Appendix A-5 Springbank Dam EIS DRAFT

ONE RIVER MASTER PLAN SPRINGBANK DAM DECOMISSIONING 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 SPRINGBANK DAM DECOMISSIONING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY

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

reviewed by Karen Reis, B.E.S. (Hons) Arnel 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 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx i Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

VERSION CONTROL Version Date Issue Type Filename Description V0.1 29-Oct-2018 Draft 24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2018-10-29 draft V0.1.docx Issued to client for review V0.2 04-Nov-2018 Draft 24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2018-12-04 draft V0.2.docx Issued to client with revisions for review V0.3 29-Mar -2019 Draft 24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx Issued to client with revisions for review

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 Dam Springbank Dam 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 Springbank Dam and its features 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 buffer The City City of London THR Threatened UTRCA Upper Thames River Conservation Authority WSC Water Survey of Canada

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx ii 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 decommissioning of the Springbank Dam. The Schedule B Class EA is being conducted as part of Stage 2 of the One River Master Plan EA. 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 dam alternative has been defined as the partial Dam removal, involving the removal of some dam components, while retaining the remnant dam structure to allow for a free flowing river system.

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.

The EIS combines relevant background studies with information gathered from ecological field 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., partial Dam removal) were evaluated against the identified natural heritage features. The results of the assessment indicated that construction activities, along with construction access, staging, and vegetation clearing, are expected to have localized temporary effects to the natural features. The partial Dam removal is anticipated to have a beneficial long-term effect on the Study Area. The more stable naturalized banks provide shade and refuge for terrestrial and aquatic species. The removal of the gate(s) will improve fish passage between the upstream and downstream aquatic environments surrounding the Dam. The long-term effects associated with this project are expected to improve the natural features, functions, and the overall connectivity of the Thames River Corridor.

Mitigation measures provided in this report are recommended for consideration during project approval. Given the presence of multiple SAR within the area, it has been recommended that consultation and permitting through the appropriate authorities be obtained before any construction work.

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

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx iii Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Report Purpose ...... 2 1.2 Project Background and Study Area ...... 3 1.3 EIS Objectives ...... 5 2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ...... 5 2.1 Federal Legislation ...... 5 2.1.1 Species at Risk Act ...... 5 2.1.2 Fisheries Act ...... 6 2.1.3 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 2.2.4.1 Upper Thames Conservation Authority ...... 8 2.2.4.2 UTRCA Environmental Planning Policy Manual ...... 9 2.2.4.3 Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act ...... 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 3.1.2 Other Publically Available Databases ...... 12 3.1.3 Relevant Background Reports ...... 13 3.2 Field Inventories ...... 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 ...... 16 3.2.3 Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 17 3.2.3.1 Fisheries Community Assessment ...... 17 3.2.3.2 Fish Habitat Assessment ...... 19

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx iv Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

3.2.4 Hydraulic and Geomorphic Evaluations ...... 19 3.3 Analysis of Significance and Sensitivity ...... 20 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 ...... 25 4.2.1 Vegetation...... 27 4.2.1.1 Ecological Land Classification ...... 27 4.2.1.2 Botanical Inventory ...... 30 4.2.1.3 Invasive Species ...... 30 4.2.1.4 Tree Inventory ...... 32 4.2.2 Wildlife Communities ...... 34 4.2.2.1 Birds ...... 34 4.2.2.2 Herpetofauna ...... 34 4.2.2.3 Mammals ...... 34 4.2.2.4 Insects ...... 35 4.2.3 Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 35 4.2.3.1 Fish Community ...... 35 4.2.3.2 Fish Habitat ...... 37 4.2.3.3 Mussels ...... 39 4.2.3.4 Benthic Community ...... 39 5 EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND FUNCTION ...... 40 5.1 Significant Valleylands and Corridors ...... 41 5.2 Significant Wildlife Habitat ...... 41 5.2.1 Seasonal Concentration Areas of Animals ...... 42 5.2.2 Specialized Habitats of Wildlife ...... 42 5.2.3 Habitat of Species of Conservation Concern ...... 42 5.3 Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 43 5.4 Linkages and Corridors ...... 43 5.5 Species at Risk ...... 44 6 DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ...... 47 6.1 Preferred Alternative ...... 47 6.2 Project Activities ...... 47 7 EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ...... 48 7.1 Potential Impacts ...... 49 7.2 Mitigation Measures ...... 53

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx v Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

7.2.1 Timing Windows/Working In the Dry ...... 53 7.2.2 Best Construction Practices ...... 53 7.2.3 Prevention of Wildlife Mortality and Disturbance ...... 54 7.2.4 Prevention of Terrestrial Disturbance ...... 54 7.2.5 Prevention of Fish Mortality ...... 55 7.2.6 Erosion and Sedimentation Control ...... 55 7.3 RESIDUAL IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION...... 56 8 PERMITS AND AUTHORIZATIONS ...... 57 9 CONCLUSION ...... 57 10 REFERENCES ...... 58

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1.1 Project Site and Study Area ...... 4 FIGURE 3.1 Field Survey Locations ...... 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 ...... 26 FIGURE 4.3 Ecological Land Classification Map ...... 29 FIGURE 4.4 Invasive Species Map ...... 31 FIGURE 4.5 Trees Inventory Map within the Project Site ...... 33 FIGURE 4.6 Fish Habitat Map ...... 38 FIGURE 5.1 SAR and SWH within the Study Area ...... 46

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...... 27 TABLE 4.2 Tree Inventory Summary ...... 32 TABLE 4.3 Summary of Fish Species Captured at the Pump House During 2017 ...... 36 TABLE 4.4 Summary of Fish Species Captured at the Springbank Dam During 2018...... 36 TABLE 4.5 Mussel Species Identified During the 2017 and 2018 Field Observations ...... 39 TABLE 4.6 Summary of the Benthic Results for Station T7 from 2006 to 2016 ...... 40 TABLE 5.1 Provincially and Locally Significant Natural Heritage Features ...... 41 TABLE 5.2 SWH based on the ELC communities where the SCC were observed and/or were candidate habitat exists ...... 43 TABLE 7.1 Impacts, Mitigations, and Net Effects of the Preferred Alternative ...... 50

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx vi 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 APPENIDX H Breeding Bird Survey Results APPENDIX I Significant Wildlife Habitat Assessment APPENDIX J Species at Risk Assessment

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx vii 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).

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 should be replaced. 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 EA. Additional details on the historical and current land use in the study area is provided in the One River Master Plan EA document (Jacobs 2018).

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 2016b), 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, as the forks including overlooks and pedestrian pathways. In early 2016, City Council endorsed the vision of the “Ribbon of the Thames.”

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 1 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

In March 2017, the One River Master Plan Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) 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 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 One River EA 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 One River Master Plan EA 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 of London.

1.1 Report Purpose The Master Plan was carried out in two Stages. Stage 1 of the Master Plan examined the future function of the 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 Springbank Dam to allow the free flowing river system to continue (Jacobs 2018). Included in Stage 2 of the Master Plan is a Municipal Class Schedule B EA to select the preferred option for decommissioning the Springbank Dam. The dam decommissioning alternative analysis includes three options: Do Nothing, Partial Dam Removal, and Full Dam Removal. Consequently, a partial Dam removal option 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. The EIS is intended to provide the background and detailed habitat assessment required for the preparation of applications for approvals of recommended works in

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 2 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

the EA under the Conservation Act, Ontario Water Resources Act, Fisheries Act, Endangered Species Act, and the Species at Risk Act (SARA), if it is required. Requirements for the EIS are outlined in the City’s 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.

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

1.2 Project Background and Study Area Springbank Dam (the Dam) was built in 1929, and was used to backwater over 7 km upstream (up to the Forks) for recreation. In 2000, a flood damaged the Springbank Dam due to debris accumulation. Between 2000 and 2003 a municipal Class EA was completed to rehabilitate the Dam (Acres 2003) and construction for the rehabilitation began in 2006. When the new gates were tested in 2008, they failed to function properly, and the Dam has since remained non-functional. A legal settlement was finally reached for the Dam in 2015, which led to its inclusion in the Master Plan EA for a review of alternatives to restore, repurpose, or remove the Springbank Dam. After Stage 1 of the Master Plan EA was completed in January 2018, the option to restore a free-flowing river by decommissioning the Dam was selected as the preferred alternative. Subsequently, a Schedule B EA was initiated to determine if the decommissioned Dam will remain in place, undergo partial Dam removal, or be fully removed from the Thames River.

The Dam is located approximately 600 m east of Boler Road Bridge, in London, Ontario. The Dam is classified as a small to medium sized structure, approximately 67 m across and 9.8 m high (Acres 2003). The Dam is located within the Main branch of the Thames River, and is owned primarily by the City and operated by the UTRCA. The UTRCA has ownership title to lands at the north and south abutments, and holds the license of occupation with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). The riparian areas surrounding the Dam consist of forested valley lands along the north side, and Springbank Park along the south side. Additional details on the historical and current land use in the study area is provided in the One River Master Plan EA document (Jacobs 2018).

For the purposes of this EIS, the Project Site includes the existing Dam structure (including abutments and retaining wall), as well as the bank treatments (revetments) extending along the south shoreline. The Study Area includes the surrounding environment within 120 m of the project area. A 120 m setback was selected, as it 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 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 3 Matrix Solutions Inc.

Easting(m)

473119 473519 473919 ProjecSiteAre t a StudyAre a Highway Road W Multi-usePathway

DRAFTF FlowDire c tion 4756682 4756682

Index Map Northing (m) Northing Springbank Park

er Riv Thames Wha rncl i f f e R oa d S ou t h 4756282 4756282 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 1:4,000 e m e tre s ff li c 40 r0n 40 80 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 SpringbankDam Dec om issioningEIS EA-

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

473119 473519 473919 4755882 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\Springbank\Figure -1-Projec t_Site_ and _ Study_Are a.mxd - Tabloid_ L - 29-Oc t-18, 02:03 PM - ehollinge r - TID005 - r ehollinge - PM 02:03 t-18, 29-Oc - L Tabloid_ - a.mxd _ and Study_Are t_Site_ -1-Projec Tables\MPEA\2018\Report\Springbank\Figure sAnd I:\Jacobs\24504\Figure 1.1 DRAFT

1.3 EIS Objectives The objectives of the Springbank Dam Decommissioning 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 EA. • 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 Springbank Dam in London, Ontario.

2.1 Federal Legislation

2.1.1 Species at Risk Act 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 (MBCA; Government of Canada 2017a) 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)

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 5 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

 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)

• 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 (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).

2.1.2 Fisheries Act The Fisheries Act (Government of Canada 2016) 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, recreation, 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 (Government of Canada 2016) requires that projects avoid causing serious harm to fish unless authorized by the Minister of 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).

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 6 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

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).

2.1.3 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 2017a). 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 2017a).

2.2 Provincial Legislation

2.2.1 Environmental Assessment Act The Environmental Assessment Act (1990) 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 One River EA 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 EA, a detailed

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 7 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

environment field investigation and assessment program was conducted and included the Springbank Dam EIS

2.2.2 Provincial Policy Statement The Provincial Policy Statement 2014 (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; Government of Ontario 2008) provides for the conservation and protection of fauna and flora species within the Province of Ontario that are threatened with extinction. Section 9(1) of the ESA, 2007 prohibits the 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 2018) empowers Conservation Authorities (CAs) 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).

2.2.4.1 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

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 8 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

conditions outlined in the regulation (Government of Ontario 2013). Consultation with the UTRCA will be required to discuss mitigation measures along the Thames River.

2.2.4.2 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 biodiversity, ecological function, and connectivity of natural heritage features within the watershed (UTRCA 2006).

2.2.4.3 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 in order 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 is the City’s new Official Plan adopted by City Council on June 23, 2016, and was approved by the Minister on December 28, 2016 (City of London 2016b). 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

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 9 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

• Significant Woodlands and Woodlands • Significant Valleylands • Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) • 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 Hectares • Valleylands • Potential Environmentally Significant Areas

The environmental policies section of the London Plan 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 of London 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.

The City’s “Environmental Impact Studies (EIS) Requirements” 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 of 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 (2016b). A key ecological goal of the Thames Valley Corridor Plan is to preserve, enhance, and create ecological corridors and

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 10 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

linkages between natural features in order to establish a continuous corridor along the Thames River and enhance linkages to tributary watersheds (Dillon 2011).

3 STUDY APPROACH The purpose of the Springbank Dam Decommissioning 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 3-step guideline for preparation and review. Pre-consultation with UTRCA and EEPAC included discussion on what components of the EIS will be included, and what is not required. A detailed background review of previous studies was completed to determine if sufficient information was available from other sources. The Thames River and valley corridor is a well-characterized river that has been subject to numerous studies by the City, UTRCA, MNRF, and DFO. Although the habitat within the river upstream of the Dam has changed since the free-flowing system was established, many of these background reports provide 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 to occur within the Study area. A response was received from MNRF on August 26, 2016, which indicated the

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 11 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

potential for SAR within the Study area. The results are provided in Appendix B, and discussed further in Section 5.9.

• 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: 17MH7356 (NHIC 2018).

• Lands 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 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 In addition to the MNRF records, other publicly available data sources were reviewed (see Table 3.1) to determine potential SCC and SAR whose ranges overlap with the Study area. 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 before 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). 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 geographic Mammals of Federation of Ontario distribution of mammals for three time periods: pre-1900, Ontario Naturalists 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 Amphibian Atlas species in Ontario based on historic and current species (ORAA) 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 between 2001 and 2005 were considered as part of this EIS.

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 12 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

Atlas Source Description Ontario Butterfly Toronto Entomologist The OBA collects observations of butterflies within Ontario. Atlas (OBA) Associations (2018) 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 (IBA 2018) The IBA was reviewed to determine if there are any IBAs Area (IBA) 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 (DFO 2017) Maps • 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 secondary source 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 Environmental Assessment Report, Springbank Dam Rehabilitation Acres International 2003 Evaluation of Potential Impact of Springbank Dam Restoration on Reid and Mandrak 2006 Black Redhorse (Moxostoma duquesnei) and Other Sucker Species in the Thames River, Ontario Fish Passage at the Springbank Dam: Year 3 of Post -Construction Biotactic Inc. 2010 Monitoring and Baseline Comparisons Springbank Reservoir Shoreline Vegetation Succession Study, 2007 UTRCA 2015b to 2014

Regional Studies Aquatic Species at Risk in the Thames River Watershed, Ontario Cudmore et al. 2004 Freshwater Mussel Communities of the Thames River Ontario: Morris and Edwards 2007 2004 -2005 Thames Valley Corridor Plan - City of London Dillon Consulting 2011 The Thames River, Ontario, Canadian Heritage Rivers System Ten UTRCA 2013 Year Monitoring Report 2000 -2012 Middlesex Natural Heritage Systems Study UTRCA 2014a

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 13 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

Report Title Author Year

Botanical Inventory of the Thames River Dykes UTRCA 2014b of London, Ontario Upper Thames River Source Protection Area Assessment Report Thames -Sydenham and 2015 Region Source Protection Committee City of London Water Quality Monitoring. Thames River - 2016 Final Matrix Solutions Inc. 2016 Report London Earth Dykes Feasibility Study of Design Alternatives AECOM 2016 “Byron Dyke Subject Land Status Report” (Draft) UTRCA 2017a Commissioners Road West Trail Loop: Natural Heritage Inventory & Dillon 2018 Evaluation

3.2 Field Inventories Field inventories were completed within the Study area by Matrix staff during the spring and summer of 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 (City of London 2013). The names and field inventories completed by each staff is provided in Table 3.3. The qualifications of each of the field leads are presented in Appendix C.

TABLE 3.3 Field Inventory, Dates, and Staff

Field Inventory Date Name Vegetation (Ecological Land June 12, 2018 Karen Reis, Martine Classification, Botanical Inventory, June 26, 2018 Esraelian, Natasha Cyples Invasive Species, Tree Inventory) August 15, 2018 Breeding Bird June 1, 2018 Karen Reis, Martine June 12, 2018 Esraelian Fish and Fish Habitat* June 6, 2017 Karen Reis, Erica September 7, 2017 Wilkinson, Arnel Fausto May 9, 2018 August 31, 2018 Incidental Observations May 9, 2018, Karen Reis June 1, 2018, Martine Esraelian June 12, 2018, Erica Wilkinson June 26, 2018, August 15,2018 August 31, 2018 Note: * Mussel Identification was completed by Brydon MacVeigh

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

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 14 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

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. Where codes were not available in either the first or second approximations, a new code was created. For example Cultural Hedgerow (THC) was created to identify a treed hedgerow.

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. The ELC protocol indicates a minimum size of 0.5 ha for mapping polygons; however, given the linear nature of the project, all communities within the Study area were mapped.

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 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. Dates of the field inventories are provided in Table 3.3. 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:

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

• Federal - Designated as Special Concern, Extirpated, Endangered, or Threatened by COSEWIC and/or on SARA.

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 15 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

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 2016a) 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 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 Global Positioning System (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 (Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas 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 four 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.

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 (herbivory, scat, tracks, and trails). Particular attention was paid to presence of Species at Risk and rare wildlife. Dates of the field inventories are provided in Table 3.3.

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 16 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

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 May 3, 2018. 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 capture fish in shallow riffle and flats areas, as well as umbrella nets to 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 at three locations which included two locations downstream of Springbank Dam in 2018, and one location in 2017 upstream of Springbank Dam at the Pump house (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 markings or morphometric characteristics were photographed and enumerated, and released unharmed back to the Thames River as much as possible. For fish that required 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 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 17 Matrix Solutions Inc.

Easting(m)

472679 473079 473479 473879 474279 474679 ProjecSiteAre t a StudyAre a Highway Road

F FlowDire c tion

4757114 W 4757114 DRAFT Field Survey Locations Bre e d ingBird Observation Station FishSampling Loc ation !( BenthicSampling Loc ation 4756714 4756714

Index Map

Northing (m) Northing Springbank Park 4756314 4756314

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 4755914 4755914 a o R 1:7,000 e m e tre s ff li c 70 r0n 70 140 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 SpringbankDam Dec om issioningEIS EA-

Field Survey Locations

472679 473079 473479 473879 474279 474679 4755514 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\Springbank\Figure -8-Field_ Survey_Loc ations.mxd - Tabloid_ L - 29-Oc t-18, 02:15 PM - ehollinge r - TID005 - r ehollinge - PM 02:15 t-18, 29-Oc - L Tabloid_ - ations.mxd Survey_Loc -8-Field_ Tables\MPEA\2018\Report\Springbank\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 Thames 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 Hydraulic and Geomorphic Evaluations A hydraulic and geomorphic assessment of One River Master Plan Study area was completed in 2017 and 2018 by Matrix, which included the EIS Study area around Springbank Dam. Additional geomorphic assessments of Springbank Dam have been completed several times over the past 3 decades, including two erosion surveys by Proctor & Redfern in 1991 and 1997 (Proctor & Redfern 1998) and an assessment by Parish Geomorphic (2010), which assessed the geomorphic conditions after the gate failure.

Detailed hydraulic and geomorphic characterization for the Thames River in the Master Plan EA Study area is provided in the River Characterization Report (Matrix 2018). The river characterization provides an assessment of the current river conditions and the evolution of the channel since the in-operation of Springbank Dam in 2003. Field assessments and hydraulic modelling have been completed to evaluate sediment movement, bedforms, and channel hydraulics under a range of flow conditions to understand the current aquatic habitat and how it may change over time.

24504-528 Springbank Dam 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 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 Technical Guide (SWHTG; MNR 2000), Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedules for Ecoregion 7E (MNRF 2015), and Natural Heritage Reference Manual (NHRM; OMNR 2010). The MNRF recognizes five main categories of wildlife habitat, each with several wildlife habitat types, each with 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; habitats of species listed as special concern under the ESA 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)

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 20 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

defines SCC (i.e., rare species) at six levels: globally, nationally, provincially, regionally, locally (within a Site District)

 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 COSEWIC as Endangered or Threatened and not protected in regulation under the ESA, 2007 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 defined in Section 2.1.1 (SARA) and Section 2.2.2 (Government of Ontario 2008), SAR is defined in this report to include the following provincial and federal designations:

• ESA, 2007 (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 is provided in Section 5.9.

24504-528 Springbank Dam 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, 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 of London (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 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 22 Matrix Solutions Inc.

Easting(m)

473119 473519 473919 ProjectAreaSite StudyArea W ater BodWater y Highway W Road

DRAFTF FlowDirection City of London Official Plan Map 6 - Hazards and Natural Resources WellHead Protection Area SignificantGround Recharge water Area ConservationAuthority Regulated Area HighlyVulnerable Aquifer SteepSlop Outside es Riverine Erosion Hazard Limit

4756682 4756682 MaximumHazard Line Flood line(2006)

Index Map Northing (m) Northing Springb ank Park

er Riv Thames Wha r ncl i f f e R oa d S ou t h 4756282 4756282 O xfordStreet West ive Dr k an ve gb Dri rin id e Sp ers Riv

Boler Road

u o

d a o R 1:4,000 e m etres ff li c 40 r0n 40 80 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 Springb ankDam Decom issioningEIS 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

473119 473519 473919 4755882 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\Springb ank\Figure-3-Hazards_and _Natural_Resources.mxd - Tabloid_L - 29-Oc t-18, 02:07 PM - ehollinger - TID005 - ehollinger - PM 02:07 t-18, 29-Oc - Tabloid_L - _Natural_Resources.mxd ank\Figure-3-Hazards_and Tables\MPEA\2018\Report\Springb s\24504\FiguresAnd I:\Jacob 4.1 DRAFT

4.1.1 Hydrology and Hydraulics The Thames River consists of a wide, low gradient, fairly homogenous channel with a series of pools, riffles, runs, and several bar formations. Through the City, the River Valley is encroached by urban land use, and confined by several flood protection dykes and natural and constructed slopes (PARISH 2014). The Thames River at Springbank Dam conveys a drainage area of over 3,000 km2 in a watershed that is 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 Thames River is generally seen as an overland runoff dominated system that does not generate large amounts of baseflow during periods of dry weather.

Wastewater discharge and surface water takings are frequent throughout the Thames River. The City operates six wastewater treatment plants; four of which discharge treated effluent to the Thames River. The Greenway, Adelaide, Oxford, and Vauxhall wastewater treatment plants discharge approximately 55,700,000 m3/year (1.8 m3/s) to the Thames River. The largest treatment plant, Greenway, is located upstream of the Study area. The Greenway plant discharges approximately 39,400,000 m3/year (1.25 m3/s), and is a significant source of flow (up to 10% of the total flow) during the August low flow periods. Operations that have been granted permission by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) to withdraw water from the Thames River are predominantly commercial golf courses that are withdrawing water to irrigate turf. Golf courses both upstream and downstream of the Study are permitted to withdraw a total of 18,400 m3/day, or 0.2 m3/s.

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 The historical regulation of hydrologic conditions at Springbank Dam elevated water levels upstream, reducing sediment movement in the downstream direction. In turn, the backwater promoted the deposition of particles of a wide range of sizes within the ponded area, reducing the variability of the channel shape which would naturally occur. When reservoir water levels were lowered each season the deposited sediments were eroded and constantly reworked.

The scour hole near the south shore of the Dam is believed to have been caused by historical operation of the sluice gate. The operation concentrated flow and created higher velocities near the south bank, causing the scour hole and the overall instability of the south bank. The Springbank Dam Rehabilitation EA recommended that geo-membrane and grouted riprap be installed on the south bank in an attempt to control the scour and south bank erosion (Photograph 1; City of London 2003).

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 24 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

Photograph 4.1 Scour Protection along the South Shoreline, downstream of Springbank Dam.

Without the operation of the Dam over the past decade, adjustments to the channel bed and banks in the Study area have occurred. Bankfull benches and lateral bars have vegetated, enhancing permanency of grasses, shrubs, and small trees in along the banks and riparian areas. The new vegetation adds root cohesion and roughness, enhancing the overall river stability, and provides a protective buffer to the valley slope on the north and south sides.

Adjustments to the channel bed have occurred since the free-flowing system, but a slight backwater condition remains due to the presence of the dam itself. Typical of impounded areas, finer sediment material can be found upstream of the Dam, compared to boulders and coarse gravels, which are more dominate on the downstream side. The armoured bed immediately downstream of the dam mitigates the constriction scour that would normally occur at the gate outlets. The two island features located approximately 140 m downstream of the dam have likely developed due to the wider nature of the channel in this section that captures entrained sediment that flows through the dam gates (PARISH 2010).

4.2 Natural Heritage 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 the City’s Official Plan (Map 5) and are provided on Figure 4.2. The Study area includes a number of important natural heritage features, such as Significant Valleylands and SWH.

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 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 25 Matrix Solutions Inc.

Easting(m)

473119 473519 473919 ProjectAreaSite StudyArea W ater BodWater y Highway W DRAFTRoad Multi-usePathway

F FlowDirection City of London Official Plan Map 5 - Natural Heritage Features UnevaluatedWetland SignificantValleyLand Wood land

!!!!!

!!!!! !!!!! UnevaluatedVegetation Patch 4756682 4756682

Index Map Northing (m) Northing Springb ank Park

er Riv Thames Wha r ncl i f f e R oa d S ou t h 4756282 4756282 O xfordStreet West ive Dr k an ve gb Dri rin id e Sp ers Riv

Boler Road

u o

Jacoband s Citytheof Lond on Springb ankDam Decom issioningEIS 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\Springb ank\Figure-4.2-Natural_Heritage_Features.mxd - Tabloid_L - 04-Dec-18, 10:34 AM - ehollinger - TID005 - ehollinger - AM 10:34 04-Dec-18, - Tabloid_L - ank\Figure-4.2-Natural_Heritage_Features.mxd Tables\MPEA\2018\Report\Springb s\24504\FiguresAnd I:\Jacob 4.2 DRAFT

4.2.1 Vegetation

4.2.1.1 Ecological Land Classification Matrix completed vegetation field inventories in the spring and summer of 2018 (see Table 4.1). A summary of vegetation communities (and dominant vegetation) identified within the Study area are provided in Table 4.1 and Figure 4.3. The majority of vegetation communities were associated with the Thames River, including the riparian zone and beach bars. The communities are disturbed, as would be expected in a maintained park setting, with only small remnant woodlands remaining along the Thames River and adjacent to the park pathways. Exotic and invasive species were the dominant vegetation. Restoration plantings were noted in areas along the main pathways and throughout the parkland. 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 CVR_3 Single Family This community type is located on the north side of the Thames River Residential within the Study area only. Ecosite CVC Commercial This community is located within the eastern portion of the project within Institutional the Study area only, this area includes a parking lot and Springbank Park. CGL_2 Parkland Ecosite Springbank Park BB Beach Bar Barren sandy shoreline THC Coniferous Canopy: *Eastern White Cedar, *Norway Spruce, White Oak, and Silver Hedgerow Maple. Understorey: Eastern White Cedar, Norway Spruce, and Common Buckthorn. Ground Cover: Wild Grape, Yellow Avens, Aster spp., Agrimony spp., Violet spp. FOD5 -1 Dry -Fresh Sugar Canopy: *Sugar Maple, Eastern Cottonwood, Black Walnut, Red Oak, Maple Deciduous Basswood, White Ash, Black Cherry, Pin Oak, Eastern Red Cedar, White Forest Type Oak, Red Pine, Spruce spp. Understorey: *Common Buckthorn, Sugar Maple, White Ash, Ironwood, Manitoba Maple. Ground Cover (Sparse): Garlic Mustard, Wild Grape, Poison Ivy, Jack -in -the -pulpit, False Solomon’s -seal, Early Meadow -rue, Virginia Creeper, Bloodroot, Motherwort, White Avens, Skunk Cabbage SHTM1 Mineral Treed Canopy: *Manitoba Maple, *Willow spp., Silver Maple, Sycamore, Alder Shoreline Ecosite spp., Eastern Cottonwood, Norway Maple. Understorey: *Willow spp., *Red -osier Dogwood, Ninebark, American Elm, Common Buckthorn, Ash spp. Ground Cover: Spotted Joe Pye -weed, Purple Loosestrife, Coltsfoot, Wild Carrot, Blue Vervain, Yellow Rocket, Common Burdock, Hemlock spp., Tansy, Buttercup, Yellow Sorrell, Forget -me -not, Yellow Avens, Garlic Mustard, Bedstraw spp., Common Strawberry, Wild Parsnip, Current spp., Red Raspberry, Common Milkweed, Canada Anemone, Bittersweet Nightshade, and Butter and Eggs. SHSM1 Mineral Shrub Canopy: *Sandbar Willow, Manitoba Maple, Norway Spruce, Ash spp.

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 27 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

ELC Code Name Description Shoreline Ecosite Understorey: *Sandbar Willow, Common Buckthorn, Manitoba Maple, Sugar Maple, Ash spp., White Mulberry, Northern Catalpa Ground Cover: *Canada Goldenrod, *Canada Anemone, *Tansy, *White Sweet -clover, Wild Grape, Shrubby St. John’s -wort, Field Hawkweed, Annual Fleabane, Bittersweet Nightshade, Virgins Bower, New England Aster, Ox -eye Daisy, Herb Robert, Bladder Campion, Chicory, White Campion, Common Strawberry, Mossy Stonecrop, Birds -foot Trefoil, Common Milkweed, Dame’s Rocket, Yellow Rocket, Black Medic, Tall Buttercup, Chicory, Sulphur Cinquefoil, and Dwarf Cheeseweed SHSR1 -2 Willow Gravel Canopy: *Sandbar Willow, Silver Maple, and Manitoba Maple Shrub Shoreline Understorey: N/A Type Ground Cover: Not assessed MEMM4 Fresh -Moist Canopy: N/A Mixed Meadow Understorey: N/A Ecosite Ground Cover: *Canada Goldenrod, *White Sweet -clover, Bull Thistle, Common Ragweed, Wild Basil, Chicory, Tansy, Annual Fleabane, Yellow Rocket, Common Evening Primrose, Sulphur Cinquefoil, Grass spp., Blue Vervain, Purple Loosestrife, Lady’s -thumb, Purple -veined Willowherb, Spotted Joe Pye Weed, and Narrow -leaved Cattail Notes: * dominant species Italics indicates non-native and/or invasive species

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 28 Matrix Solutions Inc.

Easting(m)

473119 473519 473919 ProjectAreaSite StudyArea ELCPatch Numb er Highway W DRAFTRoad MinorContour (5m) Ind exContour (20m)

F FlowDirection ELC Type O p enShoreline (SHO ) WillowGravelShrub Shoreline (SHSR1-2) Dry-FreshSugarMaple Deciduous (FOForest D5-1)

4756682 4756682 MineralTreedShoreline (SHTM1) Fresh-MoistMixed Meadow (MEMM4) ConiferousHedgerow (THC) MineralShrub Shoreline (SHSM1) Parkland(CGL_2) Com m ercialand Institutional(CVC) SingleFamily Residential (CVR_3)

Springbank Dam

Index Map Northing (m) Northing

er Riv Thames Wha r ncl i f f e R oa d S ou t h 4756282 4756282 O xfordStreet West ive Dr k an ve gb Dri rin id e Sp ers Riv

Boler Road

u o

Jacoband s Citytheof Lond on Springb ankDam Decom issioningEIS EA-

Ecological Land Classification

I:\Jacob s\24504\FiguresAnd Tables\MPEA\2018\Report\Springb ank\Figure-4-Ecological_Land _Classification.mxd - Tabloid_L - 29-Oc t-18, 02:08 PM - ehollinger - TID005 - ehollinger - PM 02:08 t-18, 29-Oc - Tabloid_L - _Classification.mxd ank\Figure-4-Ecological_Land Tables\MPEA\2018\Report\Springb s\24504\FiguresAnd I:\Jacob 4.3 DRAFT

4.2.1.2 Botanical Inventory Based on the background studies and database inquiries, there were a total of 270 flora species which had the potential to occur within the Study area, including 3 SAR as well as 6 SCC. The 3 potential SAR are discussed further within Section 5.9. The potential SCC were not observed during the botanical inventories.

Of these 270 species identified within the background studies, a total of 126 were confirmed by Matrix staff during the 2018 botanical inventories (Appendix D). The species observed included 53% native species and 47% non-native species. The flora species observed are considered to be common and secure within Ontario (S4 -S5). No SAR or SCC species were identified during the 2018 inventory.

4.2.1.3 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, invasive species were noted in relatively low abundance within the ELC communities. Species noted as dominant or abundant within the ELC communities included Common Buckthorn and Garlic Mustard and are mapped in Figure 4.4. There were no other species listed as abundant that required immediate management.

The invasive species mapping will aid the London Invasive Plant Management Strategy 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 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 30 Matrix Solutions Inc.

Easting(m)

473119 473519 473919 ProjecSiteAre t a StudyAre a Highway Road W DRAFTF FlowDire c tion Invasive Species Type GarlicMustard Com m onBuckthorn 4756682 4756682

Index Map Northing (m) Northing Springbank Park

er Riv Thames Wha rncl i f f e R oa d S ou t h 4756282 4756282 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 SpringbankDam Dec om issioningEIS EA-

Invasive Species

I:\Jacobs\24504\Figure sAnd Tables\MPEA\2018\Report\Springbank\Figure -5-Invasive_ Spe c ies.mxd - Tabloid_ L - 29-Oc t-18, 02:10 PM - ehollinge r - TID005 - r ehollinge - PM 02:10 t-18, 29-Oc - L Tabloid_ - c Spe ies.mxd -5-Invasive_ Tables\MPEA\2018\Report\Springbank\Figure sAnd I:\Jacobs\24504\Figure 4.4 DRAFT

4.2.1.4 Tree Inventory The tree inventory within the Study area took place on June 12, 2018. The results indicated the presence of 58 trees which were greater than or equal to 40 cm (Table 4.2; Appendix G). A total of ten different tree species were recorded with dbh ranging from 43 to 140. Maple species were the dominant tree species, such as Silver Maple (Acer saccharinum), Red Maple (Acer rubrum), Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum ssp. Saccharum), and Norway Maple (Acer platanoides).

The species observed are considered common and secure within Ontario (S4 -S5). No SAR tree species were observed during the tree inventory.

TABLE 4.2 Tree Inventory Summary Number of Common Name Scientific Name S -Rank ESA, 2007 Species Black Walnut Juglans nigra S4? - 1 Crack Willow Salix euxina SNA - 1 Horse Chestnut Aesculus hippocastanum SNA - 1 Norway Maple Acer platanoides SNA - 7 Red Maple Acer rubrum S5 - 9 Shagbark Hickory Carya ovata var. ovata S5 - 1 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum S5 - 29 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. Saccharum S5 - 6 Tulip Tree Liriodendron tulipifera S4 - 1 White Oak Quercus alba S5 - 2

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 32 Matrix Solutions Inc.

Easting(m)

473138 473238 473338 473438 473538 473638 473738 473838 473938 ProjecSiteAre t a StudyAre a Highway Road 4756765 4756765 W mn DRAFTTre e 4756665 4756665 4756565 4756565

Springbank Dam 4756465 4756465 Northing (m) Northing

4756365 4756365 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 4756265 4756265

Bole r Road

1:3,000 m e tre s

30 0 30 60 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 4756165 4756165

Jacobsand theLondCity of on SpringbankDam Dec om issioningEIS EA-

Tree Inventory

473138 473238 473338 473438 473538 473638 473738 473838 473938 4756065 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\Springbank\Figure -4.5-Tre e _ Inventory.mxd - Tabloid_ L - 04-Dec -18, 04:42 PM - ehollinge r - TID005 - r ehollinge - PM 04:42 -18, 04-Dec - L Tabloid_ - e _ Inventory.mxd -4.5-Tre Tables\MPEA\2018\Report\Springbank\Figure sAnd I:\Jacobs\24504\Figure 4.5 DRAFT

4.2.2 Wildlife Communities

4.2.2.1 Birds Based on the background studies and database inquiries, there were a total of 61 avian species which had the potential to occur within the Study area, and included 6 SAR and 1 SCC (Appendix D). Of these 61 species identified within the background studies, a total of 24 species were confirmed by Matrix staff within the Study area. The species identified included 1 of the 6 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. The confirmed and potential SAR are discussed further within Section 5.9.

One potential SCC (Eastern Wood -Pewee [Contopus virens]) was assessed to identify if their preferred habitats was present within the Study area (Appendix F). The results of the assessment indicated that the Eastern Wood- Pewee was considered to have candidate SWH within the Study area. This species is discussed further in Section 5.6

4.2.2.2 Herpetofauna Based on the background studies and database inquiries, there were a total of 13 herpetofauna species which had the potential to occur within the Study area, and included 4 SAR and 3 SCC (Appendix D).

Matrix staff recorded incidental wildlife observations during each site visit, and confirmed the presence of two species. An additional two species were confirmed within the Study area by UTRCA staff. The species confirmed within the Study area included one of the four SAR, and two of the three 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, 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 did not contain suitable habitat within the Study area.

4.2.2.3 Mammals Based on the background studies and database inquiries, there were a total of 25 mammal species which had the potential to occur within the Study area, and included 2 SAR, which are discussed further in Section 5.9. No SCC were identified as potentially occurring within the Study area.

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 34 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

Matrix staff recorded incidental wildlife observations during each site visit and confirmed the presence of 6 of the 25 potential species (Appendix D). No SAR or SCC were confirmed within the Study area.

4.2.2.4 Insects Based on the background studies and database inquiries, there were a total of 52 insect species which had the potential to occur within the Study area (Appendix D). Of these, seven are considered a SCC; no SAR were identified.

Matrix staff recorded incidental wildlife observations during each site visit. During these site visits one insect species was observed (Monarch). This species is designated as Special Concern under the ESA, 2007; and is therefore, considered a SCC. The remaining six 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 did not contain suitable habitat within the Study area.

4.2.3 Fish and Fish Habitat

4.2.3.1 Fish Community Background fisheries data was largely compiled from fish sampling records from DFO, Royal Ontario Museum, MNRF, and UTRCA between 1967 and 2015. 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 15 species were confirmed by Matrix staff within the Study area during the 2017 and 2018 fisheries assessment (Tables 4.3 and 4.4; Appendix D). The species identified included one of the three potential SAR, as well as two of the five potential SCC.

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

The two confirmed SCC included Greater Redhorse (Moxostoma valenciennesi) and Spotfin Shiner (Cyprinella spiloptera). An additional species (Striped Shiner) was captured during recent studies 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 one species was considered to have candidate SWH within the Study area, and included Spotted Sucker (Minytrema melanops)).

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 35 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

The 2017 fisheries assessment at the Pumphouse yielded a total of 434 fish (Table 4.3). The most abundant fish captured were 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 the seining method, which tends to sample schooling fish that prefer areas of open water, as opposed to those that are cover oriented.

TABLE 4.3 Summary of Fish Species Captured at the Pump House During 2017 Common Name Scientific name S -rank ESA, 2007 SARA Total Blackside Darter Percina maculata S4 - - 13 Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus S5 - - 28 Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus S5 - - 78 Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides S5 - - 96 Greater Redhorse Moxostoma valenciennesi S3 - - 1 Greenside Darter Etheostoma blennioides S4 - - 17 Northern Hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans S5 - - 10 Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris S4 - - 1 Rosyface Shiner Notropis rubellus S5 - - 81 Shorthead Redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum S4 - - 1 Silver Shiner Notropis photogenis S5 THR SC 72 Smallmouth Bass Microterus dolomieu S4 - - 18 Spotfin Shiner Cyprinella spiloptera S2S3 - - 18 Total Number of Fish Captured 434

The 2018 fisheries assessment at Springbank Dam yielded a total of 58 fish (Table 4.4). The most abundant fish captured were Common Shiner and Greenside Darter (Etheostoma blennioides). The species captured were collected from wadable areas such as, shallow riffles and small pools along the riparian zone. Larger fish species such as Smallmouth Bass, Pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), and Sucker species (Hypostomus sp.) were observed within the pooled habitat below the Dam during the fisheries assessment; however, due to the depth of the pool and the velocity of the water, these species we not captured.

TABLE 4.4 Summary of Fish Species Captured at the Springbank Dam During 2018.

Common Name Scientific name S -rank ESA, 2007 SARA Total Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus S5 - - 2 Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus S5 - - 27 Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides S5 - - 1 Etheostoma Greenside Darter S4 - - 13 blennioides Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum S4 - - 1 Rainbow Darter Etheostoma caeruleum S4 - - 2 Rosyface Shiner Notropis rubellus S5 - - 5 Silver Shiner Notropis photogenis S5 THR SC 5 YOY - - - - 2 Total Fish Captured 58

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 36 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

The species captured during the 2017 and 2018 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; therefore, it is important to consider spring spawning timing windows to ensure that larger fish species are not impeded from accessing spawning grounds.

4.2.3.2 Fish Habitat 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.

The fish habitat within the Study area contained wetted widths ranging from 62 m to 86 m, with an average of 75 m under flow conditions of 40 cubic feet per minute (cu ft./m). There are two distinct islands in the centre of the channel that consist of cobble, and had a large quantity of woody debris on them. A riffle was located between the two islands with an additional riffle along the left bank adjacent to the island. The riffle water depth ranged from 0.10 m to 0.25 m and consisted of gravel, small cobble, and sporadic small boulders (0.14 m to 0.50 m). A large pool is located upstream and downstream of the dam, with an additional pool located along the right bank adjacent to the second island and extending further downstream. The pool along the right bank had a water depth of approximately 0.85 m and a substrate composition of sand and silt. The pool immediately downstream of the dam was measured during the bathymetric surveys and indicated water depths between 3 to 4 m at the deepest point. The transitional areas are located along the right bank immediately downstream of the dam and downstream of the islands. The transition areas have very similar substrate to that of the pool; however, the average water depth is 0.25 m. No areas of erosion or undercutting were observed because the majority of the banks are protected with concrete. There is a natural rocky toe along the right bank downstream of the islands, and a sand bar along the same toe closer to the dam structure. Habitat features such as woody debris and overhanging canopy have been identified within the Study area, as well as different flow rates which allows for areas of refuge; however, minimal instream vegetation was noted within the assessed area.

There are a variety of habitat features surrounding the Springbank Dam which could fulfill a number of habitat requirements such as spawning, rearing, food supply, and refuge (Figure 4.4). 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 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 37 Matrix Solutions Inc.

Easting (m)

473197 473297 473397 473497 Project Site Area Study Area 1 Pool EEETransitional EEE W EEDRAFTERiffle (# Field Notes #! Water Depth (cm) # Photo Number and Direction

Field Notes ID Comments 1 Lots of woody debris 2 Trees along waters edge but no ground vegetation due to concrete 2 covered rocks 3 No overhanging vegetation 4 Substrate ranges from small cobble to small boulders (14cm-50cm)

4756588 4756588 5 Area of slow moving water 6 Rocky natural toe 7 Sandy bar area 8 Shallow cobble area extending upstream 9 Substrate mix of sand and gravel 10 Substrate of gravel/small cobble mix 11 Pool based on view point from top of dam 12 Overahanging trees with sporadic woody debris at toe 13 Overhanging trees with no ground vegetation overhanging

- Islands contain cobble material Northing(m)

Index Map 4756488 4756488

er Riv Thames Wharncliffe Road South

Oxford Street West ive Dr k an ve gb Deep Pool Dri rin ide Sp ers Riv

Boler Road

4 1:1,100 metres

10 0 10 20 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 Springbank Dam Decomissioning EA - EIS

Fish Habitat

Date: Project: Submitter: Reviewer: October, 2018 24504 K. Reis A. Fausto 473197 473297 473397 473497 Disclaimer: The information contained herein may be compiled from numerous third party materials that are subject to periodic change Figure 4756388 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\Springbank\Figure-4.6-Aquatic_Habitat.mxdehollingerTID005 - - PM 04:40 Tabloid_L 04-Dec-18, - - 4.6 DRAFT

4.2.3.3 Mussels The Thames River hosts the second most diverse freshwater mussel population in Canada (UTRCA 2017b). Data collected from previous studies as well as federal and provincial databases indicated the potential for 24 species of mussels which include 6 SAR and 7 SCC (Appendix D). The potential SAR will be discussed further within Section 5.9.

During fisheries assessments in 2017 and 2018, 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 9 mussels were confirmed within the Study area (Table 4.5). No SAR were confirmed within the Study area. Two of the seven potential SCC were confirmed within the Study area, 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 four 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 4.5 Mussel Species Identified During the 2017 and 2018 Field Observations

Common name Scientific Name S-rank ESA, 2007 SARA Creeper Strophitus undulatus S5 - - Elktoe Alasmidonta marginata S3 - - Fluted -shell Lasmigona costata S5 - - Fragile Papershell Leptodea fragilis S4 - - Giant Floater Pyganodon grandis S5 - - Mucket Actinonaias ligamentina S3 - - Spike Elliptio dilatata S5 - - White Heelsplitter Lasmigona complanata S5 - - Zebra Mussel Dreissena polymorpha SNA - -

4.2.3.4 Benthic Community A benthic monitoring study was completed throughout the Thames River Watershed during previous studies conducted by ZEAS Inc and Matrix Solutions from 2006 to 2016. One of the benthic monitoring stations (T7) is located just downstream of Boler Road, and is approximately 800 m downstream of Springbank Dam.

The calculations used to understand water quality included BioMAP Water Quality Index WQI(d) and

Hilsenhoff Family Biotic Index (FBI) methods. The BioMAP WQI(d) is an abundance-weighted mean sensitivity value for the benthic macroinvertebrates located at a particular site. Water quality at each

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 39 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

site is classified as unimpaired (site supports native intolerant species) or impaired (site supports pollution-tolerant species (Griffiths 1999).

Hilsenhoff's FBI 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).

The data collected from station T7 indicated that the system is in a state of flux. Station T7 had a BioMAP® score of impaired from 2006 to 2010, a score of unimpaired from 2011 to 2013, and a transitional score from 2014 to 2016 (Matrix 2017. The Hilsenhoff calculations were generally consistent with what was observed within the BioMAP calculations (Table 4.6). The variation within the results between the sampling years could be due to a variety of factors such as the sampling location (riffle, pool, or run), the time of year the sampling was done (spring or fall), the weather conditions (drought, floods, etc.), as well as changes in water levels due to the Dam.

The most recent sampling events (2015 and 2016) have indicated a mix of pollution tolerant Chironomidae and Oligochaete species as well as pollution intolerant Tricoptera and Ephemeroptera species (Matrix 2017). Overall, the results seem to show an improvement in water quality since 2010. Additional benthic data is provided within the Natural Heritage Setting Report (Matrix, 2019).

TABLE 4.6 Summary of the Benthic Results for Station T7 from 2006 to 2016 Year BioMAP Score Hilsenhoff Score 2006 6.0 - Impaired 7.24 - Poor 2007 6.1 - Impaired 7.13 - Poor 2008 5.2 - Impaired 6.54 - Poor 2009 6.9 - Impaired 6.19 - fairly poor 2010 5.2 - Impaired 6.46 - Poor 2011 9.5 - Unimpaired 4.50 - Good 2012 10.7 - Unimpaired 4.61 - Good 2013 9.5 - Unimpaired 4.38 - Good 2014 7.0 - Transitional 7.53 - Very Poor 2015 8.8 - Transitional 5.30 - Fair 2016 8.4 - Transitional 6.22 - Fairly Poor

5 EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND FUNCTION Natural heritage features considered in 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.

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 40 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

TABLE 5.1 Provincially and Locally Significant Natural Heritage Features

Feature Provincial/Local Significance Provincially Significant Wetlands Provincial Wetlands and Unevaluated Wetlands Local Endangered or Threatened Species Locations and Provincial Significant Habitat of Endangered or Threatened Species (e.g., SAR) Significant Wildlife Habitat and Special Concern Species Locations (e.g., SCC) Provincial Fish Habitat and Mussel Habitat Provincial Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs) Local Life Science and Earth Science ANSIs Provincial Significant Woodlands Provincial Woodlands Local Significant River, Stream, and Ravine Corridors (Significant Valleylands) Local/Provincial Groundwater Recharge Areas Local

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.

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

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

5.1 Significant Valleylands and Corridors Valleylands are linear natural areas that occur in a valley or other landform depressions 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 between terrestrial and aquatic habitats.

The City’s Official Plan recognizes Significant Valleylands, which are mapped on Map 5 (Natural Heritage) of the London Plan. 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’s guidance on identifying and assessing wildlife habitat recognizes five main categories of wildlife habitat, each with several wildlife habitat types, each with criteria to evaluate significance.

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 41 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

These five categories were assessed based on the background studies and field investigations performed by Matrix (Appendix I).

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.

5.2.1 Seasonal Concentration Areas of Animals The SWH assessment identified four candidate seasonal concentration areas of animals:

• Turtle overwintering habitat • Raptor wintering area • Bat maternity colonies • Snake hibernacula

Three of the SWH types (Raptor wintering areas, bat maternity colonies, and Snake hibernacula) are located within the northern forested valleyland within the Study area.

One SWH (turtle overwintering habitat) types 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 beneath the Springbank Dam. It is recommended that surveys be completed to confirm species and overwintering habitat within the pool.

5.2.2 Specialized Habitats of Wildlife One confirmed and one candidate specialized habitat of wildlife was identified during the SWH assessment, which included turtle nesting areas. Candidate and confirmed turtle nesting areas were observed within 1 km of the Study area.

5.2.3 Habitat of Species of Conservation Concern A total of eight SCC were confirmed within the Study area, with an additional seven SCC which were considered to have candidate SWH within the Study area. SWH applies to the ELC communities, each of the species were observed, and/or where candidate habitat exists (Table 5.2, Figure 5.1).

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 42 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

TABLE 5.2 SWH based on the ELC communities where the SCC were observed and/or were candidate habitat exists

Common Name Scientific Name ELC Community (SHW) Birds (1) Eastern Wood Pewee2 Contopus virens FOD5 -1 (north and south) Herpetofauna (3) Common Snapping Turtle1 Chelydra serpentine serpentine BB, SHSR1 -2 (island), Thames River Northern Map Turtle1 Graptemys geographica BB,SHSR1 -2 (island), Thames River Eastern Ribbon snake2 Thamnophis sauritus FOD5 -1 (north) 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 Mussels (6) 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 Wabash Pigtoe2 Fusconaia flava Thames River Insect (1) Monarch1 Danaus plexippus SHSR1 -2 (south riparian) 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 aquatic 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 valley land within the London Plan. This area represents a significant linkage for both terrestrial and aquatic organisms. The wooded riparian

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 43 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

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 24 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 the habitat criteria of that species and the availability of habitat (Appendix J). The results of the assessment indicated that 18 species were unlikely to inhabit the area based on the lack of appropriate habitat. Three species were identified as potentially occurring within the Study area, and three species were confirmed within the Study area (Figure 5.1).

The species indicated as potentially occurring within the Study area include Black Redhorse, Round Pigtoe, and Wavy-rayed Lampmussel. These species were not observed during the 2017 and 2018 surveys conducted by Matrix; however, there is still likelihood that they could be present based on previous observations as well as suitable habitats within the Study area.

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

• Chimney Swifts are designated as Threatened under ESA, 2007 and SARA. This species utilizes chimneys for nesting and roosting during the breeding season. The ESA, 2007 general habitat protection identifies chimneys used for roosting and nesting purposes (MNRF 2018b). Within the Study area, Chimney Swifts were observed flying over the Thames River foraging for insects.

• The Spiny Softshell is designated 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 2018c). The Spiny Softshell is afforded species and general habitat protection under the ESA, 2007. Habitat and basking areas may occur over a large area to satisfy all habitat requirements for the Spiny Softshell (MNRF 2018c). This species has been documented within 1 km of the Study area by UTRCA staff during recent studies.

• 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). 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

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 44 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

occupied reaches (MNRF 2017d). This species was captured within the Study area during the 2017 and 2018 fisheries assessment. For this reason, it is assumed that this species is present within the Study area year round. The construction activities associated with Springbank Dam are likely to affect Category 1, 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 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 45 Matrix Solutions Inc.

Easting(m)

473119 473519 473919 ProjecSiteArea t StudyArea Highway Road W DRAFTF FlowDirec tion Wildlife Habitat Significance Cand idateSignificant Wildlife Habitat SignificantWildlife Habitat SAR/SCCHabitat ELC Type Dry-FreshSugarMaple Dec iduousForest(FOD5-1) WillowGravel Shrub Shoreline (SHSR1-2)

4756682 4756682 Beach(BB)Bar

Index Map N orthing (m) N orthing

Springb ank er Park Riv Thames Wha r ncl i f f e R oa d S ou t h 4756282 4756282 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 1:4,000 e m e tres ff li c 40 r0n 40 80 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 Springb ankDam Dec om issioningEIS EA-

SAR and Significant Wildlife Habitat

Date: Projec t: Subm itter: Reviewer: Dec e m2018 b 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

473119 473519 473919 4755882 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\Springb ank\Figure-5.1-SAR_and _Significant_Wildlife_Habitat.mxd - Tabloid_L - 04-Dec -18, 09:21 AM - ehollinge r - TID005 - r ehollinge - AM 09:21 -18, 04-Dec - Tabloid_L - _Significant_Wildlife_Habitat.mxd ank\Figure-5.1-SAR_and ort\Springb Tables\MPEA\2018\Rep s\24504\FiguresAnd I:\Jacob 5.1 DRAFT

6 DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The Springbank Dam EA alternatives were evaluated and scored using indicators in categories for natural/environment, social/cultural, and technical/economic. A detailed assessment of the preferred Springbank Dam alternatives and potential impacts is provided in the Master Plan EA (Jacobs 2018).

6.1 Preferred Alternative Based on the alternative analysis, a partial Dam removal was selected as the preferred option. While a full removal provided a larger benefit from the environmental perspective, it provided less social/cultural benefit, and was more technically and economically intensive to remove.

Partial Dam removal will involve removal of the mechanical and electrical components including hydraulics, gates, and control room. A stable structure will remain in place that can be re-purposed for the public to utilize as part of the River Management opportunity. In addition to the structure, the erosion controls and hardened bank treatments along the south shore of the Dam will be removed. The bank will be replaced with a naturalized shoreline that provides stability to the bank, and access to the river at safe and strategic locations. A conceptualized drawing of the preferred alternative is shown on Photograph 2.

Photograph 2 Springbank Dam Decommissioning, Preferred Alternative Conceptualization

6.2 Project Activities Conceptual design of the partial Dam removal alternative has not yet been completed, but is anticipated to involve the following activities that will influence the natural environment:

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 47 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

• Construction access, staging, and laydown areas. • Vegetation clearing, earthworks/grubbing, and disposal along the south shoreline. • Removal of the concrete apron along the southern shoreline and replacing with naturalized bank treatment. • In-water construction works to remove the hydraulic gate(s).

The anticipated effects and mitigations of these construction works will be discussed further in Section 7.

7 EFFECTS ASSESSMENT The results of the natural heritage assessment indicated a number of ecological features that 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, connections between aquatic and terrestrial environments and, in the case of the SAR, support species that have limited habitats elsewhere both nationally and provincially. If the preferred alternative damages or interferes with these features and their function, habitat and species loss can occur.

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 • Permanent - 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 vegetation growth takes place. Typically after the site re-vegetates, there is either a neutral or positive impact due to intentional native plantings, improved sediment control, and 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

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 48 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

associated with the preferred alternative are described in the Sections below including recommended mitigation measures and residual impacts (after mitigation).

7.1 Potential Impacts Partial Dam removal of the Springbank Dam structure 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 partial Dam removal assumed the following access and area restrictions:

• Access to the Dam for partial Dam removal will occur along the south shoreline with access along River Edge Drive through Springbank Park. • Staging and laydown areas are assumed to occur within the parking lots and cleared pathways within the park. • Vegetation removal will be limited to the south shorelines, and will minimize impacts to native trees and take place during timing windows described in 7.2.1. • No access to the north shore or removal of the north shorelines structures is anticipated as a result of the partial Dam removal.

Removal of vegetation that has established along the south bank is anticipated as part of the removal of the concrete apron and bank restoration. Currently, the concrete apron is slightly undercut and provides a source of thermal refuge for aquatic species. It is anticipated that this structure will be replaced with a more natural erosion control structure, such as vegetated riprap using native shrub species. The naturalized structure would provide shade from the overhanging vegetation, as well as a food source from terrestrial insects.

In water works will likely be required to remove the hydraulic gates. The removal of the gates is anticipated to provide a long-term benefit to the aquatic community. A study completed by Biotactic in October 2010 found that the Dam provides some interference to fish passage (Biotactic 2010). Therefore, the removal of at least one of the gates would improve fish passage.

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 49 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT TABLE 7.1 Impacts, Mitigations, and Net Effects of the Preferred Alternative Natural Heritage Project Activity Potential Impacts Mitigation Measures Net Effects Feature Vegetation clearing, • Significant Habitat Loss and/or Alteration Timing Windows The vegetation clearing will result • earthworks/grubbin Valleylands • temporary loss of habitat 1A, 2A in a short-term, isolated, g and disposal along • temporary disturbance to the Habitat of SCC • soil compaction and rutting outside of Best Construction Practices the southern • natural features. No long-term • Fish and Aquatic construction zone 1B -8B shoreline negative impacts are anticipated Habitat • damage to edge trees (i.e., outside of Prevention of Terrestrial following the mitigation • General Wildlife construction zone) Disturbance • measures. and Habitat • changes in moisture regime 1D -7D • Erosion and Sedimentation SAR • changes to the structure and composition Control of vegetation communities (e.g., • introduction of invasive species) 1F -5F, 7F -10F • fugitive dust • spills (e.g., fuel) • erosion and sedimentation Disturbance/Avoidance of Habitat Timing Widows • • increase noise during construction 1A, 2A • increased human presence Prevention of Wildlife Mortality and Disturbance • 1C -5C Injury or Incidental Take (particularly during Timing Widows migration to and/or emergence from • 1A, 2A hibernacula, nesting sites, or during natural Prevention of Wildlife travel patterns to and from habitats) Mortality and Disturbance • increased collision with machinery • 1C -5C • removal of nests and eggs • smothering hibernacula or nesting sites Construction access, • Significant Habitat Loss and/or Alteration Timing Windows It is anticipated that construction • staging and laydown Valleylands • temporary loss of habitat 1A -2A access and staging will utilize the areas • existing paved pathways and Habitat of SCC • soil compaction Best Construction Practices • • parking lot in order to reduce Fish and Aquatic • changes in moisture regime 1B -8B Prevention of Terrestrial impacts to the natural heritage Habitat • changes to the structure and composition • Disturbance features. General Wildlife of vegetation communities (e.g., • and Habitat introduction of invasive species) 1D -7D Erosion and Sedimentation Impacts associated with • fugitive dust Control construction access, staging, and

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 50 Matrix Solutions Inc. DRAFT Natural Heritage Project Activity Potential Impacts Mitigation Measures Net Effects Feature • spills (e.g., fuel) • 1F -5F, 7F -10F laydown areas are anticipated to • erosion and sedimentation be isolated, temporary, and will Disturbance/Avoidance of Habitat Timing Widows not result in long-term effects. • • increased noise during construction 1A -2A • increased human presence Prevention of Wildlife Mortality and Disturbance • 1C -5C Injury or Incidental Take (particularly during Timing Widows migration to and/or emergence from • 1A, 2A hibernacula, nesting sites, or during natural Prevention of Wildlife travel patterns to and from habitats) Mortality and Disturbance • increased collision with machinery • 1C -5C • removal of nests and eggs • smothering hibernacula or nesting site Removal of concrete • Habitat of SCC Habitat Loss and/or Alteration Timing Windows The removal of the existing apron along the • Fish and Aquatic • temporary loss of habitat • 1A -4A concrete apron will be replaced southern bank. Habitat • fugitive dust Best Construction Practices with a naturalized erosion control To be replaced with • General Wildlife • spills (e.g., fuel) • 1B -8B structure such as vegetative more naturalized and Habitat • erosion and sedimentation Prevention of Terrestrial riprap seeded with native plants. erosion control • SAR • soil compaction and rutting outside of Disturbance Construction will result in structure construction zone • 1D -7D short-term, isolated, temporary • changes in moisture regime Prevention of Fish Mortality loss of habitat; however, the • changes to the structure and composition • 1E -3E long-term effects are anticipated of vegetation communities (e.g., Erosion and Sedimentation to be positive and provide introduction of invasive species) Control improved fish and wildlife habitat • creation of a more naturalized riparian • 1F -10F through a more naturalized community (post-construction) erosion control structure which Disturbance/Avoidance of Habitat Timing Widows will reduce runoff and provide • refuge and cover. • increased noise during construction 1A -4A • increased human presence Prevention of Wildlife Mortality and Disturbance • 1C -5C Injury or Incidental Take (particularly during Timing Widows migration to and/or emergence from • 1A -4A hibernacula, nesting sites or during natural Prevention of Wildlife Mortality and Disturbance

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 51 Matrix Solutions Inc. DRAFT Natural Heritage Project Activity Potential Impacts Mitigation Measures Net Effects Feature travel patterns to and from habitats) • 1C -5C • increased collision with machinery Prevention of Fish Mortality • 1E -3E • removal of nests and eggs • smothering hibernacula or nesting sites • incidental take of fish species while performing in water works. In-water • Turtle Habitat Loss and/or Alteration Timing Windows The construction activities are • construction works overwintering • temporary loss of habitat 1A -4A anticipated to result in to remove the • short-term, isolated, temporary Turtle nesting • fugitive dust Best Construction Practices hydraulic gate(s) • • loss of habitat during Habitat of SCC • spills (e.g., fuel) 1B -8B • Prevention of Fish Mortality construction. Fish and Aquatic • erosion and sedimentation • 1E -3E Habitat • temporary impacts to fish passage and fish The long-term effects are • Erosion and Sedimentation SAR habitat during construction in the vicinity anticipated to be positive and Control of gate openings allow greater fish passage • 1F -10F • increased fish passage with removal of the opportunities for the variety of gates (post-construction) species present surrounding the Dam. Disturbance/Avoidance of Habitat Timing Widows • • increase noise during construction 3A -4A • increased human presence Injury or Incidental Take (particularly during Timing Widows migration to and/or emergence from • 3A -4A hibernacula, nesting sites, or during natural Prevention of Fish Mortality travel patterns to and from habitats) • 1E -3E • increased collision with machinery (in-water) • incidental take of fish species while performing in water works

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 52 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 2017b) 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 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 53 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 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 54 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 3 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 cities 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 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 55 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 will include install intake screens on all pumps during dewatering, and have discharge directed 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 erosion and sediment measures are in place and working effectively. ESC should be checked weekly and after major rain events (>10 mm) to ensure it is 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.

7.3 RESIDUAL IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION The construction associated with the partial Dam removal is anticipated to result in an isolated, temporary disturbance and loss of habitat while construction is taking place; however, the long-term impacts associated with this project are expected to have an overall benefit to the terrestrial and aquatic community.

The removal of the concrete apron as well as the vegetation along the southern shoreline will result in temporary loss of habitat. If mitigations are followed, the long-term impacts associated with this construction are predicted to improve the natural heritage features. The temporarily disturbed areas will be restored with diverse native vegetation, and the concrete apron will be replaced with a more naturalized erosion control structure, such as vegetative riprap. This will provide increased refuge for terrestrial and aquatic species.

The removal of the Springbank Dam gate(s) is also expected to result in an isolated, temporary loss of aquatic habitat. If mitigations are followed, the long term-impacts associated with this construction are also predicted to be positive and improve the natural heritage features within the river. The removal of the gate(s) will improve fish passage for a variety of species and will therefore improve diversity and connectivity upstream and downstream of the Dam.

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 56 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

There are several sensitive species located within the Project site and 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.

8 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. The potentially effected species include Eastern Spiny Softshell and Silver Shiner.

• 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.

• 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.

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

9 CONCLUSION The Springbank Dam Decommissioning EIS has been prepared to support the Municipal Class Schedule B Environmental Assessment (EA) that is being carried out as part of Stage 2 of the One River Master Plan EA. 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 are functions, and recommend strategies to avoid or mitigate the potential impacts

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 57 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

which are incorporated into the project approval. The preferred alternative has been defined as the partial Dam removal, involving the removal of some components, while retaining the remnant dam structure to allow for a free-flowing river system.

Matrix combined information 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 were identified, which included Significant Valleylands, SWH, fish and fish habitat, and SAR. The most significant ecological functions identified within the Study area included confirmed and candidate SWH (turtle nesting and turtle overwintering areas within 1 km) as well as SAR (Eastern Spiny Softshell and Silver Shiner). The features and functions identified within the Project site were assessed to identify the potential effects which could occur given the proposed partial Dam removal.

The major undertakings of the preferred alternative include the removal of the concrete apron along the southern shoreline and in-water construction works to remove the hydraulic gate(s). These construction activities, along with construction access, staging, and vegetation clearing, are anticipated to have localized temporary effects to the natural features during construction; however, no long-term negative impacts are expected following the prescribed mitigation measures.

The removal of the concrete apron is expected to be replaced with a more naturalized erosion control structure, which would include native shrubs, providing shade and refuge for terrestrial and aquatic species. The removal of the Springbank Dam gate(s) is anticipated to improve fish passage between the upstream and downstream aquatic environments surrounding the Dam.

Any long term effects associated with this project are expected to improve the natural features, functions, and overall connectivity of the Thames River Corridor. Appropriate approvals should be obtained during the detailed design phase of this project to ensure the natural features and functions within the Study area are adequately protected.

10 REFERENCES 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.

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

Biotactic Inc. (Biotactic). 2010. Fish Passage at the Springbank Dam: Year 3 of Post -Construction Monitoring and Baseline Comparisons. October 2010.

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 58 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

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

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.

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

City of London. 2017. Environmental Impact Studies (EIS) Requirements. Development Services Guideline document. https://www.london.ca/business/Resources/Consultant -Resources/Documents/EIS -Guideline - 2014.pdf

City of London. 2016a. London Invasive Plant Management Strategy. https://www.london.ca/residents/Environment/NaturalEnvironments/Documents/Invasive_Pla nt_Management_Strategy.pdf

City of London. 2016b. 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. 2013. Environmental Management Guidelines. London, Ontario. Last Modified October 4, 2013. https://www.london.ca/business/Resources/Consultant-Resources/Pages/Environmental-Guidel ines.aspx

City of London. 2003. Environmental Assessment Report Springbank Dam Rehabilitation. Written in association with Upper Thames Conservation Authority. December 2003

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

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 59 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

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

Dillon Consulting. 2018. Commissioners Road West Trail Loop: Natural Heritage Inventory & Evaluation. Prepared for the Corporation of the City of London. January 2018.

Dillon Consulting Limited. (Dillon). 2011. City of London Thames Valley Corridor Plan. Final Report. Prepared for the City of London. December 2011. https://www.london.ca/residents/Parks/Parks-Projects/Documents/TVCP-FINAL_Dec2011.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.

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

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2013. Ontario Restricted Activity Timing Windows for the Protection of Fish and Fish Habitat. Modified 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. 2017a. 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. 2017b. Nesting Periods for Migratory Birds. Modified on May 25, 2017. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/avoiding-harm-migratory-bir ds/general-nesting-periods.html

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

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 60 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

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. 2018. 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. 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. 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

Griffiths R.W. 1999. BioMAP: Bioassessment of Water Quality. The Centre for Environmental Training, Niagara College. Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario. ISBN: 0-9685921-0-4.

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.

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 61 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

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

Matrix Solutions Inc. (Matrix) 2019. “Natural Heritage Setting Report.” Draft report in progress as of January 2019. 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. Chimney Swift. Last updated June 28, 2018 https://www.ontario.ca/page/chimney-swift

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

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. (MNRF). 2018d. 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). 2018. 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

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 62 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

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

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

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

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

PARISH Geomorphic Ltd. (PARISH). 2014. Central Thames Subwatershed Background Study.

PARISH Geomorphic Ltd. (PARISH). 2010. Confidential Report provided to Matrix Solutions Inc.

Reid S.M. and N.E. Mandrak. 2006. Evaluation of Potential Impact of Springbank Dam Restoration on Black Redhorse (Moxostoma duquesnei) and Other Sucker Species in the Thames River, Ontario. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2670. January 2006. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2012/mpo -dfo/Fs97 -6 -2670 -eng.pdf

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

Thames -Sydenham and 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 - AR/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

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 63 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA). 2017a. “Byron Dyke Subject Land Status Report.” Draft report updated January 2017.

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA). 2017b. 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. Springbank Reservoir Shoreline Vegetation Succession Study, 2007 to 2014: A study to examine the natural re -vegetation of shorelines previously under long duration seasonal water. Document #557. 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.

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

24504-528 Springbank Dam EIS 2019-03-29 draft V0.3.docx 64 Matrix Solutions Inc.

DRAFT

APPENDIX A Approved Terms of Reference

DRAFT

APPENDIX A

Environmental Impact Study ISSUES SUMMARY CHECKLIST REPORT

Application Title:Springbank One River EA Dam EIS Decommissioning 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)

54 Land Use - Excerpts of the Official Plan for the City of London Ontario Schedules A, B, showing a 5-10km radius of subject site 54 Terrain setting @ 1:10,000 – 1:15,000 scale showing landscape features, subwatershed divides 54 Existing Environmental Resources @ 1:2,000 -1:5,000 showing Vegetation, Hydrology, contours, linkages 54 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) st nd rd 4 4 Stream order (Headwater, 1 ,2 ,3 or UTRCA files higher) Agricultural drains 4 Downstream receiving watercourse DRAFT

1.2.3 Natural Hazards 4 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 Woodland, Fen, Bog, Marsh, Open Water, and summer of 2018 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) Heritage trees will be identified. ______UTRCA Succession Study ______Byron Dykes 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 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 availa 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 follow the MNRF Significant Wildlife 4 Hibernaculua Habitat (SWH) Types for Ecoregion 4 Habitat for Raptors ______7E 4 Forests with springs or seeps 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 Fish communities 2 season fisheries survey to be ______UTRCA and Matrix 2017 Sampling completed in 2018 ______4 Fish spawning areas 4 4 Fish migration routes Detailed aquatic habitat mapping 4 Thermal refuge for fish will be completed for site 4 4 Thermal Regime (cold, cool, warm) 4 4 Benthic inventory ______available through the City of London, BioMap ______geomorphic surveys 4 Substrate ______4 Riparian habitat (extent and type) ______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 ValleValleylandsylands 4 4 Significantg( Watercourses ((Thames River,, Stoney y CCreek,reek,,y,g, MedwayMedwayC Creek,reek, DingmanDingman Creek,Creek, PottersburgPottersburg Creek, Wabuno Creek, Mud Creek, Stanton Creek (Drain), Kellyy() Creek (Drain) 4 4 UUplandpland CorridorsCorridors / migrationmigration 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 Botanical Vegetation Byron Dyke Common Name Scientific Name ESA S-Rank MNRF NHIC- 17MH7356 Inventory Succession Study Matrix Inventory DRAFTDRAFT SLSR (UTRCA) (UTRCA) Year of Publication 2018 2018 2014 2015 2016 2018 (Common) Privet Ligustrum vulgare SNA Y Y (Common) Yarrow Achillea millefolium SNA Y Y Y Y (English) Sweet Violet Viola odorata SNA Y (Garden) Red Currant Ribes rubrum SNA Y Y Agrimony Species Agrimonia sp - Y Alsike Clover Trifolium hybridum SE5 Y American Beech Fagus grandifolia S4 Y American Chestnut Castanea dentate END S1S2 x x American Elm Ulmus americana S5 Y Y Y Y American Ostrich Fern Matteuccia struthiopteris S5 Y Y American Water- horehound Lycopus americanus S5 Y Angelica (Purple-stemmed Angelica) Angelica atropurpurea S5 Y Y Y Y Annual Sow-thistle Sonchus oleraceus SNA Y Apple Malus pumila SNA Y Y Arrow-leaved Aster Symphyotrichum urophyllum S4 Y Y Ash Species Fraxinus spp - Y Aster Species Symphyotrichum spp. - Y Atlantic Sedge Carex atlantica S1S2 x Avens Species Geum spp - Y Balsam Poplar Populus balsamifera S5 Y Basswood (American Basswood) Tilia americana S5 Y Y Y Beggarticks Bidens tripartita S5 Y Biennial Wormwood Artemisia biennis SNA Y Bird’s-foot Trefoil (Garden Bird's-foot Lotus corniculatus SE5 Y Y Y Y Bitter (Climbing) Nightshade (ClimbingSolanum dulcamara SE5 Y Y Y Y Bitter Dock Rumex obtusifolius SNA Y Y Y Bitternut Hickory Carya cordiformis S5 Y Y Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia SE5 Y Y Black Maple Acer nigrum S5 Y Y Black Medic Medicago lupulina SE5 Y Y Y Y Black Raspberry Rubus occidentalis S5 Y Y Y Black Walnut Juglans nigra S4? Y Y Y Black Willow Salix nigra S4 Y Bladder (Catchfly) Campion (Bladder CSilene vulgaris SE5 Y Y Y Y Bloodroot Sanguinaria canadensis S5 Y Blue Spruce Picea pungens SE1 Y Blue Vervain Verbena hastata S5 Y Y Bouncing Bet Saponaria officinalis SNA Y Y Botanical Vegetation Byron Dyke Common Name Scientific Name ESA S-Rank MNRF NHIC- 17MH7356 Inventory Succession Study Matrix Inventory DRAFT SLSR (UTRCA) (UTRCA) DRAFT Year of Publication 2018 2018 2014 2015 2016 2018 Branching Burreed Sparganium androcladum SH x Bull Thistle Cirsium vulgare SNA Y Y Y Bur Cucumber Sicyos angulatus S4S5 Y Y Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa S5 Y Y Y Butter-and-eggs Linaria vulgaris SE5 Y Y Y Y Buttercup Species Ranunculus spp - Y Butternut Juglans cinerea END S2? x Calico Aster Symphyotrichum lateriflorum S5 Y Y Canada Anemone Anemone canadensis S5 Y Y Y Canada Goldenrod Solidago canadensis S5 Y Y Canada Goldenrod Solidago canadensis var. canadensis S5 Y Canada Thistle Cirsium arvense SNA Y Carpenter’s-square Scrophularia marilandica S4 Y Y Y Catnip Nepeta cataria SNA Y Celandine (Greater Celandine) Chelidonium majus SE5 Y Y Y Charlock Sinapis arvensis SNA Y Y Y Cherry Plum (Sweet Cherry) Prunus avium SE4 Y Y Cherry Species Prunus spp. - Y Chicory Cichorium intybus SNA Y Y Y Y Choke Cherry Prunus virginiana S5 Y Y Cinnamon Fern Osmunda cinnamomea S5 Y Clammy Ground-cherry Physalis heterophylla S4 Y Y Clearweed Pilea pumila S5 Y Y Y Cocklebur Xanthium strumarium S5 Y Colt's-foot Tussilago farfara SE5 Y Y Common (Tall) Buttercup (Tall ButtercRanunculus acris SE5 Y Y Y Common Barberry Berberis vulgaris SNA Y Common Buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica SE5 Y Y Y Y Common Burdock Arctium minus SNA Y Y Y Y Common Chickweed Stellaria media SNA Y Common Cinquefoil Potentilla simplex S5 Y Common Comfrey Symphytum officinale SNA Y Y Common Dandelion (Red-seeded DanTaraxacum officinale SE5 Y Y Y Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis S4 Y Y Y Y Common Hogweed Heracleum sphondylium SNA Y Y Common Mallow (Dwarf CheeseweedMalva neglecta SE5 Y Y Common Milkweed Asclepias syriaca S5 Y Y Common Motherwort Leonurus cardiaca SE5 Y Y Y Botanical Vegetation Byron Dyke Common Name Scientific Name ESA S-Rank MNRF NHIC- 17MH7356 Inventory Succession Study Matrix Inventory DRAFT SLSR (UTRCA) (UTRCA) DRAFT Year of Publication 2018 2018 2014 2015 2016 2018 Common Mullein Verbascum thapsus SE5 Y Y Y Common Periwinkle Vinca minor SNA Y Y Common Plantain Plantago major SNA Y Y Y Common Purslane Portulaca oleracea SNA Y Common Ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia S5 Y Common Red Raspberry Rubus idaeus ssp. idaeus SE1 Y Common Self-heal Prunells vulgaris ssp. vulgaris SE3 Y Common St. John’s- wort Hypericum perforatum SE5 Y Y Y Y Common Sunflower Helianthus annuus SNA Y Common Teasel Dipsacus fullonum SE5 Y Cow Vetch (Tufted Vetch) Vicia cracca SE5 Y Y Cow-parsnip Heracleum lanatum - Y Crabapple Malus sp - Y Y Crack Willow Salix euxina SNA Y Y Creeping Bellflower Campanula rapunculoides SNA Y Y Creeping Buttercup Ranunculus repens SNA Creeping Yellow Cress Rorippa sylvestris SNA Y Crested Sedge Carex cristatella S5 Y Y

SE5 Y Y Crown-vetch (Common Crown-vetch) Securigera varia (formerly Coronilla varia) Curly Dock Rumex crispus SNA Y Y Y Cut-leaved Avens Geum laciniatum S4 Y Cut-leaved Coneflower Rudbeckia laciniata S5 Y Y Y Daisy Fleabane (Annual Fleabane) Erigeron annuus S5 Y Y Y Y Dame’s Rocket Hesperis matronalis SE5 Y Y Y Deptford Pink Dianthus armeria SNA Y Y Y Devil’s Beggarticks Bidens frondosa S5 Y Y Early Meadow-rue Thalictrum dioicum S5 Y Eastern (Canadian) Redbud Cercis Canadensis SX Y Y Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides S5 Y Y Y Y Eastern Flowering Dogwood Cornus florida END S2? x Eastern Red Cedar Juniperus virginiana S5 Y Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus S5 Y Y Enchanter’s (Yellowish) nightshade Circaea canadensis S5 Y English Ivy Hedera helix SE1 Y Y Y Y English Plantain (Ribgrass) Plantago lanceolata SNA Y European (Upright Yellow) Wood-sorrOxalis stricta S5 Y Y Y Y European Ash Fraxinus excelsior SNA Y Botanical Vegetation Byron Dyke Common Name Scientific Name ESA S-Rank MNRF NHIC- 17MH7356 Inventory Succession Study Matrix Inventory DRAFT SLSR (UTRCA) (UTRCA) DRAFT Year of Publication 2018 2018 2014 2015 2016 2018 European Black Alder Alnus glutinosa SNA Y Y European Stinging Nettle Urtica dioica SNA Y Y Y False Nettle Boehmeria cylindrica S5 Y Y Y Field Basil Clinopodium vulgare S5 Y Field Hawkweed Hieracium caespitosum SE5 Y Y Field Mint Mentha arvensis - Y Field Peppergrass Lepidium campestre SE5 Y Fox Sedge Carex vulpinodidea S5 Y Fragrant Sumac Rhus aromatica S4 Y Fringed Loosestrife Lysimachia ciliata S5 Y Y Garlic mustard Allaria petiolata SNA Y Y Y Giant Ragweed (Great Ragweed) Ambrosia trifida S5 Y Y Y Y Gill-over-the-ground (Ground Ivy) Glechoma hederacea SE5 Y Y Y Y Glossy Buckthorn Rhamnus frangula - Y Y Y Golden Alexanders Zizia aurea S5 Y Y Y Goldenrod Species Solidago spp. - Y Gold-moss Sedum acre SE5 Y Gooseberry Ribes sp. - Y Goutweed Aegopodium podagraria SNA Y Y Y Great Hairy Willow-herb Epilobium hirsutum SNA Y Green Dragon Arisaema dracontium SC S3 x Green Foxtail Setaria viridis SNA Y Y Y Grey Dogwood Cornus foemina - Y Y Hairy Yellow Evening- primrose (CommOenothera biennis S5 Y Y Hairy-fruited Spurge (Spotted SandmaChamaesyce maculata SNA Y Heal-all Prunella vulgaris SNA Y Y Y Heart-leaved Willow Salix eriocephala S5 Y Hedge Bindweed Calystegia sepium S5 Y Helleborine Epipactis helleborine SNA Y Y Herb-Robert Geranium robertianum S5 Y Y Highbush-cranberry Viburnum trilobum - Y Y Hispid Buttercup Ranunculus hispidus S3 Y Y Y Hoary Tick-trefoil Desmodium canescens S2 x Hog-peanut Amphicarpaea bracteata S5 Y Honewort Cryptotaenia canadensis S5 Y Y Y Honeysuckle Species Lonicera spp - Y Horse Chestnut Aesculus hippocastanum SNA Y Indian Hemp Apocynum cannabinum S5 Y Botanical Vegetation Byron Dyke Common Name Scientific Name ESA S-Rank MNRF NHIC- 17MH7356 Inventory Succession Study Matrix Inventory DRAFT SLSR (UTRCA) (UTRCA) DRAFT Year of Publication 2018 2018 2014 2015 2016 2018 Indian Mallow Abutilon theophrasti SNA Y Indian Mustard Brassica juncea SNA Y Iris species Iris sp. - Y Jack-in-the-pulpit Arisaema triphyllum S5 Y Y Y Japanese Barberry Berberis thunbergii SNA Y Y Kentucky Blue Grass Poa pratensis SNA Y Y Knapweed Species Centaurea spp - Y Lady’s-thumb Polygonum persicaria - Y Y Y Lamb’s-quarters Chenopodium album SNA Y Large False Solomon's Seal Maianthemum racemosum S5 Y Large Yellow Pond-lily Nuphar advena S3 x Late Goldenrod Solidago altissima S5 Y Y Y Lawn Daisy Bellis perennis SNA Y Little-leaf Linden Tilia cordata SNA Y Y Mad-dog Skullcap Scutellaria lateriflora S5 Y Manitoba Maple Acer negundo S5 Y Y Y Y Marsh Bedstraw Galium palustre S5 Y Y Marsh Violet Viola cucullata S5 Y Y Maryland Sanicle Sanicula marilandica S5 Y Meadow Fescue Festuca pratensis - Y Y Mild Water-pepper Polygonum hydropiperoides - Y Y Moneywort Lysimachia nummularia SNA Y Y Y Moth Mullein Verbascum blattaria SNA Y Y Y Mouse-eared Chickweed Cerastium fontanum SNA Y Mugwort Artemisia vulgaris SNA Y Multiflora Rose Rosa multiflora SNA Y Y Nannyberry Vibrunum lentago S5 Y Narrow-leaved Cattail Typha angustifolia SE5 Y Narrow-leaved Fleabane Erigeron strigosus S5 Y Narrow-leaved Spring Beauty Claytonia virginica S5 Y New England Aster Symphyotrichum novae-angilae S5 Y Ninebark (Eastern Ninebark) Physocarpus opulifolius S5 Y Y Y Y Nipplewort Lapsana communis SNA Y Y Y Nodding Beggarticks Bidens cernua S5 Y Northern Catalpa Catalpa speciosa SE1 Y Y Y Y Northern Red Oak Quercus rubra S5 Y Norway Maple Acer platanoides S4? Y Y Y Norway Spruce Picea abies SE3 Y Y Y Botanical Vegetation Byron Dyke Common Name Scientific Name ESA S-Rank MNRF NHIC- 17MH7356 Inventory Succession Study Matrix Inventory DRAFT SLSR (UTRCA) (UTRCA) DRAFT Year of Publication 2018 2018 2014 2015 2016 2018 Orange Day Lily Hemerocallis fulva SNA Y Y Orchard Grass Dactylis glomerata SE5 Y Y Y Y Oxeye Daisy Leucanthemum vulgare SE5 Y Y Pale Smartweed Polygonum lapathifolium - Y Pale Touch-me-not Impatiens pallida S4 Y Y Y Perennial Sow-thistle Sonchus arvensis SNA Y Philadelphia Fleabane Erigeron philadelphicus S5 Y Y Y Y Pin Cherry Prunus pensylvanica S5 Y Y Pin Oak Quercus palustris S4 Y Pine Species Pinus spp - Y Pineapple Weed Medicago matricarioides - Y Pinkweed Polygonum pensylvanicum - Y Poison Ivy Toxicodendron radicans S5 Y Poison-hemlock Conium maculatum SNA Y Poison-ivy Rhus radicans - Y Pokeweed Phytolacca americana S4 Y Poor-man’s Pepper- grass Lepidium virginicum S5 Y Prickly Lettuce Lactuca serriola SNA Y Prostrate Knotweed Polygonum aviculare SNA Y Purple Leaved Willow Herb (Purple-veEpilobium coloratum S5 Y Y Purple Loosestrife Lythrum salicaria SE5 Y Y Purple Touch-me-not (Purple JewelweImpatiens glandulifera SE4 Y Y Y Y Purple-stemmed Aster Symphyotrichum puniceum S5 Y Pussy Willow Salix discolor S5 Y Red Clover Trifolium pratense SNA Y Y Red Maple Acer rubrum SNA Y Y Red Pine Pinus resinosa S5 Y Red/Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica S4 Y Y Y Y Reddish Willow Salix x rubens - Y Red-osier Dogwood Cornus sericea (formerly C. stolonifera) S5 Y Y Redroot Pigweed Amaranthus retroflexus SNA Y Retrose Sedge Carex retrorsa S5 Y Riverbank Grape Vitis riparia S5 Y Y Y Y Rough-fruited Cinquefoil (Sulphur Cin Potentilla recta SE5 Y Y Y Rugel’s Plantain Plantago rugelii S5 Y Y Running Strawberry- bush Euonymus obovata S4 Y Sandbar Willow Salix exigua - Y Sandbar Willow Salix interior S5 Y Botanical Vegetation Byron Dyke Common Name Scientific Name ESA S-Rank MNRF NHIC- 17MH7356 Inventory Succession Study Matrix Inventory DRAFT SLSR (UTRCA) (UTRCA) DRAFT Year of Publication 2018 2018 2014 2015 2016 2018 Scarlet Pimpernel Lysimachia arvensis SE4 Y Scarlet Primpernel Anagallis arvensis - Y Scots Pine Pinus sylvestris S5 Y Shagbark Hickory Carya ovata S5 Y Shrubby Cinquefoil Dasiphora floribunda S5 Y Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila SNA Y Y Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum - Y Silver Maple Acer saccharinum S5 Y Y Y Y Skunk Cabbage Symplocarpus foetidus S5 Y Y Smaller Forget-me-not Myosotis laxa S5 Y Small-flowered Crane’s- bill Geranium pusillum SNA Y Smith's Bulrush Schoenoplectiella smithii S2S3 x Smooth (Awnless) Brome Bromus inermis SNA Y Y Smooth Crab Grass Digitaria sanguinalis SNA Y Smooth Pigweed Amaranthus hybridus SNA Y Spearmint Mentha spicata SNA Y Y Spider-flower Cleome hassleriana - Y Spindle-tree Euonymus europaea SNA Y Y Spiny-leaved Sow- thistle Sonchus asper SNA Y Spotted Joe Pye Weed Eupatorium maculatum - Y Y Y Y Spotted Lady's-thumb Persicaria maculosa SE5 Y Spotted Touch-me-not (Spotted Jewe Impatiens capensis S5 Y Y Y Y Spreading Dogbane Apocynum androsaemifolium S5 Y Square-stemmed Monkey-flower Mimulus ringens S5 Y Staghorn Sumac Rhus typhina S5 Y Starry False Solomon's-seal Maianthemum stellatum S5 Y Y Stinking Mayweed Anthemis cotula SNA Y Sugar Maple Acer saccharum S5 Y Y Y Y Swamp Milkweed Asclepias incarnata S5 Y Switch Grass Panicum virgatum S4 Y Sycamore Platanus occidentalis S4 Y Y Y Y Sycamore Maple Acer pseudoplatanus SNA Y Tall Goldenrod Solidago gigantea S5 Y Y Y Tall Meadow-rue Thalictrum pubescens S5 Y Tansy Tanacetum vulgare SNA Y Tansy Ragwort Jacobaea vulgaris SE1 Y Tartarian Honeysuckle Lonicera tatarica SNA Y Y Three-seeded Mercury Acalypha rhomboidea S5 Y Botanical Vegetation Byron Dyke Common Name Scientific Name ESA S-Rank MNRF NHIC- 17MH7356 Inventory Succession Study Matrix Inventory DRAFT SLSR (UTRCA) (UTRCA) DRAFT Year of Publication 2018 2018 2014 2015 2016 2018 Timothy Phleum pratense SNA Y Y Tree-of-heaven Ailanthus altissima SNA Y True Forget-me-not Myosotis scorpioides SE5 Y Y Trumpet Creeper Campsis radicans S2? Y Y Tulip Tree Lirodendron tulipifera S4 Y Tumble Mustard Sisymbrium altissimum SNA Y Turtlehead Chelone glabra S5 Y Y Violet species Viola spp. - Y Y Y Vipers Bugloss Echium vulgare SNA Y Virgin’s-bower (Virginia Virgin's-boweClematis virginiana S5 Y Y Y Y Virginia Creeper Parthenocissus inserta - Y Y Virginia Creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia S4? Y Virginia Stickweed Hackelia virginiana S5 Y Y Water Speedwell Veronica anagallis- aquatica SNA Y Water-pepper Polygonum hydropiper - Y Y Western Dock Rumex occidentalis S5 Y Western Poison Ivy Toxicodendron radicans var. rydbergii S5 Y White Ash Fraxinus americana S4 Y Y Y White Avens Geum canadense S5 Y Y Y Y White Cedar (Eastern White Cedar) Thuja occidentalis S5 Y Y White Clover Trifolium repens SNA Y Y Y White Cockle (White Campion) Silene latifolia SE5 Y Y Y White Mulberry Morus alba SE5 Y Y Y Y White Oak Quercus alba S5 Y White Snakeroot Ageratina altissima S5 Y White Snakeroot Eupatorium rugosum - Y White Sweet-clover Melilotus alba SE5 Y Y Y Y White Vervain Verbena urticifolia S5 Y Y Y White Willow Salix alba SE4 Y Y Y Y Wild (Canada) Lettuce Lactuca canadensis S5 Y Wild (Woodland) Chervil Anthriscus sylvestris SNA Y Y Y Wild Bergamot Monarda fistulosa SU Y Wild Black Cherry Prunus serotina S5 Y Y Wild Buckwheat Polygonum convolvulus - Y Wild Carrot Daucus carota SE5 Y Y Y Y Wild Cucumber Echinocystis lobata S5 Y Y Botanical Vegetation Byron Dyke Common Name Scientific Name ESA S-Rank MNRF NHIC- 17MH7356 Inventory Succession Study Matrix Inventory DRAFT SLSR (UTRCA) (UTRCA) DRAFT Year of Publication 2018 2018 2014 2015 2016 2018 Wild Madder/White Bedstraw (SmootGalium mollugo SE5 Y Y Y Y Wild Parsnip Pastinaca sativa SE5 Y Wild Red Raspberry Rubus idaeus S5 Y Y Y Wild Strawberry (Smooth Wild StrawbFragaria virginiana SU Y Y Y Y Willow Species Salix spp. - Y Winter Cress (Bitter Wintercress) Barbarea vulgaris SNA Y Y Y Y Wood Nettle Laportea canadensis S5 Y Y Woodland Sedge Carex blanda S5 Y Y Woolly Blue Violet Viola sororia S5 Y Wormseed Mustard Erysimum cheiranthoides SNA Y Yellow Avens Geum aleppicum S5 Y Y Y Y Yellow Trout Lily Erythronium americanum S5 Y Yellow-flag Iris pseudacorus SNA Y Zig-zag Goldenrod Solidago flexicaulis S5 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 ESA- Endangered Species Act Appendix D2: Bird Inventory Summary Vegetation 1 2 Botanical Byron DykeDRAFT Commissioners Matrix Common Name Scientific Name ESA SARA S-Rank Priority Species OBBA CBC Succession Inventory DRAFT SLSR Road West Inventory Study Year of Study 2014 2001-2005 2012-2015 2014 2015 2016 2018 2018 American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos S5B x x Y x Y Y American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis S5B x x Y Y Y American Robin Turdus migratorius S5B x x Y Y Y Y Y Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula S4B Y x Y Y x Y Y Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica THR THR S4B Y x Y x Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon S4B Y x x x Y Y Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus S5 x x Y Y Y Y Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata S5 x x Y Y Y Y Y Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus THR THR S4B Y x x Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater S4B x x Y x Canada Goose Branta canadensis S5 x x Y Y Y Y Y Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus S4 x x x Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum S5B x x Y Y Y Y Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica THR THR S4B,S4N Y x x Y Cliff Swallow Spizella passerina S4B x Y x Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula S5B x Y Y Y Y Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii S4,CP3 x x x Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens S5 x x Y Y Y Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis S5B x x Y x Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus S4B Y x Y Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna THR THR S4B Y x x Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe S5B x x Y Y Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens SC SC S4B Y x Y x Y European Starling (non native) Sturnus vulgaris SNA x x Y x Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla S4B Y x x x Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa S5B x x Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis S4B x Y x Great Blue Heron (Blue form) Ardea herodias S4 Y x Y Y Y Y Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus SB4 x Y Y Y Y Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus S5 x x x Y House Sparrow (non-native) Passer domesticus SNA x x Y x Y House Wren Troglodytes aedon S5B x Y x Killdeer Charadrius vociferus S5B,S5N Y x x Y x Mallard Anas platyrhynchos S5 x x Y Y Y Y Y Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura S5 x x x Mute Swan (non native) Cygnus olor SNA x x Y x Nashville Warbler Oreothlypis ruficapilla S5B x Northern (Yellow- shafted) Flicker Colaptes auratus S4 x Vegetation Botanical Byron Dyke Commissioners Matrix Common Name Scientific Name ESA SARA S-Rank Priority Species OBBA1 CBC2 Succession Inventory DRAFT SLSR Road West Inventory Study DRAFT Year of Study 2014 2001-2005 2012-2015 2014 2015 2016 2018 2018 Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis S5 x x Y Y Y Y Y Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus S4B Y x x Y x Y Northern Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis S4B Y x Y x Y Osprey Pandion haliaetus S5 Y Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus S4B x x Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus S4 x x x Y Y Red-eyed Vireo Vireo atricapilla SNA x x Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus SC THR S4B Y x x Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus S4 x x Y x Y Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis S5B,S4N x Y x Rock Pigeon Columba livia SNA x x Y x Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus S4B Y x x Y Ruby-throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris S5B x x Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia S5B x x Y Y Y Y Y Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius S5 x Y x Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor S4B x Y x Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura S5B x x Veery Catharus fuscescens S4B x x Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus S5B Y White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis S5 x x Y x Y Wood Duck Aix sponsa S5 Y Y Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina SC THR S4B Y x Yellow Warbler Setophaga petechia S5B Y x Y Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons S4 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 ESA- Endangered Species Act Appendix D3: Herpetofauna Inventory Summary Vegetation NHIC- Botanical Byron Dyke Matrix Common Name Scientific Name ESA S-RANK ORAA1 MNRF Succession 17MH7356 Inventory DRAFT SLSR DRAFTInventory Study Year of Study 1929-2017 2018 2018 2014 2015 2016 2018 TURTLES (7) Blanding’s Turtle Emydoidea blandingii THR S3 x x Eastern Spiny Softshell Apalone spinifera END S2 x Y Northern Map Turtle Graptemys geographica SC S3 x x x x Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentine serpentine SC S3 x x x Y Spotted Turtle Clemmys guttata END S2 x SNAKES (10) Dekay's Brownsnake Storeria dekayi S5 x x Eastern Gartersnake Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis S5 x x Eastern Hog-Nosed Snake Heterodon platirhinos THR S3 x x x Eastern Milksnake Lampropeltis triangulum S4 x x x Eastern Ribbonsnake Thamnophis sauritus SC S4 x Queensnake Regina septemvittata END S2 x x x FROGS AND TOADS (9) American Bullfrog Lithobates catesbeianus S5 x x x Y American Toad Anaxyrus americanus S5 x x Y x Green Frog Lithobates clamitans S5 x x x Northern Leopard Frog Lithobates pipiens S5 x x 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 ESA- Endangered Species Act EIS - Environmental Impact Study Appendix D4: Mammal Inventory Summary Vegetation NHIC - Botanical Byron Dyke DRAFT Matrix Common Name Scientific Name ESA S-Rank OMA1 Succession 17MH7356 Inventory SLSR Inventory Study DRAFT Year of Study 1994 2018 2014 2015 2016 2018 American Badger Taxidea taxus END S2 x Beaver Castor canadensis S5 x Y Y Y Coyote Canis latrans S5 x Y Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus S5 x Domestic Cat Felis catus - x Eastern Chipmunk Tamias striatus S5 x Y Y Y Y Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus S5 x Y x Y European Hare Lepus europaeus SNA x Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis S5 x Y Y Y Y Hairy-tailed Mole Parascalops breweri S4 x Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus S4 x Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus S5 x x Mink Neovison vison S4 x x Northern Bat (N. Long-Eared Bat) Myotis septentrionalis END S3 x Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus S5 x Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus SNA x Raccoon Procyon lotor S5 x Y x Y Red Bat Lasiurus borealis S4 x Red Fox Vulpes vulpes S5 x Red Squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus S5 x Star-nosed Mole Condylura cristata S5 x Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis S5 x Y Virginia Opossum Didelphis virginiana S4 x White-footed Mouse Peromyscus leucopus S5 x White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus S5 x Y Y Y Woodchuck Marmota monax S5 x x Notes: 1. Ontario Mammal 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 ESA- Endangered Species Act Appendix D5: Fish Inventory Summary

Byron Dyke Common Name Scientific Name ESA SARA S-Rank UTRCA (DFO, ROM, MNRF) Fish Sampling Records 2003 Springbank Dam EA Matrix Inventory DRAFTDRAFT SLSR Year of Fisheries Collection 1967 1968 1974 2004 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2014 2015 N/A 2003 2003 2015 2017 2018 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 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 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 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 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 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 Byron Dyke Common Name Scientific Name ESA SARA S-Rank UTRCA (DFO, ROM, MNRF) Fish Sampling Records 2003 Springbank Dam EA Matrix Inventory DRAFT SLSR

Year of Fisheries Collection 1967 1968 1974 2004 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2014 2015 N/A 2003 DRAFT2003 2015 2017 2018 Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus S5 Y Y Mimic Shiner Notropis volucellus S4 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Northern Brook Lamprey Ichthyomyzon fossor SC SC S3 Y Northern Hog Sucker Hypentelium nigricans S5 Y 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 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 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 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 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 ESA- Endangered Species Act EA - Environmental Assessment Appendix D6: Mussel Inventory Summary

Riverview Dyke Thames South Hydrolands Byron Dyke Common Name Scientific Name ESA SARA S-Rank UTRCA/DFO/EC Mussel Sampling Records Matrix Iventory SLSR Dykes SLSR DRAFTSLSR DRAFT SLSR Year of Mussel Collection or Published Study 1998 2004 2004 2004 2003/2004 2015 2015 2017 2013 2015 2017-2018 Study Area Reach M41 M42 S6 N53 S53 S53 S6 S6 S6 M4 M1, M4 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 Y Hickorynut Obovaria olivaria END END S1? x Kidneyshell Ptychobranchus fasciolaris END END S3 x 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 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 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 Zebra Mussel Dreissena polymorpha SNA Y 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 ESA- Endangered Species Act EC - Environment Canada DRAFT Appendix D7: Insect Inventory Summary

Common Name Scientific Name ESA S-Rank Butterfly Atlas1 NHIC- 17MH7356 Matrix Inventory Year of Publication 2018 2018 2018 Amber-winged Spreadwing Lestes eurinus S3 x American Copper Lycaena phlaeas S5 x American Lady Vanessa virginiensis S5 x American Snout Libytheana carinenta SNA x Azure Bluet Enallagma aspersum S3 x 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 Y 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 x 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 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 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 ESA- Endangered Species Act DRAFT

APPENDIX E Ecological Land Classification Data Sheets

DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT

APPENDIX F Species of Conservation Concern Assessment

DRAFT APPENDIX F1 Avian Species of Conservation Concern Assessment

Scientific 1 ESA SARA Preferred Common Name Priority species Status and Observations Name 2007 2002 Habitat2 Eastern Contopus Regional Potential- Species was observed during previous study at Wooded Wood-Pewee virens Concern - Recovery SC SC Commissioners Road West Study. This species was not habitats Objective observed within the study area in 2018. Notes: 1 Government of Canada 2014. hardwood transition. 2 Cornell lab of Ornithology 2017.

APPENDIX F2 Herpetofauna Species of Conservation Concern Assessment SARA 1 Common Name Scientific Name S-rank ESA 2007 Preferred Habitat Status and Observation 2002 Northern Map Turtle Graptemys geographica Aquatic habitats with Confirmed- Species observed within the Study area S3 SC SC mollusc prey and by the UTRCA. Species was not observed within the basking areas Study area in 2018. Eastern Ribbonsnake Thamnophis sauritus Aquatic habitats with Potential- Indicated as potential within the Byron S4 SC SC forested riparian zone Dykes study. Species was not observed within the Study area in 2018. Notes: 1 Ontario Nature 2015

DRAFT APPENDIX F3 Insects Species of Conservation Concern Assessment SARA Common name Scientific name S-Rank ESA 2007 Preferred Habitat1 Status and Observation 2002 Amber-winged Lestes eurinus Wetland habitats Unlikely- Indicated as potential by NHIC. Species S3 - - Spreadwing was not observed during 2018 studies. Azure Bluet Enallagma Wetland habitats Unlikely- Indicated as potential by NHIC. Species S3 - - aspersum was not observed during 2018 studies. Hackberry Emperor Asterocampa Unlikely- Indicated as potential by the Butterfly Habitats which support celtis S3 - - atlas. Species was not observed during 2018 Hackberry trees studies, area contains limited hackberry trees. Painted Skimmer Libellula Wetland habitats Unlikely- Indicated as potential by NHIC. Species S2 - - semifasciata was not observed during 2018 studies. Sleepy Duskywing Erynnis brizo Oak or Oak-Pine Unlikely- Indicated as potential by the Butterfly S1 - - Scrubland atlas. Species was not observed during 2018 studies. Tawny Emperor Asterocampa Riparian habitats which Unlikely- Indicated as potential by the Butterfly clyton S2S3 - - support Hackberry trees atlas. Species was not observed during 2018 studies, area contains limited hackberry trees. Notes: 1 IUCN 2018

APPENDIX F4 Fish Species of Conservation Concern Assessment SARA Common name Scientific name S-rank ESA 2007 Preferred Habitat1 Status and Observation 2002 Northern Brook Ichthyomyzon Clear, coolwater stream Unlikely- Species observed during the Lamprey fossor with soft substrates Springbank Dam EA in 2003, but is S3 SC SC considered to be a migrant. This species was not observed during the 2017 or 2018 studies Spotted Sucker Minytrema Clear creeks and small to Potential- Species was observed during melanops moderate sized rivers fisheries assessments in 2005 (UTRCA 2015). S5 SC SC with sand and gravel Preferred habitat is located within the study substrate area. This species was not observed during the 2017 or 2018 studies Notes: 1 IUCN 2018 DRAFT

APPENDIX 5 Mussel Species of Conservation Concern Assessment Common Scientific ESA SARA S-rank Preferred Habitat1 Observation name Name 2007 2002 Black Ligumia recta Medium-sized to large rivers in Potential- Species was observed by Fisheries and Sandshell locations with strong current and Oceans Canada (DFO) and UTRCA in 2004 within the substrates of coarse sand and gravel main branch of the Thames River (UTRCA 2015). This S3 - - with cobble. Host Fish include Bluegill species was not observed during the 2017 or 2018 (Lepomis macrochirus), and White studies. Suitable habitat and host species are located Crappie (Pomoxis annularis). within the study area. Deertoe Truncilla Medium to large rivers, usually in mud, Potential- Species was observed by DFO and UTRCA in truncata sand, and/or gravel. Host Fish is 1998 within the main branch of the Thames River S3 - - unknown. (UTRCA 2015). This species was not observed during the 2017 or 2018 studies. Suitable habitat and host species are located within the study area Pink Potamilus Medium to large rivers in mud, or mix Potential- Species was observed by DFO and UTRCA in Heelsplitter alatus of mud, sand, gravel. Host Fish is the 2004 within the main branch of the Thames River S3 - - Freshwater Drum (Aplodinotus (UTRCA 2015). This species was not observed during grunniens). the 2017 or 2018 studies. Suitable habitat and host species are located within the study area Purple Cyclonaias Medium-sized to small streams with Unlikely- Species was observed by previous studies as Wartyback tubeculata gravel and mud substrates. The host recent as 2015 within the south branch of the Thames fish include Channel Catfish and River (UTRCA 2015). This species was not observed S3 - - Bullhead Species (Ameiurus sp.). during the 2017 or 2018 studies. Suitable habitat is not available within the study area.

Wabash Fusconaia Medium to large rivers in moderate Potential- Species was observed by previous studies as Pigtoe flava current with a stable mix of coarse recent as 2015 within the south branch of the Thames sand and gravel. River (UTRCA 2015). This species was not observed S2S3 - - Host fish include White Crappie, Black during the 2017 or 2018 studies. Suitable habitat and Crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus) and host species are located within the study area Bluegill. Notes: 1 IUCN 2018. DRAFT

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

Government of Canada. 2014. Bird Conservation Strategy for Region 13: Lower Great Lkaes/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. 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/

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

DRAFT

APPENDIX G Tree Inventory Results

Appendix G: Tree Inventory

Project: The Springbank Dam (EIS) Date: June 12, 2018

Client: City of London Area: Springbank Park Collector: Karen Reis DRAFT GPS Species Common Name Species Scientific Name DBH (cm) Longitude Latitude Comments 1551 Red Maple Acer rubrum 52.5 -81.319 42.958 1552 Red Maple Acer rubrum 73 -81.319 42.958 1553 Red Maple Acer rubrum 70 -81.319 42.958 1554 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 58 -81.319 42.958 1555 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum 89 -81.319 42.958 1556 White Oak Quercus alba 82 -81.319 42.958 1557 Red Maple Acer rubrum 60.5 -81.319 42.958 1559 Red Maple Acer rubrum 70 -81.319 42.958 1560 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum 92 -81.319 42.958 1561 white oak Quercus alba 105 -81.320 42.958 1562 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 69 -81.320 42.958 1563 Red Maple Acer rubrum 140 -81.320 42.959 1564 Shagbark Hickory Carya ovata var. ovata 49 -81.319 42.958 1565 Horsechestnut Aesculus hippocastanum 43 -81.319 42.958 1566 Red Maple Acer rubrum 98 -81.320 42.958 1567 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 90 -81.320 42.959 1568 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 102 -81.320 42.959 Large cavity tree 1569 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 87 -81.320 42.959 1570 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 89 -81.320 42.959 1571 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 76 -81.320 42.959 1572 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 106 -81.320 42.959 Large cavity tree 1573 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 115 -81.321 42.959 Large cavity tree 1574 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 87 -81.321 42.959 1575 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 82 -81.321 42.959 1578 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 98 -81.321 42.959 1579 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 96 -81.321 42.959 1580 Red Maple Acer rubrum 65 -81.321 42.959 1581 Red Maple Acer rubrum 72 -81.321 42.959 1582 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 78 -81.322 42.959 1584 Willow sp. Salix sp. 114 -81.322 42.959

Matrix Solutions Inc. GPS Species Common Name Species Scientific Name DBH (cm) Longitude Latitude Comments

1585 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 67 -81.322 42.959 1586 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 88 -81.322 42.959 1587 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 81 -81.322 42.959 DRAFT 1588 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 63 -81.322 42.959 1589 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 74.5 -81.322 42.959 1590 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 72 -81.323 42.959 1591 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 73 -81.323 42.959 1592 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 70 -81.323 42.959 1593 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 70 -81.323 42.959 1594 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 64 -81.323 42.959 1595 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 68 -81.323 42.959 1596 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 66 -81.323 42.959 1597 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 68 -81.323 42.959 1598 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 65 -81.323 42.959 1599 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 82 -81.323 42.959 1600 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 57 -81.323 42.959 1601 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 73.5 -81.323 42.959 1602 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 90 -81.323 42.959 1603 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 77.5 -81.324 42.959 1604 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 89.5 -81.324 42.959 1605 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 89 -81.324 42.960 1606 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 108 -81.325 42.960 1607 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 74 -81.325 42.960 1608 Tulip Tree Liriodendron tulipifera 54 -81.325 42.960 1609 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum 62.5 -81.325 42.960 1610 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum 71 -81.325 42.960 1611 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum 84 -81.327 42.960 1612 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 90 -81.327 42.960 1616 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum 102 -81.328 42.961

Matrix Solutions Inc. DRAFT

APPENDIX H Breeding Bird Survey Results

DRAFT

APPENDIX H Breeding Bird Survey Results Conservation Status Second Species First Visit Highest Species Visit (Common S-Rank Priority ESA June 1, Breeding Notes (Scientific Name) 1 SARA June 12 Name) species (2007) 2018 Evidence 2018 American Robin Turdus migratorius S5B - - - x x Probable Permanent territory presumed. Territorial song heard during multiple visits within the same location Baltimore Icterus galbula S4B Regional - - x x Probable Permanent territory presumed. Oriole Concern Territorial song heard during -increase multiple visits within the same location Belted Megaceryle alcyon S4B Regional - - x Possible Species observed in breeding Kingfisher Concern season in suitable habitat -increase Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata S5 - - - x x Probable Permanent territory presumed. Territorial song heard during multiple visits within the same location Canada Goose Branta canadensis S5 - - - x x Confirmed Eggs and young observed

Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica S4B,S4N Regional THR THR x x Probable Permanent territory presumed. Concern Territorial song heard during -recovery multiple visits within the same objective location Common Quiscalus quiscula S5B - - - x Probable Pair observed in breeding Grackle season in suitable habitat

Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe S5B - - - x Possible Singing male present during DRAFT Conservation Status Second Species First Visit Highest Species Visit (Common S-Rank Priority ESA June 1, Breeding Notes (Scientific Name) 1 SARA June 12 Name) species (2007) 2018 Evidence 2018 breeding season in suitable habitat European Sturnus vulgaris SNA - - - x x Probable Permanent territory presumed. Starling (non Territorial song heard during native) multiple visits within the same location Gray Catbird Dumetella S4B - - - x Probable Pair observed in breeding carolinensis season in suitable habitat Great Blue Ardea herodias S4 Regional - - x x Observed Species observed in breeding Heron Concern season in suitable habitat. No -maintain evidence of breeding Great Crested Myiarchus crinitus SB4 - - - x x Probable Permanent territory presumed. Flycatcher Territorial song heard during multiple visits within the same location Mallard Anas platyrhynchos S5 Regional and - - x x Confirmed Eggs and young observed National Concern -maintain Northern Cardinalis cardinalis S5 - - - x x Probable Permanent territory presumed. Cardinal Territorial song heard during multiple visits within the same location Northern Colaptes auratus S4B Regional - - x Possible Singing male present during Flicker Concern breeding season in suitable -increase habitat Osprey Pandion haliaetus S5 - - - x x Observed Species observed in breeding season in suitable habitat with no evidence of breeding. P Northern Stelgidopteryx S4B Regional - - x x Probable Pair observed in breeding Rough-winged serripennis Concern season in suitable habitat Swallow -increase DRAFT Conservation Status Second Species First Visit Highest Species Visit (Common S-Rank Priority ESA June 1, Breeding Notes (Scientific Name) 1 SARA June 12 Name) species (2007) 2018 Evidence 2018

Red-bellied Melanerpes S4 - - - x x Probable Permanent territory presumed. Woodpecker carolinus Territorial song heard during multiple visits within the same location Red-winged Agelaius S4 - - - x x Confirmed Eggs and young observed Blackbird phoeniceus Rose-breasted Pheucticus S4B Regional - - x Possible Singing male present during Grosbeak ludovicianus stewardship breeding season in suitable -maintain habitat current Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia S5B - - - x x Probable Permanent territory presumed. Territorial song heard during multiple visits within the same location White-breasted Sitta carolinensis S5 - - - x Possible Singing male present during Nuthatch breeding season in suitable habitat Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus S5B - - - x x Probable Permanent territory presumed. Territorial song heard during multiple visits within the same location Yellow Warbler Setophaga petechia S5B - - - x Probable Pair observed in breeding season in suitable habitat DRAFT REFERENCES Government of Canada. 2014. Bird Conservation Strategy for Region 13: Lower Great Lkaes/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. 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

DRAFT

APPENDIX I Significant Wildlife Habitat Assessment

DRAFT

APPENDIX I.1 Seasonal Concentration Areas of Animals The SWH assessment identified four candidate SWH for seasonal concentration areas of animals.

Significant Wildlife Criteria Habitat (SWH) Details Met? Category Terrestrial No The Springbank Dam Study area does not contain large field habitats (CUM1 and waterfowl CUT1) which would support spring flood waters. stopover and staging areas Aquatic waterfowl No The Springbank Dam Study area does not contain candidate ELC ecosites to be stopover and considered an aquatic waterfowl stopover area. No significant waterfowl (Ruddy staging areas Ducks, Canvasbacks, or Redheads) were observed. Shorebird No The Springbank Dam Sudy area lacks un-vegetated shorelines, which are migratory required for shorebird species. stopover area Land bird No The Springbank Dam Study area does not contain woodland habitat which is migratory within 5 km of Lake Erie or Lake Ontario. stopover areas Raptor wintering Candidate The Springbank Dam Study area does not contain the 20 ha of forested and area upland habitats which are required for raptor and owl wintering habitat. However, the study area does contain a combination of forest communities (FOD) as well as shoreline areas which could be used by Bald Eagles. This area is therefore considered Candidate SWH until confirmation studies are completed. Bank and cliff No The Springbank Dam Study area does not contain any exposed soil banks which colonially nesting would be suitable for swallow colonies. Northern Rough-Winged Swallows were bird breeding observed within the study area and may be utilizing the Springbank Dam; habitat however, man-made structures are not considered SWH. Trees / Shrubs No The Springbank Dam Study area does not contain candidate ELC ecosites to be colonially nesting considered colonially nesting bird habitat. A Great Blue Heron was observed as bird habitat a fly-thru at Springbank Dam during the breeding season; however, no nests were observed that would signify the area is used by colonial tree/shrub-nesting birds. There were no heronries observed within the Study area. Ground colonially No The Springbank Dam Study area does not contain any rocky island or peninsula nesting bird habitat which would support colonially nesting birds (ground). habitat Bat maternity Candidate Candidate habitat is present within the wooded ELC types throughout the Study colonies area (FOD). Further studies would be required to confirm SWH. Bat hibernacula No The Springbank Dam Study area does not contain caves or mines for hibernating. Migratory No The Springbank Dam Study area does not contain 10 ha of field and forest butterfly stopover habitat which is within 5km of Lake Erie or Lake Ontario. areas Reptile Candidate Hibernacula for snakes can be present within any ecosite which contains hibernacula burrows, rock crevices, and other naturalized areas below the frost line. Therefore, the Springbank Dam Study area is considered candidate SWH for reptile hibernacula. If confirmation of habitat is required, studies would occur during spring emergence and fall migration in search for congregations of snakes. DRAFT

Significant Wildlife Criteria Habitat (SWH) Details Met? Category Turtle wintering Candidate The Springbank Dam Study area contains large, deep pools to support areas overwintering turtles. Background studies confirmed the presence of Midland Painted Turtle, Common Snapping Turtle, Northern Map Turtle, and, Spiny Soft Shell within the Study area; however, it is unknown if this pool is utilized within the winter months. Studies would be required during spring/fall emergence/migration to confirm habitat/species use. Deer Winter No The Springbank Dam Study area does not contain woodlots which are between congregation 50 and 100 ha in size. areas

DRAFT

APPENDIX I.2 Rare Vegetation Communities The SWH assessment determined there are no rare vegetation communities within the Study area.

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

DRAFT

APPENDIX I.3 Specialized Habitats of Wildlife The SWH assessment identified one confirmed and one candidate specialized habitat for wildlife.

Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) Criteria Details Category Met? Waterfowl nesting habitat No The Springbank Dam Study area does not contain any wetland ecosites greater than 0.5 ha. An unevaluated wetland is located outside of the Study area at the base of the forested valley segment just east of Boler Road Bridge. Bald eagle and Osprey nesting, No The Springbank Dam Study area does contain a combination foraging and perching habitat of forest communities, as well as shoreline areas which could be used by Osprey and Bald Eagle. An Osprey was observed flying over Springbank Dam during two field visits. No nesting observations were noted during the field studies. Woodland raptor nesting habitat No The Springbank Dam Study area does not contain woodland/forest stands greater than 30 ha with greater than 4 ha of interior habitat. Turtle nesting areas Candidate/ The Springbank Dam Study area contains one candidate and Confirmed one confirmed turtle nesting habitat. The candidate habitat includes a sandy isolated shoreline, which is located within the project site along the northern shoreline just downstream of the Dam. The confirmed habitat is located downstream of the Dam within the two island features outside of the Project site. Seeps and springs No No seeps or springs were observed during the field assessments. Woodland amphibian breeding No The Springbank Dam 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 Springbank Dam Study area does not contain habitat appropriate wetland habitats. Woodland area-sensitive bird No The Springbank Dam Study area does not contain of breeding habitat woodland/forests greater than 30 ha with interior habitat. DRAFT

APPENDIX I.4 Habitats of Species of Conservation Concern The SWH assessment identified one confirmed and one candidate wildlife habitat for SCC.

Significant Wildlife Criteria Details Habitat (SWH) Category Met? Marsh breeding bird No The Springbank Dam Study area does not contain wetlands habitat or ponds which would support marsh breeding birds. Open country bird No The Springbank Dam Study area does not contain any field breeding habitat or meadow habitat which is greater than 30 ha. Shrub/early successional No The Springbank Dam Study area does not contain large field bird breeding areas or shrub/ thicket areas which are greater than 10 ha habitat in size. Terrestrial crayfish No The Springbank Dam 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 Confirmed- species Seven avian SCC were confirmed in the Study area: provincially rare have been confirmed Baltimore Oriole (FOD5-1), Belted Kingfisher (SHSR1,Thames wildlife species within the study area River) Great Blue Heron (Thames River), Mallard (SHSR1, within suitable Thames River), Northern Flicker (CGL_2), Northern Rough- habitats and ELC winged Swallow (Thames River), and Rose-breasted communities. Grosbeak (FOD5-1, CGL_2). Two herptefauna SCC were confirmed within the study area: Common Snapping Turtle (SHSR1, Thames River) and Northern Map Turtle (SHSR1, Thames River). Four aquatic SCC were confirmed within the Study area within the Thames River: Elktoe, Mucket, Spotfin Shiner, and Greater Redhorse. One insect SCC was confirmed within the study area: Monarch (SHSR1). Candidate- These Three avian SCC are considered to have candidate SWH: species have been Eastern Kingbird (CGL_2), Eastern Wood Pewee (FOD5-1), identified as being Killdeer (SHSR1, Thames River). known within the One herptefauna SCC was considered to have candidate study area, and the SWH: Eastern Ribbon Snake (FOD5-1, SHTM1). appropriate Six aquatic SCC were considered to have candidate SWH habitats/ELC within the Thames River: Black Sandshell, Deertoe, Pink communities exist to Heelsplitter, Spotted Sucker, Striped Shiner and Wabash support these species. Pigtoe. Two flora SCC were considered to have candidate SWH: Hispid Buttercup and Hoary Tick-trefoil (SHTM1, FOD5-1).

DRAFT

APPENDIX I.5 Animal Movement Corridors The SWH assessment determined there were no significant animal movement corridors within the Study area.

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

DRAFT

APPENDIX J Species at Risk Assessment

APPENDIX J Habitat Assessment for Potential SAR within the Study Area.

1 1 DRAFT Common name Scientific Name ESA SARA Habitat Requirements Year and General Location of Species Record Observations and Likelihood of Occurrence within Study area

Flora (3) American Castanea END END This species prefers dryer upland deciduous Historic (1976 to 1982) National Heritage Information Unlikely - Species was not observed during the previous studies or by Matrix during the 2018 Chestnut dentate forests with sandy, acidic to neutral soils. Centre (NHIC) Records southwest of Subject Lands. study. However, most of the species within the area have been affected by Chestnut Blight. Butternut Juglans cinerea END END This species prefers moist, well-drained soil, Recent NHIC records northwest of the study area at Byron Unlikely - Species was identified within the Byron Dykes study as potentially occurring within often found along streams. Also found on dykes. the study area (UTRCA 2017). Species was not observed by Matrix during the 2018 study. well-drained gravel sites. Eastern Cornus florida END END This species grows under taller trees in mid-age Historic pre-1985 NHIC record west of the study area. Unlikely - This species has not been observed during previous studies or during the 2018 Flowering to mature deciduous or mixed forests. This species is very uncommon within the London Area surveys completed by Matrix. Dogwood Commonly grows on floodplains, slopes, bluffs, (UTRCA 2017). and in ravines. Birds (6) Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica THR THR This species prefers human-made structures, Species identified within Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas Unlikely - The area lacks the suitable habitat needed for this species. This species has not been such as open barns, bridges, or culverts to build (OBBA; Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas 2001) 10 km square. observed during previous studies or during the 2018 surveys completed by Matrix. their nests. Bobolink Dolichonyx THR THR This species prefers open prairie or meadow Species identified within OBBA 10 km square. Unlikely - The area lacks the suitable habitat needed for this species. This species has not been oryzivorus habitat, and builds its nests on the ground in the observed during previous studies or during the 2018 surveys completed by Matrix. dense grasses. Chimney Swift Chaetura THR THR This species establishes colonies within unused Species identified within OBBA 10 km square. Confirmed - A colony was observed flying along the Springbank Dam study area. Species was pelagica chimneys in order to roost or build their nest. likely nesting in the chimney of the abandoned heritage house along the northern side of the Thames River. On July 7, 2018, this property burnt down. No other potential habitats were identified within the study area. Eastern Sturnella magna THR THR This species primarily breeds in prairie and Species identified within OBBA 10 km square. Unlikely- The area lacks the suitable habitat needed for this species. This species has not been Meadowlark grassland habitats, but may also breed in observed during previous studies or during the 2018 surveys completed by Matrix. croplands, orchards, or overgrown fields. Red-headed Melanerpes This species prefers forest communities with an Indicated as potential by the Christmas Bird Count (CBC; Unlikely-The area lacks suitable habitat for this species. Species has not been identified within SC THR Woodpecker erythrocephalus open understory such. National Audubon Society 2017). the study area. Wood Thrush Hylocichla This species prefers mature, unfragmented, Unlikely- The area lacks suitable habitat for this species. Species has not been identified within SC THR Indicated as potential within the Byron Dykes study. mustelina deciduous forests. the study area Herpetofauna (4) Blanding’s Emydoidea THR THR This species prefers shallow water, usually in Species identified by Ontario Reptile and Amphibian Atlas Unlikely - The area lacks the suitable habitat needed for this species. This species has not been Turtle blandingii large wetlands and shallow lakes with lots of (ORAA; Ontario Nature 2015) prior to 1990 observed during previous studies or during the 2018 surveys aquatic plants. Eastern Spiny Apalone END THR This species prefers slow-moving large water Recent records within the study area (Scott Gillingwater Confirmed - Species has been observed basking within the Study area. Softshell spinifera bodies or rivers with soft muddy bottoms and 2017) aquatic vegetation. Nests are located near water on sandy beaches or gravel banks with sun. Eastern Heterodon THR THR This species prefers sandy, well-drained soils to Species identified as potentially occurring by the MNRF. Unlikely - The area lacks the suitable habitat needed for this species. This species has not been Hog-nosed platirhinos burrow and lay eggs. Such as beaches and dry observed during previous studies or during the 2018 surveys Snake forests. Queensnake Regina END THR This species prefers water bodies with clear Species identified as potentially occurring by the MNRF. Unlikely - This species has been considered unlikely to forage or nest within the study area septemvittata water, rocky or gravel bottoms, and an (UTRCA 2017). This species has not been observed during previous studies, or during the 2018 abundance of crayfish. Suitable hibernation sites Matrix studies. include abutments of old bridges and crevices in

Species at Risk Assessment.docx 1 Matrix Solutions Inc.

Common name Scientific Name ESA1 SARA Habitat Requirements1 Year and General Location of Species Record Observations and Likelihood of OccurrenceD withinR Study areaA FT bedrock. Mammals (2) American 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 has not been Badger West London Dykes SLSR (2015a) observed during previous studies or during the 2018 surveys Northern Myotis END END Boreal forests, roost under loose bark and tree This species was identified as potentially occurring within Unlikely - The area lacks the suitable habitat needed for this species. This species has not been Myotis septentrionalis cavities. Hibernate most often in caves or The Byron Dykes study area (UTRCA 2017) observed during previous studies or during the 2018 surveys abandoned mines Fish (3) Black Redhorse Moxostoma THR NAR This species prefers pools and riffle of Species identified within the study area during 2004/2005 Potential - The area contains suitable habitat; however, this species has not been observed duquesnei medium-sized rivers that are usually less than studies (UTRCA 2015b) during previous studies, or during the 2018 Matrix studies. 2 m deep. This species has been observed in moderate to fast currents, with sandy or gravel substrates. Pugnose Opsopoeodus THR SC This species prefers coastal wetlands, and Species was identified downstream of the study area Unlikely - It is possible that this species could migrate upstream from the Kilworth wetlands; Minnow emiliae slow-moving rivers and streams with clear, warm during the 2003 Springbank Dam EA (Acres 2003) however, the study area does not contain suitable habitat for this species to persist. water, little or no current, and abundant vegetation. Silver Shiner Notropis THR SC This species prefers deep riffles or pools of Recent records of this species were documented by Confirmed - This species was captured within the Study area during 2017 and 2018 studies photogenis medium to large rivers with moderate to high Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO; UTRCA 2015) completed by Matrix. gradients. Preferred substrates are variable. Mussels (6) Kidneyshell Ptychobranchus END END This species prefers small to medium sized rivers Identified as potentially occurring within the Byron Dykes Unlikely- The Study area within the Thames River is not considered suitable habitat for this fasciolaris with shallow, clear, swift-moving water with report (UTRCA 2017) species gravel and sand. Rayed Bean Villosa fabalis END END This species prefers small to large streams often One live specimen was observed within the north branch Unlikely - Suitable habitat is not present for this species within the Study area. This species in or near riffle areas, and in the headwaters and of the Thames River. In 1997/1998 a total of 41 relic shells was not observed by Matrix staff during 2017 and 2018. smaller tributaries of river systems. Four were observed throughout the Thames River (Cudmore et potential host species for the larvae include al. 2004) Mottled Sculpin (Cottus bairdii), Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieu), Greenside Darter (Etheostoma blennioides) and Rainbow Darter (Etheostoma caeruleum). Hickorynut Obovaria olivaria END END This species prefers rivers with clay, sand, or A relic shell was observed in 2003 within the south branch Unlikely - Populations of this species are said to have been lost from the Thames River (MNRF gravel substrates with moderately fast moving of the Thames River (Cudmore et al 2004). 2018). This species was not observed by Matrix staff during 2017 and 2018. water. This species may use may include the Greenside darter and the Eastern sand darter (Ammocrypta pellucida). Round Pigtoe Pleurobema END END This species is found in rivers of various sizes Live specimens were observed in 2004 within the south Potential - Suitable habitat and host species are present within the study area. The DFO SAR sintoxia with deep water and sandy, rocky, or mud branch of the Thames River. Relic shells were observed mapping has indicated the study area as critical habitat for this species if suitable habitat is bottoms. Host species for larvae include Bluegill within the main branch of the Thames River in 1995 present. This species was not observed by Matrix staff during 2017 and 2018. (Lepomis macrochirus), Spotfin shiner (Cyprinella (Cudmore et al 2004). spiloptera), Bluntnose minnow (Pimephales notatus), and Northern redbelly dace (Chrosomus eos). Salamander Simpsonaias END END This species prefers water bodies with soft A relic shell was observed within the study area during a Unlikely - The Study area does not contain mudpuppy habitat and therefore would not be Mussel ambigua bottoms and swift currents. The larvae are 1998 study (Cudmore et al 2004). likely to host salamander Mussels. This species was not observed by Matrix staff during 2017 parasitic and use the Mudpuppy (Necturus and 2018.

Species at Risk Assessment.docx 2 Matrix Solutions Inc.

Common name Scientific Name ESA1 SARA Habitat Requirements1 Year and General Location of Species Record Observations and Likelihood of OccurrenceDRAFT within Study area maculosus) as a host. Wavy-rayed Lampsilis fasciola THR SC This species prefers riffle areas of clear, small- to Live specimens have recently been observed within the Potential- Suitable habitat and host species are present within the Study area. This species Lampmussel medium-sized streams and rivers of various sizes north and south branch of the Thames River, as well as the was not observed by Matrix staff during 2017 and 2018. with gravel and sand stabilized with cobble and main branch near Cavendish Park (NRSI 2013). boulders. Larvae hosts for this species include: Smallmouth Bass and Largemouth Bass Notes: 1 Government of Ontario. 2008.

Species at Risk Assessment.docx 3 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.

Gillingwater, S. 2017. Confidential report issued to Matrix Solutions Inc.

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

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry 2018. Round Hickorynut. Last updated June 28, 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 Hydro Lands. Project No. 1399. Prepared for The City of London. August 28, 2013.

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

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

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA). 2017. “Thames South Branch Dykes: Subject Land Status Report.” Draft report. London, Ontario. April 21, 2016. Updated January 30, 2017.

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 Report. London, Ontario. January 2015.