGL_2), Fresh-Moist Mixed Meadow (MEMM4); however, this community is currently highly degraded, and is anticipated to be replaced with native vegetation after the completion of construction. No SAR or Species of Conservation Concern are expected to be directly impacted by the design.

• Removal of the gabion baskets along the eastern bank will improve the riparian connection between the aquatic and terrestrial environment. The temporarily disturbed area will be restored with more natural slopes, vegetation, and concrete retaining wall/armourstone seatwall. Some areas along the bank may also provide increased refuge for terrestrial and aquatic species.

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 58 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

• The completion of the project work is expected to increase pedestrian activity within the area. It is therefore recommended to direct any access to the water toward the south branch of the Thames River as there are more sensitive habitats located near the north branch.

Although the preferred design alternative may result in permanent loss of some vegetation communities, the overall impact to the area is considered neutral or low. The proposed site is located in an existing park, and the preferred alternative proposes to re-shape that landscape to create better access and opportunities for the community. The preferred alternative is not anticipated to directly impact any SAR or SCC that inhabit the Study Area.

Although no long-term impacts are anticipated following construction, the appropriate permits and authorizations will be needed before any construction works can begin. The permits and authorizations needed for this project are provided in Section 8.

9 PERMITS AND AUTHORIZATIONS The following permits will be required to carry out in-water works and/or any works within SAR habitat:

• UTRCA Permit - Under O. Reg 157/06, a permit is required before any site alteration to a watercourse, water body, or wetland.

• ESA, 2007 Permit - Under Section 17 (2) (c) of the ESA, 2007, it identifies permits for activities which may contravene the Act. Permits related to habitat destruction would require an Overall Benefit Permit.

• DFO Authorization - Fish and fish Habitat are regulated by DFO under the Fisheries Act. The Fisheries Act requires that projects avoid causing serious harm to fish unless authorized by the Minister or a designated representative. The determination of risk for serious harm to fish is typically done through a self-assessment process. This process will need to take place if in-water works are anticipated for this project.

• SARA Permit - Under Section 73 of SARA, a permit may be issued authorizing a person to engage in an activity affecting a listed wildlife species, any part of its critical habitat, or its residences. The potentially effected species would include for Round Pigtoe. This permit will be needed if in-water works are anticipated for this project.

Additional consultation is recommended and should include the following:

• consultation with the City’s Parks department to obtain a Park occupancy permit • consultation with UTRCA Species at Risk biologist during detailed design

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 59 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

10 CONCLUSIONS The Forks of the Thames EIS has been prepared to support the Municipal Class Schedule B EA that is being carried out as part of Stage 2 of the Master Plan (Jacobs 2018). The Schedule B EA was initiated by the City, after the completion of Stage 1 in January 2018, where it was confirmed by council that Springbank Dam will be not be re-instated, and a free-flowing river will be maintained.

The objective of the EIS is to identify and evaluate the significant natural heritage features and functions within the Study Area; determine what potential impacts the preferred alternative may have on the significant features and functions, and recommend strategies to avoid or mitigate the potential impacts which are incorporated into the project approval process (as possible conditions for approval). The preferred design will involve the creation of a new terraced bank along the eastern shoreline combined with a suspended walkway that will overlook the Thames River from the Forks.

Matrix combined information gathered from the ecological field studies with relevant information from previous background studies to identify significant features within the Study Area. The results indicated a wide range of terrestrial and aquatic species and habitat features present or likely present within the Study Area. In the analysis of significance and function, several natural heritage features and functions were identified within the Study Area, which included Significant Valleylands, SWH, fish and fish habitat, and SAR. The most significant ecological features and functions identified within the Project Site included confirmed and candidate SWH (turtle nesting and turtle overwintering areas) as well as SAR (Eastern Spiny Softshell [within 1 km of the Study area]), Silver Shiner, as well as potential Round Pigtoe habitat). The features and functions identified within the Project Site were assessed to identify the potential effects which could occur given the proposed design for the Forks.

The terracing construction will result in a permanent alteration to the Fresh-Moist Mixed Meadow (MEMM4). The permanent alteration of this community is not anticipated to result in a negative impact as the meadow currently contains highly invasive plant species which will be removed and replaced with native tree and shrub plantings. The removal and alteration of this vegetation community is not anticipated to adversely affect SAR or SWH if mitigation measures are followed. The removal of the gabion baskets will improve the connection between the aquatic and terrestrial environment, as well as provide more stable slope conditions along the bank.

Completion of the project work is expected to increase pedestrian activity within the area. It is therefore recommended to direct any access to the water toward the south branch of the Thames River as there are more sensitive habitats located near the north branch.

Overall, the long-term effects associated with this project are expected to result in minimal impact on the natural features, functions, and overall connectivity of the Thames River Corridor. The preferred alternative, although designed to increase human activity in the area, is proposed in an existing urban centre setting. Roadways, pathways, and pedestrians through the area is common, and many potential SAR and SCC wildlife that would be intolerant or negatively affected by these ongoing activities should

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 60 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

not be greatly impacted compared to previous conditions. Appropriate approvals will be obtained during the detailed design phase of this project to ensure the existing natural features and functions within the Study Area are adequately protected.

11 REFERENCES Acres International (Acres). 2003. Environmental Assessment Report, Springbank Dam Rehabilitation. Report prepared for the Corporation of the City of London. December 2003.

AECOM. 2016. London Earth Dykes Feasibility Study of Design Alternatives. Report prepared for Upper Thames Conservations Authority and the City of London. London, Ontario. November 2016.

Cadman M. et al. (Eds). 2007. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario. 2001-2005. Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologist, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature. Toronto.

Canadaensys. 2018. Database of Vascular Plants of Canada. Species search. http://data.canadensys.net/vascan/search?lang=en

Carolinian Canada Coalition. 2016. Annual Reports and Audits. Accessed in June 2017. https://caroliniancanada.ca/annual-report

Chapman L.J. and D.F. Putnam. 1984. The Physiography of Southern Ontario. Third Edition. Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 2. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Toronto, Ontario. July 9, 1984.

City of London. 2017. Environmental Impact Studies Guidelines and Checklist. London, Ontario. Last updated June 5, 2017. https://www.london.ca/business/resources/consultant-resources/pages/environmental-impact- studies.aspx

City of London. 2016a. The London Plan. Consolidated August 27, 2018. London, Ontario. December 28, 2016. http://www.london.ca/business/Planning -Development/Official -Plan/Pages/The -London -Plan -DL.aspx

City of London. 2016b. London Invasive Plant Management Strategy. https://www.london.ca/residents/Environment/Natural- Environments/Documents/Invasive_Plant_Management_Strategy.pdf

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 61 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

City of London. 2013. City of London Environmental Management Guidelines. London, Ontario. Last updated October 4, 2013. https://www.london.ca/business/Resources/Consultant-Resources/Pages/Environmental-Guidel ines.aspx

City of London. 2006. Guideline Document for the Evaluation of Ecologically Significant Woodlands. Approved by Council June 26, 2006. London, Ontario. March 2006. https://www.london.ca/business/Resources/Consultant-Resources/Documents/EM-woodlands- 2007.pdf

City of London 2003. Guidelines for the Preparation and Review of Environmental Impact Studies (EIS). Council Approved on January 19, 2004. London, Ontario. November 2003. https://www.london.ca/business/Resources/Consultant-Resources/Documents/EM-EISGuidelin e-2007.pdf

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2017. Summary of COSEWIC Wildlife Species Assessments, November 2017. Last Modified December 3, 2017. https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/eccc/documents/pdf/cosewic/2017 Summary Species Assessment Table Nov en.pdf

Cudmore, B., MacKinnonC.A., S.E. Madzia. 2004. Aquatic Species at Risk in the Thames River Watershed, Ontario. Report prepared for the Thames River Ecosystem Recovery Team. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2707. December 2004. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/316802.pdf

Dobbyn J.S. 1994. Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists. Don Mills, Ontario, 120 pp. ISBN 1-896059-02-3.

Dillon Consulting Ltd. (Dillon) and D.R. Poulton & Associates Inc. 2011. Thames Valley Corridor Plan - City of London. Final Report. December 2011.

Dillon Consulting Ltd. (Dillon) 2016. Blackfriars Bridge Environmental Assessment Study. Environmental Study Report (Final). February 2016. https://www.london.ca/residents/Environment/EAs/Documents/Blackfriars%20Bridge%20-%20 EA%20-%20Environmental%20Study%20Report%20-%20Feb%2025%202016.pdf

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2018. Projects Near Water. Modified May 16, 2018. Accessed in November 2018. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/index-eng.html

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2017. Distribution of Fish Species at Risk. Ontario South West Maps. Last Modified July 24, 2017. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/fpp-ppp/index-eng.htm

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 62 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2013. Ontario Restricted Activity Timing Windows for the Protection of Fish and Fish Habitat. Last modified on December 27, 2013. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/timing-periodes/on-eng.html

Government of Canada. 2018. Species at Risk Act. S.C. 2002, c. 29. Published by the Minister of Justice. Current to August 19, 2018. Last Amended on May 30, 2018. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/S-15.3.pdf

Government of Canada. 2017. Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994. S.C. 1994, c. 22. Published by the Minister of Justice. Current to August 19, 2018. Last Amended on December 12, 2017. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/PDF/M-7.01.pdf

Government of Canada. 2016. Fisheries Act. R.S.C., 1985, c. F-14. Published by the Minister of Justice. Current to August 19, 2018. Last amended on April 5, 2016. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/F-14.pdf

Government of Canada. 2014. Bird Conservation Strategy for Region 13: Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain Boreal Hardwood Transition. July 2014. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/migratory-bird-conservation/ publications/strategy-region-13-boreal-hardwood.html

Government of Ontario. 2018a. Conservation Authorities Act. Ontario Regulation 172/06. Consolidation period from February 8, 2013 to September 18, 2018. http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_060172_e.htm

Government of Ontario. 2018b. Ontario Water Resources Act. Ontario Regulation 387/04. Consolidation period from March 29, 2016 to September 18, 2018. http://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/040387

Government of Ontario. 2013. Upper Thames Conservation Authority: Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses. Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27. Ontario Regulation 157/06. February 8, 2013. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/060157

Government of Ontario. 2012. O. Reg. 413/12: Integrated Accessibility Standards. Made under the Accessibility for Ontarions with Disabilities Act, 2005. Amending O. REG. 191/11. December 14, 2012. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/r12413

Government of Ontario. 2010. Environmental Assessment Act. R.S.O. 1990, Chapter E.18. Considlidation period form October 25, 2010. Last amendment: 2010, c. 16, Sched. 7, s. 1. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90e18

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 63 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

Government of Ontario. 2008. Endangered Species Act, 2007. S.O. 2007, Chapter 6. Consolidation period from June 30, 2008 to August 22, 2018. http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_07e06_e.htm

Halloran J. et al. 2013. Clean Equipment Protocol for Industry. Peterborough Stewardship Council and Ontario Invasive Plant Council. Peterborough, ON.

Hilsenhoff W.L. 1988. “Rapid field assessment of organic pollution with a family-level biotic index.” Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7 (1): 65-68.

Important Bird Areas of Canada (IBA). 2018. Important Bird Areas - Canada. Accessed 2018. http://www.ibacanada.com/

Jacobs. 2018. “Master Plan.” Draft report in progress as of October 2018. London, Ontario.

Lee H. 2008. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: Vegetation Type List. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Lee H. et al. 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.

London Public Library. 2012. Ivey Family London Room Digital Collection- Penmans Limited. London, Ontario. http://images.ourontario.ca/london/2419140/data

Matrix Solutions Inc. (Matrix) 2018. “River Characterization Report.” Draft report in progress as of October 2018. Guelph Ontario

Matrix Solutions Inc. (Matrix). 2017. City of London Water Quality Monitoring, Thames River - 2016 Final Report. Prepared for the City of London. Breslau, Ontario. February 2017.

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2018a. Land Information Ontario. Updated August 8, 2018. https://www.ontario.ca/page/land-information-ontario

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. (MNRF). 2018b. Barn Swallow. Current to August 27, 2018. https://www.ontario.ca/page/barn-swallow

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. (MNRF). 2018c. Chimney Swift. Last updated June 28, 2018 https://www.ontario.ca/page/chimney-swift

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. (MNRF). 2018d. Eastern Spiny Softshell. Last updated June 28, 2018 https://www.ontario.ca/page/spiny-softshell

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 64 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. (MNRF). 2018e. Silver Shiner. Last Updated June 28, 2018. https://www.ontario.ca/page/silver-shiner

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. (MNRF). 2015. Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedules for Ecoregion 7E. Regional Operations Division, Southern Region Resources Section. Peterborough, Ontario. January 2015.

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. (MNRF). 2014. Ontario Wetland Evaluation System. Southern Manual. 3rd Edition, Version 3.3. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. August 2014. ISBN 978-1-4606-4511-6 http://files.ontario.ca/environment -and -energy/parks -and -protected -areas/ontario -wetland -evaluation -system -southen -manual -2014.pdf

Morris T. J. and A. Edwards. 2007. Freshwater Mussel Communities of the Thames River, Ontario - 2004 -2005. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 1488-5387, No. 2810. Burlington. http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/469227/publication.html

National Audubon Society (Audubon). 2017. Annual Christmas Bird Count - London Ontario. http://netapp.audubon.org/CBCObservation/Historical/ResultsByCount.aspx

Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC). 2018a. Ontario Natural Heritage Information Centre - Make -A -Map: Natural Heritage Areas application. Accessed March 2018 https://www.ontario.ca/page/make-natural-heritage-area-map

Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC). 2018b. Natural Heritage Information- All Species. Published July 2017. Last modified June 28, 2018. https://www.ontario.ca/page/get-natural-heritage-information

Natural Resource Solutions Inc. (NRSI). 2013a. Subject Lands Status Report Hydro Lands. Prepared for The City of London. London, Ontario. August 2013.

Natural Resource Solutions Inc. (NRSI). 2013b. Subject Lands Status Report Harris Park. Prepared for the City of London. London, Ontario. August 2013.

Newmaster SG et al. 1998. Ontario Plant List. Ontario Forest Research Institute, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario ISBN 0319-9118. 550 pp.

North-South Environmental Inc. 2014. Conservation Master Plan for the Coves ESA. Report prepared for the City of London Parks Planning & Design. July 2014

Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas. 2001. Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas Guide for Participants. March 2001.

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 65 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MAH). 2014. 2014 Provincial Policy Statement. Issued under the Planning Act. Provincial Planning and Policy Branch. Approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, Order in Council No. 107/2014. Queen’s Printer. Toronto, Ontario. Replaces the Provincial Policy Statement issued March 1, 2005. Effective April 30, 2014. http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/AssetFactory.aspx?did=10463

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2010. Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005. Second Edition. Queen’s Printer. Toronto, Ontario. March 18, 2010.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. Fish and Wildlife Branch, Wildlife Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch, Southcentral Sciences Section. October 2000.

Ontario Nature. 2015. Reptiles and Amphibians. Last updated June 2015. https://ontarionature.org/programs/citizen-science/reptile-amphibian-atlas/species/

PARISH Geomorphic Ltd. (PARISH). 2014. Central Thames Subwatershed Background Study. Mississauga, Ontario. February 3, 2014.

Stanfield L. (Ed.). 2013. Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol. Version 10.0. Fisheries Policy Section. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Peterborough, Ontario. https://trca.ca/app/uploads/2018/02/osap -master -version -10 -july1 -accessibility -compliant.p df

Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec). 2016. “West London Dyke Environmental Impact Study.” DRAFT Report. Prepared for the Upper Thames River Conservations Authority. London, Ontario. March 2016.

Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec). 2013. West London Dyke Master Repair Plan. Prepared for the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority and the City of London. London, Ontario. March 2013.

Thames-Sydenham & Region Source Protection Committee. 2015. Upper Thames River Source Protection Area Assessment Report. Report approved September 16, 2015. http://www.sourcewaterprotection.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/sp_plan3/SupDocs/AR/UTRCA-A R/Updated%20UTR%20AR-%20Aug%202015-v2.4.pdf

Toronto Entomologist Association. 2018. Ontario Butterfly Atlas. Updated February 2018. http://www.ontarioinsects.org/atlas_online.htm

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA). 2018. Thames River Benthic Results.

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 66 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA). 2017a. The City of London Dyke System. Accessed in June 2017. http://thamesriver.on.ca/water%20management/london%20dyke%20system/

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA). 2017b. “Thames South Branch Dykes: Subject Land Status Report.” Draft updated January 30, 2017.

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) 2017d. In the Thames River Watershed, Aquatic Species at Risk. Accessed in June 2017. http://thamesriver.on.ca/watershed%20health/aquatic%20species%20at%20risk/

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) 2015a. Fish Sampling Records. Dataset held by UTRCA.

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA). 2015b. West London Dykes: Subject Land Status Report. January 2015.

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) 2015c. “Riverview Dyke: Subject Land Status Report.” Draft report. January 2015.

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) 2014a. Middlesex Natural Heritage Systems Study. A study to identify Natural Heritage Systems in Middlesex County. In cooperation with Middlesex County Conservation Authorities. Final report. October 2014.

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) 2014b. Botanical Inventory of the Thames River Dykes of London Ontario. Final report. March 2014.

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA). 2013. The Thames River, Ontario, Canadian Heritage Rivers System Ten Year Monitoring Report 2000-2012. Prepared for the Canadian Heritage Rivers Board. London, Ontario. March 2013. http://chrs.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/CHRS-10YearReport-Thames.pdf

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA). 2012. The Forks: 2012 Watershed Report Card.

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority. (UTRCA). 2006. Environmental Planning Policy Manual. June 28, 2006. http://thamesriver.on.ca/wp-content/uploads//PlanningRegulations/UTRCA-EnvironmentalPlan ningPolicyManual-2006.pdf

WSP Canada Inc. (WSP). 2017. London RT Project - Subject Lands Status Report. Report prepared for the City of London. Aurora, Ontario. February 2017.

24504-528 Forks of the Thames EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 67 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

APPENDIX A Approved Terms of Reference

DRAFT

APPENDIX A

Environmental Impact Study ISSUES SUMMARY CHECKLIST REPORT

Application Title:Forks One River of the EA Thames, EIS Schedule B EA

Date Submitted:May March 10, 22, 2018 2017

Proponent: City of London / UTRCA / London Community Foundation

Qualifications

Primary Consultant: CH2M

Key Contact Person: Tom Mahood

Other Consultants/field personnel: Hydrogeology / Hydrology : Matrix Solutions

Geotechnical : ______Golder Associates

Biological - Flora Matrix Solutions Biological – Fauna Matrix Solutions

Other: ______Prime Strategy and Planning, LURA, Golder Associates (Archeology)

Context for Background Information

Subwatershed :Central Central London London, Mud Creek, The Coves

Tributary Fact Sheet Number : ______n/a

Planning/Policy Area: London One River

Technical Advisory Review Team 4 Ecologist Planner Linda McDougall 4 Planner for the File Linda McDougall 4 EEPAC Sandy Levin 4 Conservation Authority ______Mark Snowsell 4 Ministry of Natural Resources 4 Ministry of Energy and Environment 4 Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing  Ministry of Agriculture and Food

Other Review Groups (eg. Community Associations, Field Naturalists) ______To be determined DRAFT

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT (Features) Purpose: To have a clear understanding of the current status of the land, and the proposed “development” or land use change.

1.1 Mapping (Location and Context) (current aerial photographs, preferably ortho-images, 1:2000 Ontario Base Map, NTS 1:50,000 maps)

4 Land Use - Excerpts of the Official Plan for the City of London Ontario Schedules A, B, showing a 5-10km radius of subject site 4 Terrain setting @ 1:10,000 – 1:15,000 scale showing landscape features, subwatershed divides 4 Existing Environmental Resources @ 1:2,000 -1:5,000 showing Vegetation, Hydrology, contours, linkages 4 Environmental Plan or Strategy from Subwatershed reports (tributary fact sheet), Community (Area) Plans, or other

1.2 Description of Site, Adjacent lands, Linkage with Natural Heritage System List all supporting studies and reports available to provide background summary (e.g. subwatershed, hydrological, geo-technical, natural heritage etc.); check the first box if it is relevant to the subject area and surrounding landscape, and check the second box if it is determined that sufficient information is available. ______See Attached List. ______

1.2.1 Terrain Setting

4 4 Soils (surface & subsurface) From existing mapping 4  Glacial geomorphology- landform type field work to be completed in 2018 4 4 Sub-watershed Thames River Corridor Plan 4 4 Topographic features   Ground water discharge 4 4 Shallow ground water/baseflow   Ground water recharge/aquifer   Aggregate resources

1.2.2 Hydrology

4 4 Hydrological catchment boundary 4 4 Surface drainage pattern 4 4 Watercourses (Permanent, Intermittent) 4 4 st nd rd   Stream order (Headwater, 1 , 2 , 3 or UTRCA files higher)   Agricultural drains 4  Downstream receiving watercourse DRAFT

1.2.3 Natural Hazards 4  100 year Erosion Line 4 4 Floodline mapping to be obtained by UTRCA 4 4 Fill line mapping

1.2.4 Vegetation 4 Vegetation Patch number ______provided by City 4 4 System (Terrestrial , Wetland, Aquatic) 4  Cover (Open, Shrub, Treed) 4  Community Type(s) available for some areas 4  ELC Community Class (Bluff, Forest, Swamp, Tallgrass Prairie, Savannah & 2 season ELC to be completed in spring and summer of 2018 Woodland, Fen, Bog, Marsh, Open Water, Shallow Water) 4  ELC Community Series ELC coverage for some areas 4  Rare Vegetation Communities flora and rare vegetation will be identified 1.2.5 Flora during the the ELC. 4  Flora (inventory dates, source) ______West London Dykes EIS ______Botanical Inventory of the Thames River ______Dykes ______London RT Project SLSR

4  Rare flora (National, Provincial, Regional) ______

1.2.6 Fauna 4  Fauna (inventory dates; source) 4  Breeding Birds ______breeding bird surveys will be completed 4  Migratory Birds ______4  Amphibians ______some UTRCA files available 4 4 Reptiles ______UTRCA files, except for snake Incidental sightings will be documented 4 4 Mammals ______4  Butterflies ______4  Odonata ______4 4 Other ______Mussels, some UTRCA files available 4  Bird Species of Conservation Priority ______4  Rare Fauna ______some species identified by UTRCA, MNRF and DFO ______DRAFT

1.2.7 Wildlife habitat

4  Species-At-Risk critical habitat mapping______available for some species 4  Winter habitat for deer, wild turkey 4  Waterfowl Habitat (wetlands, poorly drained landscape – bottomlands, beaver ponds, seasonally flooded areas, staging areas, feeding areas)   Colonial Birds Habitat 4  Hibernaculua follow the MNRF Significant Wildlife 4  Habitat for Raptors ______Habitat (SWH) Types for Ecoregion 4  Forests with springs or seeps 7E   Ephemeral ponds 4  Wildlife trees (snags, cavities, x-large trees > 65 cm dbh) 4 4 Forest Interior Birds ______Not present ______4  Area-sensitive birds ______

1.2.8 Aquatic Habitat (SWS Aquatic Resources Management Reports)

4 4 Fish communities ______UTRCA and Matrix 2017 Sampling ______4 4 Fish spawning areas 4 4 Fish migration routes 4 4 Thermal refuge for fish 4 4 Thermal Regime (cold, cool, warm) 4 4 Benthic inventory ______available through the City of London, BioMap ______4  Substrate ______geomorphic surveys ______4 4 Riparian habitat (extent and type) ______Completed by Matrix in 2017 ______DRAFT

1.2.9 Linkages and Corridors (The diversity of natural features in an area, and the natural connections between them should be maintained, and improved where possible. Provincial Policy Statement 2.3.3).

4 4 Valleylands 4 4 Significant Watercourses (Thames River, Stoney Creek, Medway Creek, Dingman Creek, Pottersburg Creek, Wabuno Creek, Mud Creek, Stanton Creek (Drain), Kelly Creek (Drain) 4 4 Upland Corridors / migration routes 4 4 Big Picture Cores and Corridors 4 4 Linkages between aquatic and terrestrial areas (riparian habitat, runoff)   Groundwater connections 4 4 Patch clusters (mosaic of patches in the landscape)

______

1.3 Social Values

1.3.1 Human Use Values

4 4 Recreational linkages for hiking, walking 4 4 Nature appreciation, aesthetics 4 4 Education, ,research 4 4 Cultural / traditional heritage 4 4 Social (parks and open space)   Resource Products (e.g. timber, fish, furbearers, peat)   Aggregate Resources

1.3.2 Land Use-Cultural

4  Archaeological (pre 1500) 4  Historical (post 1500-present) to be completed by Golder   Adjacent historical and archeological 4  Future

1.3.3 Land Use-Active

4 4 Current 4  Historical (past 50-100 years)   Adjacent lands 4  Future

1.3.4 Other ______DRAFT

2.0 EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE

Components of the Natural Heritage System The policies in Section 15.4 apply to recognized and potential components Of the natural heritage system as delineated on Schedule “B”, or features that may be considered for inclusion on Schedule “B”. They also address the protection of environmental quality and ecological function with respect to water quality, fish habitat, groundwater recharge, headwaters and aquifers.

1.1 Environmentally Significant Areas  Identified Environmentally Significant Areas (Recognized in Official Plan (Schedule “B” and/or Section 15.4.1.1 Name ______

 Potential Environmentally Significant Areas – Expansion of (Recognized in Section 15.4.1.2 and Schedule “B” ) Name ______

 Potential Environmentally Significant Areas (Recognized in Section 15.4.1.5 and Schedule “B”) Name ______

1.2 Wetlands  Provincially Significant Wetlands  Locally Significant Wetlands  Unevaluated Wetlands

1.3 Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest  Provincial Life Science ANSI  Regional Life Science ANSI  Earth Science ANSI

1.4 Habitat of Species-At-Risk (SAR) 4 Endangered 4 Threatened 4 Vulnerable

1.5 Woodlands 4 Significant Woodlands 4 Unevaluated Vegetation Patches

2.6 Corridors and Linkages 4 River, Stream and Ravine Corridors 4 Upland Corridors  Naturalization and Anti-fragmentation Areas DRAFT

3.0 IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF FUNCTIONS

Ecological Functions The natural processes, products or services that species and non-living environments provide or perform within or between ecosystems and landscapes. Check those functions that will be required to assess for the study (key and supporting functions). 3.1 Biological Functions 4 habitat (provision of food, shelter for species) 4 limiting habitat 4 species life histories (reproduction and dispersal)  habitat guilds 4 indicator species 4 keystone species 4 introduced species  predation / parasitism  population dynamics 4 vegetation structure, density and diversity  food chain support  productivity 4 diversity  carbon cycle  energy cycling 4 succession and disturbance processes (natural and man-made) 4 relationships between species and communities

3.2 Hydrological and Wetland Functions  ground water recharge and discharge (hydrogeology) 4 water storage and release (fluvial geomorphology)  maintaining water cycles (water balance)  water quality improvement 4 flood damage reduction 4 shoreline stabilization / erosion control 4 sediment trapping  nutrient retention and removal / biochemical cycling 4 aquatic habitat (fish, macroinvertebrates)

3.3 Landscape Features and Functions 4 size 4 connections, corridors and linkages 4 proximity to other areas / natural heritage features (e.g. woodlands, wetlands, valleylands, water, etc. ) 4 fragmentation

3.4 Functions, Benefits and Values of Importance to Humans 4 contributing to healthy and productive landscapes  improving air quality by supplying oxygen and absorbing carbon dioxide  converting and storing atmospheric carbon 4 providing natural resources for economic benefit 4 providing green space for human activities 4 aesthetic and quality-of-life benefit 4 environmental targets and/or environmental management strategies DRAFT

APPENDIX B Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Letter

Ministry of Natural Ministère des Richesses naturelles Resources and Forestry et des Forêts

DRAFT 615 John Street North 615, rue John Nord Aylmer, ON N5H 2S8 Aylmer ON N5H 2S8 Tel: 519-773-9241 Tél: 519-773-9241 Fax: 519-773-9014 Téléc: 519-773-9014

August 26, 2016

Attn. Scott Mathers, Manager (via email only) City of London, Stormwater Mangaement 300 Dufferin Avenue PO BOX 5035 London, ON, N6A 4L9

Dear Mr. Mathers,

RE: One River Master Plan EA

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) has been asked to provide a list of species for consideration on the development of a Terms of Reference for the One River Environmental Assessment (EA) Master Plan in London, Ontario.

Species at Risk (SAR) The Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List is Ontario Regulation 230/08 issued under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA 2007). The ESA 2007 came into force on June 30, 2008, and provides both species protection (section 9) and habitat protection (section 10) to species listed as endangered or threatened on the SARO List. The current SARO List can be found on e-laws (http://www.e- laws.gov.on.ca/navigation?file=home&lang=en).

Based on the map provided on July 8, 2016 outlining a potential study area for the EA, an initial species at risk (SAR) screening has been completed for the One River Master Plan. This list may be amended throughout the EA process. There are known occurrences of SAR in the proposed project location including:

Springbank Dam AOI  Silver Shiner (THR) – general habitat protection  Eastern Spiny Softshell - (END) – general habitat protection  Queensnake - (END) – regulated habitat protection  Eastern Hog-nosed Snake - (THR) – general habitat protection  Salamander (Mudpuppy) Mussel - (END) – general habitat protection  Northern Map Turtle – (SC)  Snapping Turtle – (SC)  Green Dragon – (SC)

Forks of the Thames (Back to the River project area)  Eastern Spiny Softshell - (END) – general habitat protection  Silver Shiner - (THR) – general habitat protection  Black Redhorse - (THR) – general habitat protection  Wavy-rayed Lampmussel - (THR) – regulated habitat protection  Black Redhorse – (SC)  Northern Map Turtle – (SC)  Snapping Turtle - (SC)

DRAFT *Please be advised that the South branch of the Thames river contains sensitive species as identified by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). It is recommended that DFO is contacted to ensure compliance with relevant legislation.

Please note that this is an initial screening for SAR and the absence of an element occurrence does not indicate the absence of species. The province has not been surveyed comprehensively for the presence or absence of SAR, and MNRF data relies on observers to report sightings of SAR. Field assessments by a qualified professional may be necessary if there is a high likelihood for SAR species and/or habitat to occur within the project footprint. MNRF recommends that further study of SAR be completed as part of the EA process.

It is important to note that changes may occur in both species and habitat protection which could affect whether proposed projects may have adverse effects on SAR. The Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) meets regularly to evaluate new species for listing and/or re-evaluate species already on the SARO List. As a result, species designations may change, which could in turn change the level of protection they receive under the ESA 2007. Also, habitat protection provisions for a species may change if a species-specific habitat regulation comes into effect.

If an activity or project will result in adverse effects to endangered or threatened species and/or their habitat, additional action would need to be taken in order to remain in compliance with the ESA 2007. Additional action could be applying for an authorization under section 17(2)c of the ESA 2007, or completing an online registry for an ESA 2007 regulation, if the project is eligible.

We look forward to working with you as the City moves through this process.

Sincerely,

Andrea Fleischhauer District Planner Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Aylmer District 519-773-4750

Cc Heather Riddell (MNRF)

DRAFT

APPENDIX C Curriculum Vitae of Authors

DRAFT Amanda McKay, P.Eng. Water Resources Engineer

Ms. Amanda McKay has worked at Matrix Solutions Inc. for over 6 years on various water resources projects spanning flood risk assessments, geomorphology, land development, and environmental monitoring. Her experience includes project management, model development and analysis, leading and executing field programs, and technical writing for guidance documents, regulatory reports, and technical memos. Ms. McKay has experience with several hydrologic and hydraulic modelling programs including XPSWMM, PCSWMM, HEC-RAS, RIVER 2D, and HSPF, as well as GIS.Ms. McKay’s recent work has focused on technical engineering applications and project management. She has worked on a range of hydraulic and hydrologic modelling projects including 2D urban flood characterization, river restoration alternative evaluation, and habitat suitability assessments. Ms. McKay also manages several projects including a 3-year surface water monitoring program and the technical portion of a master plan environmental assessment for the Thames River in London, Ontario. In all projects, she is able to support the team with her knowledge of ecology, geomorphology, hydrology, and river hydraulics.

Her other experience includes working on environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and Tier 2 water applications in northern Alberta. This work included hydrologic modelling, data analysis, impact assessment, and field work.

EDUCATION

B.Eng., Water Resource Engineering, University of Guelph, 2012

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY

Matrix Solutions Inc., Water Resources Engineer, 2012 to Present

Health, Environment & Development Consortium, Intern, Summer 2011

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

Guelph Engineering Society (GEC)

Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO)

ADDITIONAL TRAINING

Project Management Excellence, Petroleum Safety Training, Construction Safety Training, WHMIS, TDG, Defensive

Driving, Remote Responder Training with CPR Level C, Wildlife Awareness, H2S Alive, Back Country Safety, Swiftwater Rescue Levels 1 and 2, HEC-RAS 2D Modelling, and Surface Water Safety Course.

1 Matrix Solutions Inc. AmandaDRAFT McKay, P.Eng. PROJECT EXPERIENCE/PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Husky 16TAN Release Emergency Response, North Little Etobicoke Creek, City of Missisauga, Toronto, Saskachewan River. Project Engineer. Ontario. Project Engineer. Compiled, reviewed, and analyzed results for over 5,000 Developed and validated a 1D/2D PCSWMM model for water and sediment quality samples in the North Little Etobicoke Creek to characterize urban and riverine Saskachewan River. Developed methods to determine flooding. Several storms were simulated with the model trends against background concentrations and isolate including the 2- to 100-year design storms regional and pontential contaminants. Developed a calibration 2D July 8, 2013 events. The model is used to identify flood HEC-RAS model to evaluate sediment transport and cluster areas and evaluate potential causes of flooding. disposition under a range of flow conditions. Presented Remediation options for each flood cluster were also the results of the assessment to regulatory agencies and tested using the developed model. supported targeted remediation efforts. Cedar Creek Subwatershed Study - Stream Morphology, Evaluation of Toronto and Region Conservation Region of Waterloo and Grand River Conservation Authority’s Next Generation Flood Forecasting and Authority. Project Engineer. Decisions Support System, Toronto, Ontario. Project Completed the stream morphology component of the Engineer/Manager. Cedar Creek Subwatershed Study to characterize the Reviewed operational flood forecasting systems to fluvial geomorphic conditions of Cedar Creek and evaluate and recommend a platform to become the headwater drainage features. Conducted field surveys to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s (TRCA’s) monitor and evaluate channel stability, sediment implemented platform. Coordinated and interviewed movement, and erosion potential. Results from the field potential vendors on the benefits and drawbacks of their monitoring and analysis were compiled into a Phase 1 developed systems. Reviewed TRCA’s existing characterization report that recommended targets and hydrometric and climate network and suggested location mitigation for any future development. for additional installations. Developed a document Surface Water Monitoring Program, Sifton Bog, London outling hydrologic model standards for flood forecasting. Ontario. Project Manager. Created a workplan that included short- and long-term Coordinated and executed a team to complete a 3-year implimentation strategies for the forecast and descision monitoring program that completed wet and dry support system. weather water quality sampling in various surface and One River Master Plan Environmental Asessment, groundwater sites. Program included installing and Thames River, London Ontario. Project Manager for maintaining continuous, year-round monitoring stations Matrix Solutions Inc. Water Resources Component. within the bog and the adjacent stormwater Coordinated and organized a large multidisplinary management facility. Results of the monitoring are technical team to support the water resources aspects of summarized in annual reports. the One River master plan environmental assessment. Guelph Turfgrass Institute - Site Development Water Matrix is leading the technical portions of the project Balance, Guelph, Ontario. Project Engineer. including the examination of the ecological, geomorphic, Evaluated a local site water balance using a PCSWMM hydraulic, hydrologic, and water quality aspects of the model that featured low impact development (LID) study area. Supported the development of a 2D HEC-RAS technologies and groundwater features. Created existing model for a 9 km section of the Thames River to conditons and post-development for comparison. determine the existing conditions of the channel and Demonstrated how each LID and stormwater evaluate potential alternatives. management feature would affect components of the water balance

2 Matrix Solutions Inc. AmandaDRAFT McKay, P.Eng. PROJECT EXPERIENCE/PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Welland River, Bridge Scour Assessment. Hydraulic Nottawasaga Drought Management Analysis and Habitat Modeller. Suitability Modelling. Hydraulic Modeller. Constructed a two-dimensional (2D) river model to Built 2D hydraulic models of various reaches within the determine potential scour of bridge piers and banks. Innisfil Creek subwatershed. To determine changes in Calibrated model based on water level surveys, water levels, depth, and velocity, channel cross-sections bathymetry data, and bed observations. Assessed the were converted into 2D surface and various flow effect of the re-enforcement options on the downstream scenarios were simulated. The parameters were water levels and velocities. combined to determine potential effects to various juvenile and adult fish species during summer low flows. Little Miramichi River, Oxbow Restoration. Hydraulic Erosion Analysis. Hydraulic Modeller. Coal Valley Mine - Coal Creek Pond Hydrotechnical Constructed pre- and post- river restoration model to Assessment. Hydraulic Modeller. evaluate changes in velocity, depth, and water levels Constructed a hydraulic model using XPSWMM to upstream and downstream of the site. Analysis included represent the conveyance, storage, and structures of the examining a 2D hydraulic model and assessing the results Coal Valley Mine. The model was used to assess the two to determine potential changes in shear velocity and cell Coal Creek pond as part of a dam safety review. shear stress on the bed and banks. Completed sensitivity and optimization simulations for extreme flood events. Provided recommendations for Smith Storm Basin Study. City of Grande Prairie. modifications to the upstream drainage area and cell Hydraulic Modeller. configuration. Assisted in updating the City’s XPSWMM models and evaluating design options in various areas of concern. Functional Design for Stormwater Management Works Provided recommendations for addressing deficiencies Upstream of Tributary ‘C’, City of London. Hydrologic within the existing stormwater system. Developed Modeller. pre- and post-HECRAS models for potential re-alignment Designed and modelled a series of stormwater of a conveyance structure. management facilities that ultimately discharged into a cold-water tributary. Modelling facilities included Island Reservoir Analysis and Permit to Take Water optimization of design to meet the City of London and Renewal. Water Resources Analyst. MOE constraints as well as the local topographic and Evaluated reservoir operation and sustainability of environmental conditions. Model examined both operational rules for meeting wastewater treatment plan pre- and post-development conditions under event and effluent capacity downstream while maintaining continuous climatic conditions. recreational water levels. Tier 2 Water Withdrawal Applications. Groundwater and Environmental Impact Assessment of Hydrology. MEG Surface Water Interactions Assessment. Various Clients. May River Project. Alberta. Hydrology Discipline Lead. Water Resources Analyst. Coordinated the analysis, assessment, and reporting for Evaluated the potential for groundwater and surface the hydrology section of a multi-discipline EIA. Managed water interactions based on the results of a numerical the field data summarization and processing, groundwater model, conceptual geology, and available development, and calibration of the hydrologic HSPF surface water data. Completed a surface water impact model analysis and conclusions of the modeling results. assessment and developed a local monitoring program to Coordinated results and data between various disciplines determine areas of groundwater discharge and develop a to ensure consistency in presentation and conclusions. long-term monitoring strategy.

3 Matrix Solutions Inc. AmandaDRAFT McKay, P.Eng. PROJECT EXPERIENCE/PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Development of a Guide for Environmental Flow Regime pumping volumes and summarized water quality Design in Ontario, Ministry of Natural Resources. Water parameters for daily and weekly reporting requirements. Resources Analyst. Maintained communication between project manager, Examined various environmental flow components and field team, clients, and other contractors onsite. metrics to establish a reference flow regime and perform Alberta Flood Frequency Analysis, Alberta. Water analysis on hydrologic alterations to flows. Organized and Resource Analyst. compiled technical framework documentation on behalf Performed flood frequency analysis with Hyfran-Plus for of the project team. all Water Survey of Canada stations within and Upper Thames Conservation Authority Streamflow surrounding Alberta. Included quality assurance and Monitoring Program, Upper Thames, Ontario. Field quality control of instantaneous flows and evaluation of Team. best fitting distributions for predicting 2- to 100-year Field lead for baseflow monitoring program for selected flood flows. streams in the Upper Thames region. Measured spot Enbridge Pipelines Inc. Plains Midstream Spill Water flows were mapped spatially and used to determine Quality Monitoring, Alberta. Field Team. gaining or losing reaches within specific areas of the Obtained lake water samples for laboratory analysis. subwatershed. The monitoring was done to validate Objective of sampling was to determine downstream integrated modelling efforts. migration of spill. Sampling had to be accurately Environmental Impact Assessment of Hydrology in the documented and timely as the required turnaround time Athabasca Oil Corporation Hangingstone and Osum Oil for results was less than 24 hours. Sands Corp. Saleski Projects, Alberta. Hydrologic Suncor Energy Inc. Meadow Creek and Nexen Energy ULC Modeller. Leismer Hydrologic and Water Quality Monitoring and Used HSPF model to develop baseline and application Installation, Alberta. Field Team. case scenarios to assess potential development impacts. Installed hydrometric monitoring stations, surveyed Initial process included collecting and manipulating water levels, and measured discharge along river meteorological data for input to model, calibrating model cross-sections. Measured pH, dissolved oxygen, water to collected field data, and validating model to regional temperature, and electrical conductivity. Also obtained water balances. Impact scenarios included assessment of water quality samples for laboratory analysis. baseline disturbances and project footprint to ensure accurate representation and output from HSPF model. Evaluation of PCSWMM Modelling for Northern Alberta Hydrology, Hangingstone, Alberta. Hydrologic Modeller. Canadian Natural Resources Limited Spill Response, Cold Completed pre- and post-development models to assess Lake, Alberta. Field Project Coordinator. the impacts of development in the Hangingstone River Organized and coordinated various field teams to obtain watershed. Assessed the ability of the PCSWMM model water and soil samples for laboratory analysis. Estimated to accurately represent northern wetland hydrology.

4 Matrix Solutions Inc. DRAFT J. Arnel Fausto, M.Sc. Senior Aquatic Ecologist

Mr. Fausto is a Senior Ecologist with over 27 years of professional experience specialising in multidisciplinary projects involving impact assessment, water quality monitoring, environmental planning, facility siting, biomonitoring, fisheries, wetlands, benthic and botanical studies in Canada and the United States. He has been a consultant for many Class Environmental Assessments, Watershed Studies, Lake and Stream Corridor Remediation and Restoration Projects, Biodiversity Studies, Environmental Impact Assessments, Fisheries Studies, Pipeline Corridor Assessments, and has also served as a Planner and Construction Inspector for numerous municipal infrastructure projects. He has performed numerous aquatic and terrestrial investigations at large industrial facilities, power utilities, water intake plants, and nuclear generating stations affected by various degrees and types of pollution, and have been qualified as an Expert Witness in Ontario Provincial Court and at the Ontario Municipal Board.

In his current capacity, Mr. Fausto’s professional consulting practice includes management, strategic planning, business development, and senior technical input on large multi-year projects with multi-disciplinary teams. In a senior capacity, he specialises in the assessment of potential ecological impacts to aquatic and terrestrial habitats resulting from past and present municipal wastewater discharges, groundwater withdrawals and discharges, landfills, mining, provincial and municipal transportation projects and industrial facilities. In his role as a Project Manager, Mr. Fausto has successfully led large scale, multi-year monitoring projects within these areas of discipline, and has played a key role in the design, approval, and the development of monitoring protocols that are widely used within Ontario. Mr. Fausto continues to provide senior technical advisory services to a wide range of municipal projects in the areas of strategic planning, ecological planning, mitigation, permitting, and monitoring to large infrastructure and linear corridor studies undertaken by engineering firms throughout the Great Lakes Region and Greater Toronto Area.

EDUCATION

M.Sc., Watershed Ecosystems, Trent University, 1991 Ontario Graduate Scholar and Recipient of Entomological Society of Canada Postgraduate Scholarship Award for Outstanding Achievement

B.Sc. (Honours), Wilfrid Laurier University, 1987

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY

Matrix Solutions Inc., Senior Ecologist, December, 2015 to Present

LGL Limited environmental research associates, Vice President, Senior Ecologist and Director, 2008 to 2015,

LGL Limited environmental research associates, Manager and Senior Ecologist, 2005 to 2008

LGL Limited environmental research associates, Project Manager and Senior Ecologist, 2000 to 2005

CH2M Hill Canada Limited, Project Manager, Environmental Biologist (Associate Scientist), 1996 to 2000

Gore and Storrie Limited, Consulting Biologist and Environmental Planner, 1995 to 1996

Grand River Conservation Authority, Environmental Technician and Agricultural Specialist, 1994 to 1995

Long Point Region Conservation Authority, Biologist, Conservation Services Advisor, Water Quality Program Specialist and Facilitator, 1991 to 1994

1 Matrix Solutions Inc. J. ArnelDRAFT Fausto, M.Sc. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

Training Certification in Dealing with Water and Wastewater, CANECT

Renewable Energy Approvals Protocol, Ministry of Natural Resources

Certified Fisheries Assessment Specialist, Ministry of Transportation

Certified in Stream Assessment Protocol for the Province of Ontario (OSAP), Ministry of Natural Resources

Certified Wetland Evaluator, Ministry of Natural Resources

Certified Electrofishing Crew Leader, 2nd Class Backpack Ministry of Natural Resources

Certified NAUI Scuba Diver

PROJECT EXPERIENCE/PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Selected Provincial Transportation Projects • South Kitchener Transportation Corridor Study Class Lead Natural Heritage Specialist and or the Project Environmental Assessment Schedule “C”, Regional Coordinator/Ecologist for the following projects: Municipality of Waterloo

• Peace Bridge and Queenston-Lewiston Bridge Traffic Selected Projects in Water and Wastewater Operations Review, Preliminary Design, MTO • Coxwell Trunk Sewer Emergency Planning, City of Southwest Region Toronto; • Highway 7/35 Four-Laning from Kawartha Lakes Rd • Study of the effects of thermal plume water 18 to Kawartha Lakes Rd 36 Detail Design, Group “B” discharge on Lake Ontario in the vicinity of the Class EA, MTO Central Region Toronto Harbourfront, Redpath Sugars Refinery • Highway 401/Homer Watson Boulevard Interchange Facility in Toronto, Ontario; Improvements, Homer Watson Bridge Replacement • Impact Assessment of the Fisheries Community and and Commuter Parking Lot Expansion Group “B” Habitat affected by sewage outfall at the Lower Don Class EA, MTO Southwest Region River at the North Toronto Treatment Plant, and at • Highway 7/35 Lindsay Bypass VE Study, MTO Eastern the Nearshore Lake Ontario, Ashbridges Bay Toronto Region Main Treatment Plant; • Fairbank Silverthorn Trunk Sewer Phase 1 and 2, Municipal Transportation Projects Toronto Basement Flooding, City of Toronto; Lead Natural Heritage Specialist (Subconsultant PM) for • the following municipal Class Environmental 16th Avenue Trunk Sewer, EA, PTTW and Assessments, Detailed Design Projects: Comprehensive Monitoring Program, Region of York • Impact Assessment of the Fisheries Community and th • 16 Avenue Bridge Replacement and Realignment at Habitat affected by sewage outfall at the Lower Don Reesor Road, Preliminary and Detailed Design, River at the North Toronto Treatment Plant, and at Region of York the Nearshore Lake Ontario, Ashbridges Bay Toronto • University Avenue, Lincoln Road to Weber Street Main Treatment Plant; Schedule C Class EA and Preliminary Design, Regional • Coatworth Cut Combined Sewer Overflows and Municipality of Waterloo Stormwater Control Area Schedule C Class • Riverbank Drive Realignment, Preliminary Design Environmental Assessment and Schedule “C” Class EA, City of Cambridge

2 Matrix Solutions Inc. DRAFT ac Brydon M Veigh, B.Sc. Intermediate Aquatic Ecologist Brydon MacVeigh is a Fisheries and Aquatic Biologist with 12 years of experience working with Federal and Provincial Agencies, Conservation Authorities, and Environmental Firms, conducting in-depth fisheries and aquatic research across Ontario. He is an accomplished field researcher with a wide range of experience which includes fisheries management, fish community monitoring and assessment, aquatic habitat assessments, Species at Risk (SAR) sampling, and freshwater mussel surveys, monitoring, and relocations. Mr. MacVeigh has extensive experience on a wide variety of project types using provincial protocols and standards, including, watershed monitoring, aquatic habitat assessment using the Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (OSAP), SAR detection research, subwatershed studies, Environmental Assessments (EA), Environmental Impact Studies, and fish and fish habitat and impact assessments using the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO)/Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)/Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) Protocol for Protecting Fish and Fish Habitat.

He has prepared a wide variety of technical reports and environmental documents including, peer-reviewed scientific papers and journal articles, federal and provincial species recovery documents, environmental baseline studies, and existing conditions reports and impact assessments for development and infrastructure projects. He has obtained fisheries approvals using the updated DFO Self-Assessment and DFO Review process. He is very familiar with permitting requirements associated with development and infrastructure projects and has completed DFO Request for Review packages for Fisheries Act Authorizations and approvals as well as Information Gathering Forms and Avoidance Alternative Forms for Endangered Species Act (ESA) permit requirements and approvals from MNRF. He also has experience performing post-construction monitoring for culvert replacements, channel realignments, and habitat compensation measures for offsetting plans and overall benefit permits.

EDUCATION

B.Sc., Environmental Science and Geography, Nipissing University, 2006

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY

Matrix Solutions Inc., Intermediate Aquatic Ecologist, September 2018 to Present

Morrison Hershfield Ltd., Fisheries Biologist, May 2016 to September 2018

Grand River Conservation Authority, Subwatershed Analyst, October 2015 to May 2016

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Aquatic Science Technician, April to September 2013, 2014, and 2015 Species at Risk Biologist, January to May 2011, 2012 Fisheries Technician, January 2009 to May 2010

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Lake Erie Management Unit, Fisheries Biologist, October 2012 to April 2013, September 2013 to April 2014, and September 2014 to April 2015

Credit Valley Conservation, Electrofishing Crew Leader, May to December 2010, 2011, and 2012

Natural Resource Solutions Inc., Aquatic Biologist, as needed basis

North Bay Mattawa Conservation Authority, Environmental Technician, June to August 2006

1 Matrix Solutions Inc. DRAFTBrydon MacVeigh ADDITIONAL TRAINING

MTO/DFO/MNRF Fisheries Protocol Training Course for Fisheries Specialists (2018), Royal Ontario Museum Identification of Ontario Minnows Workshop (2017), Class 1 Electrofishing Certificate (2017), Ontario Freshwater Mussel Identification Workshop (2011), Wilderness Survival (2011), OSAP Level 2 Fish Identification Certificate (2010), Royal Ontario Museum Identification of Ontario Fishes Workshop (2009), Royal Ontario Museum Identification of Ontario Species at Risk Fishes Workshop (2009), OSAP Certification (2009), Ontario Benthic Bio-monitoring Network (OBBN) Certification (2009), Skid School Defensive Driving Certificate (2009), Small Vessel Operators Proficiency Certificate (2009), MED A3 Certificate, (2009), ATV Safety Training Certificate (2007)

PROJECT EXPERIENCE/PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Ottawa Light Rail Transit Phase 2 Hickorynut Screening methods to determine sex, as well as gonad condition Survey. Morrison Hershfield. Ottawa, Ontario. Fisheries and fecundity prior to release. Drift nets were deployed Biologist. to capture glochidia within the water column and fish In response to highway improvements associated with community sampling was performed with the use of the Ottawa Light Rail Transit Phase 2 study, a freshwater seine nets to determine fish species present. High mussel survey was completed in Greens Creek to probability species were collected to aid in identifying determine the presence of Hickorynut and endangered potential fish host species for freshwater mussels within species. Consultation with the MNRF determined that the Ausable River. MNRF approvals under the ESA would be required in the Sydenham River Life History and Behaviour Study. form of a Registration of Activities. Project registration to Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Florence, Ontario. Aquatic help protect or recover (improve the health of) SAR Science Technician. through the development of scientific knowledge was A monitoring program was implemented at a site within completed. A mitigation plan was developed and the Sydenham River identified to have a high implemented to minimize effects on the species which concentration and relative abundance of endangered included a monitoring plan and reporting requirements and threatened freshwater mussels which included for SAR observed. Northern Riffleshell, Snuffbox, Kidneyshell, Round Pigtoe, Kidneyshell Life History and Behaviour Study. Fisheries and Mapleleaf. A life history characteristic and behaviour and Oceans Canada. Alisa Craig, Ontario. Aquatic Science study was undertaken for the target species to Technician. determine reproductive timing windows and potential The research project was conducted to determine life fish hosts. Weekly site visits were conducted to collect history characteristics and behaviour of the Kidneyshell, species information, gonad samples, and environmental an endangered freshwater mussel present within the DNA (eDNA) samples using non-invasive, non-lethal Ausable River. The project aimed to test the gonad techniques. During site visits, drift nets were deployed to sampling methodology and the dissection of wild fish to capture glochidia within the water column and fish determine presence of glochidia (juvenile mussels), in an community sampling was conducted using seine nets to attempt to identify reproductive timing windows determine fish species present and collect potential fish (e.g., spawning, sensitive glochidia stages). At a suitable hosts for analysis and verification in the laboratory. Study site individual mussels including Kidneyshell were results will be incorporated into recovery documents for collected along transects and assigned a unique the target species to inform recovery actions and identifier. On a weekly basis, sampling was conducted management decisions. along transects and all mussels observed were recorded and returned to the streambed. Kidneyshell were retained to obtain gonad samples using non-lethal PROJECT EXPERIENCE/PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

2 Matrix Solutions Inc. DRAFTBrydon MacVeigh Monitoring and Tracking Freshwater Mussel Freshwater Mussel Inventories of the Welland River. Communities, including Species at Risk, Over Time in the Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Ontario. Aquatic Science Sydenham River. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Ontario. Technician. Aquatic Science Technician. A biological survey program was undertaken within the A freshwater mussel monitoring was implemented to Welland River watershed to create inventories and track changes in distribution, density, population determine distribution of freshwater mussels within the dynamics, and habitat requirements for SAR mussels Welland River and its tributaries, with a specific focus on within the Sydenham River. Previous established Mapleleaf and Eastern Pondmussel. A total of 22 surveys monitoring sites were revisited and resampled using were completed at 19 sites throughout the main stem of quadrat surveys, a quantitative survey method to collect the Welland River and its major tributaries including data to compare and analyze total abundance, species Coyle Creek, Lyons Creek, Oswego Creek, and the Feeder richness, and relative abundance. A total of 15 sites were Canal. Physical data and water quality information was sampled throughout the watershed and data collected collected to provide a general description of habitat and was compared against previous monitoring events to assess the available habitat for species present. eDNA track changes over time. Habitat assessments which samples were collected from Mapleleaf using non- consisted of physical and chemical (water quality) data invasive, non-lethal techniques to be used for genetic and fish community sampling with the use of seine nets analysis to determine potential dispersal methods of SAR were also completed at each site. This information will mussels within the Great Lakes system. The sampling be used to track the recovery of SAR freshwater mussels program identified eleven (11) live species of freshwater within the Sydenham River and will be included in mussels within the Welland River watershed which recovery documents for various SAR to inform recovery included three (3) SAR, Mapleleaf, Eastern Pondmussel actions and management decisions. and Lilliput and the potential presence of Fawnsfoot, another SAR. Information and data collected during the Monitoring and Tracking Freshwater Mussel program will be incorporated into recovery documents Communities, including Species at Risk, Over Time in the for SAR to identify recovery actions and inform Thames River. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Ontario. watershed management plans and development Aquatic Science Technician. decisions. Freshwater mussel monitoring was implemented to track changes in distribution, density, population dynamics, Grand River Slope Stabilization. Natural Resource and habitat requirements for SAR mussels within the Solutions. City of Kitchener. Ontario. Fisheries Biologist. Thames River. Previous established monitoring sites were The City of Kitchener determined the need for erosion revisited and resampled using quadrat surveys to collect and bank stabilization measures along the Grand River to data to compare and analyze total abundance, species minimize risk to public safety and private property. richness, and relative abundance. A total of ten sites As part of the project a mussel relocation and post- were sampled throughout the watershed and data construction monitoring program was implemented due collected was compared against previous monitoring to the presence of SAR freshwater mussels. Prior to events to track changes over time. Habitat assessments construction, a mussel relocation was conducted to which consisted of physical and chemical (water quality) remove freshwater mussel form the in-water footprint data and fish community sampling with the use of seine area of proposed construction works associated with the nets were also completed at each site. This information Grand River bank stabilization works. The mussel will be used to track the recovery of SAR mussels within relocation was conducted in accordance with the the Thames River and will be included in recovery Protocol for the Detection and Relocation of Freshwater documents for various SAR to inform recovery actions Mussel Species at Risk in the Ontario Great Lakes Area and management decisions. (2008). An appropriate relocation site to which the mussels can be moved was selected upstream as well as

PROJECT EXPERIENCE/PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

3 Matrix Solutions Inc. DRAFTBrydon MacVeigh a suitable control site for monitoring. Mussels were Conservation Authority Species at Risk Mussel Mapping. collected along transects using the quadrat survey Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Burlington, Ontario. method, measured, tagged, and moved upstream to the Species at Risk Biologist. relocation site. Mussels were monitored after the SAR freshwater mussel distribution maps were designed relocation at one (1) month, one (1) year, and three (3) and created based on Conservation Authority years after construction to determine survival and boundaries. The maps were created for use as a growth of relocated animals. screening tool to help project proponents and various agencies determine next steps and inform permitting Development of Environmental DNA as Freshwater requirements for development and infrastructure Mussel Detection Tool. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. projects which may impact aquatic environments with Ontario. Aquatic Science Technician. SAR present. Maps were also created identifying critical The collection of eDNA samples was undertaken during habitat areas for freshwater mussels for inclusion within various ongoing freshwater mussel sampling programs in recovery documents to assist with the recovery of an attempt to develop tools to infer species presence endangered and threatened freshwater mussels. within waterbodies from analysis of water samples. Field sampling was conducted to collect eDNA samples from SAR and common species at monitoring and inventory sites throughout the Thames River, Sydenham River, Grand River, and Welland River watersheds. Samples were collected using non-invasive, non-lethal techniques and provided to researchers at Trent University to be used in analysis.

4 Matrix Solutions Inc. DRAFT Karen Reis, B.E.S. Ecologist

Ms. Karen Reis has applied her knowledge of ecological processes in support of a variety of projects over the last 5 years. In her current role, her tasks have included the collection and analysis of field data for terrestrial and aquatic environments. She has extensive experience planning and undertaking field-based studies including Ecological Land Classification, Species at Risk investigations, breeding bird surveys, fisheries assessments, and tree inventories.

Through a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies and Diploma in Environmental Management, Ms. Reis has gained a concrete theoretical background in environmental studies, as well as the important practical experience needed to complete various ecological field assessments.

EDUCATION

B.E.S. (Honours), Environmental Management, York University, 2013

Dipl., Environmental Management, Sir Sandford Fleming College, 2011

Dipl., General Arts and Science, Mohawk College, 2008

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY

Matrix Solutions Inc., Ecologist, January 2015 to Present

PARISH Geomorphic Ltd., Junior Ecologist, May 2013 to January 2015 Hamilton Conservation Authority, Water Resource Technologist, May to August 2010 to 2012

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

Ontario Benthic Bio-monitoring Network Certification

Society of Freshwater Science-Family Level Taxonomy Certification

ROM Fishes of Ontario Identification Certification

Wildlife Radio Telemetry Certification

Class 2 Backpack Electrofishing Certification

Golden Key International Honour Society, 2012 (York University)

ADDITIONAL TRAINING

Canadian Red Cross Standard First Aid CPR/AED Level C, 2015 Bear Deterrence Training, 2015 Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS), 2015 Transportation of Dangerous Goods, 2015

1 Matrix Solutions Inc. DRAFTKaren Reis, B.E.S. PROJECT EXPERIENCE/PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Nottawasaga River Erosion Hazard Environmental Impact Ecological Land Classification, seasonal botanical Statement (EIS). Essa Township, Angus ON. Ecologist. inventories, wildlife inventory, and natural heritage A Schedule B Municipal Class Environmental Assessment features and functions inventory. Identified and assessed was undertaken to assess remediation alternatives to the potential direct and indirect environmental impact address a slope failure on the Nottawasaga River that the proposed work may have on the identified impacting a local neighborhood. An EIS was completed to features and functions. Incorporated mitigation and best assess the impacts the implementation of the preferred management practices into the construction plans, and remediation design alternative could have on the natural prepared a list of recommendations for future best environment, including habitat for species at risk management practices. including Lake Sturgeon and Bank Swallow. This included O’Keefe Drain Design, Novatech Engineering Ecological Land Classification, and inventories of Consultants Ltd., Ontario. Ecologist. vegetation, breeding birds, breeding amphibians, fish The O’Keefe Drain design required that the channel habitat, and incidental wildlife. Crepuscular breeding bird design incorporate additional habitat elements and surveys were carried out to determine if the threatened bioengineering to meet the needs of the current cool Whip-poor-will occurred within the study area. water fisheries. Incorporated features into the design to

Lynde Creek Channel Restoration. First Student Canada, support this fishery. Brooklin ON. Project Manager, Ecologist. London Water Quality Evaluation, City of London, A 300m natural channel design and riparian restoration Ontario. Ecologist and Project Lead. plan was developed and implemented to alleviate This monitoring program consists of a benthic flooding issues and rehabilitate degraded Redside Dace macroinvertebrate collection, as well as a water quality habitat on a tributary of Lynde Creek. Ecological and collection for various aquatic systems within the City of geomorphological studies were completed to assess local London watershed. These collections are conducted to conditions and to support the development of the assess the current water quality conditions and temporal channel design. Approvals for the channel construction trends within the City of London watershed. under the Endangered Species Act were acquired from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, and a 3- Bradford Innisfil Secondary Supply Main, Town of year post-construction monitoring program was Bradford West Gwillimbury, Ontario. Ecologist and developed and implemented to monitor water quality, as Project Lead. well as the performance of the rehabilitated channel and This project included the creation of a secondary supply the riparian restoration. main which required an assessment of the existing Wilson Drain Ecological Monitoring, Urbantech environmental conditions. The collection of ecological Consulting, Ontario. Ecologist and Field Lead. data included EcologicalLandClassificaiton,tree inventory, This project Included 3 years of post-construction watercourse crossing assessment, as well as Species at monitoring of the realigned channel. Monitoring included Risk observations. This data was used to develop an various ecological parameters such as water quality, existing conditions report. A mitigation strategy as well benthic invertebrate analysis, and fish habitat mapping. as regulatory support was provided to help guide These parameters were monitored and updated each construction. year for 3 years to identify any changes from the baseline Tributary C - Drain and Stormwater Management data collected. Functional Design, Matrix Solutions Inc., Ontario. Langstaff Environmental Impact Study, Toronto and Ecologist. Region Conservation Authority, Ontario. Ecologist. Performed a field verification of Tributary C and its Performed an ecological inventory and impact associated wetland and riparian habitats to gain a sound assessment. Conducted various field studies such as understanding of their current extent, integrity, and

2 Matrix Solutions Inc. DRAFTKaren Reis, B.E.S. PROJECT EXPERIENCE/PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE function, particularly for the brook trout population. Glenview Estates Phase IV(B) & Phase V: Ecological and Dissolved oxygen and thermal loggers were used to Hydrogeological Assessment, Ontario. Ecologist. assess the pre-construction levels. A fisheries assessment Performed confirmation and update of the ecological was conducted to analyze the current brook trout Land Classification (ELC) mapping as well as Ontario population, and a fisheries habitat map was created to Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) evaluation of locate the extent of this population, as well as important potential wetlands. Wildlife surveys were completed habitat features. Conducted an analysis of the current which focused on breeding birds, bat habitat and state of the fisheries and provided recommendations to hibernacula, and turtle habitat. Based on the finding protect this local fishery and riparian wetlands. from the field program, a report was developed which outlined areas which had possible opportunities for development and areas which contained constraints for

development.

3 Matrix Solutions Inc. DRAFT Martine Esraelian, B.Sc, CAN-CISEC Terrestrial Ecologist

Ms. Martine Esraelian is a terrestrial ecologist with more than 12 years of technical and hands-on field experience in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. She has worked with a portfolio of clients both nationally and internationally, across all major sectors including renewable energy (hydro, solar, and wind), infrastructure, mining, and oil and gas.

Ms. Esraelian has knowledge and understanding of municipal, provincial, federal, and international legislation for obtaining necessary permits and approvals to ensure regulatory compliance. She has worked on a diversity of projects and studies, including environmental assessments (EAs; provincial, federal, and international), natural heritage studies, wetland evaluations, constraints assessments, due diligence reports, Phase I environmental site assessments (ESAs), dam safety assessments, environmental compliance reports, habitat enhancement plans, biodiversity action plans, and various construction, operational, and species management plans.

Ms. Esraelian has extensive knowledge and experience completing terrestrial and aquatic field investigations, including species at risk (SAR), wildlife (breeding bird, herpetofauna, mammals, fisheries, and benthic macroinvertebrate) and vegetation surveys and monitoring, wildlife habitat assessments, botanical inventories, ecological land classification (ELC) characterization and mapping, wetland evaluations and community delineations, tree health assessments, and construction monitoring.

EDUCATION

B.Sc., Biology and Environmental Science, Trent University, 2006

Diploma, Ecosystem Management Technician, Sir Sandford Fleming College, 2000

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY

Matrix Solutions Inc., Terrestrial Ecologist, January 2018 to Present

Hatch Ltd., Terrestrial Biologist, April 2010 to January 2018

Colville Consulting Inc., Ecologist, May 2008 to November 2009

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Species at Risk Technician, May 2007 to May 2008

Regional Municipality of Niagara, Environmental Technician, May 2004 to August 2004

City of St. Catharines, Environmental Technician, May 2003 to August 2003

City of St. Catharines, Ecosystem Monitoring Technician, May 2002 to August 2002

City of St. Catharines, Water Quality Technician, May 2001 to August 2001

1 Matrix Solutions Inc. Martine Esraelian,DRAFT B.Sc, CAN-CISEC PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS

Field Botanists of Ontario

Certified Inspector of Sediment and Erosion Control (Canada Chapter) (CAN-CISEC) (2016 to Present)

Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) Certificate (2011)

Butternut Health Assessment (BHA) Certificate (2009)

Ecological Land Classification (ELC) Certificate (2009)

PADI Scuba Diving – Basic and Advanced Certificates (2004)

ADDITIONAL TRAINING

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) Natural Heritage Information Centre Data Sensitivity Training (2014), Ontario Reptile and Amphibian Field Survey Training Course (2013), Small Non-Pleasure Vessel Basic Safety (MED A3) Certificate (2012), Turtle Management and Wetland Design Workshop (2008), Costa Rica Primatology Field Course (2006), Project Wild Certificate (2003), WHMIS, Pleasure Craft Operators Card, First Aid and CPR (Level A + AED Blended), COHE Awareness, and Wildlife Awareness.

PROJECT EXPERIENCE/PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Infrastructure / Detailed Design Projects community characterization and mapping, tree Mud Creek Detailed Design. Jacobs (formerly CH2M). inventory, invasive species mapping and SAR assessment. London, Ontario. Terrestrial Ecologist. Sanitary Trunk Sewer (STS) Rehabilitation Project – Matrix was retained by Jacobs to complete the detailed Mendota, Queensway, Long Branch, Silver Creek and design phase of the Mud Creek Municipal Class EA and West Humber. Jacobs (formerly CH2M). Etobicoke, support for SAR permitting and developing a Ontario. Project Manager / Terrestrial Ecologist. compensation strategy for the project. Completed a data Matrix was retained by Jacobs to provide natural science gap analysis and follow-up field inventories to verify and arborist support for the STS rehabilitation project for existing conditions and natural heritage features the Mendota, Queensway, Long Branch, Silver Creek and identified in the Mud Creek EA. Agency consultation was the West Humber sites. Managed the project and also completed to discuss SAR permitting and assisted with field inventories that included a tree compensation of natural heritage features. Field inventory, health assessment, and surveying using a inventories included verifying vegetation communities high-precision survey-grade GPS as part of the arborist and boundaries, snag tree survey for bats and a tree assessment. ELC was also completed which included inventory to support the arborist assessment. Findings characterizing vegetation communities and mapping from the field inventories were incorporated into the boundaries to support Jacobs with the Natural Heritage detailed design and compensation plan. Existing Conditions Report. One River Master Plan Class EA. Jacobs (formerly CH2M). Dufferin Street Schedule C Municipal Class EA. Hatch Ltd. London, Ontario. Terrestrial Ecologist. Vaughn, Ontario. Terrestrial Ecologist. Matrix was retained by Jacobs to provide technical Matrix was retained by Hatch to complete the Natural support for the EA. Completed the terrestrial ecology Heritage Existing Conditions Report and a tree inventory portion of the EA and field inventories. Field inventories to support the arborist assessment. Addressed agency included breeding bird surveys, ELC vegetation comments and updating the report and associated

2 Matrix Solutions Inc. Martine Esraelian,DRAFT B.Sc, CAN-CISEC PROJECT EXPERIENCE/PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE mapping. Assisted with preparing an environmental transportation infrastructure project following the ELC effects assessment related to natural heritage features system. for Hatch to include in the Class EA. Renewable Energy / Power Generation Projects Rutherford Go Station Project. Metrolinx. Vaughn, German Solar Projects. German Solar Corporation. Ontario. Terrestrial Biologist. Southwestern Ontario. Terrestrial Biologist. Assisted with completing SAR surveys. This included a bat Preparation of the natural heritage and water habitat assessment and targeted visual encounter assessments reports required for issuance of a surveys for the Blanding’s Turtle. Renewable Energy Approval (REA) for 23 solar projects, each with a nameplate capacity of <500 kW. Fieldwork Barrie Rail Expansion Project. Metrolinx. Bradford, included documenting existing conditions, characterizing Ontario. Terrestrial Biologist. vegetation communities, delineating wetland boundaries Completed a wetland assessment to verify the limits of and high water marks, verifying presence/absence of the existing Holland Marsh Provincially Significant SAR, and assessment/evaluation to determine Wetland as part of a constraints assessment for the significance of wildlife habitats. Also involved in Line 9 Site. This included a desktop study to map the attending public information centres and responding to extent of the wetland using GIS, followed by field any environmental concerns identified by the public. verification. The field surveys included staking the limits Currently working with the client to develop a pollinator of the wetland using a high-precision GPS unit. habitat enhancement program. The results of the assessment were used to update the formal evaluation report. The field studies also included German Solar Projects. German Solar Corporation. characterizing the existing environment and natural Southern Ontario. Terrestrial Biologist. features present, with recommendations for additional Preparation of the natural heritage and water studies. assessments reports as part of the REA process for 14 solar projects each with a nameplate capacity of Light Rail Project. Confidential Client. Montreal, Quebec. <500 kW. Fieldwork included documenting existing Terrestrial Biologist. conditions, characterizing vegetation communities, Completed baseline terrestrial studies to document delineating wetland boundaries and high water marks, existing conditions, verify and assess wetlands, verifying presence/absence of SAR, and characterize vegetation communities, and assess general assessment/evaluation to determine significance of wildlife habitat and habitat for SAR. Assisted with wildlife habitats. preparing the environmental impact assessment (EIA) report to assess potential effects of the project and Northland Power Solar Projects. Northland Power Inc. recommend appropriate mitigation measures. Ontario. Terrestrial Biologist. Completed the natural heritage assessment and water Niagara-on-the-Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant assessment reports for 11 10-MW solar facilities in Federal Environmental Assessment. Hatch Mott southern and northern Ontario as part of the REA MacDonald. Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario. Terrestrial process. Completed terrestrial and aquatic site Biologist. investigations, including vegetation surveys and Assisted in preparing the federal EA/class EA community mapping, wildlife and SAR surveys, wildlife harmonization environmental report and addressing habitat assessments, and wetland evaluations. Involved federal comments. in completing environmental monitoring for the Steeles Avenue Widening Class EA. Region of Halton. construction phase of the Burks Falls West, North Milton, Ontario. Terrestrial Biologist. Burgess, and Glendale and Cochrane Solar Projects. Completed follow-up terrestrial field investigations to Attended public information meetings for the Burks Falls characterize the vegetation communities for a East Project as a result of public concerns related to

3 Matrix Solutions Inc. Martine Esraelian,DRAFT B.Sc, CAN-CISEC PROJECT EXPERIENCE/PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE sedimentation of the Magnetawan River. Completed a assessments are outlined in a yearly report with 5-year post-construction monitoring project for Barn recommendations for remedial action, where required. Swallow for the Burks Falls East Project. Fourteen 10-MW Solar Projects. Canadian Solar Solutions Recurrent Energy Solar Projects. Recurrent Energy. Inc. Ontario. Terrestrial Biologist. Ontario. Terrestrial Biologist. Completed constraints assessments and REA applications Completed constraints assessments and REA natural for 14-10 MW ground-mount solar projects. Terrestrial heritage and water body studies for eight solar projects. field studies included vegetation community Terrestrial field work included vegetation community characterization and mapping, scoped wetland characterization and mapping, scoped wetland evaluations, reptile and amphibian surveys, SAR surveys, evaluations, reptile and amphibian surveys and bat habitat assessments, and wildlife habitat monitoring, SAR surveys, bat habitat assessments, and assessments. Completed permit application under the wildlife habitat assessments. A tree health assessment is Ontario Endangered Species Act (2007) to enable the also being completed for the Midhurst 2 Project as part removal of Bobolink habitat. Provided technical advice to of a 5-year monitoring plan. Completed Phase I ESAs for the client with respect to suitability of proposed the Midhurst 2, 3, 4, and 6 solar projects. compensation locations and facilitated agreements with various conservation authorities (e.g., Quinte Clarke Solar Project. Recurrent Energy. London, Ontario. Conservation Authority and Cataraqui Region Terrestrial Biologist. Conservation Authority) providing the alternate habitats. Completed a site investigation to document natural Recommendations for compensation for tree removal heritage and water body features as part of a constraints within significant woodlands were also provided to the assessment for a proposed solar project. Documented client. existing conditions and characterized vegetation communities following the ELC protocol. A Phase I ESA Saturn Power Solar Energy Projects. Canadian Solar was also completed to identify potential contamination Solutions Inc. and Saturn Power. Ontario. Terrestrial on the site. Biologist. Completed the natural heritage assessment and water Otonabee Solar Project. Recurrent Energy. Peterborough, assessment reports for two 10-MW solar facilities as part Ontario. Terrestrial Biologist. of the REA process. Completed terrestrial and aquatic Completed a site investigation to document natural site investigations, including vegetation surveys and heritage and water body features as part of a constraints community mapping, wildlife and SAR surveys, wildlife assessment for a proposed solar project. Documented habitat assessments, and wetland evaluations. existing conditions and characterized vegetation Conducted a BHA for two butternut trees to determine communities following the ELC protocol. A Phase I ESA whether a permit is required for removal of these trees was also completed to identify potential contamination under the Ontario Endangered Species Act (2007). on the site. Axio Power Solar Energy Project. Canadian Solar Tree Health Assessment for the Midhurst 2 Solar Project. Solutions Inc. and Axio Power. Ontario. Terrestrial EDF Renewables. Midhurst, Ontario. Terrestrial Biologist. Biologist. A tree health assessment is required as part of the Completed the natural heritage assessment and water commitments made under the REA for the Midhurst 2 assessment reports for three 10-MW solar facilities Solar Project. The tree health assessment is required (Welland Solar Project, Norfolk Solar Project, Alfred over a 5-year period, between 2013-2018. A total of Concession Road 7 Solar Project) as part of the REA 55 trees are assessed annually to monitor crown and process. Completed terrestrial and aquatic site stem defects, disease, and damage. The results of the investigations, including vegetation surveys and community mapping, wildlife and SAR surveys, wildlife

4 Matrix Solutions Inc. Martine Esraelian,DRAFT B.Sc, CAN-CISEC PROJECT EXPERIENCE/PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE habitat assessments, and wetland evaluations. Butternut Planting Plan for the Brockville Solar Project. Conducted a BHA for two butternut trees to determine International Power Canada Incorporated. Brockville, whether a permit is required for removal of these trees Ontario. Terrestrial Biologist. under the Ontario Endangered Species Act (2007). Prepared the permit application for the removal of Involved in addressing public comments and consulting butternut in accordance with the Ontario Endangered with the MNRF to address public concerns. Species Act (2007). Prepared a butternut planting plan as part of the compensation requirements for the removal Upper Canada Solar Energy Projects. Canadian Solar of butternut. Involved in contacting landowners and Solutions Inc. and Upper Canada. Ontario. Terrestrial agencies that may be interested in planting butternut on Biologist. their lands. Completed the natural heritage assessment and water assessment reports for two 10-MW solar facilities as part Timiskaming Solar Project. German Solar Corp. of the REA process. Completed terrestrial and aquatic Timiskaming. Terrestrial Biologist. site investigations, including vegetation surveys and Completed a site investigation to document natural community mapping, wildlife and SAR surveys, wildlife heritage and water body features for a proposed solar habitat assessments, and wetland evaluations. project under the Environmental Activity and Sector Registry. 3G Energy Solar Energy Projects. Canadian Solar Solutions Inc. and 3G Energy. Ontario. Terrestrial Sunningdale1 Solar Project. EDF Renewable Services. Biologist. Middlesex County, Ontario. Terrestrial Biologist. Completed the natural heritage assessment and water 5-year post-construction amphibian and reptile assessment reports for two 10-MW solar facilities as part monitoring for a 10 MW solar project as part of the of the REA process. Completed terrestrial and aquatic requirements set out in the REA. Terrestrial monitoring site investigations, including vegetation surveys and included egg mass surveys, anuran call surveys, and community mapping, wildlife and SAR surveys, wildlife turtle nest surveys. A monitoring report was prepared habitat assessments, and wetland evaluations. each year and submitted to MNRF.

Beckwith Solar Energy Project. EffiSolar Energy Wetland Assessment for a Solar Project. Mann Corporation. Beckwith, Ontario. Terrestrial Ecologist. Engineering Ltd. Ontario. Terrestrial Biologist. Completed terrestrial and aquatic field investigations for Assisted in the delineation of a wetland as part of a a 10-MW solar project as part of the REA process. proposed solar project in consultation with the Conducted a BHA for 21 butternut trees to determine Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority. whether a permit is required for removal of these trees Wirsol Phase I ESA. Wirsol. Forfar, Ontario. Terrestrial under the Ontario Endangered Species Act (2007). Biologist. Cornwall A Solar Energy Project. EffiSolar Energy Conducted a site assessment for a Phase I ESA and Corporation. Cornwall, Ontario. Terrestrial Biologist. targeted SAR surveys for gray ratsnake surveys in support Completed the natural heritage assessment and water of a 500 kW solar project. assessment reports for a 10-MW solar facility as part of Canadian Solar and Group IV Due Diligence. Potentia the REA process. Completed terrestrial and aquatic site Solar Inc. Ontario. Terrestrial Biologist. investigations, including vegetation surveys and Conducted site assessments and prepared the community mapping, wildlife and SAR surveys, and environmental portion of the due diligence reports for wetland evaluations. Conducted a BHA for 232 butternut seven solar projects in southern Ontario. trees to determine whether a permit is required for removal of these trees under the ESA.

5 Matrix Solutions Inc. Martine Esraelian,DRAFT B.Sc, CAN-CISEC PROJECT EXPERIENCE/PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Bloomfield Phase I ESA. GDF Suez. Chatham, Ontario. Haymaker Wind Farm Constraints Analysis. Confidential Terrestrial Biologist. Client. Two Dot, Montana, United States. Terrestrial Prepared a Phase I ESA which involved completing a site Biologist. visit and writing the report in accordance with the Completed an environmental constraints analysis for the Canadian Standards Association and Ontario Regulation Haymaker Wind Farm Project. This included a desktop 350/12. review of environmental features and GIS mapping.

Independent Engineer Review of Alderville First Nation Sir Adam Beck 1 Generating Station Power Canal Solar Project. Stonebridge Financial Corporation. Terrestrial Baseline Studies. Ontario Power Generation. Roseneath, Ontario. Terrestrial Biologist. Niagara Falls, Ontario. Terrestrial Biologist. Provided support for the Independent Engineer Review Completed a desktop study and preliminary terrestrial of the operations phase of the Alderville First Nation field surveys as part of proposed refurbishment activities Solar Project. Responsible for reviewing environmental along the Canal. A report outlining the results of the and regulatory compliance reports and ensuring desktop study and field investigations was prepared fulfillment of commitments. identifying potential constraints of the project and recommendations for additional studies to ensure Ernestown Wind Park. Horizon Legacy Energy regulatory compliance. Field studies included Corporation. Ernestown, Ontario. Terrestrial Biologist. characterizing vegetation communities following the ELC Completed a scoped wetland evaluation for the wetland protocol, incidental wildlife observations and a communities identified on the Project. Assisted in writing screening-level assessment of wildlife habitat following the natural heritage assessment reports and helped MNRF guidelines. prepare natural feature mapping using ArcGIS software. Trenton Lock 1 Hydro Project. Hydromega Services Inc. Constraints Assessment for Wind Projects. MapleDome Trenton, Ontario. Terrestrial Biologist. Energy Investments Inc. Various Locations in Southern Assisted with developing the baseline terrestrial field Ontario. Terrestrial Biologist. program and completing field studies that included: Conducted environmental constraints assessments and characterizing vegetation communities (ELC), bat habitat preliminary site visits for proposed wind projects in assessment, breeding bird surveys, reptile and amphibian southern Ontario. surveys, and targeted SAR surveys for Blanding's Turtle, South Kent Wind Project Phase I ESA. Pattern Energy. Eastern Musk Turtle, Eastern Ribbonsnake, Eastern Chatham, Ontario. Terrestrial Biologist. Whip-poor-will, and Common Nighthawk. Also involved Conducted reconnaissance - level site visits as part of a in completing the terrestrial field report and EIA. Phase I ESA for more than 50 properties in support of the Timiskaming Ontario Dam Replacement. Public Works wind project. Assisted with preparing the Phase I ESA and Government Services Canada. Timiskaming, Ontario. reports. Terrestrial Biologist. Environmental Management Plan for the Grand Assisted with preparation of the Federal Environmental Renewable Wind Project. Samsung Renewable Energy Effects Evaluation under Section 67 of the Canadian Inc. Haldimand County, Ontario. Terrestrial Biologist. Environmental Assessment Act (2012), and Provincial Involved in preparing the Environmental Management Ministry of Transportation Class EA to assess potential Plan for the proposed Grand Renewable Wind Project. effects and required mitigation measures for the project. Terrestrial field studies included ELC and mapping, amphibian call surveys, and breeding bird and reptile surveys.

6 Matrix Solutions Inc. Martine Esraelian,DRAFT B.Sc, CAN-CISEC PROJECT EXPERIENCE/PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Hydroelectric Projects. Ojibways of Pic River First Nation. Namakan River High Falls Hydro Project. Gemini Power Manitouwadge, Ontario. Terrestrial Biologist. Corp. Namakan River in Northwestern Ontario. Assisted with preparing the EIA reports to assess Terrestrial Biologist. potential project effects and recommend appropriate Completed reconnaissance level baseline studies of the mitigation measures for multiple hydroelectric projects: terrestrial environment and prepared a terrestrial field Kagiano Lake Dam Rehabilitation Project and Manitou study report. Also assisted in the preparation of the EA and High Falls hydroelectric projects. Completed report. terrestrial baseline field investigations that included Gitchi Animki Hydroelectric Project. Regional Power Inc. vegetation community and habitat mapping, vegetation White River, Ontario. Terrestrial Biologist. and wildlife surveys (specifically, breeding bird surveys, Completed preliminary Eastern Whip-poor-will habitat incidental wildlife observations, and targeted SAR mapping surrounding the White River Hydro Project. This surveys for Eastern Whip-poor-will, a threatened species, included a desktop review of satellite imagery and Forest both provincially and nationally). Resource Inventory (FRI) mapping, ground-truthing, and Kapuskasing River Environmental Assessment. Xeneca aerial surveys to verify FRI data. Power. Kapuskasing, Ontario. Terrestrial Biologist. Hilton Falls Diversion Structure. Conservation Halton. Completed terrestrial field investigations for the Halton, Ontario. Terrestrial Biologist. proposed hydro facilities at Cedar Rapids, Clouston Completed a baseline environmental inventory to Rapids and Buchan Falls sites. Field studies included document existing conditions and characterize vegetation, wildlife, and SAR surveys. A field report was vegetation communities. A field report was prepared prepared to document the results of the field outlining the findings and identifying any potential investigations. Assisted with preparing the EA and effects of the project. associated mapping related to the terrestrial environment. Scott Falls Reservoir Project. New Brunswick Department of Transportation and Infrastructure. Saint John, New Gull Bay First Nation Stabilization Project. Ontario Power Brunswick. Terrestrial Biologist. Generation. Gull Bay, Ontario. Terrestrial Biologist. Completed baseline terrestrial studies, such as Completed terrestrial and aquatic surveys in support of vegetation community mapping, wetland assessment the permitting and approval process for shoreline and general wildlife habitat assessments. stabilization works and potential road upgrades. Fieldwork included: gill netting, wetland characterization Bronson Bulkhead Replacement Project. Ottawa Energy. and delineation, vegetation community mapping, wildlife Ottawa, Ontario. Terrestrial Biologist. habitat, and SAR assessments. Completed a reconnaissance level site assessment to verify the presence/absence of SAR, specifically barn Shikwamkwa Replacement Dam Project. Brookfield swallow, butternut, pale-bellied frost lichen, and flooded Power. Wawa, Ontario. Terrestrial Biologist. jellyskin. Prepared a field study report and GIS figures Completed a wetland habitat assessment in the discussing the results of the baseline studies, including expanded reservoir area as part of a 5-year monitoring recommended mitigation measures and additional future plan. The survey involved characterizing and mapping SAR surveys to be completed. wetland communities for comparison to those documented during the baseline studies, to confirm the Dam Asset Management Plan Across Ontario. Ontario predicted changes as outlined in the EIA. Prepared the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. Ontario. environmental post-construction monitoring report and Terrestrial Biologist. GIS figures showing the wetland communities. Completed a desktop review of environmental features surrounding MNRF dam resources.

7 Matrix Solutions Inc. Martine Esraelian,DRAFT B.Sc, CAN-CISEC PROJECT EXPERIENCE/PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Val d'Or Project. Confidential Client. Val d'Or, Quebec. environmental implications and considerations. Provided Terrestrial Biologist. support in preparing the Canadian Environmental Conducted an ecological site characterization and Phase I Assessment Act (2012) Project Description Report and ESA for the construction of a biomass cogeneration plant. was responsible for preparing an environmental effects Activities included characterizing vegetation assessment related to the terrestrial environment communities and a small mammal survey. (vegetation, wetlands, wildlife, and wildlife habitat).

Ajax Steam Plant Due Diligence. Index Energy. Ajax, Oil and Gas Projects Ontario. Terrestrial Biologist. Bahrain LNG Project. Teekay LNG Operating LLC. Completed an environmental due diligence for the Ajax Muharraq, Bahrain. Terrestrial Biologist. Steam Plant. This included a site visit and review of Assisted in the preparation of the EIA Addendum and background studies and permitting completed for the various environmental social action plans to meet Project. Responsible for ensuring regulatory compliance International Finance Corporation performance of the project. standards. Key deliverables included preparing the Marine Biological Environment and Ecosystem Services Mining Projects impact assessments and biodiversity action plan. Vale Victor Mine Project. Vale. Sudbury, Ontario. Terrestrial Biologist. Burnwell Transloading Facility. Superior Gas Liquids Provided support in developing an EA and permitting (SGL). Fort Erie, Ontario. Terrestrial Biologist. strategy for a designated project under the federal Hatch was retained by SGL to complete environmental Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (2012) studies to determine the feasibility of expanding the requirements. Responsibilities included a provincial and transloading facility to adjacent lands. Martine was federal regulatory review and permitting work plans. responsible for completing a field assessment to A gap analysis for the terrestrial baseline field program document vegetation communities following the ELC was also completed and work plans developed to assist system and a full wetland evaluation following the OWES the client in preparing the RFP. protocol.

Victoria Mine Project. KGHM. Sudbury, Ontario. Nuclear Projects Terrestrial Biologist. Darlington Bank Swallow Monitoring Project. Ontario Completed an environmental constraints assessment for Power Generation. Darlington, Ontario. Terrestrial the proposed waste rock storage location for the Victoria Biologist. Mine Project. The constraints assessment included a Conducted Bank Swallow monitoring for the Darlington desktop review of background studies completed for the New Nuclear Project. Project and site investigation to document existing conditions. A report was prepared identifying the

8 Matrix Solutions Inc. DRAFT

APPENDIX D Summary of Ecological Data

Appendix D1: Flora Inventory Summary NHIC- 17MH795 Thames Blackfriars Harris Park Hydrolands London RT Riverview Botanical Matrix Common Name Scientific Name ESA S-Rank MNRF 8, WLD EIS WLD SLSR South Dyke DRAFT Bridge Study SLSR SLSR SLSR Dyke SLSR Inventory Inventory 17MH785 SLSR 8 Year of Publication 2016 2016 2015 2013 2013 2017 2017 2015 2014 2018 Study Area Reach N6 N6 N6 N6 S6 S6 N6/M1 M1 M1, M4 M1,N6, S6 (Common) Motherwort Leonurus cardiaca SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y (Common) Privet Ligustrum vulgare SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y (Common) Yarrow Achillea millefolium SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y (English) Sweet Violet Viola odorata SNA Y (Garden) Red Currant Ribes rubrum SNA Y Y Y Y Symphyotrichum lanceolatum var. S4? Y Y Y Y (Western) Panicled Aster hesperium Agrimony sp Agrimonia sp. - Y Alfalfa Medicago sativa SNA Y Y Alsike Clover Trifolium hybridum SNA Y Y Y Y Alternate-leaved Dogwood Cornus alternifolia S5 Y Y American Brooklime Veronica americana S5 Y Y Y Y Y American Chestnut Castanea dentate END S1S2 x x x x x x American Elm Ulmus americana S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y American Ostrich Fern Matteuccia struthiopteris S5 Y Y Y Y American Plum Prunus americana S4 Y American Water- horehound Lycopus americanus S5 Y Y Y Y Amur Honeysuckle Lonicera maackii SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Amur Maple Acer ginnala - Y Angelica (Purple-stemmed Angelica) Angelica atropurpurea S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Annual Blue Grass Poa annua SNA Y Y Annual Sow-thistle Sonchus oleraceus SNA Y Y Y Y Y Apple Malus pumila SNA Y Y Y Arrow-leaved Aster Symphyotrichum urophyllum S4 Y Y Y Y Y Aster species Symphyotrichum sp. - Y Y Austrian Pine Pinus nigra SNA Y Y Y Avens sp Geum sp. - Y Bachbungen's Speedwell Veronica cf. beccabunga SNA Y Balsam Fir Abies balsamea S5 Y Barbarea verna Amaranthus cf. tuberculatus SNA Y Barnyard Grass Echinochloa crusgalli SNA Y Y Y Y Basket Willow Salix purpurea SNA Y Y Y Basswood Tilia americana S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Beggarticks Bidens tripartita S5 Y Beggar-ticks Bidens connata S4? Y Biennial Wormwood Artemisia biennis SNA Y Y Y Bird’s-eye Speedwell Veronica chamaedrys SNA Y Y Bird’s-foot Trefoil (Garden Bird's-foot Lotus corniculatus SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Bird’s-Foot Violet Viola pedata END S2 x Bitter (Climbing) Nightshade (ClimbinSolanum dulcamara SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Bitter Dock Rumex obtusifolius SNA Y Y Y Y Y Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis S5 Y NHIC- 17MH795 Thames Blackfriars Harris Park Hydrolands London RT Riverview Botanical Matrix Common Name Scientific Name ESA S-Rank MNRF 8, WLD EIS WLD SLSR South Dyke Bridge Study SLSR SLSR SLSR Dyke SLSR Inventory Inventory 17MH785 SLSR DRAFT 8 Year of Publication 2016 2016 2015 2013 2013 2017 2017 2015 2014 2018 Study Area Reach N6 N6 N6 N6 S6 S6 N6/M1 M1 M1, M4 M1,N6, S6 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NHIC- 17MH795 Thames Blackfriars Harris Park Hydrolands London RT Riverview Botanical Matrix Common Name Scientific Name ESA S-Rank MNRF 8, WLD EIS WLD SLSR South Dyke Bridge Study SLSR SLSR SLSR Dyke SLSR Inventory Inventory 17MH785 SLSR DRAFT 8 Year of Publication 2016 2016 2015 2013 2013 2017 2017 2015 2014 2018 Study Area Reach N6 N6 N6 N6 S6 S6 N6/M1 M1 M1, M4 M1,N6, S6 Black Maple Acer nigrum S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Black Medick Medicago lupulina SNA Y Y Y Y Y Black Mustard Brassica nigra SNA Y Y Black Nightshade Solanum nigrum SNA Y Black Raspberry Rubus occidentalis S5 Y Y Y Y Black Snakeroot (Maryland Sanicle) Sanicula marilandica S5 Y Black Walnut Juglans nigra S4? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Black Willow Salix nigra S4 Y Y Y Y Y Black-eyed Susan Rudbeckia hirta S5 Y Y Y Black-eyed Susan Rudbeckia fulgida S1 Y Bladder (Catchfly) Campion (Bladder Silene vulgaris SNA Y Y Y Y Y Bladder Sedge Carex intumescens S5 Y Bloodroot Sanguinaria canadensis S5 Y Y Y Blue Ash Fraxinus quadrangulata THR S2? x Blue Vervain Verbena hastata S5 Y Y Y Y Y Blue-stem Goldenrod Solidago caesia S5 Y Y Boneset Eupatorium perfoliatum S5 Y Bouncing Bet Saponaria officinalis SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Bridal Wreath Spirea Spirea vanhouttei SNA Y Broad Beech Fern Phegopteris hexagonoptera SC S3 x x x x x Brown Cyperus Cyperus fuscus SNA Y Brown Knapweed Centaurea jacea SNA Y Y Bugle (Bugleweed) Ajuga reptans SNA Y Y Y Bugleweed Lycopus uniflorus S5 Y Bull Thistle Cirsium vulgare SNA Y Y Y Y Y Bur Cucumber (One-seeded Burr Cuc Sicyos angulatus S4S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa S5 Y Y Y Y Burning Bush Eunoymus atropurpureus S3 x Butter-and-eggs Linaria vulgaris SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Butternut Juglans cinerea END S2? x Y x Y x Cabbage Rose Rosa centifolia - Y Y Calico Aster Symphyotrichum lateriflorum S5 Y Y Y Y Y Canada Anemone Anemone canadensis S5 Y Y Y Y Canada Goldenrod Solidago canadensis S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Canada Thistle Cirsium arvense SNA Y Y Y Y Y Carpenter’s-square Scrophularia marilandica S4 Y Y Y Y Y Catnip Nepeta cataria SNA Y Y Y Y Y Celandine (Greater Celandine) Chelidonium majus SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Cemetary Spurge Euphorbia cyparissias SNA Y Charlock Sinapis arvensis SNA Y Y Y Y Cherry Plum (Sweet Cherry) Prunus avium SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Chickweed Cerastium glomeratum SNA Y Chicory Cichorium intybus SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NHIC- 17MH795 Thames Blackfriars Harris Park Hydrolands London RT Riverview Botanical Matrix Common Name Scientific Name ESA S-Rank MNRF 8, WLD EIS WLD SLSR South Dyke Bridge Study SLSR SLSR SLSR Dyke SLSR Inventory Inventory 17MH785 SLSR DRAFT 8 Year of Publication 2016 2016 2015 2013 2013 2017 2017 2015 2014 2018 Study Area Reach N6 N6 N6 N6 S6 S6 N6/M1 M1 M1, M4 M1,N6, S6 Chinese Lantern Physalis alkekengi - Y Choke Cherry Prunus virginiana S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Clammy Ground-cherry Physalis heterophylla S4 Y Y Y Clearweed Pilea pumila S5 Y Y Y Y Y Climbing False Buckwheat Fallopia scandens S4S5 Y Y Climbing False Buckwheat Polygonum scandens - Y Y Y Closed (Bottle) Gentian Gentiana andrewsii S4 Y Cocklebur Xanthium strumarium S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Colorado Spruce Picea pungens SNA Y Y Coltsfoot Tussilago farfara SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Common (Alleghany) Blackberry Rubus allegheniensis S5 Y Common (Tall) Buttercup (Tall Butter Ranunculus acris SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Common Arrowhead Sagittaria latifolia S5 Y Y Y Y Common Barberry Berberis vulgaris SNA Y Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Common Burdock Arctium minus SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Common Cattail Typha latifolia S5 Y Y Common Chickweed Stellaria media SNA Y Common Cinquefoil Potentilla simplex S5 Y Common Comfrey Symphytum officinale SNA Y Y Y Common Dandelion (Red-seeded DanTaraxacum officinale SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Common Dodder Cuscuta gronovil S5? Y Y Y Common Fumitory Fumaria officinalis SNA Y Common Groundsel Senecio vulgaris SNA Y Y Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis S4 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Common Hogweed Heracleum sphondylium SNA Y Y Y Y Common Hop Humulus lupulus SU Y Y Y Common Lilac Syringa vulgaris SNA Y Y Common Mallow (Dwarf CheeseweedMalva neglecta SNA Y Y Y Y Common Milkweed Asclepias syriaca S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Common Mullein Verbascum thapsus SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Common Pear Pyrus cf. communis SNA Y Common Periwinkle Vinca minor SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Common Plantain Plantago major SNA Y Y Y Y Common Purslane Portulaca oleracea SNA Y Y Common Ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Common Reed Phragmites australis SNA Y Y Y Common Salsify (Purple Goat's-beardTragopogon porrifolius SNA Y Common Skullcap Scutellaria galericulata S5 Y Y Common St. John’s- wort Hypericum perforatum SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Common Wood- sorrell Oxalis montana S5 Y Corn Speedwell Veronica arvensis SNA Y Y Corymbed St. John’s- wort Hypericum punctatum S5 Y Y Y Cow Vetch Vicia cracca SNA Y Y Y Y NHIC- 17MH795 Thames Blackfriars Harris Park Hydrolands London RT Riverview Botanical Matrix Common Name Scientific Name ESA S-Rank MNRF 8, WLD EIS WLD SLSR South Dyke Bridge Study SLSR SLSR SLSR Dyke SLSR Inventory Inventory 17MH785 SLSR DRAFT 8 Year of Publication 2016 2016 2015 2013 2013 2017 2017 2015 2014 2018 Study Area Reach N6 N6 N6 N6 S6 S6 N6/M1 M1 M1, M4 M1,N6, S6 Cow-parsnip Heracleum lanatum - Y Crack Willow Salix euxina SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Creeping Bellflower Campanula rapunculoides SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Creeping Buttercup Ranunculus repens SNA Y Creeping Yellow Cress Rorippa sylvestris SNA Y Y Y Y Crested Sedge Carex cristatella S5 Y Y Crown-vetch Coronilla varia - Y Y Y Y Crown-vetch (Common Crown-vetch)Securigera varia SNA Y Y Cucumber Tree Magnolia acuminate END S2 Y Curly Dock Rumex crispus SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Cursed Buttercup Ranunculus sceleratus SNA Y Y Cut-leaved Avens Geum laciniatum S4 Y Y Y Cut-leaved Coneflower Rudbeckia laciniata S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Daffodil species Narcissus sp. - Y Y Daisy Fleabane (Annual Fleabane) Erigeron annuus S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Dame’s Rocket Hesperis matronalis SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Dark-green Bulrush Scirpus cf. atrovirens S5 Y Day-flower Commelina communis SNA Y Y Y Day-lily Species Hemerocallis Spp. - Y Devil’s Beggarticks Bidens frondosa S5 Y Y Y Y Y Ditch Stonecrop Penthorum sedoides S5 Y Y Y Dog Mustard Erucastrum gallicum SNA Y Early Meadow-rue Thalictrum dioicum S5 Y Eastern (Canadian) Redbud Cercis Canadensis SX Y Y Y Y Y Eastern Black Nightshade Solanum ptycanthum S5 Y Y Eastern Burnweed Erechtites hieraciifolius S5 Y Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Eastern Flowering Dogwood Cornus florida END S2? x x Eastern Hemlock Tsuga canadensis S5 Y Enchanter’s (Yellowish) nightshade Circaea canadensis S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y English Elm Ulmus procera SNA Y English Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna SNA Y English Ivy Hedera helix SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y English Oak Quercus robur SNA Y Y Y English Plantain (Ribgrass) Plantago lanceolata SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y English Yew Taxus baccata - Y Y Y European (Upright Yellow) Wood-sorOxalis stricta S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y European Ash Fraxinus excelsior SNA Y European Black Alder Alnus glutinosa SNA Y European Gromwell Lithospermum officinale SNA Y European Larch Larix decidua SNA Y Y Y European Mountain-ash Sorbus aucuparia SNA Y Y European Stinging Nettle (Stinging NeUrtica dioica SNA Y Y Y Y Y European Swallow-wort Vincetoxicum rossicum SNA Y Y NHIC- 17MH795 Thames Blackfriars Harris Park Hydrolands London RT Riverview Botanical Matrix Common Name Scientific Name ESA S-Rank MNRF 8, WLD EIS WLD SLSR South Dyke Bridge Study SLSR SLSR SLSR Dyke SLSR Inventory Inventory 17MH785 SLSR DRAFT 8 Year of Publication 2016 2016 2015 2013 2013 2017 2017 2015 2014 2018 Study Area Reach N6 N6 N6 N6 S6 S6 N6/M1 M1 M1, M4 M1,N6, S6 European Water- horehound Lycopus europaeus SNA Y European White (Weeping) Birch Betula pendula SNA Y Europeran Highbush- cranberry Viburnum opulus SNA Y Y Y Y Y Everlasting Pea Lathyrus latifolius SNA Y Fall Panicum Panicum dichotomiflorum SNA Y False Hop Sedge Carex lupuliformis END S1 x False Nettle Boehmeria cylindrica S5 Y Y Y False Rue-anemone Enemion biternatum THR S2 x False Solomon's-seal Maianthemum racemosum S5 Y Y Y False Stonecrop Sedum Spurium - Y False Water-pepper (Swamp SmartwePersicaria hydrpopiperoides S5 Y Y Field Bindweed Convolvulus arvensis SNA Y Y Y Y Field Hawkweed Hieracium caespitosum SNA Y Field Horsetail Equisetum arvense S5 Y Y Y Y Y Field Mint Mentha arvensis - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Field Pepper-grass Lepidium campestre SNA Y Y Y Flat-topped White Aster Aster umbellatus SNA Y Forsythia Forsythia viridissima SNA Y Y Y Fowl Manna Grass Glyceria striata S5 Y Foxtail Sedge Carex alopecoidea S4 Y Fragrant (Tuberous) Water-lily Nymphaea odorata S5? Y Fragrant Bedstraw Galium triflorum S5 Y Fragrant Sumac Rhus aromatica S4 Y Y Freeman's / Swamp Maple Acer X freemanii SNA Y Fringed Brome Bromus ciliatus S5 Y Y Fringed Loosestrife Lysimachia ciliata S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Garden Asparagus Asparagus officinalis SNA Y Garden Chives Allium schoenoprasum SNA Y Garden Loosestrife Lysimachia vulgaris SNA Y Garden Phlox Phlox paniculata SNA Y Y Garden Purslane Portulaca grandiflora SNA Y Garlic Allium sativum SNA Y Garlic mustard Allaria petiolata SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Giant Chickweed Myosoton aquaticum SNA Y Y Giant Ragweed (Great Ragweed) Ambrosia trifida S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Gill-over-the-ground (Ground-ivy) Glechoma hederacea SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Glossy Buckthorn Rhamnus frangula - Y Y Y Y Y Golden Alexanders Zizia aurea S5 Y Y Goldenrod sp Solidago sp. - Y Y Y Goutweed Aegopodium podagraria SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Graceful Sedge Carex gracillima S5 Grass-leaved Goldenrod Euthamia graminifolia S5 Y Y Y Y Grass-leaved Stitchwort Stellaria graminea SNA Y Gray's Sedge Carex grayi S4 Y NHIC- 17MH795 Thames Blackfriars Harris Park Hydrolands London RT Riverview Botanical Matrix Common Name Scientific Name ESA S-Rank MNRF 8, WLD EIS WLD SLSR South Dyke Bridge Study SLSR SLSR SLSR Dyke SLSR Inventory Inventory 17MH785 SLSR DRAFT 8 Year of Publication 2016 2016 2015 2013 2013 2017 2017 2015 2014 2018 Study Area Reach N6 N6 N6 N6 S6 S6 N6/M1 M1 M1, M4 M1,N6, S6 Great Burdock Arctium lappa SNA Y Y Y Great Hairy Willow-herb Epilobium hirsutum SNA Y Great Solomon’s-seal Polygonatum multiflorum SNA Y Y Great Water Dock Rumex orbiculatus - Y Green Dragon Arisaema dracontium SC S3 x x Y x x x x x Green Foxtail Setaria viridis SNA Y Y Y Y Grey Dogwood Cornus foemina - Y Y Y Gypsy-weed Veronica officinalis SNA Y Symphyotrichum pilosum var. S5 Y Y Y Hairy Aster pilosum Hairy Galinsoga Galinsoga quadriradiata SNA Y Hairy Yellow Evening- primrose Oenothera biennis S5 Y Y Y Y Hairy-fruited Sedge Carex trichocarpa S3 x Y x Hairy-fruited Spurge (Spotted Sandm Chamaesyce maculata SNA Y Hawthorn species Crataegus sp. - Y Heal-all (Common Self-heal) Prunells vulgaris ssp. vulgaris SNA Y Y Y Y Y Heart-leaved Aster Symphyotrichum cordifolium S5 Y Y Y Heart-leaved Willow Salix eriocephala S5 Y Y Y Y Y Hedge Bindweed Calystegia sepium S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Hedge Bindweed Fallopia dumetorum SNA Y Hedge Mustard (Tumble Mustard) Sisymbrium officinale SNA Y Y Helleborine Epipactis helleborine SNA Y Y Herb-Robert Geranium robertianum S5 Y Y Y Y Highbush-cranberry Viburnum trilobum - Y Y Hispid Buttercup Ranunculus hispidus S3 Y Y Y Y Y Hoary (Toothed) Tick- trefoil Desmodium canescens S2 x Hoary Alyssum Berteroa incana SNA Y Hog-peanut Amphicarpaea bracteata S5 Y Y Honewort Cryptotaenia canadensis S5 Y Y Y Y Honey Locust Gleditsia triacanthos S2? Y Y Y Y Hornbeam / Blue Beech Carpinus caroliniana S5 Y Horsebalm Collinsonia cacadensis S4 Y Horse-chestnut Aesculus hippocastanum SNA Y Y Y Y Y Horseweed Conyza canadensis - Y Y Y Y Hosta Hosta sp. - Y Y Hybrid Butternut Juglans sp. - Y Indian Hemp Apocynum cannabinum S5 Y Y Y Y Indian Mustard Brassica juncea SNA Y Y Y Indian Strawberry Duchesnea indica - Y Y Indian Strawberry Potentilla indica SNA Y Iris species Iris sp. - Y Y Y Jack-in-the-pulpit Arisaema triphyllum S5 Y Y Japan Sweet-coltsfoot Petasites japonicus SNA Y Japanese Barberry Berberis thunbergii SNA Y Y Y NHIC- 17MH795 Thames Blackfriars Harris Park Hydrolands London RT Riverview Botanical Matrix Common Name Scientific Name ESA S-Rank MNRF 8, WLD EIS WLD SLSR South Dyke Bridge Study SLSR SLSR SLSR Dyke SLSR Inventory Inventory 17MH785 SLSR DRAFT 8 Year of Publication 2016 2016 2015 2013 2013 2017 2017 2015 2014 2018 Study Area Reach N6 N6 N6 N6 S6 S6 N6/M1 M1 M1, M4 M1,N6, S6 Japanese Hop Humulus japonicus SNA Y Japanese Knotweed Fallopia japonica - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Jerusalem Artichoke Helianthus tuberosus SU Y Y Y Y Y Y Jumpseed Persicaria virginiana S4 Y Y Y Y Kentucky Blue Grass Poa pratensis SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Kentucky Coffee Tree Gymocladus dioicus THR S2 Y Y Y Kidney-leaved Buttercup Ranunculus abortivus S5 Y Lady’s-thumb Polygonum persicaria - Y Y Y Y Y Lady's-thumb (Spotted Smartweed) Persicaria maculosa SNA Y Y Lake-bank Sedge Carex lacustris S5 Y Lamb’s Ear Stachys byzantina SNA Y Lamb’s-quarters Chenopodium album SNA Y Y Y Y Late Goldenrod Solidago altissima S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Leafy Spurge Euphorbia esula SNA Y Y Y Lemon Balm Melissa officinalis SNA Y Y Lesser Duckweed Lemna minor S5 Y Lily-of-the-valley Convallaria majalis SNA Y Y Y Y Little-leaf Linden Tilia cordata SNA Y Y Long-styled Sweet- cicely Osmorhiza longistylis S5 Y Loose-flowered Sedge Carex laxiflora S5 Y Y Loose-stemmed Sedge Carex laxiculmis S4? Y Lopseed Phryma leptostachya S4S5 Y Low Cyperus Cyperus diandrus S4 Y Low Hop Clover Trifolium campestre SNA Y Lowland Brittle Fern Cystopteris protrusa S2S3 x M. aquatica x M. spicata Mentha x piperita SNA Y Y Y Y Mad-dog Skullcap Scutellaria lateriflora S5 Y Maidenhair- tree Ginkgo biloba - Y Y Y Manitoba Maple Acer negundo S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Maple-leaved Goosefoot Chenopodiastrum simplex S5 Y Y Y Marsh Violet Viola cucullata S5 Y Y Y Y Marsh-marigold Caltha palustris S5 Y Matted Spike-rush Eleocharis intermedia S4 Y Meadow Fescue Festuca pratensis - Y Y Y Y Y Meadow-sweet Filipendula ulmaria SNA Y Mild Water-pepper Polygonum hydropiperoides - Y Y Moneywort Lysimachia nummularia SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Moonseed Menispermum canadense S4 Y Y Morrow’s Honeysuckle Lonicera morrowii SNA Y Y Y Moth Mullein Verbascum blattaria SNA Y Y Y Y Y Mouse-eared Chickweed Cerastium fontanum SNA Y Y Y Mugwort Artemisia vulgaris SNA Y Y Multi-coloured Blue-flag Iris versicolor S5 Y Y NHIC- 17MH795 Thames Blackfriars Harris Park Hydrolands London RT Riverview Botanical Matrix Common Name Scientific Name ESA S-Rank MNRF 8, WLD EIS WLD SLSR South Dyke Bridge Study SLSR SLSR SLSR Dyke SLSR Inventory Inventory 17MH785 SLSR DRAFT 8 Year of Publication 2016 2016 2015 2013 2013 2017 2017 2015 2014 2018 Study Area Reach N6 N6 N6 N6 S6 S6 N6/M1 M1 M1, M4 M1,N6, S6 Multiflora Rose Rosa multiflora SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Musk Mallow Malva moschata SNA Y Narrow-leaved Cattail Typha angustifolia SNA Y Narrow-leaved Fleabane Erigeron strigosus S5 Y Y Y Narrow-leaved Meadow-sweet Spiraea alba S5 Y Y Narrow-leaved Sedge Carex grisea S4 Y Y Narrow-leaved Spring Beauty Claytonia virginica S5 New England Aster Symphyotrichum novae-angliae S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Ninebark Physocarpus opulifolius S5 Y Y Y Y Y Nipplewort Lapsana communis SNA Y Y Y Y Y Nodding Beggarticks Bidens cernua S5 Y Y Y Y Y Nodding Fescue Festuca subverticillata S4 Y Northern Catalpa Catalpa speciosa SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Northern Water- hemlock Cicuta virosa S4? Y Norway Maple Acer platanoides SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Norway Spruce Picea abies SNA Y Y Y Y Orange Day Lily Hemerocallis fulva SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Orchard Grass Dactylis glomerata SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Oriental Bittersweet Celastrus orbiculatus SNA Y Oval-leaf Sedge Carex cephalophora S5 Y Ox-eye Daisy Leucanthemum vulgare SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Pale (Curlytop) Smartweed Persicaria lapathifolia S5 Y Y Y Pale Smartweed Polygonum lapathifolium - Y Y Y Pale Touch-me-not Impatiens pallida S4 Y Y Y Y Y Y Path Rush Juncus tenuis S5 Y Peach-leaved Willow Salix amygdaloides S5 Y Y Peduncled (Long-stalked) Sedge Carex pedunculata S5 Y Penny Cress Thlaspi arvense SNA Y Perennial Flax Linum perenne SNA Y Perennial Sow-thistle Sonchus arvensis SNA Y Y Y Y Philadelphia Fleabane Erigeron philadelphicus S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Pinkweed Persicaria pensylvanica S5 Y Y Pinkweed Polygonum pensylvanicum - Y Y Toxicodendron radicans var. S5 Y Y Y Poison Ivy (Western Poison Ivy) rydbergii Poison-hemlock Conium maculatum SNA Y Poison-ivy Rhus radicans - Y Pokeweed Phytolacca americana S4 Y Y Y Poor-man’s Pepper- grass Lepidium virginicum S5 Y Y Poverty Oat Grass Danthonia spicata S5 Y Y Prickly Gooseberry Ribes cynosbati S5 Y Prickly Lettuce Lactuca serriola SNA Y Y Y Y Y Procumbent Pearlwort Sagina procumbens SNA Y NHIC- 17MH795 Thames Blackfriars Harris Park Hydrolands London RT Riverview Botanical Matrix Common Name Scientific Name ESA S-Rank MNRF 8, WLD EIS WLD SLSR South Dyke Bridge Study SLSR SLSR SLSR Dyke SLSR Inventory Inventory 17MH785 SLSR DRAFT 8 Year of Publication 2016 2016 2015 2013 2013 2017 2017 2015 2014 2018 Study Area Reach N6 N6 N6 N6 S6 S6 N6/M1 M1 M1, M4 M1,N6, S6 Prostrate Knotweed Polygonum aviculare SNA Y Y Y Y Y Purple Coneflower Echinacea purpurea SNA Y Y Purple Dead-nettle Lamium purpureum SNA Y Y Y Y Y Purple Leaved Willow Herb (Purple-veEpilobium coloratum S5 Y Y Purple Loosestrife Lythrum salicaria SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Purple Meadow-rue Thalictrum cf. dasycarpum S4? Y Purple Touch-me-not (Purple Jewelw Impatiens glandulifera SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Purple Twayblade Liparis liliifolia THR S2S3 x Purple-stemmed Aster Symphyotrichum puniceum S5 Y Purslane Speedwell Veronica peregrina S5 Y Pussy Willow Salix discolor S5 Y Quack Grass Elymus repens SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Red Baneberry Actaea rubra S5 Red Clover Trifolium pratense SNA Y Y Y Red Maple Acer rubrum SNA Y Y Y Y Red Mulberry Morus rubra END S2 x Red Oak Quercus rubra S5 Y Y Y Y Y Red/Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica S4 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Reddish Willow Salix x rubens - Y Y Cornus sericea (formerly C. S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Red-osier Dogwood stolonifera) Redroot Pigweed Amaranthus retroflexus SNA Y Red-rooted Umbrella Sedge Cyperus erythrorhizos S4 Y Reed Canary Grass Phalaris arundinacea S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Riverbank Grape Vitis riparia S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Rose of Sharon Hibiscus syriacus - Y Y Y Y Rough Bedstraw Galium asprellum S5 Y Y Rough-fruited Cinquefoil Potentilla recta SNA Y Y Y Y Y Round-leaved Dogwood Cornus rugosa S5 Y Y Rugel’s Plantain Plantago rugelii S5 Y Y Y Y Y Running Strawberry- bush Euonymus obovata S4 Y Y Russian Olive Elaeagnus agustifolia SNA Y Y Y Sandbar Willow Salix exigua - Y Y Y Y Scotch Thistle Onopordum acanthium SNA Y Y Y Serviceberry sp Amelanchier sp. - Y Shepherd’s-purse Capsella bursa-pastoris SNA Y Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum - Y Y Y Y Silver Maple Acer saccharinum S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Silverweed Potentilla anserina S5 Y Skunk-cabbage Symplocarpus foetidus S5 Y Y Slender Mountain-mint Pycnanthemum tenuifolium S3 x Slender Stinging Nettle Urtica dioica ssp. gracilis S5 Y Y Y NHIC- 17MH795 Thames Blackfriars Harris Park Hydrolands London RT Riverview Botanical Matrix Common Name Scientific Name ESA S-Rank MNRF 8, WLD EIS WLD SLSR South Dyke Bridge Study SLSR SLSR SLSR Dyke SLSR Inventory Inventory 17MH785 SLSR DRAFT 8 Year of Publication 2016 2016 2015 2013 2013 2017 2017 2015 2014 2018 Study Area Reach N6 N6 N6 N6 S6 S6 N6/M1 M1 M1, M4 M1,N6, S6 Slender Willow Salix petiolaris S5 Y Y Slim-flowered Muhly Muhlenbergia tenuiflora S2 x Slippery Elm Ulmus rubra S5 Y Y Y Smaller Forget-me-not Myosotis laxa S5 Y Small-flowered Crane’s- bill Geranium pusillum SNA Y Y Y Small-flowered Willow- herb Epilobium parviflorum SNA Y Y Smith’s Bulrush Schoenoplectus smithii S2S3 x Smooth (Awnless) Brome Bromus inermis SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Smooth Aster Symphyotrichum laeve S5 Y Smooth Crab Grass Digitaria ischaemum SNA Y Y Y Smooth Crab Grass Digitaria sanguinalis SNA Y Smooth Pigweed Amaranthus hybridus SNA Y Y Smooth Yellow False Foxglove Aureolaria flava S2? x Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus S5 Y Y Soft Rush Juncus effusus ssp. solutus S5? Y Onosmodium molle ssp. - Y Soft-hairy False Gromwell hispidissimum

S5 Y Soft-stemmed Bulrush Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani Spearmint Mentha spicata SNA Y Y Spearscale Atriplex patula SNA Y Speedwell Veronica polita SNA Y Y Spiked Sedge Carex spicata SNA Y Y Y Spindle-tree Euonymus europaea SNA Y Y Y Y Y Spiny-leaved Sow-thistle Sonchus asper SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Spotted Beebalm Monarda punctata S1 x Spotted Crane's-bill (Wild Geranium) Geranium maculatum S5 Y Spotted Joe-Pye-weed Eupatorium maculatum - Y Y Y Y Y Y Spotted Joe-pye-weed Eutrochium maculatum S5 Y Y Spotted Loosestrife Lysimachia punctata SNA Y Y Spotted Touch-me-not Impatiens capensis S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Spotted Water-hemlock Cicuta maculata S5 Y Y Spreading Dogbane Apocynum androsaemifolium S5 Y Spring Clearweed Pilea fontana S4 Y Square-stemmed Monkey-flower Mimulus ringens S5 Y Y Y Squarrose Umbrella Sedge Cyperus squarrosus S4 Y Staghorn Sumac Rhus typhina S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Star-of-Bethlehem Ornithogalum umbellatum SNA Y Y Y Y Y Starry False Solomon's-seal Maianthemum stellatum S5 Y Y Y Stiff Gentian Gentianella quinquefolia S2 Y Stiff Goldenrod Solidago rigida ssp. rigida S3 x Y Stinking Mayweed Anthemis cotula SNA Y Y Y Striped Cream Violet Viola striata S3 Y NHIC- 17MH795 Thames Blackfriars Harris Park Hydrolands London RT Riverview Botanical Matrix Common Name Scientific Name ESA S-Rank MNRF 8, WLD EIS WLD SLSR South Dyke Bridge Study SLSR SLSR SLSR Dyke SLSR Inventory Inventory 17MH785 SLSR DRAFT 8 Year of Publication 2016 2016 2015 2013 2013 2017 2017 2015 2014 2018 Study Area Reach N6 N6 N6 N6 S6 S6 N6/M1 M1 M1, M4 M1,N6, S6 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Sundial Lupine Lupinus perennis S2S3 x Swamp Milkweed Asclepias incarnata S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Swamp Rose Rosa carolina S4 Y Y Swamp Thistle Cirsium muticum S5 Y Y Swamp Tickseed Bidens comosa - Y Sweet Clover Melilotus sp. - Y Y Sweet Ox-eye Heliopsis helianthoides S4S5 Y Y Sweet White Violet Viola blanda S5 Y Sweet Woodruff Galium odoratum SNA Y Y Y Sweetbrier Rose Rosa rubiginosa SNA Y Y Sycamore Platanus occidentalis S4 Y Y Y Y Y Y Sycamore Maple Acer pseudoplatanus SNA Y Tall Beggarticks Bidens vulgata S5 Y Y Tall Boneset Eupatorium altissimum S1 x Y Tall Fescue Festuca arundinacea - Y Y Tall Goldenrod Solidago gigantea S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Tall Love Grass Eragrostis hypnoides S4 Y Tall Meadow-rue Thalictrum pubescens S5 Y Y Y Y Y Tall White Aster Symphyotrichum lanceolatum S5 Y Y Y Y Tansy Tanacetum vulgare SNA Y Y Y Y Y Tartarian Honeysuckle Lonicera tatarica SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Teasel (Common Teasel) Dipsacus fullonum SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Thimbleweed Anemone virginiana S4 Y Y Y Y Thin-leaved Coneflower Rudbeckia triloba SNA Y Thistle sp Cirsium sp. - Y Three-seeded Mercury Acalypha rhomboidea S5 Y Y Y Y Y Thyme-leaved Sandwort Arenaria serpyllifolia SNA Y Thyme-leaved Speedwell Veronica serpyllifolia SNA Y Y Tiger Lily Lilium lancifolium SNA Y Timothy Phleum pratense SNA Y Y Tomato Lycopersicon esculentum - Y Tree-of-heaven Ailanthus altissima SNA Y Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides S5 Y Y Y True Forget-me-not Myosotis scorpioides SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Trumpet Creeper Campsis radicans S2? Y x Y Tulip Tulipa sp. - Y Y Tulip-tree Liriodendron tulipifera S4 Y Y Tumble Mustard Sisymbrium altissimum SNA Y Y Y Tumbling Pigweed Amaranthus albus SNA Y Y Turtlehead Chelone glabra S5 Y Y Y Velvetleaf Abutilon theophrasti SNA Y Violet species Viola sp. - Y Y NHIC- 17MH795 Thames Blackfriars Harris Park Hydrolands London RT Riverview Botanical Matrix Common Name Scientific Name ESA S-Rank MNRF 8, WLD EIS WLD SLSR South Dyke Bridge Study SLSR SLSR SLSR Dyke SLSR Inventory Inventory 17MH785 SLSR DRAFT 8 Year of Publication 2016 2016 2015 2013 2013 2017 2017 2015 2014 2018 Study Area Reach N6 N6 N6 N6 S6 S6 N6/M1 M1 M1, M4 M1,N6, S6 Virgin’s-bower (Virginia Virgin's-boweClematis virginiana S5 Y Y Y Y Y Virginia Creeper Parthenocissus inserta - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Virginia Creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia S4? Y Y Y Y Y Virginia False Dragonhead Physostegia virginiana S4 Y Virginia Stickweed Hackelia virginiana S5 Y Virginia Water-leaf Hydrophyllum virginianum S5 Y Y Y Virginia Wild-rye Elymus virginicus S5 Y Y Y Y Wall-rocket Diplotaxis muralis SNA Y Water Speedwell Veronica anagallis- aquatica SNA Y Y Y Y Water-pepper Polygonum hydropiper - Y Y Y Water-pepper (Marsh- pepper SmartwPersicaria hydropiper SNA Y Y Water-plantain Alisma plantago-aquatica - Y Y White Ash Fraxinus americana S4 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y White Avens Geum canadense S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y White Cedar Thuja occidentalis S5 Y Y Y Y Y White Clover Trifolium repens SNA Y Y Y White Cockle (White Campion) Silene latifolia SNA Y Y Y Y Y White Cut Grass Leersia virginica S4 Y White Heath Aster Symphyotrichum ericoides S5 Y Y White Mulberry Morus alba SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y White Poplar Populus alba SNA Y Y Y White Snakeroot Ageratina altissima S5 Y Y Y Y Y White Snakeroot Eupatorium rugosum - Y Y Y White Spruce Picea glauca S5 Y Y Y Y White Sweet-clover Melilotus alba SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y White Trout-lily Erythronium albidum S4 Y Y White Vervain Verbena urticifolia S5 Y Y Y Y Y White Willow Salix alba SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y White-lettuce (White Rattlesnake-rooPrenanthes alba (Nabalus albus) - Y Wild (Canada) Lettuce Lactuca canadensis S5 Y Y Wild (Woodland) Chervil Anthriscus sylvestris SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Wild Basil (Field Basil) Clinopodium vulgare S5 Y Y Y Wild Bergamot Monarda fistulosa SU Y Y Wild Black Cherry Prunus serotina S5 Y Y Y Y Wild Black Currant Ribes americanum S5 Y Y Y Y Wild Buckwheat Polygonum convolvulus - Y Y Y Wild Carrot Daucus carota SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Wild Cucumber Echinocystis lobata S5 Y Y Y Y Y Wild Four-o'clock Mirabilis nyctaginea S2 Y Wild Garlic Allium canadense S5 Y Y Wild Madder (White Bedstraw) Galium mollugo SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Wild Marjoram Origanum vulgare SNA Y Y Wild Mint Mentha canadensis S5 Y Y NHIC- 17MH795 Thames Blackfriars Harris Park Hydrolands London RT Riverview Botanical Matrix Common Name Scientific Name ESA S-Rank MNRF 8, WLD EIS WLD SLSR South Dyke Bridge Study SLSR SLSR SLSR Dyke SLSR Inventory Inventory 17MH785 SLSR DRAFT 8 Year of Publication 2016 2016 2015 2013 2013 2017 2017 2015 2014 2018 Study Area Reach N6 N6 N6 N6 S6 S6 N6/M1 M1 M1, M4 M1,N6, S6 Wild Parsnip Pastinaca sativa SE5 Y Wild Red Raspberry Rubus idaeus S5 Y Y Y Y Y Willow sp Salix sp. - Y Y Willow-herb Epilobium ciliatum S5 Y Y Y Y Winged Burning Bush Euonymus alatus SNA Y Winter Cress (Bitter Wintercress) Barbarea vulgaris SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Wintercreeper (Euonymus) Euonymus fortunei SNA Y Y Y Y Y Wiregrass Eleusine indica SNA Y Wire-stemmed Muhly Muhlenbergia frondosa S4 Y Y Witch Grass Panicum capillare S5 Y Y Wood Nettle Laportea canadensis S5 Y Y Y Y Y Wood Poppy Stylophorum diphyllum END S1 x Woodbine Parthenocissus vitacea S5 Y Y Woodland Sedge Carex blanda S5 Y Y Y Y Wood-sorrel species Oxalis sp. - Y Y Woolly Blue Violet Viola sororia S5 Y Y Y Woolly Sedge Carex pellita S5 Y Woolly Sweet-cicely Osmorhiza claytonii S5 Y Y Wormseed Mustard Erysimum cheiranthoides SNA Y Y Y Y Y Wych Elm Ulmus glabra SNA Yellow Avens Geum aleppicum S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Yellow Foxtail Setaria pumila SNA Y Yellow Goat’s-beard (Meadow GoatsbTragopogon pratensis SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Yellow Sedge Carex flava S5 Y Yellow Snakeroot Sanicula odorata S5 Y Y Y Y Yellow Sweet-clover Melilotus officinalis SNA Y Y Y Yellow-flag Iris pseudacorus SNA Y Y Y Y Zig-zag Goldenrod Solidago flexicaulis S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Notes: Bold species indicate Federal and/or Provincial Species at Risk (SAR) Uppercase "Y" indicates species was observed, lowercase " x" indicates species was identified during background review, but was not observed and may be considered unlikely to occur SLSR - Subject Land Status Report EIS - Environmental Impact Study ` WLD - West London Dykes 71 47 92 50 106 88 87 95 34 67 87 31 24 Appendix D2: Bird Inventory Summary

Priority Blackfriars Bridge Harris Park Hydrolands Thames South London RT Riverview Dyke Botanical Matrix Common Name Scientific Name ESA SARA S-Rank OBBA1 CBC2 WLD EIS WLD SLSR Coves ESA Species Study SLSR SLSR Dykes SLSR SLSR DRAFTSLSR Inventory Inventory Year of Study 2001-2005 2012-2015 2016 2016 2015 2013 2013 2017 2017 2014 2015 2014 2018 Study Area Reach - - N6 N6 N6 N6 S6 S6 N6/M1 M1 M1 M1, M4 M1,N6, S6 Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens END END S2S3 Y x American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos S5B x x x Y Y x x Y Y Y Y American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis S5B x x x Y Y x x Y Y Y Y Y Y American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla S5B x x Y x x x Y Y x American Robin Turdus migratorius S5B x x Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus SC S2N,S4B Y x x Y x x x x x Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula S4B Y x Y Y Y Y x Y Y Y Y Bank Swallow Riparia riparia THR THR S4 Y x x x x Y Y Y Barn Owl Tyto alba END END S1 Y x x Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica THR THR S4B Y x x Y Y Y x Y Y Y x Y Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon S4B Y x x x Y x x Y Y Y Y Y Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus S5B Y x x Y x x x Y x Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus S5 x x Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Black-throated Blue Warbler Setophaga caerulescens S5B Y Black-throated Green Warbler Setophaga virens S5B Y Y Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata S5 x x Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea S4B x x Y x x x x Y x Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus THR THR S4B Y x x x x x x x Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum S4B Y x x Y Y x Y x Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater S4B x x x Y Y Y x Y Y Y Y Y Y Canada Goose Branta canadensis S5 x x Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis SC THR S4 Y x Cape May Warbler Setophaga tigrina S5B Y Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus S4 x x x Y Y x x Y Y x Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum S5B x x Y Y Y x x Y Y Y Y Y Y Cerulean Warbler Setophaga cerulea THR THR S3B Y x Chestnut-sided Warbler Setophaga pensylvanica SB5B x x x x Y x Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica THR THR S4B,S4N Y x x Y Y x x Y Y x Y Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina S5B x x Y Y Y x Y Y Y x Cliff Swallow Spizella passerina S4B x x Y Y x x x Y Y Y Y Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula S5B x Y Y Y Y x Y Y Y Y Y Y Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor SC THR S4B Y x Y x x x x Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas S5B x x x x x x x Y Y Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus S5B x Y Y x Y x Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens S5 x x Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis S5B x x x x x x x x Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus S4B Y x x Y x x Y Y Y Y Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna THR THR S4B Y x x x x x x Y x Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe S5B x x Y x x Y Y Y Eastern Screech-Owl Megascops asio S4 x x x x x x x x Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus S4B Y x x x x x Y Y x Eastern Whip-poor-will Antrostomus vociferus S4 x Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens SC SC S4B Y x x Y Y x x Y Y Y European Starling (non native) Sturnus vulgaris SNA x x x Y Y x x Y Y Y Y Y Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla S4B Y x x x Y x x x Y Y Y Vermivora Golden- winged Warbler SC THR S4 x chrysoptera Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SC SC S4 Y x Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis S4B x Y Y Y x x Y Y Y Y Y Y Great Black-backed Gull Larus marinus S2B Y x x x x x x Y x Great Blue Heron (Blue form) Ardea herodias S4 Y x x Y x Y Y Y Y Y Y Priority Blackfriars Bridge Harris Park Hydrolands Thames South London RT Riverview Dyke Botanical Matrix Common Name Scientific Name ESA SARA S-Rank OBBA1 CBC2 WLD EIS WLD SLSR Coves ESA Species Study SLSR SLSR Dykes SLSR SLSR SLSR Inventory Inventory Year of Study 2001-2005 2012-2015 2016 2016 2015 2013 2013 2017 2017 2014 DRAFT2015 2014 2018 Study Area Reach - - N6 N6 N6 N6 S6 S6 N6/M1 M1 M1 M1, M4 M1,N6, S6 Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus SB4 x x Y Y x x Y Y Y Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus S4 x x x x x x x Y x Green Heron Butorides virescens S4B Y x x Y x x x Y Y x Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus S5 x x x Y x x Y Y Y Y Y Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii END END SHB Y x x Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus S5B x x x x x Y x Hooded Warbler Setophaga citrina S4 Y x House Finch (non native) Carpodacus mexicanus SNA x x x Y Y Y x Y Y Y x House Sparrow (non-native) Passer domesticus SNA x x Y Y Y Y x Y Y Y Y Y Y House Wren Troglodytes aedon S5B x x Y Y x Y Y Y Y Y Y Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea S4B x x Y x x x Y Y x Killdeer Charadrius vociferus S5B,S5N Y x x x Y Y x x Y Y Y Y Y Kirtland’s Warbler Setophaga kirtlandii END END S1 Y x Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis THR THR S4B Y x Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus S4B x x x x x Y x Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus END NAR S2 Y x Magnolia Warbler Setophaga magnolia S5 x Y Y Mallard Anas platyrhynchos S5 Y x x Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Mallard Hybrid Anas sp. - Y Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura S5 x x Y Y Y Y x Y Y Y Y Y Y Nashville Warbler Oreothlypis ruficapilla S5B x Y Y Northern (Yellow- shafted) FlickeColaptes auratus S4 x Northern Bobwhite Colinus virginianus END END S1 Y x Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis S5 x x Y Y Y Y x Y Y Y Y Y Y Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus S4B Y x x Y Y Y Y x Y Y Y Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos S4 x x x x x x x x Northern Oriole Icterus galbula - Y Y Northern Rough-winged SwallowStelgidopteryx serripennis S4B Y x x Y x x Y x Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi SC THR S4B Y x Osprey Pandion haliaetus S5 x Y Y Y x x x Y Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla S4 x x Y Y Palm Warbler Setophaga palmarum SNRB Y Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus S5 x x x x x x x x Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea END END S1 Y x Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus S4B x x Y x x x x Red- Shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus S4 Y x Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus S4 x x x Y Y x x Y Y Y Y Y Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis S5 x x x x x x Y Y x Red-eyed Vireo Vireo atricapilla SNA x x Y Y x x Y Y Y Y Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus SC THR S4B Y x x x x x Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis S5 x x x Y x x x Y Y Y Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus S4 x x x Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis S5B,S4N x x Y Y x x Y Y Y Y Rock Pigeon Columba livia SNA x x Y Y Y x x Y Y Y x Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus S4B Y x Y Y Y x x Y Y Y Y Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula S4B x x x x x Y x Ruby-throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris S5B x x Y x x Y Y Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis S4B Y x x x x x x Y x Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea S4B x x x x Y x Priority Blackfriars Bridge Harris Park Hydrolands Thames South London RT Riverview Dyke Botanical Matrix Common Name Scientific Name ESA SARA S-Rank OBBA1 CBC2 WLD EIS WLD SLSR Coves ESA Species Study SLSR SLSR Dykes SLSR SLSR SLSR Inventory Inventory Year of Study 2001-2005 2012-2015 2016 2016 2015 2013 2013 2017 2017 2014 DRAFT2015 2014 2018 Study Area Reach - - N6 N6 N6 N6 S6 S6 N6/M1 M1 M1 M1, M4 M1,N6, S6 Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus SC SC S2N,S4B Y x x x x Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria S4B Y Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia S5B x x Y Y Y Y x Y Y Y Y Y Y Sora Porzana carolina S4B Y x x x x Y x Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius S5 Y x x Y x x x Y Y Y x Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus S4B Y Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana S5B x x x x x x Y x Townsend's Solitaire Myadestes townsendi SNA x x x x Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor S4B x x Y Y x x Y Y Y Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura S5B x x Y x x Y x Veery Catharus fuscescens S4B x x x x x Y x Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus S5B x Y Y Y Y x Y Y Y x Y White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis S5 x x x Y Y x x Y Y Y Y Y White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis S5B x x x x x Y x Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii S5B x x x x x x Y x Wilson's Warbler Cardellina pusilla S4B Y Wood Duck Aix sponsa S5 Y x x x x x x x Y x Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina SC THR S4B Y x x x x x Y x Yellow- breasted Chat Icteria virens END END S2B Y x Yellow Warbler Setophaga petechia S5B x Y Y Y x Y Y Y Y Y Y Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata S5B x x Y x 1. Ontario's Breeding Bird Atlas- 10 km2 square (17MH75) 2. Christmas Bird Count Bold species indicate Federal and/or Provincial Species at Risk (SAR) Uppercase "Y" indicates species was observed, lowercase " x" indicates species was identified during background review, but was not observed and may be considered unlikely to occur SLSR - Subject Land Status Report EIS - Environmental Impact Study WLD - West London Dykes Appendix D3: Herpetofauna Inventory Summary

Blackfriars Thames Harris Park Hydrolands London RT Riverview Botanical Matrix Common Name Scientific Name ESA S-RANK 1 Bridge WLD EIS WLD SLSR South Dyke Coves ESA DRAFT ORAA SLSR SLSR SLSR Dyke SLSR Inventory Inventory Study SLSR

Year of Study 1929-2017 2016 2016 2015 2013 2013 2017 2017 2014 2015 2014 2018 Study Area Reach All N6 N6 N6 N6 S6 S6 N6/M1 M1 M1 M1, M4 M1,N6, S6 TURTLES (7) Blanding’s Turtle Emydoidea blandingii THR S3 x x x x x x Eastern Spiny Softshell Apalone spinifera END S2 x Y Y Y Y Y Midland Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta marginata S4 x x Y x x x Y Northern Map Turtle Graptemys geographica SC S3 x x Y Y Y x x Y Y Pond Slider Trachemys scripta SNA Y Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentine serpentine SC S3 x x x Y x x Y Y Spotted Turtle Clemmys guttata END S2 x SNAKES (10) Butler’s Garter Snake Thamnophis butleri END S2 x Dekay's Brownsnake Storeria dekayi S5 x x x x x Y Y Eastern Gartersnake Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis S5 x x Y x x Y x Y Y Eastern Hog-Nosed Snake Heterodon platirhinos THR S3 x x x x Eastern Massasauga Sistrurus catenatus END S1 x Eastern Milksnake Lampropeltis triangulum S4 x x Y x x x x Eastern Ribbonsnake Thamnophis sauritus SC S4 x x x x x Queensnake Regina septemvittata END S2 x x Y x x x x SALAMANDERS (8) Common Mudpuppy Necturus maculosus S4 Y x Jefferson Salamander Ambystoma jeffersonianum END S2 x Jefferson X Blue-spotted SalamandAmbystoma hybrid pop. 2 S4 x x FROGS AND TOADS (9) American Toad Anaxyrus americanus S5 x x x Y x x Y Y Green Frog Lithobates clamitans S5 x x x Y x x x x Northern Leopard Frog Lithobates pipiens S5 x x x Y x x x Pickerel Frog Lithobates palustris S4 x Y x Notes 1. Ontario's Reptiles and Amphibian Atlas- 10 km2 square (17MH75) Bold species indicate Federal and/or Provincial Species at Risk (SAR) Uppercase "Y" indicates species was observed, lowercase " x" indicates species was identified during background review, but was not observed and may be considered unlikely to occur SLSR - Subject Land Status Report EIS - Environmental Impact Study Appendix D4: Mammal Inventory Summary Blackfriars Thames Harris Park Hydrolands London RT Riverview Botanical Matrix Common Name Scientific Name ESA S-Rank OMA1 Bridge WLD EIS WLD SLSR South Coves ESA SLSR SLSR SLSR Dyke SLSR Inventory Inventory Study Dykes SLSR Year of Study - DRAFT 2016 2016 2015 2013 2013 2017 2017 2014 2015 2014 2018 Study Area Reach - N6 N6 N6 N6 S6 S6 N6/M1 M1 M1 M1, M4 M1,N6, S6 American Badger Taxidea taxus END S2 x Beaver Castor canadensis S5 x Y Y Y Y x x Domestic Cat Felis catus - x Y Eastern Chipmunk Tamias striatus S5 x x Y Y Y x Y Y Y Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus S5 x x Y Y x x Y x Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis S5 x Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Little Brown Bat Myotis lucifuga END S4 x x x x x x Mink Neovison vison S4 x x Y x x x x x Northern Bat (N. Long-Eared Bat) Myotis septentrionalis END S3 x x x x Northern Short-tailed Shrew Blarina brevicauda S5 x x x x x Raccoon Procyon lotor S5 x x Y Y Y Y Y x Y Small-footed Bat Myotis leibii END S2S3 x White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus S5 x x Y Y x x x Y Y Y Woodchuck Marmota monax S5 x x Y x x x Y Y Notes: 1. Ontario Mammal Atlas, 10 km2 square (17MH75) 2. Commmon name was listed in the report as Southern Flying Squirrel Bold species indicate Federal and/or Provincial Species at Risk (SAR) Uppercase "Y" indicates species was observed, lowercase " x" indicates species was identified during background review, but was not observed and may be considered unlikely to occur SLSR - Subject Land Status Report EIS - Environmental Impact Study Appendix D5: Fish Inventory Summary

Byron Dyke DRAFT Matrix Common Name Scientific Name ESA SARA S-Rank UTRCA (DFO, ROM, MNRF) Fish Sampling Records 2003 Springbank Dam EA DRAFTSLSR Inventory Year of Fisheries Collection 1967 1968 1974 2004 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2014 2015 N/A 2003 2003 2015 2017 Study Area Reach M4 M4 N6 M4 M1-M4 N6, M2 M2 M2 N6, M4 N6 N6 N6,M1 M4 DS1 M1 M4 M1 Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus SNA Y Bigmouth Buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus S4 Y Y Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus S4 Y Black Redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei THR - S2 Y Y Y Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus S5 Y Y Y Blacknose Shiner Notropis heterolepis S5 Y Blackside Darter Percina maculata S4 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus S5 Y Y Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Brassy Minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni S5 Y Brook Silverside Labidesthes sicculus S4 Y Brook Stickleback Culaea inconstans S5 Y Y Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis S5 Y Brown Bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus S5 Y Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum S4 Y Y Y Y Y Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus S4 Y Common Carp Cyprinus carpio SNA Y Y Y Y Y Y Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus S5 Y Y Y Y Y Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus S5 Y Y Y Y Eastern Sand Shiner Notropis stramineus S4 Y Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides S5 Y Y Y Fantail Darter Etheostoma flabellare S4 Y Y Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas S5 Y Y Y Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens S5 Y Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum S4 Y Y Golden Redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum S4 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas S5 Y Goldfish Carassius auratus SNA Y Greater Redhorse Moxostoma valenciennesi S3 Y Y Y Y Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus S4 Y Y Greenside Darter Etheostoma blennioides S4 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Hognose Sucker Hypentelium nigricans S4 Y Hornyhead Chub Nocomis biguttatus S4 Y Y Iowa Darter Etheostoma exile S5 Y Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum S4 Y Y Y Y Y Y Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides S5 Y Y Y Least Darter Etheostoma microperca S4 Y Y Logperch Percina caprodes S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Longnose Dace Rhinichthys cataractae S5 Y Y Y Y Y Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus S5 Y Y Mimic Shiner Notropis volucellus S4 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Byron Dyke DRAFT Matrix Common Name Scientific Name ESA SARA S-Rank UTRCA (DFO, ROM, MNRF) Fish Sampling Records 2003 Springbank Dam EA SLSR Inventory

Year of Fisheries Collection 1967 1968 1974 2004 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2014 2015 N/A 2003 2003 2015 2017 1 DRAFT Study Area Reach M4 M4 N6 M4 M1-M4 N6, M2 M2 M2 N6, M4 N6 N6 N6,M1 M4 DS M1 M4 M1 Northern Brook Lamprey Ichthyomyzon fossor SC SC S3 Y Northern Hog Sucker Hypentelium nigricans S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Northern Pike Esox lucius S4 Y Y Northern Redbelly Dace Chrosomus eos S5 Y Pearl Dace Margariscus nachtriebi S5 Y Pugnose Minnow Opsopoeodus emiliae THR SC S2 Y Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus S5 Y Y Y Quillback Carpiodes cyprinus S5 Y Y Rainbow Darter Etheostoma caeruleum S4 Y Y Y Y Y Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss S4 Y Redfin Shiner Lythrurus umbratilis S4 Y River Chub Nocomis micropogon SNA Y Y Y Y Y Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris S4 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Rosyface Shiner Notropis rubellus S5 Y Y Y Y Y Sea Lamprey Petromyzon marinus S5 Y Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum S4 Y Y Y Y Y Silver Redhorse Moxostoma anisurum SNA Y Y Silver Shiner Notropis photogenis THR SC S5 Y Y Y Y Y Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu S4 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Spotfin Shiner Cyprinella spiloptera S2S3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Spottail Shiner Notropis hudsonius S5 Y Spotted Sucker Minytrema melanops SC SC S5 Y Stonecat Noturus flavus S4 Y Y Y Y Y Y Striped Shiner Luxilus chrysocephalus S2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Walleye Sander vitreus S4 Y Y Y White Sucker Catostomus commersoni S4 Y Y Y Y Y Y Yellow Bullhead Ameiurus natalis S5 Y Y Y Yellow Perch Perca flavescens S5 Y Y Y Notes 1. Fisheries study was completed downstream of Springbank Dam, in the Riverbed Area Bold species indicate Federal and/or Provincial Species at Risk (SAR) Uppercase "Y" indicates species was observed, lowercase " x" indicates species was identified during background review, but was not observed and may be considered unlikely to occur SLSR - Subject Land Status Report UTRCA - Upper Thames Conservation Authority DFO - Department of Fisheries and Oceans MNRF - Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry ROM - Royal Ontario Museum EA - Environmental Assessment Appendix D6: Mussel Inventory Summary

Riverview Thames South Hydrolands Byron Dyke DRAFT Matrix Common Name Scientific Name ESA SARA S-Rank UTRCA/DFO/EC Mussel Sampling Records Dyke SLSR Dykes SLSR SLSRDRAFTSLSR Inventory Mussel Collection or Published Study 1998 2004 2004 2004 2003/2004 2015 2015 2017 2013 2015 2017 Study Area Reach M41 M42 S6 N53 S53 S53 S6 S6 S6 M4 M1 Black Sandshell Ligumia recta S3 Y Y Creeper Strophitus undulatus S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Deertoe Truncilla truncata S3 Y Elktoe Alasmidonta marginata S3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Fluted-shell Lasmigona costata S5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Fragile Papershell Leptodea fragilis S4 Y Y Y Y Giant Floater Pyganodon grandis S5 Y Y Hickorynut Obovaria olivaria END END S1? x Kidneyshell Ptychobranchus fasciolaris END END S3 x x Mapleleaf Quadrula quadrula SC THR S2 Y x Mucket Actinonaias ligamentina S3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Pink Heelsplitter Potamilus alatus S3 Y Y Plain Pocketbook Lampsilis cardium - Y Purple Wartyback Cyclonaias tubeculata S3 Y Y Y Rainbow Villosa iris SC END S2S3 Y x x x Rayed Bean Villosa fabalis END END S1 Y x Round Pigtoe Pleurobema sintoxia END END S1 Y x x x Salamander (Mudpuppy) Mussel Simpsonaias ambigua END END S1 Y x Spike Elliptio dilatata S5 Y Y Y Three-ridge Amblema plicata S4 Y Wabash Pigtoe Fusconaia flava S2S3 Y Y Y Y Wavy-rayed Lampmussel Lampsilis fasciola THR SC S1 Y Y Y x Y x White Heelsplitter Lasmigona complanata S4 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Zebra Mussel Dreissena polymorpha SNA Y Y Notes: 1. Completed upstream of the Springbank Dam 2. Completed downstream of the Springbank Dam 3. Upstream of the Study Area Bold species indicate Federal and/or Provincial Species at Risk (SAR) Uppercase "Y" indicates species was observed, lowercase " x" indicates species was identified during background review, but was not observed and may be considered unlikely to occur SLSR - Subject Land Status Report UTRCA - Upper Thames Conservation Authority DFO - Department of Fisheries and Oceans EC - Environment Canada DRAFT Appendix D7: Insect Inventory Summary Butterfly NHIC- 17MH7958, Common Name Scientific Name ESA S-Rank Atlas 1 17MH7858

Amber-winged Spreadwing Lestes eurinus S3 American Copper Lycaena phlaeas S5 x American Lady Vanessa virginiensis S5 x American Snout Libytheana carinenta SNA x Azure Bluet Enallagma aspersum S3 Azure sp. Celastrina sp. - x Baltimore Checkerspot Euphydryas phaeton S4 x Banded Hairstreak Satyrium calanus S5 x Black Swallowtail Papilio polyxenes S5 x Bog Copper Lycaena epixanthe S4S5 x Brown Elfin Callophrys augustinus S5 x Cabbage White Pieris rapae SNA x Clouded Sulphur Colias philodice S5 x Common Buckeye Junonia coenia SNA x Common Ringlet Coenonympha tullia S5 x Common Wood-Nymph Cercyonis pegala S5 x Delaware Skipper Anatrytone logan S4 x Dreamy Duskywing Erynnis icelus S5 x Dun Skipper Euphyes vestris S5 x Eastern Comma Polygonia comma S5 x Eastern Giant Swallowtail Papilio cresphontes S4 x Eastern Tailed Blue Cupido comyntas S5 x Eastern Tiger Swallowtail Papilio glaucus S5 x European Skipper Thymelicus lineola SNA x Eyed Brown Lethe eurydice S5 x Great Spangled Fritillary Speyeria cybele S5 x Hackberry Emperor Asterocampa celtis S3 x Hobomok Skipper Poanes hobomok S5 x Juvenal's Duskywing Erynnis juvenalis S5 x Least Skipper Ancyloxypha numitor S5 x Little Wood-Satyr Megisto cymela S5 x Long Dash Skipper Polites mystic S5 x Meadow Fritillary Boloria bellona S5 x Milbert's Tortoiseshell Aglais milberti S5 x Monarch Danaus plexippus SC S2N, S4B x Mourning Cloak Nymphalis antiopa S5 x Mustard White Pieris oleracea S4 x Northern Broken-Dash Wallengrenia egeremet S5 x Northern Crescent Phyciodes cocyta S5 x Northern Pearly-Eye Lethe anthedon S5 x Painted Lady Vanessa cardui S5 x Painted Skimmer Libellula semifasciata S2 Pearl Crescent Phyciodes tharos S4 x Peck's Skipper Polites peckius S5 x Question Mark Polygonia interrogationis S5 x Red Admiral Vanessa atalanta S5 x Red-spotted Purple Limenitis arthemis astyanazx S5 x Rusty-patched Bumble Bee Bombus affinis END S1 x Silver-bordered Fritillary Boloria selene S5 x Silvery Checkerspot Chlosyne nycteis S5 x Sleepy Duskywing Erynnis brizo S1 x Tawny Emperor Asterocampa clyton S2S3 x Tawny-edged Skipper Polites themistocles S5 x Viceroy Limentis archippus S5 x

Notes:

1. Ontario's Butterfly Atlas- 10 km2 square (17MH75) Bold species indicate Federal and/or Provincial Species at Risk (SAR) Uppercase "Y" indicates species was observed, lowercase " x" indicates species was identified during background review, but was not observed and may be considered unlikely to occur DRAFT

APPENDIX E Ecological Land Classification Data Sheets

DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT

APPENDIX F Species of Conservation Concern Assessment

APPENDIX F1 Avian SCC Assessment Common name Scientific name Priority species1 ESA 2007 SARA 2002 Preferred Habitat2 Status and Observations DRAFT Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Regional concern - recovery SC - Open woodlands near bodies of Potential - Preferred habitat is available within the study area. Species has objective water. been observed within other studies surrounding the study area (WSP 2017). Species was not observed during 2018 studies. Eastern Wood-pewee Contopus virens Regional concern- recovery SC SC Wooded habitats. Potential - Preferred habitat is available within the study area. Species was objective observed during previous studies within the study area (UTRCA 2015a). This species was not observed within the study area in 2018. Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Regional concern- recovery SC SC Open grasslands and prairies. Unlikely - Preferred habitat is not available within the study area. Species has objective not been identified within the study area. Great Black-backed Larus marinus Regional Concern-maintain - - Oceans, shorelines, and small Unlikely - Preferred habitat is not available within the study area. Species has Gull islands. not been identified within the study area. Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Regional concern- recovery SC SC Large open areas. Unlikely - Preferred breeding habitat is not available within the study area. objective This species was not observed within the study area in 2018. Notes: 1Government of Canada 2014 2Cornell lab of Ornithology 2017.

APPENDIX F3: Herpetofauna SCC Assessment

Common Name Scientific Name S-rank ESA 2007 SARA 2002 Preferred Habitat1 Status and Observation Common Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentine serpentine S3 SC SC Aquatic habitats with sand and gravel substrates. Confirmed - This species has been confirmed within the area by UTRCA staff. Eastern Ribbonsnake Thamnophis sauritus S4 SC SC Aquatic habitats with forested riparian zone. Potential - Indicated as potentially occurring within background studies (Stantec 2016). This species was not observed within the study area in 2018. Notes: 1 Ontario Nature 2018 APPENDIX F2 Insects SCC Assessment

Common name Scientific name S-Rank ESA 2007 SARA 2002 Preferred habitat1 Status and Observation Amber-winged Spreadwing Lestes eurinus S3 - - Wetland habitats. Unlikely - Indicated as potential by NHIC. Species was not observed during 2018 studies. Azure Bluet Enallagma aspersum S3 - - Wetland habitats. Unlikely - Indicated as potential by NHIC. Species was not observed during 2018 studies. Hackberry Emperor Asterocampa celtis S3 - - Habitats which support Hackberry trees. Potential - Indicated as potential by the Butterfly atlas (Toronto Entomologist Association 2018). Species was not observed during 2018 studies; however, the area does contain hackberry trees. Painted Skimmer Libellula semifasciata S2 - - Wetland habitats. Unlikely - Indicated as potential by NHIC. Species was not observed during 2018 studies. Sleepy Duskywing Erynnis brizo S1 - - Oak or Oak-Pine Scrubland. Unlikely - Indicated as potential by the Butterfly atlas (Toronto Entomologist Association 2018). Species was not observed during 2018 studies. Tawny Emperor Asterocampa clyton S2S3 - - Riparian habitats which support Hackberry trees. Potential - Indicated as potential by the Butterfly atlas (Toronto Entomologist Association 2018). Species was not observed during 2018 studies; however, the area does contain hackberry trees. Notes: 1 IUCN 2018

Appendix F - SCC Assessment.docx 1 Matrix Solutions Inc.

APPENDIX F3 Fish SCC Assessment Common name Scientific name S-rank ESA 2007 SARA 2002 Preferred Habitat1 Status andDRAFT Observation Northern Brook Lamprey Ichthyomyzon fossor S3 SC SC Clear, coolwater stream with soft substrates. Unlikely - Habitat is not available within the study area. This species was not observed during the 2017 or 2018 studies. Spotted Sucker Minytrema melanops S5 SC SC Clear creeks and small to moderate sized rivers with sand and Potential - Species has only been captured once during a 2005 survey. (UTRCA gravel substrate. 2015b). Preferred habitat is located within the study area. This species was not observed during the 2017 or 2018 studies. Note1 IUCN 2018

APPENDIX F4 Mussel SCC Assessment Common name Scientific Name S-rank ESA 2007 SARA 2002 Preferred Habitat1 Observation Black Sandshell Ligumia recta S3 - - Medium-sized to large rivers in locations with strong current and Potential - Species was observed by DFO and UTRCA in 2004 within the main branch of the Thames substrates of coarse sand and gravel with cobble. Host Fish include River (with no other recent observations (UTRCA 2015b). This species was not observed during the Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and White Crappie (Pomoxis 2017 or 2018 studies. Suitable habitat and host species are located within the study area. annularis). Deertoe S3 - - Medium to large rivers, usually in mud, sand and/or gravel. Host Fish Potential - Species was observed by DFO and UTRCA in 1998 within the main branch of the Thames Truncilla truncata is unknown. River with no other recent observations (UTRCA 2015a). This species was not observed during the 2017 or 2018 studies. Suitable habitat and host species are located within the study area Pink Heelsplitter Potamilus alatus S3 - - Medium to large rivers in mud, or mix of mud, sand, gravel. Host Fish Potential - Species was observed by DFO and UTRCA in 2004 within the main branch of the Thames is the Freshwater Drum (Aplodinotus grunniens). River with no other recent observations (UTRCA, 2015a). This species was not observed during the 2017 or 2018 studies. Suitable habitat and host species are located within the study area Purple Wartyback Cyclonaias tubeculata S3 - - Medium-sized to small streams with gravel and mud substrates. Potential - Species was observed outside of the study area during previous studies as recent as The host fish include Channel Catfish and Bullhead Species (Ameiurus 2015 within the south branch of the Thames River (UTRCA 2015). This species was not observed sp.). during the 2017 or 2018 studies. Suitable habitat is available within the study area. Wabash Pigtoe Fusconaia flava S2S3 - - Medium to large rivers in moderate current with a stable mix of Potential - Species was observed outside of the study area during previous studies as recent as coarse sand and gravel. Host fish include White Crappie, Black 2015 within the south branch of the Thames River (UTRCA 2015a). This species was not observed Crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus) and Bluegill. during the 2017 or 2018 studies. Suitable habitat and host species are located within the study area Note:1 IUCN 2018

Appendix F - SCC Assessment.docx 2 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

REFERENCES Catalogue of Life. 2018. Index of world’s known species. Available onlinehttp://www.catalogueoflife.org/col/details/species/i

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2017. All About Birds. Cornell University. Accessed in July 2017. https://www.allaboutbirds.org/

Government of Ontario. 2018. Endangered Species Act, 2007. S.O. 2007, Chapter 6. Consolidation period from June 30, 2008 to September 18, 2018. http://www.e- laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_07e06_e.htm

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). 2018.The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2018-1. http://www.iucnredlist.org

Ontario Nature. 2015. Reptiles and Amphibians. Last updated June 2015. https://ontarionature.org/programs/citizen-science/reptile-amphibian-atlas/species/

Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec). 2016. “West London Dyke Environmental Impact Study.” DRAFT Report. Prepared for the Upper Thames River Conservations Authority. London, Ontario. March 2016.

Toronto Entomologist Association. 2018. Ontario Butterfly Atlas. Updated February 2018. http://www.ontarioinsects.org/atlas_online.htm

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA). 2017b. “Thames South Branch Dykes: Subject Land Status Report.” Draft updated January 30, 2017.

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA). 2015a. West London Dykes: Subject Land Status Report. January 2015.

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) 2015b. Fish Sampling Records. Dataset held by UTRCA.

Appendix F - SCC Assessment.docx 3 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

WSP Canada Inc. (WSP). 2017. London RT Project - Subject Lands Status Report. Report prepared for the City of London. Aurora, Ontario. February 2017.

Appendix F - SCC Assessment.docx 4 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

APPENDIX G Tree Inventory Results

DRAFT

Project: The Forks (EIS) Date: June 1, 2018 Client: City of London Area: The Forks Collector: Karen Reis

DBH Tree Number Species Scientific Name Species Common Name Longitude Latitude (cm)

1 Populus deltoidesssp. deltoides Eastern Cottonwood 104 -81.25734169 42.98223012 2 Populus deltoidesssp. deltoides Eastern Cottonwood 116 -81.257399 42.98216434 3 Populus deltoidesssp. deltoides Eastern Cottonwood 112 -81.25912219 42.9821055 4 Populus deltoidesssp. deltoides Eastern Cottonwood 116 -81.25762495 42.98199585 5 Salix sp. Willow sp. 98 -81.25836886 42.98206835 6 Populus deltoidesssp. deltoides Eastern Cottonwood 122 -81.25864459 42.98210984 7 Populus deltoidesssp. deltoides Eastern Cottonwood 94 -81.25912219 42.9821055 8 Populus deltoidesssp. deltoides Eastern Cottonwood 76 -81.2588899 42.98210944 9 Populus deltoidesssp. deltoides Eastern Cottonwood 105 -81.25899084 42.98213888 10 Salix sp. Willow sp. 94 -81.25951214 42.98218498 11 Populus deltoidesssp. deltoides Eastern Cottonwood 112 -81.25747614 42.9820601 12 Populus deltoidesssp. deltoides Eastern Cottonwood 97 -81.25907834 42.98216833 13 Populus deltoidesssp. deltoides Eastern Cottonwood 97 -81.25907834 42.98216833 14 Populus deltoidesssp. deltoides Eastern Cottonwood 83 -81.25927621 42.98215952 15 Populus deltoidesssp. deltoides Eastern Cottonwood 108 -81.2594522 42.98216053 16 Populus deltoidesssp. deltoides Eastern Cottonwood 94 -81.25951214 42.98218498 17 Salix sp. Willow sp. 110 -81.25951214 42.98218498 18 Populus deltoidesssp. deltoides Eastern Cottonwood 102 -81.25967578 42.98217954 19 Quercus rubra Red Oak 69 -81.25635833 42.98173373 20 Populus deltoidesssp. deltoides Eastern Cottonwood 62 -81.25619424 42.98174738 21 Picea abies Norway Spruce 54 -81.25612358 42.98168597 22 Picea abies Norway Spruce 62 -81.25607889 42.98159571 23 Populus deltoidesssp. deltoides Eastern Cottonwood 56 -81.25626638 42.9815562 24 Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Tree 52 -81.25602328 42.98141875 25 Celtis occidentalis Common Hackberry 70 -81.25661159 42.98133751 26 Celtis occidentalis Common Hackberry 72 -81.256688 42.98132537 27 Robinia pseudoacacia Black Locust 68 -81.25656167 42.98127058 28 Acer negundo Manitoba Maple 76 -81.25659679 42.98110268 29 Acer negundo Manitoba Maple 56 -81.25644178 42.98077226 30 Populus deltoidesssp. deltoides Eastern Cottonwood 87 -81.25636635 42.98069096 31 Populus deltoidesssp. deltoides Eastern Cottonwood 135 -81.25770342 42.98091756 32 Salix sp. Willow sp. 140 -81.2580471 42.98089433 33 Salix sp. Willow sp. 112 -81.25818432 42.98091679 34 Salix sp. Willow sp. 123 -81.25825394 42.98093794 35 Populus deltoidesssp. deltoides Eastern Cottonwood 196 -81.25858984 42.98090196

Appendix G -Tree inventory.docx 1 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

APPENDIX H Breeding Bird Survey Results

APPENDIX H Breeding Bird Results Conservation Status Highest DRAFT Species Species First Visit Second Visit S-Rank Breeding Notes (Common Name) (Scientific Name) Priority species1 ESA2 SARA3 June 1, 2018 June 12 2018 Evidence American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis S5B - - - x x Probable Pair observed in breeding season in suitable habitat. American Robin Turdus migratorius S5B - - - x x Probable Permanent territory presumed. Territorial song heard during multiple visits within the same location. Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula S4B Regional - - x x Probable Permanent territory presumed. Territorial song heard during multiple visits within the same location. Concern-increase Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica S4B Regional THR THR x x Confirmed Eggs and young observed. Concern-Increase Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata S5 - - - x Possible Species observed in breeding season in suitable habitat.

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater S4B - - - x x Probable Pair observed in breeding season in suitable habitat. Canada Goose Branta canadensis S5 - - - x x Confirmed Eggs and young observed. Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum S5B - - - x x Probable Permanent territory presumed. Territorial song heard during multiple visits within the same location. Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica S4B,S4N Regional THR THR x Observed Species observed foraging, presumed habitat is outside the study area. Concern-Increase Cliff Swallow Spizella passerina S4B - - - x x Confirmed Eggs and young observed. Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula S5B - - - x x Probable Pair observed in breeding season in suitable habitat. European Starling Sturnus vulgaris SNA - - - x x Probable Permanent territory presumed. Territorial song heard during multiple visits within the same location. (non-native) Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis S4B - - - x Possible Species observed in breeding season in suitable habitat.

Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus S5 - - - x Probable Pair observed in breeding season in suitable habitat. House Sparrow(non-native) Passer domesticus SNA - - - x x Probable Pair observed in breeding season in suitable habitat. Killdeer Charadrius vociferus S5B,S5N Regional - - x x Probable Permanent territory presumed. Territorial song heard during multiple visits within the same location. Concern-Increase Mallard Anas platyrhynchos S5 Regional and - - x x Confirmed Eggs and young observed. National Concern-maintain Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura S5 - - - x x Probable Pair observed in breeding season in suitable habitat. Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis S5 - - - x x Probable Permanent territory presumed. Territorial song heard during multiple visits within the same location. Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus S4 - - - x x Confirmed Eggs and young observed. Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia S5B - - - x x Probable Permanent territory presumed. Territorial song heard during multiple visits within the same location.

Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus S5B - - - x x Probable Permanent territory presumed. Territorial song heard during multiple visits within the same location. White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis S5 - - - x Probable Pair observed in breeding season in suitable habitat. Yellow Warbler Setophaga petechia S5B - - - x x Probable Permanent territory presumed. Territorial song heard during multiple visits within the same location. Notes: 1 Government of Canada 2014 2 Government of Ontario 2018 3 Government of Canada 2018

Appendix H - Breeding Bird Results.docx 1 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

REFERENCES Government of Canada. 2018. Species at Risk Act. S.C. 2002, c. 29. Published by the Minister of Justice. Current to August 19, 2018. Last Amended on May 30, 2018. http://laws- lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/S-15.3.pdf

Appendix H - Breeding Bird Results.docx 2 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

APPENDIX I Thames River Benthic Data

DRAFT

UTRCA Benthic Sampling Data Taxonomic Name Common Name Life Stage # in Subsample Biotic Index Thames River In Springbank Park Site code: TF03 UTM X: 473318 UTM Y: 4756556 Sampled - 17/06/1997 REP: 1 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 8 6 Chironomidae Midge P 1 6 Chironomidae Midge L 85 6 Ephemeridae Burrowing Mayfly N 2 2 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 3 3 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 2 5 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 15 8 Pisidiidae Fingernail Clam A 1 6 Simuliidae Black Fly L 13 5 Stream Health Fairly Poor Family Biotic Index 5.98 Thames River accessed from west end of Cavendish Crescent Site code: TF04 UTM X: 478265 UTM Y: 4758510 Sampled - 02/06/2014 REP: 1 Acariformes Water Mite A 5 6 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 9 6 Caenidae Crawling Mayfly N 3 6 Chironomidae Midge P 14 6 Chironomidae Midge L 71 6 Corixidae Water Boatmen A 8 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle A 1 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 6 5 Empididae Dance Fly L 3 6 Ephemerellidae Mayfly N 3 2 Helicopsychidae Snail-case Caddisfly L 1 3 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 3 3 Hydrophilidae Water Scavenger Beetle L 1 5 Leptoceridae Long-horned Caddisfly L 2 4 Leptohyphidae Crawling Mayfly N 1 4 Lymnaeidae Pond Snail A 1 6 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 221 8 Pisidiidae Fingernail Clam A 6 6 Psephenidae Water Penny Beetle L 1 4 Tipulidae Crane Fly L 2 4 Stream Health Poor Family Biotic Index 7.08 Sampled - 25/05/2015 REP: 1 Acariformes Water Mite A 2 6 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 134 6 Caenidae Crawling Mayfly N 1 6 Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge L 1 6 Chironomidae Midge P 15 6 Chironomidae Midge L 209 6 Corixidae Water Boatmen A 3 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle A 1 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 16 5 Glossosomatidae Caddisfly L 2 1 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 7 3 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 5 5 DRAFT

Taxonomic Name Common Name Life Stage # in Subsample Biotic Index Leptohyphidae Crawling Mayfly N 1 4 Nemouridae Stonefly N 1 2 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 36 8 Pisidiidae Fingernail Clam A 2 6 Potamanthidae Burrowing Mayfly N 1 4 Simuliidae Black Fly L 6 5 Tipulidae Crane Fly L 1 4 Stream Health Fairly Poor Family Biotic Index 6.00 Sampled - 08/12/2015 REP: 1 Acariformes Water Mite A 2 6 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 2 6 Caenidae Crawling Mayfly N 2 6 Capniidae Stonefly N 9 3 Chironomidae Midge L 141 6 Corixidae Water Boatmen A 1 5 Crangonyctidae Sideswimmer A 1 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle A 5 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 2 5 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 17 3 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 4 5 Hydroptilidae Micro-caddisfly L 1 6 Leptohyphidae Crawling Mayfly N 2 4 Lymnaeidae Pond Snail A 8 6 Nematoda Thread Worm A 3 5 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 74 8 Physidae Pouch Snail A 1 8 Pisidiidae Fingernail Clam A 21 6 Potamanthidae Burrowing Mayfly N 1 4 Simuliidae Black Fly L 2 5 Tipulidae Crane Fly L 3 4 Turbellaria Flatworm A 1 6 Stream Health Fairly Poor Family Biotic Index 6.14 Thames River accessed from west end of Cavendish Crescent Site code: TF05 UTM X: 478455 UTM Y: 4758634 Sampled - 02/06/2014 REP: 1 Acariformes Water Mite A 2 6 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 16 6 Chironomidae Midge P 4 6 Chironomidae Midge L 51 6 Corixidae Water Boatmen A 3 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle A 1 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 4 5 Glossosomatidae Caddisfly P 12 1 Glossosomatidae Caddisfly L 3 1 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 3 3 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 1 5 Lepidostomatidae Lepistomatid Caddisfly L 1 1 Leptohyphidae Crawling Mayfly N 1 4 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 189 8 Pisidiidae Fingernail Clam A 2 6 Potamanthidae Burrowing Mayfly N 3 4 Psephenidae Water Penny Beetle L 1 4 Simuliidae Black Fly L 3 5 DRAFT

Taxonomic Name Common Name Life Stage # in Subsample Biotic Index Simuliidae Black Fly P 1 5 Stream Health Poor Family Biotic Index 6.88 Sampled - 25/05/2015 REP: 1 Acariformes Water Mite A 1 6 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 122 6 Chironomidae Midge L 132 6 Chironomidae Midge P 5 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 4 5 Glossosomatidae Caddisfly L 22 1 Glossosomatidae Caddisfly P 7 1 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 5 3 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 2 5 Hydroptilidae Micro-caddisfly L 1 6 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 31 8 Pisidiidae Fingernail Clam A 3 6 Simuliidae Black Fly L 1 5 Stream Health Fair Family Biotic Index 5.69 Sampled - 08/12/2015 REP: 1 Acariformes Water Mite A 2 6 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 1 6 Caenidae Crawling Mayfly N 1 6 Capniidae Stonefly N 5 3 Chironomidae Midge P 1 6 Chironomidae Midge L 141 6 Crangonyctidae Sideswimmer A 1 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 1 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle A 1 5 Ephemerellidae Mayfly N 4 2 Glossosomatidae Caddisfly L 7 1 Helicopsychidae Snail-case Caddisfly L 1 3 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 26 3 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 50 5 Hydroptilidae Micro-caddisfly L 1 6 Leptohyphidae Crawling Mayfly N 13 4 Lymnaeidae Pond Snail A 4 6 Nematoda Thread Worm A 3 5 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 20 8 Physidae Pouch Snail A 2 8 Pisidiidae Fingernail Clam A 19 6 Potamanthidae Burrowing Mayfly N 2 4 Psephenidae Water Penny Beetle L 1 4 Pyralidae Pyralid Moth L 4 5 Simuliidae Black Fly L 17 5 Tipulidae Crane Fly L 5 4 Turbellaria Flatworm A 7 6 Stream Health Fair Family Biotic Index 5.35 REP: 2 Acariformes Water Mite A 6 6 Capniidae Stonefly N 8 3 Chironomidae Midge P 1 6 Chironomidae Midge L 149 6 Crangonyctidae Sideswimmer A 2 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle A 2 5 DRAFT

Taxonomic Name Common Name Life Stage # in Subsample Biotic Index Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 3 5 Empididae Dance Fly L 2 6 Ephemerellidae Mayfly N 4 2 Glossosomatidae Caddisfly L 4 1 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 27 3 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 46 5 Hydroptilidae Micro-caddisfly L 4 6 Isonychiidae Torpedo Mayfly N 1 2 Leptohyphidae Crawling Mayfly N 9 4 Lymnaeidae Pond Snail A 6 6 Nematoda Thread Worm A 4 5 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 8 8 Pisidiidae Fingernail Clam A 19 6 Psychomyiidae Tube-making Caddisfly L 1 2 Simuliidae Black Fly L 14 5 Tipulidae Crane Fly L 4 4 Turbellaria Flatworm A 6 6 Stream Health Fair Family Biotic Index 5.31 Thames River East of Wharncliffe Road Site code: TF09 UTM X: 478657 UTM Y: 4758746 Sampled - 02/06/2014 REP: 1 Acariformes Water Mite A 3 6 Ancylidae Limpet A 1 6 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 2 6 Caenidae Crawling Mayfly N 2 6 Chironomidae Midge P 12 6 Chironomidae Midge L 55 6 Corixidae Water Boatmen A 1 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 1 5 Ephemerellidae Mayfly N 1 2 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 2 3 Leptohyphidae Crawling Mayfly N 2 4 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 285 8 Simuliidae Black Fly P 1 5 Valvatidae Round-mouthed Snail A 1 8 Stream Health Very Poor Family Biotic Index 7.50 Sampled - 25/05/2015 REP: 1 Acariformes Water Mite A 4 6 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 28 6 Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge P 1 6 Chironomidae Midge L 210 6 Chironomidae Midge P 16 6 Corixidae Water Boatmen A 2 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 15 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle A 1 5 Empididae Dance Fly L 1 6 Glossosomatidae Caddisfly P 3 1 Glossosomatidae Caddisfly L 3 1 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 4 3 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 1 5 Leptohyphidae Crawling Mayfly N 1 4 Leptophlebiidae Mayfly N 1 4 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 44 8 DRAFT

Taxonomic Name Common Name Life Stage # in Subsample Biotic Index Pisidiidae Fingernail Clam A 1 6 Psephenidae Water Penny Beetle L 1 4 Simuliidae Black Fly L 1 5 Tipulidae Crane Fly L 2 4 Turbellaria Flatworm A 3 6 Uenoidae Caddisfly L 1 3 Stream Health Fairly Poor Family Biotic Index 6.04 Thames River Labatt Park/Forks South Site code: TF10 UTM X: 478914 UTM Y: 4758790 Sampled - 02/06/2014 REP: 1 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 6 6 Caenidae Crawling Mayfly N 1 6 Chironomidae Midge L 44 6 Chironomidae Midge P 12 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 4 5 Empididae Dance Fly P 1 6 Glossosomatidae Caddisfly P 1 1 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 4 3 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 1 5 Nematoda Thread Worm A 1 5 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 223 8 Pisidiidae Fingernail Clam A 2 6 Potamanthidae Burrowing Mayfly N 1 4 Simuliidae Black Fly L 2 5 Taeniopterygidae Stonefly N 1 2 Stream Health Very Poor Family Biotic Index 7.37 Sampled - 25/05/2015 REP: 1 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 54 6 Chironomidae Midge P 23 6 Chironomidae Midge L 160 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 2 5 Ephemeridae Burrowing Mayfly N 3 2 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 10 3 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 2 5 Leptohyphidae Crawling Mayfly N 2 4 Nemouridae Stonefly N 2 2 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 118 8 Pisidiidae Fingernail Clam A 1 6 Simuliidae Black Fly L 1 5 Stream Health Fairly Poor Family Biotic Index 6.47 North Thames River accessed from Cummings Avenue south of Blackfriars Site code: TF14 UTM X: 478959 UTM Y: 4759451 Sampled - 20/10/2004 REP: 1 Acariformes Water Mite A 10 6 Caenidae Crawling Mayfly N 8 6 Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge L 1 6 Chironomidae Midge L 84 6 Chironomidae Midge P 9 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle A 2 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 4 5 Empididae Dance Fly L 3 6 DRAFT

Taxonomic Name Common Name Life Stage # in Subsample Biotic Index Ephemerellidae Mayfly N 6 2 Erpobdellidae Leech A 3 8 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 41 3 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 35 5 Leptohyphidae Crawling Mayfly N 23 4 Nematoda Thread Worm A 1 5 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 27 8 Philopotamidae Finger-net Caddisfly L 4 4 Pisidiidae Fingernail Clam A 4 6 Polycentropodidae Caddisfly L 1 6 Psephenidae Water Penny Beetle L 1 4 Psychomyiidae Tube-making Caddisfly L 2 2 Sialidae Alderfly N 1 4 Taeniopterygidae Stonefly N 1 2 Tipulidae Crane Fly L 4 4 Turbellaria Flatworm A 5 6 Stream Health Fair Family Biotic Index 5.26 Sampled - 25/10/2004 REP: 1 Acariformes Water Mite A 4 6 Asellidae Sow Bug A 1 8 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 1 6 Caenidae Crawling Mayfly N 19 6 Calopterygidae Broad-winged Damselfly N 1 6 Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge L 1 6 Chironomidae Midge L 110 6 Chironomidae Midge P 2 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle A 1 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 6 5 Empididae Dance Fly L 7 6 Ephemerellidae Mayfly N 5 2 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 23 3 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 24 5 Leptohyphidae Crawling Mayfly N 19 4 Nematoda Thread Worm A 1 5 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 21 8 Philopotamidae Finger-net Caddisfly L 1 4 Pisidiidae Fingernail Clam A 6 6 Psephenidae Water Penny Beetle L 2 4 Psychomyiidae Tube-making Caddisfly L 2 2 Taeniopterygidae Stonefly N 1 2 Tipulidae Crane Fly L 1 4 Turbellaria Flatworm A 5 6 Stream Health Fair Family Biotic Index 5.49 Sampled - 02/06/2005 REP: 1 Acariformes Water Mite A 1 6 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 12 6 Caenidae Crawling Mayfly N 1 6 Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge L 1 6 Chironomidae Midge P 20 6 Chironomidae Midge L 122 6 Empididae Dance Fly L 1 6 Ephemerellidae Mayfly N 2 2 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 1 3 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 4 5 DRAFT

Taxonomic Name Common Name Life Stage # in Subsample Biotic Index Nematoda Thread Worm A 1 5 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 83 8 Philopotamidae Finger-net Caddisfly L 1 4 Simuliidae Black Fly L 1 5 Stream Health Poor Family Biotic Index 6.59 Sampled - 12/06/2006 REP: 1 Acariformes Water Mite A 1 6 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 2 6 Chironomidae Midge P 5 6 Chironomidae Midge L 177 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 1 5 Erpobdellidae Leech A 1 8 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 4 5 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 7 8 Pisidiidae Fingernail Clam A 1 6 Simuliidae Black Fly L 3 5 Stream Health Fairly Poor Family Biotic Index 6.04 Sampled - 07/06/2007 REP: 1 Acariformes Water Mite A 3 6 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 8 6 Chironomidae Midge P 8 6 Chironomidae Midge L 112 6 Corixidae Water Boatmen A 1 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle A 3 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 1 5 Empididae Dance Fly P 1 6 Empididae Dance Fly L 2 6 Ephemerellidae Mayfly N 1 2 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 3 3 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 15 5 Leptoceridae Long-horned Caddisfly L 1 4 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 33 8 Simuliidae Black Fly L 1 5 Stream Health Fairly Poor Family Biotic Index 6.16 Sampled - 13/05/2008 REP: 1 Acariformes Water Mite A 5 6 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 40 6 Caenidae Crawling Mayfly N 1 6 Chironomidae Midge P 20 6 Chironomidae Midge L 112 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle A 1 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 3 5 Ephemerellidae Mayfly N 3 2 Erpobdellidae Leech A 1 8 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 3 3 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 3 5 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 32 8 Perlidae Stonefly N 3 3 Philopotamidae Finger-net Caddisfly L 1 4 Psephenidae Water Penny Beetle L 1 4 Simuliidae Black Fly L 13 5 DRAFT

Taxonomic Name Common Name Life Stage # in Subsample Biotic Index

Stream Health Fairly Poor Family Biotic Index 6.05 Sampled - 03/06/2009 REP: 1 Asellidae Sow Bug A 2 8 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 20 6 Chironomidae Midge P 1 6 Chironomidae Midge L 141 6 Collembola Springtail A 1 5 Corixidae Water Boatmen A 2 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle A 6 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 22 5 Ephemerellidae Mayfly N 1 2 Erpobdellidae Leech A 2 8 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 4 3 Hyalellidae Sideswimmer A 1 8 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 24 5 Leptohyphidae Crawling Mayfly N 2 4 Nematoda Thread Worm A 5 5 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 70 8 Simuliidae Black Fly L 3 5 Turbellaria Flatworm A 1 6 Stream Health Fairly Poor Family Biotic Index 6.22 Sampled - 27/05/2010 REP: 1 Acariformes Water Mite A 8 6 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 12 6 Caenidae Crawling Mayfly N 1 6 Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge L 1 6 Chironomidae Midge P 43 6 Chironomidae Midge L 199 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 1 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle A 1 5 Ephemerellidae Mayfly N 1 2 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 1 3 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 7 5 Nematoda Thread Worm A 1 5 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 76 8 Pisidiidae Fingernail Clam A 1 6 Simuliidae Black Fly L 1 5 Stream Health Fairly Poor Family Biotic Index 6.38 Sampled - 06/06/2011 REP: 1 Acariformes Water Mite A 1 6 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 4 6 Chironomidae Midge P 31 6 Chironomidae Midge L 245 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle A 1 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 4 5 Ephemerellidae Mayfly N 1 2 Erpobdellidae Leech A 2 8 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 3 3 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 19 5 Nematoda Thread Worm A 1 5 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 20 8 Pisidiidae Fingernail Clam A 2 6 DRAFT

Taxonomic Name Common Name Life Stage # in Subsample Biotic Index Simuliidae Black Fly L 1 5 Stream Health Fairly Poor Family Biotic Index 6.01 Sampled - 15/05/2012 REP: 1 Acariformes Water Mite A 9 6 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 6 6 Caenidae Crawling Mayfly N 1 6 Capniidae Stonefly N 1 3 Chironomidae Midge P 30 6 Chironomidae Midge L 177 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 7 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle A 2 5 Ephemerellidae Mayfly N 5 2 Glossiphoniidae Leech A 1 8 Glossosomatidae Caddisfly L 3 1 Helicopsychidae Snail-case Caddisfly L 1 3 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 8 3 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 5 5 Hydroptilidae Micro-caddisfly L 1 6 Nematoda Thread Worm A 8 5 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 41 8 Philopotamidae Finger-net Caddisfly L 3 4 Pisidiidae Fingernail Clam A 1 6 Psephenidae Water Penny Beetle L 1 4 Psychomyiidae Tube-making Caddisfly L 1 2 Tipulidae Crane Fly L 1 4 Stream Health Fairly Poor Family Biotic Index 5.95 Sampled - 09/05/2013 REP: 1 Acariformes Water Mite A 4 6 Caenidae Crawling Mayfly N 4 6 Chironomidae Midge P 9 6 Chironomidae Midge L 136 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 4 5 Empididae Dance Fly L 2 6 Ephemerellidae Mayfly N 2 2 Helicopsychidae Snail-case Caddisfly L 1 3 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 2 3 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 1 5 Hydroptilidae Micro-caddisfly L 1 6 Nematoda Thread Worm A 1 5 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 147 8 Psephenidae Water Penny Beetle L 1 4 Stream Health Poor Family Biotic Index 6.85 Sampled - 13/05/2014 REP: 1 Acariformes Water Mite A 3 6 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 2 6 Chironomidae Midge P 2 6 Chironomidae Midge L 106 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 2 5 Ephemerellidae Mayfly N 6 2 Glossosomatidae Caddisfly L 13 1 Helicopsychidae Snail-case Caddisfly L 5 3 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 4 3 DRAFT

Taxonomic Name Common Name Life Stage # in Subsample Biotic Index Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 4 5 Nematoda Thread Worm A 1 5 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 155 8 Psephenidae Water Penny Beetle L 1 4 Psychomyiidae Tube-making Caddisfly L 1 2 Simuliidae Black Fly L 1 5 Stream Health Poor Family Biotic Index 6.59 Sampled - 03/06/2014 REP: 1 Acariformes Water Mite A 5 6 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 44 6 Caenidae Crawling Mayfly N 1 6 Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge P 1 6 Chironomidae Midge P 20 6 Chironomidae Midge L 127 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle A 1 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 1 5 Empididae Dance Fly L 1 6 Ephemerellidae Mayfly N 3 2 Erpobdellidae Leech A 1 8 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 7 3 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 1 5 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 91 8 Simuliidae Black Fly L 8 5 Tipulidae Crane Fly L 1 4 Stream Health Fairly Poor Family Biotic Index 6.44 Sampled - 20/05/2015 REP: 1 Acariformes Water Mite A 14 6 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 26 6 Chironomidae Midge P 8 6 Chironomidae Midge L 165 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle A 1 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 2 5 Empididae Dance Fly P 1 6 Ephemerellidae Mayfly N 2 2 Glossosomatidae Caddisfly L 1 1 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 14 3 Leptohyphidae Crawling Mayfly N 1 4 Leptophlebiidae Mayfly N 1 4 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 110 8 Pisidiidae Fingernail Clam A 1 6 Psephenidae Water Penny Beetle L 1 4 Simuliidae Black Fly L 2 5 Turbellaria Flatworm A 1 6 Stream Health Fairly Poor Family Biotic Index 6.44 Sampled - 08/12/2015 REP: 1 Acariformes Water Mite A 1 6 Asellidae Sow Bug A 1 8 Caenidae Crawling Mayfly N 1 6 Capniidae Stonefly N 14 3 Chironomidae Midge P 2 6 Chironomidae Midge L 188 6 Empididae Dance Fly L 4 6 DRAFT

Taxonomic Name Common Name Life Stage # in Subsample Biotic Index Ephemerellidae Mayfly N 2 2 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 19 3 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 4 5 Hydroptilidae Micro-caddisfly L 2 6 Isonychiidae Torpedo Mayfly N 1 2 Nematoda Thread Worm A 3 5 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 16 8 Perlodidae Stonefly N 5 2 Philopotamidae Finger-net Caddisfly L 2 4 Pisidiidae Fingernail Clam A 1 6 Psephenidae Water Penny Beetle L 4 4 Simuliidae Black Fly P 1 5 Simuliidae Black Fly L 14 5 Tipulidae Crane Fly L 8 4 Turbellaria Flatworm A 28 6 Stream Health Fair Family Biotic Index 5.54 Sampled - 10/05/2016 REP: 1 Acariformes Water Mite A 1 6 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 6 6 Caenidae Crawling Mayfly N 1 6 Capniidae Stonefly N 1 3 Chironomidae Midge P 19 6 Chironomidae Midge L 212 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle A 1 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 3 5 Ephemerellidae Mayfly N 6 2 Erpobdellidae Leech A 1 8 Glossosomatidae Caddisfly L 1 1 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 5 3 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 1 5 Leptohyphidae Crawling Mayfly N 1 4 Nematoda Thread Worm A 2 5 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 23 8 Perlidae Stonefly N 1 3 Psephenidae Water Penny Beetle L 7 4 Simuliidae Black Fly L 13 5 Simuliidae Black Fly P 1 5 Stream Health Fairly Poor Family Biotic Index 5.87 North Thames River Labatt Park/Forks North Site code: TF16 UTM X: 479049 UTM Y: 4759000 Sampled - 02/06/2014 REP: 1 Acariformes Water Mite A 9 6 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 3 6 Caenidae Crawling Mayfly N 3 6 Chironomidae Midge P 17 6 Chironomidae Midge L 80 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 10 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle A 7 5 Ephemerellidae Mayfly N 1 2 Erpobdellidae Leech A 1 8 Glossosomatidae Caddisfly P 6 1 Glossosomatidae Caddisfly L 8 1 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 5 3 DRAFT

Taxonomic Name Common Name Life Stage # in Subsample Biotic Index Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 168 8 Pisidiidae Fingernail Clam A 3 6 Potamanthidae Burrowing Mayfly N 2 4 Psephenidae Water Penny Beetle L 1 4 Turbellaria Flatworm A 2 6 Stream Health Poor Family Biotic Index 6.69 Sampled - 25/05/2015 REP: 1 Acariformes Water Mite A 2 6 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 91 6 Caenidae Crawling Mayfly N 1 6 Chironomidae Midge L 110 6 Chironomidae Midge P 13 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 3 5 Glossosomatidae Caddisfly P 1 1 Glossosomatidae Caddisfly L 6 1 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 11 3 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 1 5 Leptoceridae Long-horned Caddisfly L 2 4 Nemouridae Stonefly N 1 2 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 86 8 Perlidae Stonefly N 1 3 Pisidiidae Fingernail Clam A 1 6 Polymitarcyidae Mayfly N 2 2 Simuliidae Black Fly P 1 5 Stream Health Fairly Poor Family Biotic Index 6.24 North Thames River accessed from Cummings Avenue south of Blackfriars Site code: TF17 UTM X: 478987 UTM Y: 4759725 Sampled - 02/06/2014 REP: 1 Acariformes Water Mite A 4 6 Asellidae Sow Bug A 1 8 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 6 6 Chironomidae Midge L 73 6 Chironomidae Midge P 12 6 Corixidae Water Boatmen A 9 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 1 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle A 1 5 Ephemerellidae Mayfly N 2 2 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 1 3 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 3 5 Hydroptilidae Micro-caddisfly L 2 6 Leptoceridae Long-horned Caddisfly L 1 4 Nematoda Thread Worm A 1 5 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 198 8 Simuliidae Black Fly P 2 5 Taeniopterygidae Stonefly N 2 2 Stream Health Poor Family Biotic Index 7.13 Sampled - 25/05/2015 REP: 1 Acariformes Water Mite A 7 6 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 16 6 Caenidae Crawling Mayfly N 1 6 Chironomidae Midge L 356 6 DRAFT

Taxonomic Name Common Name Life Stage # in Subsample Biotic Index Chironomidae Midge P 46 6 Corixidae Water Boatmen A 1 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 1 5 Ephemerellidae Mayfly N 1 2 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 8 3 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 2 5 Leptoceridae Long-horned Caddisfly L 2 4 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 118 8 Polycentropodidae Caddisfly L 1 6 Tipulidae Crane Fly L 2 4 Stream Health Fairly Poor Family Biotic Index 6.35 Sampled - 08/12/2015 REP: 1 Acariformes Water Mite A 2 6 Ancylidae Limpet A 1 6 Asellidae Sow Bug A 9 8 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 4 6 Caenidae Crawling Mayfly N 6 6 Capniidae Stonefly N 13 3 Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge L 1 6 Chironomidae Midge L 144 6 Chironomidae Midge P 3 6 Corixidae Water Boatmen A 10 5 Crangonyctidae Sideswimmer A 8 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 1 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle A 1 5 Ephemerellidae Mayfly N 1 2 Glossiphoniidae Leech A 1 8 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 26 3 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 3 5 Leptohyphidae Crawling Mayfly N 1 4 Lymnaeidae Pond Snail A 5 6 Nematoda Thread Worm A 4 5 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 47 8 Philopotamidae Finger-net Caddisfly L 1 4 Pisidiidae Fingernail Clam A 3 6 Planorbidae Orb Snail A 1 6 Polycentropodidae Caddisfly L 2 6 Psychomyiidae Tube-making Caddisfly L 1 2 Simuliidae Black Fly P 1 5 Simuliidae Black Fly L 1 5 Tipulidae Crane Fly L 4 4 Turbellaria Flatworm A 3 6 Stream Health Fairly Poor Family Biotic Index 5.86 North Thames River accessed from Ann St Site code: TF18 UTM X: 478840 UTM Y: 4759873 Sampled - 02/06/2014 REP: 1 Acariformes Water Mite A 2 6 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 1 6 Chironomidae Midge P 10 6 Chironomidae Midge L 131 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 6 5 Ephemerellidae Mayfly N 1 2 Glossosomatidae Caddisfly L 1 1 DRAFT

Taxonomic Name Common Name Life Stage # in Subsample Biotic Index Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 1 3 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 182 8 Tipulidae Crane Fly L 2 4 Stream Health Poor Family Biotic Index 7.01 Sampled - 25/05/2015 REP: 1 Acariformes Water Mite A 1 6 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 76 6 Chironomidae Midge P 11 6 Chironomidae Midge L 170 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 2 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle A 3 5 Ephemerellidae Mayfly N 4 2 Glossosomatidae Caddisfly L 1 1 Glossosomatidae Caddisfly P 4 1 Helicopsychidae Snail-case Caddisfly L 2 3 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 11 3 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 7 5 Leptohyphidae Crawling Mayfly N 1 4 Nematoda Thread Worm A 1 5 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 56 8 Pisidiidae Fingernail Clam A 2 6 Psephenidae Water Penny Beetle L 1 4 Simuliidae Black Fly L 8 5 Taeniopterygidae Stonefly N 1 2 Tipulidae Crane Fly L 1 4 Turbellaria Flatworm A 1 6 Stream Health Fairly Poor Family Biotic Index 6.00 Sampled - 08/12/2015 REP: 1 Acariformes Water Mite A 8 6 Asellidae Sow Bug A 2 8 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 3 6 Caenidae Crawling Mayfly N 2 6 Capniidae Stonefly N 4 3 Chironomidae Midge P 4 6 Chironomidae Midge L 160 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 3 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle A 4 5 Empididae Dance Fly L 4 6 Ephemerellidae Mayfly N 16 2 Gammaridae Sideswimmer A 1 6 Glossosomatidae Caddisfly L 4 1 Helicopsychidae Snail-case Caddisfly L 1 3 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 28 3 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 22 5 Hydroptilidae Micro-caddisfly L 6 6 Leptoceridae Long-horned Caddisfly L 1 4 Leptohyphidae Crawling Mayfly N 8 4 Nematoda Thread Worm A 2 5 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 22 8 Philopotamidae Finger-net Caddisfly L 1 4 Pisidiidae Fingernail Clam A 2 6 Potamanthidae Burrowing Mayfly N 1 4 Psychomyiidae Tube-making Caddisfly L 5 2 Simuliidae Black Fly L 18 5 DRAFT

Taxonomic Name Common Name Life Stage # in Subsample Biotic Index Tipulidae Crane Fly L 9 4 Turbellaria Flatworm A 17 6 Stream Health Fair Family Biotic Index 5.32 North Thames River from park north of Oxford St and east of the river Site code: TF19 UTM X: 478725 UTM Y: 4760114 Sampled - 03/06/2014 REP: 1 Acariformes Water Mite A 3 6 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 24 6 Chironomidae Midge P 15 6 Chironomidae Midge L 59 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle A 2 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 11 5 Empididae Dance Fly P 1 6 Empididae Dance Fly L 1 6 Ephemerellidae Mayfly N 4 2 Glossosomatidae Caddisfly L 1 1 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 6 3 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 1 5 Hydroptilidae Micro-caddisfly L 1 6 Hydroptilidae Micro-caddisfly P 3 6 Leptohyphidae Crawling Mayfly N 3 4 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 163 8 Philopotamidae Finger-net Caddisfly L 1 4 Pisidiidae Fingernail Clam A 6 6 Psephenidae Water Penny Beetle L 1 4 Simuliidae Black Fly L 3 5 Simuliidae Black Fly P 3 5 Tipulidae Crane Fly L 1 4 Stream Health Poor Family Biotic Index 6.81 Sampled - 25/05/2015 REP: 1 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 56 6 Chironomidae Midge P 12 6 Chironomidae Midge L 154 6 Corixidae Water Boatmen A 1 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 35 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle A 4 5 Ephemerellidae Mayfly N 4 2 Glossosomatidae Caddisfly L 3 1 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 3 3 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 8 5 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 58 8 Perlidae Stonefly N 1 3 Philopotamidae Finger-net Caddisfly L 3 4 Pisidiidae Fingernail Clam A 10 6 Psephenidae Water Penny Beetle L 3 4 Simuliidae Black Fly P 2 5 Simuliidae Black Fly L 21 5 Tipulidae Crane Fly L 1 4 Turbellaria Flatworm A 1 6 Stream Health Fairly Poor Family Biotic Index 5.97 DRAFT

Taxonomic Name Common Name Life Stage # in Subsample Biotic Index Sampled - 08/12/2015 REP: 1 Acariformes Water Mite A 5 6 Ancylidae Limpet A 2 6 Asellidae Sow Bug A 7 8 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 6 6 Caenidae Crawling Mayfly N 5 6 Capniidae Stonefly N 37 3 Chironomidae Midge L 101 6 Crangonyctidae Sideswimmer A 1 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle A 2 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 2 5 Ephemerellidae Mayfly N 6 2 Erpobdellidae Leech A 1 8 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 28 3 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 7 5 Hydroptilidae Micro-caddisfly L 4 6 Leptohyphidae Crawling Mayfly N 2 4 Nematoda Thread Worm A 4 5 Nemouridae Stonefly N 3 2 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 14 8 Philopotamidae Finger-net Caddisfly L 1 4 Pisidiidae Fingernail Clam A 2 6 Simuliidae Black Fly L 42 5 Tipulidae Crane Fly L 5 4 Turbellaria Flatworm A 16 6 Stream Health Fair Family Biotic Index 5.14 Thames River The Coves, accessed form Greenside Ave. Site code: TF39 UTM X: 477326 UTM Y: 4758288 Sampled - 27/05/2015 REP: 1 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 86 6 Chironomidae Midge L 143 6 Chironomidae Midge P 11 6 Corixidae Water Boatmen A 10 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 8 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle A 1 5 Glossosomatidae Caddisfly L 2 1 Helicopsychidae Snail-case Caddisfly L 1 3 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 3 3 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 3 5 Nematoda Thread Worm A 2 5 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 22 8 Philopotamidae Finger-net Caddisfly L 1 4 Pisidiidae Fingernail Clam A 2 6 Simuliidae Black Fly L 7 5 Stream Health Fairly Poor Family Biotic Index 5.96 Sampled - 08/12/2015 REP: 1 Acariformes Water Mite A 4 6 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 2 6 Capniidae Stonefly N 7 3 Chironomidae Midge L 205 6 Chironomidae Midge P 1 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle A 1 5 DRAFT

Taxonomic Name Common Name Life Stage # in Subsample Biotic Index Elmidae Riffle Beetle L 3 5 Empididae Dance Fly L 2 6 Glossosomatidae Caddisfly L 4 1 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly N 3 3 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 23 5 Hydroptilidae Micro-caddisfly L 3 6 Leptoceridae Long-horned Caddisfly L 1 4 Leptohyphidae Crawling Mayfly N 11 4 Lymnaeidae Pond Snail A 3 6 Nematoda Thread Worm A 6 5 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 37 8 Perlodidae Stonefly N 1 2 Pisidiidae Fingernail Clam A 15 6 Potamanthidae Burrowing Mayfly N 3 4 Pyralidae Pyralid Moth L 1 5 Simuliidae Black Fly L 7 5 Tipulidae Crane Fly L 3 4 Turbellaria Flatworm A 1 6 Stream Health Fairly Poor Family Biotic Index 5.84 Thames River Tributary Storybook Gardens beside pumphouse Site code: TF45 UTM X: 474601 UTM Y: 4756210 Sampled - 20/05/2015 REP: 1 Asellidae Sow Bug A 121 8 Baetidae Small Mayfly N 1 6 Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge P 1 6 Chironomidae Midge L 50 6 Chironomidae Midge P 1 6 Crangonyctidae Sideswimmer A 4 6 Ephemerellidae Mayfly N 1 2 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly L 8 5 Hydroptilidae Micro-caddisfly L 15 6 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm A 180 8 Simuliidae Black Fly L 29 5 Turbellaria Flatworm A 12 6 Stream Health Very Poor Family Biotic Index 7.33 Benthic Samples were obtained using a Rapid Bioassessment Protocol developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and modified by Dr. Robert Bailey of the University of Western Ontario Zoology Department. A representative section of stream is selected, incorporating a riffle if present, and sampled by moving upstream along a diagonal transect, dislodging and capturing invertebrates with a .5 mm mesh "D"- frame net. Samples are preserved in the field and analyzed in the lab to randomly select a 100 bug subsample which is identified to the Family taxonomic level.

The biotic index is a value assigned to benthic invertebrate taxa indicating their pollution sensitivity and tolerance on a scale from 0 to 10. Lower numbers indicate pollution sensitivity and high numbers tolerance. A value of -1 indicates that no biotic index value has been assigned to these taxa.

The Family Biotic Index is the weighted average of the biotic index and number of bugs in each taxa in the sample. The water quality ranges for the FBI values are as follows: < 4.25 = Excellent; 4.25 - 5.00 = Good; 5.00 - 5.75 = Fair; 5.75 - 6.50 = Fairly Poor; 6.50 - 7.25 = Poor; and > 7.25 = Very Poor.

Report prepared - March-20-17 DRAFT

APPENDIX J Significant Wildlife Habitat Assessment

DRAFT

APPENDIX J SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT ASSESSMENT

Habitats of Seasonal Concentrations of Animals The significant wildlife habitat assessment has indicated three candidate significant wildlife habitat (SWH) for seasonal concentration areas of animals

Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) Criteria Details Category Met? Terrestrial waterfowl stopover and No The Forks study area does not contain large field habitats staging areas (CUM1 and CUT1) which would support spring flood waters. Aquatic waterfowl stopover and No The Forks study area does not contain candidate ELC staging areas ecosites to be considered an aquatic waterfowl stopover area. No significant waterfowl (Ruddy Ducks, Canvasbacks, or Redheads) were observed. Shorebird migratory stopover area No The Forks study area lacks unvegetated shorelines, which are required for shorebird species. Land bird migratory stopover areas No The Forks study area does not contain woodland habitat which is within 5 km to Lake Erie or Lake Ontario Raptor wintering area No The Forks study area does not contain the 20 ha of forested and upland habitats which are required for raptor and owl wintering habitat. Bank and cliff colonially nesting bird No The Forks study area does not contain any exposed soil breeding banks which would be suitable for swallow colonies. Cliff habitat Swallows were nesting at the forks; however, the nests were observed in man-made bridge structures, which are not considered SWH. Trees / Shrubs colonially nesting No The Forks study area does not contain candidate ELC bird habitat ecosites to be considered a colonially nesting bird habitat. Nests within live or dead trees, shrubs, or emergent vegetation that would signify the area is used by colonial tree/shrub-nesting birds were not observed. Ground colonially nesting bird No The Forks study area does not contain any rocky island or habitat peninsula habitat which would support colonially nesting birds (ground). Bat maternity colonies Candidate Candidate habitat is present within the wooded ELC types throughout the study area. Further inventories should be conducted to confirm SWH. Bat hibernacula No The Forks study does not contain caves or mines for hibernating. Migratory butterfly stopover areas No The Forks study area does not contain 10 ha of field and forest habitat which is within 5 km to Lake Erie or Lake Ontario. Snake hibernacula Candidate Hibernacula for snakes can be present within any ecosite which contains burrows, rock crevices and other naturalized areas below the frost line. Therefore, the Forks

Appendix J - Significant Wildlife Habitat Assessment.docx 1 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) Criteria Details Category Met? study area is considered candidate SWH for Snake hibernacula. Further inventories should be conducted to confirm SWH. Turtle wintering areas Candidate The Forks study area contains large, deep pools to support overwintering turtles. Background studies confirmed the presence of SCC Turtles basking within the study area. Overwintering has not been confirmed Deer Winter congregation areas No The Forks study area does not contain woodlots which are between 50 and 100 ha in size.

Rare vegetation Communities or Specialized Habitats The SWH assessment has indicated that there were no rare vegetation communities within the study area.

Criteria Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) Category Details Met? Cliffs and talus slopes No The Forks study area does not contain candidate ELC ecosites or features. Sand Barren No The Forks study area does not contain candidate ELC ecosites or features. Alvar No The Forks study area does not contain candidate ELC ecosites or features. Old Growth Forest No The Forks study area does not contain candidate ELC ecosites or features. Savannah No The Forks study area does not contain candidate ELC ecosites or features. Tallgrass prairie No The Forks study area does not contain candidate ELC ecosites or features. Other rare vegetation communities No The Forks study area does not contain any rare vegetation communities (S1-S3).

Specialized Habitats of Wildlife The SWH assessment has indicated that there was one confirmed specialized habitat for wildlife.

Criteria Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) Category Details Met? Waterfowl nesting habitat No The Forks study area does not contain any wetland ecosites greater than 0.5 ha. Bald eagle and Osprey nesting, No An active osprey nest is located on a man-made foraging and perching habitat light structure at the Forks of the Thames River in Labatt Park. Since the nest is on a man-made structure it does not qualify as SWH. Woodland raptor nesting No The Forks study area does not contain greater habitat than 30 ha of woodland/forest stands with 4 ha of interior habitat. Turtle nesting areas Confirmed The Forks study area contains confirmed nesting areas for SAR and SCC turtles.

Appendix J - Significant Wildlife Habitat Assessment.docx 2 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

Criteria Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) Category Details Met? Seeps and springs No The Forks study area does not contain any seep or spring features. Woodland amphibian breeding No The Forks study area does not contain wetlands, habitat ponds, or vernal pools within the woodlands or forest habitats which could support amphibians. Wetland amphibian breeding No The Forks study area does not contain appropriate habitat wetland habitats. Woodland area-sensitive bird breeding No The Forks study area does not contain greater habitat than 30 ha of interior woodland/forest habitat.

Habitats of Species of Conservation Concern The SWH assessment has indicated that there was one confirmed and one candidate wildlife habitat for SCC.

Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) Criteria Details Category Met? Marsh breeding bird habitat No The Forks study area does not contain wetlands or ponds within the study area which would support marsh breeding birds. Open country bird breeding habitat No The Forks study area does not contain any field or meadow habitat which is greater than 30 ha. Shrub/early successional bird breeding No The Forks study area does not contain large habitat field areas or shrub/ thicket areas which are greater than 10 ha in size. Terrestrial crayfish No The Forks study area does not contain wet meadow or marsh habitats. No terrestrial crayfish burrows were identified during the field studies in 2018. Special concern and provincially rare Confirmed - species Three avian SCC were confirmed in the study wildlife species have been area: Baltimore Oriole, Killdeer, and Mallard confirmed within Two herptefauna SCC were confirmed within the study area the study area: Common Snapping Turtle and within suitable Northern Map Turtle. habitat. Four aquatic SCC were confirmed within the study area: Elktoe, Mucket, Spotfin Shiner, and Greater Redhorse. Zero insect SCC was confirmed within the study area. Zero mammal SCC were confirmed within the study area Zero flora SCC were confirmed within the study area.

Candidate- These Seven avian SCC are considered to have species have been candidate SWH: Bald Eagle, Belted Kingfisher, identified as being Brown Thrasher, Eastern Kingbird, Eastern known within the Wood-pewee, Northern Flicker, and Spotted

Appendix J - Significant Wildlife Habitat Assessment.docx 3 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) Criteria Details Category Met? study area, and the Sandpiper. appropriate One herptefauna SCC species was considered habitats exist to to have candidate SWH: Eastern Ribbon Snake. support these Eleven aquatic SCC species were considered to species. have candidate SWH: Black Sandshell, Deertoe, Elktoe, Mapleleaf Mussel, Mucket, Pink Heelsplitter, Purple Wartyback, Rainbow Mussel, Spotted Sucker, Striped Shiner, and Wabash Pigtoe. Two insect SCC species were considered to have candidate SWH: Hackberry Emperor and Tawny Emperor. Zero mammal SCC were considered to have candidate SWH Four flora SCC species were considered to have candidate SWH: Hispid Buttercup, Hairy-fruited Sedge, Tall Coreopsis, and Wild Four-o'clock.

Animal Movement Corridors The significant wildlife habitat assessment has indicated that there were no significant animal movement corridors within the study area.

Criteria Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) Category Details Met? Amphibian Movement Corridor No The potential for animal movement corridors to occur in the study area is contingent on confirming significant amphibian breeding ponds. No amphibian breeding habitat was identified within the study area.

Appendix J - Significant Wildlife Habitat Assessment.docx 4 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

APPENDIX K Species at Risk Assessment

Common name Scientific Name ESA1 SARA2 Habitat Requirements1 Year and General Location of Species Record Observations and Likelihood of Occurrence within Study Area Flora (12) DRAFT American Chestnut Castanea END END This species prefers dryer upland deciduous forests with Historic (1976 to 1982) NHIC Records southwest of Subject Unlikely - Species was not observed during the previous studies or by Matrix dentate sandy, acidic to neutral soils. Lands. However, most of the species within the area have during the 2018 study. been affected by Chestnut Blight. Bird’s-Foot Violet Viola pedata END END This species is found only in black oak savanna This species was identified as potentially occurring within the Unlikely - Species was not observed by matrix staff during the ELC inventories West London Dykes subject land status report (SLSR; UTRCA and the habitat is not available. 2015a). Blue Ash Fraxinus THR SC This species grow in floodplains or dry, sandy limestone This species was identified as potentially occurring within the Unlikely - Species was not observed by matrix staff during the tree inventory or quadrangulata outcrops. West London Dykes SLSR (UTRCA 2015a). ELC inventories. Butternut Juglans cinerea END END This species prefers moist, well-drained soil, often found Species was observed within the Thames South Dyke SLSR Unlikely - Species was not observed by matrix staff during the tree inventory or along streams. Also found on well-drained gravel sites. outside of the study area (2017). ELC inventories. Cucumber Tree Magnolia END END This species prefers upland moist deciduous forest A planted species was observed within the West London Unlikely - Species was not observed by matrix staff during the tree inventory or acuminate habitats, or on rises within low swampy areas. Dyke EIS outside if of the study area (2016). ELC inventories. Eastern Flowering Cornus florida END END This species grows under taller trees in mid-age to This species was identified as potentially occurring within the Unlikely - Species was not observed by matrix staff during the tree inventory or Dogwood mature deciduous or mixed forests. Commonly grows on West London Dykes SLSR (UTRCA 2015a). ELC inventories. floodplains, slopes, bluffs, and in ravines. False Hop Sedge Carex END END This species prefers riverine swamps and marshes. This species was identified as potentially occurring within the Unlikely - Species was not observed by matrix staff during the tree inventory or lupuliformis West London Dykes SLSR (UTRCA 2015a). ELC inventories. The habitat is not available. False Enemion THR THR This species prefers deciduous forests and thickets in This species was identified as potentially occurring within the Unlikely - Species was not observed by matrix staff during the tree inventory or Rue-anemone biternatum valleys, floodplains, and ravine bottoms. West London Dykes SLSR (UTRCA 2015a). ELC inventories. Kentucky Coffee Gymocladus THR THR This species grows in a variety of habitats, often along This species was noted within the West London Dykes SLSR Unlikely - Species was not observed by matrix staff during the tree inventory or Tree dioicus the edges of woodland communities. (UTRCA 2015a), Harris Park SLSR (NRSI 2013), and London RT ELC inventories. Recent sightings were observed outside of the study area. SLSR (WSP 2017) outside of the study area. Purple Twayblade Liparis liliifolia THR THR This species is intolerant of shade, and is found in a This species was identified as potentially occurring within the Unlikely - Species was not observed by matrix staff during the tree inventory or variety of habitats including open oak woodland and West London Dykes SLSR (UTRCA 2015). ELC inventories. savannah, mixed deciduous forest, shrub thicket, shrub alvar, and deciduous swamp. Red Mulberry Morus rubra END END This species grows best in moist, rich soils along This species was identified as potentially occurring within the Unlikely - Species was not observed by matrix staff during the tree inventory or shorelines or the edge of forest habitats. Thames South Dyke SLSR (2017). ELC inventories. Wood Poppy Stylophorum END END This species is found in rich mixed deciduous woodlands, This species was identified as potentially occurring within the Unlikely - Species was not observed by matrix staff during the tree inventory or diphyllum forested ravines and slopes, and along wooded streams. West London Dykes SLSR (UTRCA 2015a). ELC inventories. Birds (20) Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax END END This species prefers mature deciduous forest, along This species was identified as potentially occurring within the Unlikely - The area lacks the suitable habitat needed for this species. This species virescens streams, in ravines, and in swamps. West London Dykes SLSR (UTRCA 2015a). has not been observed during previous studies or during the 2018 surveys completed by Matrix. Bank Swallow Riparia riparia THR THR This species prefers low areas along rivers and streams This species was noted within the Thames South Dyke SLSR Unlikely - The area lacks the suitable habitat needed for this species. This species that include vertical banks or cliffs. (2017) and the Coves ESA (North-South Environmental Inc. has not been observed during previous studies or during the 2018 surveys 2014). completed by Matrix. Barn Owl Tyto alba END END This species prefers open habitats such as grasslands, This species was identified as potentially occurring within the Unlikely - The area lacks the suitable habitat needed for this species. This species fields, and marshes. West London Dykes SLSR (UTRCA 2015a). has not been observed during previous studies or during the 2018 surveys completed by Matrix. Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica THR THR This species prefers human-made structures, such as This species was noted within the West London Dykes SLSR Confirmed - This species was observed within the study area. open barns, bridges, or culverts to build their nests. (UTRCA 2015a) and the Harris Park SLSR (NRSI 2013). Bobolink Dolichonyx THR THR This species prefers open prairie or meadow habitat, This species was identified as potentially occurring within Unlikely - The area lacks the suitable habitat needed for this species. This species oryzivorus and builds its nests on the ground in the dense grasses. West London Dykes SLSR (UTRCA 2015a) and the Harris Park has not been observed during previous studies or during the 2018 surveys SLSR (NRSI 2013). completed by Matrix.

Appendix K - SAR Assessment.docx 1 Matrix Solutions Inc.

Common name Scientific Name ESA1 SARA2 Habitat Requirements1 Year and General Location of Species Record Observations and Likelihood of Occurrence within Study Area Canada Warbler Wilsonia SC THR This species prefers mixed conifer and deciduous forest. This species was identified as potentially occurring within Unlikely - Preferred habitat is not availableDRAFT within the study area. Species has not canadensis West London Dykes SLSR (UTRCA 2015a). been identified within the study area. Chimney Swift Chaetura THR THR This species establishes colonies within unused This species was noted within the West London Dykes SLSR Confirmed - A colony was observed flying along the southern portion of the study pelagica chimneys in order to roost or build their nest. (UTRCA 2015a) and the Thames South Dyke SLSR (2017). area. Common Chordeiles minor SC THR Open habitats with gravel substrate. This species was observed during the West London Dyke EIS Unlikely - Preferred habitat is not available within the study area. Species has not Nighthawk (Stantec 2016). been identified within the study area. Eastern Sturnella magna THR THR This species primarily breeds in prairie and grassland This species was noted at the Coves ESA (North-South Unlikely - The area lacks the suitable habitat needed for this species. This species Meadowlark habitats, but may also breed in croplands, orchards, or Environmental Inc. 2014). has not been observed during previous studies or during the 2018 surveys overgrown fields. completed by Matrix. Golden- winged Vermivora SC THR Wetlands with mature forests. This species was identified as potentially occurring within Unlikely-Preferred habitat is not available within the study area. Species has not Warbler chrysoptera West London Dykes SLSR (UTRCA 2015a). been identified within the study area. Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus END END This species prefers large, flat fields with no woody This species was identified as potentially occurring within Unlikely - The area lacks the suitable habitat needed for this species. This species henslowii plants, and with tall, dense grass. West London Dykes SLSR (UTRCA 2015a). has not been observed during previous studies or during the 2018 surveys completed by Matrix. Kirtland’s Warbler Setophaga END END This species breeds in scrubby jack pine forests. This species was identified as potentially occurring within Unlikely - The area lacks the suitable habitat needed for this species. This species kirtlandii West London Dykes SLSR (UTRCA 2015a). has not been observed during previous studies or during the 2018 surveys completed by Matrix. Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis THR THR This species nest in freshwater and brackish marshes This species was identified as potentially occurring within Unlikely - The area lacks the suitable habitat needed for this species. This species with tall aquatic vegetation such as cattails and other West London Dykes SLSR (UTRCA 2015a). has not been observed during previous studies or during the 2018 surveys reeds and rushes. completed by Matrix. Loggerhead Shrike Lanius END NAR This species prefers open country with short vegetation This species was identified as potentially occurring within Unlikely - The area lacks the suitable habitat needed for this species. This species ludovicianus and shrubs or low trees, particularly those with spines or West London Dykes SLSR (UTRCA 2015a). has not been observed during previous studies or during the 2018 surveys thorns. completed by Matrix. Northern Bobwhite Colinus END END This species prefers agricultural fields, grasslands, or This species was identified as potentially occurring within Unlikely - The area lacks the suitable habitat needed for this species. This species virginianus open pine forests. West London Dykes SLSR (UTRCA 2015a). has not been observed during previous studies or during the 2018 surveys completed by Matrix. Olive-sided Contopus SC THR Forest edges and openings. This species was identified as potentially occurring within the Unlikely - Preferred breeding habitat is not available within the study area. Flycatcher cooperi Thames South Dykes (UTRCA 2017a) This species was not observed within the study area in 2018. Prothonotary Protonotaria END END This species prefers large (250 acres) flooded This species was identified as potentially occurring within Unlikely - The area lacks the suitable habitat needed for this species. This species Warbler citrea bottomland forests, wooded swamps, and forests near West London Dykes SLSR (UTRCA 2015a). has not been observed during previous studies or during the 2018 surveys lakes and streams. completed by Matrix. Red-headed Melanerpes SC THR Wooded habitats. Indicated as potential by the Christmas Bird Count (Audubon Unlikely - Species has not been identified within the study area. Woodpecker erythrocephalus 2017).. Wood Thrush Hylocichla SC THR Interior Wooded habitats. This species was noted at the Coves ESA (North-South Unlikely - Preferred habitat is not available. Species has not been identified mustelina Environmental Inc. 2014) within the study area. Yellow- breasted Icteria virens END END This species breeds in areas of dense shrubbery. This species was identified as potentially occurring within Unlikely - The area lacks the suitable habitat needed for this species. This species Chat West London Dykes SLSR (UTRCA 2015a) has not been observed during previous studies or during the 2018 surveys completed by Matrix. Herpetofauna (8) Blanding’s Turtle Emydoidea THR THR This species prefers shallow water, usually in large Species identified by Ontario Reptile and Amphibian Atlas Unlikely - The area lacks the suitable habitat needed for this species. This species blandingii wetlands and shallow lakes with lots of aquatic plants. (ORAA) prior to 1990 (Ontario Nature 2015). has not been observed during previous studies or during the 2018 surveys Butler’s Garter Thamnophis END END This species prefers open, moist habitats, such as dense Species identified as potentially occurring by the ORAA. Unlikely - The area lacks the suitable habitat needed for this species. This species Snake butleri grasslands and old fields, with small wetlands. has not been observed during previous studies or during the 2018 surveys Eastern Hog-Nosed Heterodon THR THR This species prefers sandy, well-drained soils to burrow Species identified as potentially occurring by the ORAA. Unlikely - The area lacks the suitable habitat needed for this species. This species Snake platirhinos and lay eggs. Such as beaches and dry forests. has not been observed during previous studies or during the 2018 surveys

Appendix K - SAR Assessment.docx 2 Matrix Solutions Inc.

Common name Scientific Name ESA1 SARA2 Habitat Requirements1 Year and General Location of Species Record Observations and Likelihood of Occurrence within Study Area Eastern Sistrurus END END This species is found in different habitats including tall This species was identified as potentially occurring within Unlikely - The area lacks the suitable habitatDRAFT needed for this species. This species Massasauga catenatus grass prairie, bogs, marshes, shorelines, forests, and West London Dykes SLSR (UTRCA 2015a). has not been observed during previous studies or during the 2018 surveys. alvars. Eastern Spiny Apalone END END This species prefers slow-moving large water bodies or This species was observed within the study area. Confirmed - Species has been observed basking within the study area. Softshell spinifera rivers with soft muddy bottoms and aquatic vegetation. Nests are located near water on sandy beaches or gravel banks with sun. Jefferson Ambystoma END END This species prefers moist woodland habitats with loose This species was identified as potentially occurring within Unlikely - The area lacks the suitable habitat needed for this species. This species Salamander jeffersonianum soils West London Dykes SLSR (UTRCA 2015a). has not been observed during previous studies or during the 2018 surveys. Queensnake Regina END END This species prefers water bodies with clear water, rocky This species was identified within West London Dykes SLSR Unlikely - This species has been considered unlikely to forage or nest within the septemvittata or gravel bottoms and an abundance of crayfish. (UTRCA 2015a) outside of the study area. study area. This species has not been observed during previous studies, or during Suitable hibernation sites include abutments of old the 2018 Matrix studies. bridges and crevices in bedrock. Spotted Turtle Clemmys guttata END END This species prefers semi-aquatic habitats such as ponds, This species was identified as potentially occurring within Unlikely - The area lacks the suitable habitat needed for this species. This species marshes, and bogs with an abundant supply of aquatic West London Dykes EIS (Stantec 2016). has not been observed during previous studies or during the 2018 surveys. vegetation. Mammals (4) American Badger Taxidea taxus END END This species prefers open grassland habitats. This species was identified as potentially occurring within Unlikely - The area lacks the suitable habitat needed for this species. This species West London Dykes EIS (Stantec 2016). has not been observed during previous studies or during the 2018 surveys. Eastern Myotis leibii END NAR This species roosts in a variety of habitats, such as rock This species was identified as potentially occurring within Potential - Tree cavities and forests on site, as well as man-made structures. Small-footed Bat outcrops, buildings, under bridges, or in caves and West London Dykes EIS (Stantec 2016). hollow trees. Little Brown Bat Myotis lucifuga END END This species prefers attics, barns and tree cavities within This species was identified as potentially occurring within Potential - Tree cavities and forests onsite. forests for rearing young. West London Dykes EIS (Stantec 2016). Northern Bat (N. Myotis END END Boreal forests, roost under loose bark and tree cavities. This species was identified as potentially occurring within Unlikely - The area lacks the suitable habitat needed for this species. This species Long-Eared Bat) septentrionalis Hibernate most often in caves or abandoned mines. West London Dykes EIS (Stantec 2016). has not been observed during previous studies or during the 2018 surveys Fish (3) Black Redhorse Moxostoma THR NAR This species prefers pools and riffle of medium-sized Species identified within the study area during 2004/2005 Potential - The area contains suitable habitat; however, this species has not been duquesnei rivers that are usually less than 2 m deep. This species studies (UTRCA 2015b). observed during previous studies, or during the 2017 Matrix studies. has been observed in moderate to fast currents, with sandy or gravel substrates. Pugnose Minnow Opsopoeodus THR SC This species prefers coastal wetlands and slow-moving Species was identified downstream of the Springbank Dam Unlikely - It is possible that this species could migrate upstream from the emiliae rivers and streams with clear, warm water, little or no during the 2003 Springbank Dam EA (Acres 2003). Kilworth wetlands; however, the study area does not contain suitable habitat for current, and abundant vegetation. this species to persist. Silver Shiner Notropis THR SC This species prefers deep riffles or pools of medium to Recent records of this species were documented by DFO. Confirmed - This species was captured within the study area during 2017 studies photogenis large rivers with moderate to high gradients. Preferred (UTRCA 2015b). completed by Matrix. substrates are variable. Mussels (8) Kidneyshell Ptychobranchus END END This species prefers small to medium sized rivers with Identified as potentially occurring within the Byron Dykes Unlikely - The study area within the Thames River is not considered suitable fasciolaris shallow, clear, swift-moving water with gravel and sand. report (UTRCA 2017) and Riverview Dyke SLSR (UTRCA habitat for this species 2015a). Mapleleaf Mussel Quadrula SC THR Medium to large rivers with slow to moderate currents One live specimen was found within the main branch of the Potential - This species was not observed during the 2017 or 2018 studies. quadrula and firmly packed sand, gravel, or clay and mud Thames River in 1998 (UTRCA 2015b). Suitable habitat and host species are located within the study area bottoms. Host fish is the Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus).

Appendix K - SAR Assessment.docx 3 Matrix Solutions Inc.

Common name Scientific Name ESA1 SARA2 Habitat Requirements1 Year and General Location of Species Record Observations and Likelihood of Occurrence within Study Area Rainbow Villosa iris SC END Well-oxygenated reaches of small to medium sized Species was observed by previous studies as recent as 2004 Potential - This species was not observedDRAFT during the 2017 or 2018 studies. rivers. Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides), within the south branch of the Thames River (UTRCA 2015a). Suitable habitat is available within the study area. Mottled Sculpin (Cottus bairdi) and Rock Bass (Ambloplites rupestris).

Rayed Bean Villosa fabalis END END This species prefers small to large streams often in or One live specimen was observed within the north branch of Potential - Suitable habitat is present for this species within the north and south near riffle areas and in the headwaters and smaller the Thames River. In 1997/1998, a total of 41 relic shells braches of the Thames River. This species was not observed by Matrix staff tributaries of river systems. Four potential host species were observed throughout the Thames River (Cudmore et al. during 2017 and 2018. for the larvae include Mottled Sculpin (Cottus bairdii), 2004). Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieu), Greenside Darter (Etheostoma blennioides) and Rainbow Darter (Etheostoma caeruleum). Round Hickorynut Obovaria END END This species prefers rivers with clay, sand, or gravel A relic shell was observed in 2003 within the south branch of Unlikely - Populations of this species are said to have been lost from the Thames olivaria substrates with moderately fast moving water. This the Thames River. River (MNRF 2018). This species was not observed by Matrix staff during 2017 species may use may include the Greenside darter and and 2018. the Eastern sand darter (Ammocrypta pellucida). Round Pigtoe Pleurobema END END This species is found in rivers of various sizes with deep Live specimens were observed in 2004 within the south Potential - Suitable habitat and host species are present within the study are. sintoxia water and sandy, rocky, or mud bottoms. Host species branch of the Thames River. Relic shells were observed The DFO SAR mapping has indicated the study area as critical habitat for this for larvae include Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), Spotfin within the main branch of the Thames River in 1995 species if suitable habitat is present. This species was not observed by Matrix shiner (Cyprinella spiloptera), Bluntnose minnow (Cudmore et al 2004). staff during 2017 and 2018. (Pimephales notatus), and Northern redbelly dace (Chrosomus eos). Salamander Mussel Simpsonaias END END This species prefers water bodies with soft bottoms and A relic shell was observed within the study area during a Unlikely - The study area does not contain mudpuppy habitat and therefore ambigua swift currents. The larvae are parasitic and use the 1998 study (Cudmore et al 2004). would not be likely to host salamander Mussels. This species was not observed Mudpuppy (Necturus maculosus) as a host. by Matrix staff during 2017 and 2018. Wavy-rayed Lampsilis THR SC This species prefers riffle areas of clear, small- to Live specimens have recently been observed within the north Potential - Suitable habitat and host species are present within the study are. Lampmussel fasciola medium-sized streams and rivers of various sizes with and south branch of the Thames River, as well as the main This species was not observed by Matrix staff during 2017 and 2018. gravel and sand stabilized with cobble and boulders. branch near Cavendish Park (NRSI 2013). Larvae hosts for this species include: Smallmouth Bass and Largemouth Bass Insect (1) Rusty-patched Bombus affinis END END This species prefers open habitat, and has only been Species identified as potentially occurring by the MRNF. Unlikely - The area lacks the suitable habitat needed for this species. This species Bumble Bee observed in Pinery Provincial Park since 2002. has not been observed during previous studies or during the 2018 surveys DFO – Fisheries and Oceans Canada EA – Environmental Assessment EIS - Environmental Impact Study ELC – Ecological Land Classification ESA – Environmental Significant Areas NHIC - Natural Heritage Information Centre ORAA - Ontario Reptile and Amphibian Atlas RT – River Thames SC – Special Concern SLSR - Subject land status report UTRCA - Upper Thames River Conservation Authority 1 Government of Ontario 2018 2 Government of Canada 2018

Appendix K - SAR Assessment.docx 4 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

REFERENCES Acres International (Acres). 2003. Environmental Assessment Report, Springbank Dam Rehabilitation. Report prepared for the Corporation of the City of London. December 2003.

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. (MNRF). 2018. Round Hickory nut. Last updated October 22, 2018. https://www.ontario.ca/page/round-hickorynut

National Audubon Society (Audubon). 2017. Annual Christmas Bird Count - London Ontario. http://netapp.audubon.org/CBCObservation/Historical/ResultsByCount.aspx

Natural Resource Solutions Inc. (NRSI). 2013. Subject Lands Status Report Harris Park. Prepared for the City of London.

North-South Environmental Inc. 2014. Conservation Master Plan for the Coves ESA. Report prepared for the City of London Parks Planning & Design. July 2014

Ontario Nature. 2015. Reptiles and Amphibians. Last updated June 2015. https://ontarionature.org/programs/citizen-science/reptile-amphibian-atlas/species/

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA). 2017a. The City of London Dyke System. Accessed in June 2017. http://thamesriver.on.ca/water%20management/london%20dyke%20system/

Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec). 2016. “West London Dyke Environmental Impact Study.” DRAFT Report. Prepared for the Upper Thames River Conservations Authority. London, Ontario. March 2016.

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA). 2015a. West London Dykes: Subject Land Status Report. January 2015.

Appendix K - SAR Assessment.docx 5 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) 2015b. Fish Sampling Records. Dataset held by UTRCA.

WSP Canada Inc. (WSP). 2017. London RT Project - Subject Lands Status Report. Report prepared for the City of London. Aurora, Ontario. February 2017.

Appendix K - SAR Assessment.docx 6 Matrix Solutions Inc.