Appendix G: Environmental Impact Study Report

Transcription

1 Appendix G: Environmental Impact Study Report London Bus Rapid Transit Transit Project Assessment Process Environmental Project Report DRAFT P R E PA R E D BY

2 Dufferin Avenue P.O. Box 5035 London, Ontario N6A 4L9 Attention: Ms. Jennie Ramsay, Project Director, Rapid Transit Dear Ms. Ramsay: Subject: London RT Project Environmental Impact Study City of London, Middlesex County Canada Inc. has prepared a draft Environmental Impact Study for the construction of the preferred routes for the City of London Rapid Transit (RT) Project. This document is a component of the Environmental Project Report (EPR) in support of the Transit Project Assessment Process, specifically addressing the Natural Environment. This report and associated work program is based on the EIS Issues Summary Checklist report, which was developed with the City of London Technical Review Team during an EIS Scoping meeting on April 10, The technical review team was comprised of members of the City of London staff, with invitations to the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, and the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee (EEPAC). A draft copy of the report was presented to EEPAC on February 15, 2018 for their review and comment. Comments from EEPAC were received on April 5, As the comments have only recently been received, this version of the EIS is still considered to be a draft. is reviewing the comments and recommendations made by EEPAC and anticipates that a final version of the EIS report will be available in June Yours truly, Erin Fitzpatrick, M.Sc. Ecologist, Environment EAF/nah Encl. ref.: H:\Proj\MARKHAM\14\ \220 - Natural - GTA Environment\Wp\EAF-L EIS status update.docx Unit Don Hillock Drive Aurora, ON, Canada L4G 0G9 T: F: wsp.com Canada Inc.

3 LONDON RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY DRAFT

4 LONDON RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY DRAFT PROJECT NO.: DATE: FEBRUARY 2018 UNIT DON HILLOCK DRIVE AURORA, ON, CANADA L4G 0G9 T: F: COM

5 April 10, Dufferin Avenue P.O. Box 5035 London, Ontario N6A 4L9 Attention: Ms. Jennie Ramsay, P.Eng., Project Director, Rapid Transit Dear Ms. Ramsay: Subject: London RT Project - Environmental Impact Study City of London, Middlesexx County We are pleased to provide you with an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) of specific activities associated with the construction of the preferred routes for the City of London Rapid Transit (RT) Project. The intent of this report is to identify potentiall impacts, mitigation and compensation for areas where the infrastructure goes beyond the existing road allowance and into a Natural Heritagee Feature as identified on Map 5 of the London Plan or as identified through this process. This report builds upon the Subject Lands Study Report (SLSR) finalized in February 2017, which summarized available dataa for the Study Area from past studies and current field investigations to help understand the existing conditions of the natural features and identify potential constraints along the RT preferred routes. This report and associated work program is based on the EIS Issues Summary Checklist report, which was developed with the City of London Technical Review Team during an EIS Scoping meeting on April 10, Due to the need to address gaps in the existing conditions through additional field study, this report includess updated text from the SLSR, in addition to the impact assessment, mitigation and compensationn components required as part of the EIS. Thank you for the opportunity to complete this assignment. Please contact the undersigned with any questions or comments. Yours truly, Erin Fitzpatrick, M.Sc. Ecologist Kim LeBrun Senior Ecologist - Fisheries EAF/nah ref.: H:\Proj\MARKHAM\14\ \220 - Natural - GTA Environment\Wp\EAF - London_RT_EIS Report_DRAFT_14Feb2018_April.docx UNIT DON HILLOCK DRIVE AURORA, ON, CANADA L4G 0G9 T: F: wsp.com

6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of London Ontario has identified the need for a way to solve a number of growth-related challenges it is currently facing, including management of traffic congestion and travel times, as well as intensification of growth in its urban centre. The City is of the opinion that a more compact pattern of growth will help to curb urban sprawl, thereby preserving rural, agricultural, and natural areas surrounding the City. To address these issues, the City has decided that the development of a Bus Rapid Transit network corridor will address these concerns, as well as provide incentive to get people out of their cars and into different modes of transportation. The City of London, Ontario has retained the IBI Group (IBI) in collaboration with Canada Inc. () to provide engineering consulting and environmental assessment services for the development of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system for London. The BRT system is comprised of four segments, combined into two operational routes: the north and east corridor, and the south and west corridor. The BRT network was approved by City of London Council with the Rapid Transit Master Plan in July 2017, and is comprised of dedicated lanes on existing streets. As a part of the design process and development of the Rapid Transit Master Plan (RTMP), a preliminary evaluation was conducted of the Natural Heritage Features and constraints to help determine the preferred rapid transit routes. Potential impacts to Natural Heritage Features within 300 m were considered when evaluating preferred routing options in order to minimize potential environmental impacts. These Natural Heritage Features have been considered in the development of the project and those features which could be avoided by routing alternatives have been incorporated into the development of the Preferred Routes. However, it is noted, that infrastructure policies of The London Plan specify that the Municipal Council prefer that infrastructure not be located within the Natural Heritage System, and new or expanded infrastructure shall only be permitted within the Natural Heritage System where it has been clearly demonstrated that it is the preferred alternative. The City of London has indicated that in general, should a preferred infrastructure routing option go beyond the existing road allowance into a Natural Heritage Feature as identified on Map 5 of the London Plan or identified through this process, then an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) would be required. As part of the Environmental Assessment (EA) process and to facilitate approvals upon final design, a Subject Lands Status Report (SLSR) was prepared and finalized in February An EIS scoping meeting was then held on April 10, 2017 with the Technical Review Team, comprised of members of the City of London staff, with invitations to other relevant stake holders (conservation authority, ministry groups and the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee (EEPAC)). The review and comments provided by the Technical Review Team were used to identify areas where additional field work was required to address gaps in existing conditions data before the impact assessment phase of the EIS could be completed. Based on the work to date, there are seven locations along the network corridor where the preferred route intersects or abuts a Natural Heritage Feature or Area. This report assesses preferred design concepts for these seven locations in more detail and includes recognition of the potential impacts as they relate to the natural features, mitigation measures designed to minimize/eliminate these impacts, net residual effects of the anticipated works on the natural heritage features, and next steps to be considered during the detailed design phase of the project. IBI and have been working directly with the City and stakeholder groups throughout the assessment process to ensure that environmental concerns are addressed and needs met. This consultation process is expected to continue through the detailed design of the BRT system. Page ii

7 QUALITY MANAGEMENT ISSUE/REVISION FIRST ISSUE REVISION 1 REVISION 2 REVISION 3 Remarks Draft to the City of London for comment Draft to EEPAC for review and comment Draft updated for Draft EPR Date January 26, 2018 February 12, 2017 April 9, 2018 Prepared by Erin Fitzpatrick and Kim LeBrun Erin Fitzpatrick Erin Fitzpatrick Checked by Dan Reeves Dan Reeves Dan Reeves Date January 15, 2018 February 14, 2017 April 10, 2018 Page i

8 SIGNATURES PREPARED BY Erin Fitzpatrick, M.Sc. Ecologist Kim LeBrun Senior Ecologist - Fisheries REVIEWED BY Dan Reeves, M.Sc. Project Ecologist This report was prepared by Canada Inc. for the account of, in accordance with the professional services agreement. The disclosure of any information contained in this report is the sole responsibility of the intended recipient. The material in it reflects Canada Inc. s best judgement in light of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. Canada Inc. accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report. This limitations statement is considered part of this report. The original of the technology-based document sent herewith has been authenticated and will be retained by for a minimum of ten years. Since the file transmitted is now out of s control and its integrity can no longer be ensured, no guarantee may be given with regards to any modifications made to this document. Page ii

9 PRODUCTION TEAM Dan Reeves Erin Fitzpatrick Kim LeBrun Sophie Gibbs Leanne Wallis Joshua Vandermeulen Steven Leslie Teresa Piraino Eric Peissel Senior Biologist and Project Advisor Project Manager and Lead Biologist Senior Ecologist - Fisheries Terrestrial Ecologist Terrestrial Ecologist Wildlife Ecologist Ecologist Wildlife Ecologist Project Director Page iii

10 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY CONTEXT Provincial Policy Statement The London Plan Upper Thames Conservation Authority Regulation 157/ Endangered Species Act Species at Risk Act Fisheries Act Navigation Protection Act Public Lands Act Thames Valley Corridor Plan STUDY APPROACH Background Review Agency Consultation METHODS Field Program Vegetation Surveys Wildlife Surveys Bird Surveys Herptofauna Surveys General Wildlife Surveys Aquatic Habitat Assessment Habitat Characterization Passive Mussel Searches Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Page iv

11 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS Vegetation Ecological Land Classification Species at Risk Tree Screening Flora Assessment Wildlife Birds Site 1: Oxford Street West at Mud Creek Site 2: North Thames Crossings on Queens Avenue and Riverside Drive Site 3: Medway Creek Crossing on Western Road Site 4: North Thames Crossing on University Drive Site 5: Thames Crossing on Wellington Road Site 6: Westminster Ponds East of Wellington Road Site 7: Exeter Road Park N Ride Herptofauna Site 1: Oxford Street West at Mud Creek Site 2: North Thames Crossings on Queens Avenue and Riverside Drive Site 3: Medway Creek Crossing on Western Road Site 4: North Thames Crossing on University Drive Site 5: Thames Crossing on Wellington Road Site 6: Westminster Ponds East of Wellington Road Site 7: Exeter Road Park N Ride Mammals and General Wildlife Site 1: Oxford Street West at Mud Creek Site 2: North Thames Crossings on Queens Avenue and Riverside Drive Site 3: Medway Creek Crossing on Western Road Site 4: North Thames Crossing on University Drive Site 5: Thames Crossing on Wellington Road Site 6: Westminster Ponds East of Wellington Road Site 7: Exeter Road Park N Ride Aquatic Habitat Site 1: Oxford Street West at Mud Creek Site 2: North Thames Crossings at Queens Avenue and Riverside Drive Site 3: Medway Creek Crossing on Western Road Site 4: North Thames River at University Drive Site 5: Thames River at Wellington Road Site 7: Exeter Road Park and Ride Page v

12 6 SIGNIFICANCE AND SENSITIVITY Environmentally Significant Areas Significant Wetlands, Wetlands and Unevaluated Wetlands Significant Valleylands and Valleylands Significant Woodlands and Woodlands Habitat for Endangered or Threatened Species Terrestrial Species at Risk Aquatic Species at Risk Significant Wildlife Habitat PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE Site 1: Oxford Street West Crossing of Mud Creek Site 2: North thames Crossings at Queens Avenue and Riverside Drive Site 3: Medway Creek Crossing at Western Road Site 4: North Thames Crossing at University Drive Site 5: Thames River at Wellington Road Site 6: Westminster Ponds East of Wellington Road Site 7: Exeter Road Park and Ride IMPACT ASSESSMENT, MITIGATION AND NET EFFECTS Existing Impacts Potential Impacts Site 1: Oxford Street West at Mud Creek Site 2: North thames Crossings at Queens Avenue and Riverside Drive Site 3: Medway Creek at Western Road Site 4: North Thames River at University Drive Site 5: Thames River at Wellington Road Page vi

13 8.2.6 Site 6: Westminster Ponds East of Wellington Road Site 7: Exeter Road Park and Ride RT Route General Mitigation Measures Fish and Fish Habitat Contractor Awareness Invasive Species Management Strategy ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING PLAN NEXT STEPS Permits and Approvals Commitments to Future Work CLOSURE REFERENCES Page vii

14 TABLES TABLE 1 FIELD SURVEY SUMMARY TABLE 2 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES IN THE STUDY AREA TABLE 3 SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT WITHIN THE STUDY AREA FIGURES FIGURE 1 MAP INDEX FIGURE 2 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES WEST AREA FIGURE 3 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES EAST AREA FIGURE 4 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES NORTH AREA FIGURE 5 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES SOUTH CENTRE FIGURE 6 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES SOUTH ARE FIGURE 7 EXISTING CONDITIONS: SITE 1 OXFORD STREET WEST CROSSING AT MUD CREEK FIGURE 8 EXISTING CONDITIONS: SITE 2 NORTH THAMES CROSSINGS ON QUEENS AVENUE AND RIVERSIDE DRIVE FIGURE 9 EXISTING CONDITIONS: SITE 3 MEDWAY CREEK CROSSING ON WESTERN ROAD FIGURE 10 EXISTING CONDITIONS: SITE 4 NORTH THAMES CROSSING ON UNIVERSITY DRIVE FIGURE 11 EXISTING CONDITIONS: SITE 5 THAMES CROSSING ON WELLINGTON ROAD FIGURE 12 EXISTING CONDITIONS: SITE 6 WESTMINSTER PONDS EAST OF WELLINGTON ROAD FIGURE 13 EXISTING CONDITIONS: SITE 7 EXETER ROAD PARK AND RIDE FIGURES ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION Page viii

15 FIGURE 27 FIGURE 28 FIGURE 29 FIGURE 30 FIGURE 31 FIGURE 32 FIGURE 33 FIGURE 34 SPECIES AT RISK, SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN AND SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE: SITE 1 OXFORD STREET WEST AT MUD CREEK PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE: SITE 2 NORTH THAMES CROSSINGS ON QUEENS AVENUE AND RIVERSIDE DRIVE PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE: SITE 3 MEDWAY CREEK CROSSING ON WESTERN ROAD PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE: SITE 4 NORTH THAMES CROSSING ON UNIVERSITY DRIVE PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE: SITE 5 THAMES CROSSING ON WELLINGTON ROAD PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE: SITE 6 WESTMINSTER PONDS EAST OF WELLINGTON ROAD PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE: SITE 7 EXETER ROAD PARK AND RIDE APPENDICES A B C D E F G H I EIS ISSUES SUMMARY CHECKLIST REPORT AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE FIELD PROGRAM SPECIES LISTS FIELD NOTES FISH AND MUSSEL CAPTURE RECORDS SAR AND SCC SCREENING TABLE IMPACTS, MITIGATION AND NET EFFECTS CONSTRUCTION-RELATED IMPACTS, MITIGATION AND NET EFFECTS CURRICULUM VITAE Page ix

16 1 INTRODUCTION The City of London, Ontario has retained the IBI Group (IBI) in collaboration with Canada Inc. () to provide engineering consulting and environmental assessment services for the development of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system for London. The BRT system is comprised of four segments, combined into two operational routes: the north and east corridor, and the south and west corridor, as presented in Figure A. The BRT network was approved by City of London Council with the Rapid Transit Master Plan in July 2017, and is comprised of dedicated lanes on existing streets. Figure A Approved BRT Network (July 2017) To move from planning to implementation, the City is following the Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP, Ontario Regulation 231/08). This document is a component of the Environmental Project Report (EPR) in support of the TPAP, specifically addressing the Natural Environment. Potential impacts of the proposed system are examined, and appropriate mitigation measures and monitoring requirements are recommended. This document also considers and expands upon the work completed for the previous phase of the project, found in the following document as part of London s Rapid Transit Initiative Master Plan (RTMP, July 2017): Appendix C: Subject Lands Status Report (, 2017) Page 1

17 As a part of the RT design process and development of the Transit Master Plan (TMP), a preliminary evaluation was conducted of the Natural Heritage Features and constraints to help determine the preferred RT routes. Potential impacts to Natural Heritage Features within 300 m were considered when evaluating preferred routing options in order to minimize potential environmental impacts. The City of London has indicated that in general, should a preferred infrastructure routing option go beyond the existing road allowance and then into a Natural Heritage Feature as identified on Map 5 of the London Plan (LP) or identified through the process, then an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) would be required which identifies potential impacts, mitigation and compensation for those areas beyond the road allowance, consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (OMMAH, 2014), London Plan (2016), and the London Environmental Management Guidelines (London, 2007). It is noted that it is the preference of the Municipal Council that the preferred location of infrastructure not be within the Natural Heritage System (Policy 1395 of The London Plan). An EIS scoping meeting was held on April 10, 2017 with the Technical Review Team, comprised of members of the City of London staff, with invitations to the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA), Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC), and the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee (EEPAC). The review and comments provided by the Technical Review Team were used to identify areas where additional field work was required to address gaps in existing conditions data before the impact assessment phase of the EIS could be completed. A copy of the approved EIS Issues Summary Checklist Report is provided in Appendix A, along with a response to comments issued by EEPAC on the SLSR. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY CONTEXT 2.1 PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) (Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (OMMAH), 2014) is a planning document that provides a framework for, and governs development within the Province of Ontario. In order to preserve various ecological resources deemed significant in the Province, development lands must be assessed for the presence of natural heritage features and sensitive hydrological features prior to construction. Natural heritage features (listed below) are both defined and afforded protections under the PPS. Linkages between natural heritage features, surface water and groundwater features are also recognized and afforded similar protections under the policy. Section of the PPS also requires that the diversity and connectivity of natural heritage features and the long-term ecological function of natural heritage systems be maintained, restored or improved where possible. Natural heritage features identified within the study area as defined by the PPS (OMMAH, 2014) include: Natural Heritage Systems; Fish Habitat; Habitats of Endangered and Threatened Species; Significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI); Significant Wetlands; Significant Wildlife Habitat; and, Significant Woodlands in Ecoregions 6E and 7E (excluding islands in Lake Huron and the St. Mary s River). Natural Heritage Features within the 120 m area of influence (except 50 m for ANSIs) of development lands must be assessed. Planning policies as they relate to surface water features and groundwater features are outlined within Section 2.3 of the PPS (OMMAH, 2014). Specifically, development and site alteration in or near sensitive surface water features and sensitive groundwater features should be restricted to ensure the protection, improvement, and/or restoration of these features and their hydrologic functions, as well as the quality and quantity of water within the watershed and adjacent watersheds. Page 2

18 Although this project is not considered to be development or site alteration, the RT project would include, or be considered, infrastructure in this case. 2.2 THE LONDON PLAN The Environmental Policies outlined in Part 6 of the London Plan (2016) provide for the identification, protection, conservation, enhancement, and management of the City s Natural Heritage System and the long-term protection and conservation of the City s Natural Resources. The components of the City of London Natural Heritage System are identified in Part 6 of the London Plan, and include the following Natural Heritage Features and Areas: Fish Habitat; Habitat of Endangered and Threatened Species; Provincially Significant Wetlands and Wetlands; Significant Woodlands and Woodlands; Significant Valleylands; Significant Wildlife Habitat; Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI); Water Resource Systems; Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs); Upland Corridors; Potential Naturalization Areas; and, Adjacent Lands. These features and other areas are included in the Green Space Place Type depicted on Map 1 (Place Types) and have been identified as areas to be protected. Habitat of Endangered and Threatened Species, Significant Wildlife Habitat, and Fish Habitat, may be included on Map 5 as part of other Natural Heritage Features (e.g., Significant Valleylands); however, they are generally unmapped as they are identified using criteria established by agencies such as the MNRF or the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), and often require specific surveys and evaluation such as that provided through an environmental assessment process, in consultation with the applicable agencies. Other natural heritage features and areas included in the Environmental Review Place Type on Map 1, which may also appear on Map 5, include: Unevaluated Wetlands; Unevaluated Vegetation Patches; Other Vegetation Patches Larger than 0.5 hectares; Valleylands; and, Potential Environmentally Significant Areas. Policy 1309_ of The London Plan (2016) states that The Natural Heritage policies are intended to protect the natural heritage features and areas over the long term by establishing requirements for the identification and protection of the Natural Heritage System through public ownership and acquisition, stewardship, management and rehabilitation, ecological buffers, and environmental studies including but not limited to conservation master plans, secondary plans, environmental impact studies, hydrogeological studies, environmental assessments, and subject land status reports. The City of London has prepared Environmental Management Guidelines (2007) setting out in more detail the requirements of environmental studies for Environmental Impact Studies and/or Subject Lands Status Reports. These guidelines provided the basis for the preparation of the SLSR and EIS. Page 3

19 This report includes a description of the Natural Heritage Features and Areas within the Study Area based on the information contained in secondary sources, existing reports, and field surveys completed by in 2015, 2016 and It includes refinements to the descriptions provided in the 2017 SLSR, including changes to the proposed corridors, an assessment of potential impacts based on conceptual designs, identification of mitigation measures, and appropriate compensatory mitigation, as required. As this Project will enhance the infrastructure of the City of London, the Infrastructure policies (1395_ to 1402_) must be satisfied, which include: 1395_ It is the preference of the Municipal Council that the preferred location of infrastructure not be within the Natural Heritage System. 1396_ New or expanded infrastructure shall only be permitted within the Natural Heritage System where it is clearly demonstrated through an environmental assessment process under the Environmental Assessment Act, including an environmental impact study, that it is the preferred alternative for the location of the infrastructure. 1397_ The environmental impact study undertaken as part of the Environmental Assessment shall be completed to further assess potential impacts, identify mitigation measures, and determine appropriate compensatory mitigation, if required. Any alternative where the impacts of the proposed works as identified in the environmental impact study would result in the loss of the ecological features or functions of the component of the Natural Heritage System affected by the proposed works, such that the natural heritage feature would no longer be determined to be significant, shall not be permitted. 1398_ The City and other relevant public authorities shall include methods for minimizing impacts when reviewing proposals to construct mobility, communication, sewerage or other infrastructure in the Natural Heritage System. 1399_ Where there is more than one type of infrastructure, the rights-of-way shall be combined, wherever feasible, to reduce the extent of the intrusion into the area. 1400_ For infrastructure projects within the Natural Heritage System, the City shall require specific mitigation and compensatory mitigation measures that are identified in the accepted environmental impact study to address impacts to natural features and functions caused by the construction or maintenance of the infrastructure. 1401_ For the purposes of this Plan, mitigation shall mean the replacement of the natural heritage feature removed or disturbed on a one-for-one land area basis. Compensatory mitigation shall mean additional measures required to address impacts on the functions of the natural heritage system affected by the proposed works. The extent of the compensation required shall be identified in the environmental impact study, and shall be relative to both the degree of the proposed disturbance, and the component(s) of the natural heritage system removed and/or disturbed. 1402_ Compensatory mitigation may be provided in forms such as, but not limited to: 1. additional rehabilitation and/or remediation beyond the area directly affected by the proposed works; 2. off-site works to restore, replace or enhance the ecological functions affected by the proposed works; and, 3. replacement ratios greater than the one-for-one land area required to mitigate the impacts of the proposed works. Page 4

20 2.3 UPPER THAMES CONSERVATION AUTHORITY REGULATION 157/06 The Conservation Authorities Act (CAA) (1990) gives individual conservation authorities the power to regulate development and activities in or adjacent to river or stream valleys, Great Lakes and large inland lakes and shorelines, watercourses, hazardous lands and wetlands. Regulations made under the CAA specify the Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulations managed by individual Conservation Authorities. These regulations apply to lands within river or stream valleys, flood plains, wetlands, watercourses, lakes, hazardous lands or lands within 120 m of a Provincially Significant Wetland or wetlands greater than two hectares (ha), or lands within 30 m of non-provincially significant wetlands. Development or site alteration within these regulated areas may be permitted provided development is conducted in accordance with existing policies. The RT Route is located within the UTRCA s jurisdiction, and crossings of the Thames River, North Thames River, Medway Creek, and Mud Creek are all within the UTRCA s Regulated Area. Regulated areas associated with wetlands within the Westminster Ponds / Pond Mills Environmentally Significant Area, and the floodplain of the Murray Drain, a tributary of Dingman Creek are also included within the Regulated Area. Work must be conducted in accordance with Ontario Regulation 157/06 (Government of Ontario, 2006) made under the CAA and must meet the requirements of the UTRCA. 2.4 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT The Endangered Species Act (ESA), 2007 (Government of Ontario) outlines the methods for the classification of Species at Risk in Ontario, and provides for their protection and recovery. Species at Risk in Ontario are listed under Regulation 230/08. The MNRF is mandated to ensure accurate database information for the identification, listing and conduct of ongoing assessments for significant endangered species and their related habitats. The ESA defines the significant habitat of Endangered or Threatened species as the habitat, as approved by the MNRF, that is necessary for the maintenance, survival and/or the recovery of a naturally occurring or reintroduced population of Endangered or Threatened species, and where those areas of occurrences are occupied or habitually occupied by the species during all or any part(s) of their life cycle. Ontario Regulation 242/08 of the ESA outlines the limitations and requirements regarding impacts to Species at Risk and their habitats. 2.5 SPECIES AT RISK ACT The Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA; Government of Canada, 2002) affords legal protection to flora and fauna Species at Risk listed on Schedule 1 of the Act on Federal lands, listed aquatic species, and migratory bird species protected by the Migratory Birds Convention Act (Government of Canada, 1994). Mandatory recovery planning is required for species listed on Schedule 1. Species on Schedules 2 and 3 of the Act are species designated as at risk by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) prior to October 1999 and needed to be reassessed using revised criteria before they could be considered for addition to Schedule 1. Schedule 2 includes species that are listed as Endangered or Threatened, and Schedule 3 lists Special Concern species; however, neither Schedule 2 nor 3 species are protected by the Act. Page 5

21 2.6 FISHERIES ACT The Fisheries Act, c. F-14 (Government of Canada, 1985a) provides for the management and protection of fish and fish habitat essential to sustaining freshwater and marine fish species. There are two main provisions outlined by the Act. The first provision directs the management of threats to fish and fish habitat that are part of or support commercial, recreational or Aboriginal (CRA) fisheries with the goal of ensuring their productivity and ongoing sustainability. The second provision relates to pollution prevention, by prohibiting the deposit of deleterious substances into waters frequented by fish, unless authorized by regulations under the Fisheries Act or other federal legislation. DFO defines Fish as individuals or parts of individuals including eggs, sperm, spawn, larvae, spat and juvenile stages of fish, shellfish, crustaceans and marine mammals. Fish habitat, as defined by the Fisheries Act, c. F-14 includes spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes. The Fisheries Act requires that projects in or near waterbodies supporting a CRA fishery avoid causing serious harm to fish and fish habitat unless authorized by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Serious Harm is defined as the death of fish, permanent alteration of fish habitat, or the destruction of fish habitat that limits the fish s ability to carry out one or more of their life processes (i.e., spawning, nursery, rearing, migrations, foraging etc.). Currently DFO is using a Self-Assessment approach to determine whether DFO needs to review a project for the potential creation of serious harm under the fisheries act. If project impacts cannot be properly mitigated to avoid potentially causing serious harm to fish and fish habitat, then a review of the project by DFO via a Request for Review standardized document will need to be submitted in order to determine whether an authorization under the act will be required for the proposed works. 2.7 NAVIGATION PROTECTION ACT Transport Canada administers the Navigation Protection Act N-22 (Government of Canada, 1985b), formerly known as the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which regulates work over, under or in a navigable waterway. The act also provides a list of Scheduled Waters (i.e., lakes, rivers and streams) that require regulatory approval for works that risk a substantial interference with navigation. The Thames River and its tributaries are not listed under the Scheduled Waters section of the act. Whether a specific waterway is listed on the schedule or not affects the obligations and options available to the owners of proposed works, and how submissions of the Navigation Protection Act are managed. Again, a self-assessment process is used to determine whether the owner needs to apply for a permit under the Navigation Protection Act for the proposed works. If it is determined that a permit may be required under the act, then the owner will be required to submit a Notice to the Minister for the works. 2.8 PUBLIC LANDS ACT The MNRF administers the Public Lands Act (Government of Ontario, 1990). A Licence of Occupation is required when a building, structure or thing is to occupy public lands. Bridges in the Study Area should have existing authorizations / Licences of Occupation, which are held by the City. It will be necessary for the client to confirm that proposed modifications to bridges as part of the RT works are acceptable, based on the terms and conditions of the existing authorization. If the proposed works are not acceptable, a new or modified Licence of Occupation may be required. Page 6

22 2.9 THAMES VALLEY CORRIDOR PLAN The Thames Valley Corridor Plan (TVCP; City of London, 2011) supports the City of London Official Plan (2006) by recommending measures to protect and enhance the natural features within the Thames River Valley, and represents the combined result of how the protection and enhancements of the valley corridor can be realized through various sources such as natural heritage protection, improved trails systems connecting feature sand closing in gaps, focussed recreational activity areas and park enhancements. Section 3.3 of the Thames Valley Corridor Plan describes various strategies for land use management and planning, and provides some Areas of Special Interest where enhancement measures can be incorporated to improve on the natural heritage system generally. 3 STUDY APPROACH IBI in collaboration with was retained to complete an EIS for the design of the London RT Route (Figures 1 to 6). An SLSR was prepared by as an initial step toward the EIS, and was used to inform the selection of the preferred RT corridors. The SLSR incorporated natural heritage information from a variety of sources including a background/secondary source data evaluation, a summation of previously conducted studies in the Study Area, and the results of the supplemental field surveys completed by. The approved Rapid Transit Network is comprised of a North, South, East and West corridor (Figures 1 to 6). These corridors were selected based on a corridor level screening and detailed corridor assessment completed as part of the Rapid Transit Master Plan. An EIS scoping meeting was held on April 10, 2017 with the Technical Review Team, comprised of members of the City of London staff, with invitations to the UTRCA, MNRF, MOECC, and EEPAC. Representatives from EEPAC were unable to attend the scoping meeting, but provided a set of comments for consideration. During the scoping meeting, areas where additional field work was required to address gaps in existing conditions data were identified, and needed to be completed during 2017 before the impact assessment phase of the EIS could be completed. A copy of the approved EIS Issues Summary Checklist Report is provided in Appendix A, along with a response to comments issued by EEPAC on the SLSR. A Study Area including the preferred routes and lands within 300 m was considered during the SLSR to capture identified Natural Heritage Features with the potential for impact (Figures 1 to 6). The corridors fall within developed urban areas, and the potential interactions with Natural Heritage Features is limited. However, seven locations along the preferred routes were identified that overlap with the City s Natural Heritage System in the London Plan (2016). Site 3 was split into 3A: Crossing of Medway Creek at Western Road and 3B: Woodlands along Western Road for the SLSR, but has been recombined for this report. These sites are the primary focus of the EIS, and include: Site 1: Oxford Street West at Mud Creek; Site 2: North Thames Crossings on Queens Avenue and Riverside Drive; Site 3: Medway Creek Crossing on Western Road (including adjacent woodlands); Site 4: North Thames Crossing on University Drive; Site 5: Thames Crossing on Wellington Road; Site 6: Westminster Ponds East of Wellington Road; and, Site 7: Exeter Road Park and Ride. These sites and features were identified based on recommended distances for defining adjacent lands, as outlined in The London Plan (2016) and PPS (2014). The existing conditions of Natural Features and Areas along the approved London RT network are described in Section 5 of this report and are shown on Figures 1 to 13. The EIS assesses the potential for impacts to Natural Heritage Features and Areas at Sites 1 to 7, based on preferred design concepts, and identifies appropriate mitigation and compensatory mitigation to the extent feasible, given the early stage of the design process. Additional assessment will be required at the detailed design phase to develop a comprehensive Page 7

23 Environmental Management Plan that outlines requirements for restoration, mitigation and/or compensation, and a monitoring plan. 3.1 BACKGROUND REVIEW Relevant information resources were consulted prior to designing the field program, and over the course of the report preparation, as documented below. The City of London was consulted to provide or identify past studies within or near the Study Area that would have applicability to the Project. The field program conducted over 2015, 2016, and 2017, was designed to supplement and complete this secondary source information, providing a full data set for the Study Area. Full references are provided in the References section of this report. A Guide to Road Ecology in Ontario (Ontario Road Ecology Group, Toronto Zoo, 2010.); Aerial Photographs and Satellite Images; Aquatic Species at Risk Maps (20 and 21) for the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (DFO, 2017); Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario internet site (Bird Studies Canada, 2006); Conservation Authorities Act, Ontario Regulation 157/06 Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (Government of Ontario, 2006); City of London Environmental Impact Studies (EIS) Guidelines and Checklist (2015); DFO Projects near Water Website (accessed November 2017); Dingman Creek Subwatershed Study Update. Volume 1: Main Report (Delcan, 2005); Endangered Species Act, 2007 (Government of Ontario, 2007); Environmental Guide for Wildlife Mitigation (Ontario Ministry of Transportation, 2015); Environmental Management Guidelines (City of London, 2007); Existing Ecological Conditions Report Mud Creek Subwatershed (Delcan, 2013); Master Plan Update 2005 Westminster Ponds / Pond Mills Environmentally Significant Area (UTRCA, 2005); Middlesex Natural Heritage Study (UTRCA, 2003); Middlesex Natural Heritage Systems Study: A study to identify the natural heritage systems in Middlesex County (Middlesex County, 2014); Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) Natural Heritage Areas Mapping, including Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) Make-a-Map Online Tool and Species List data (MNRF, 2017a); MNRF NHIC Species Lists (2015a); Mud Creek Subwatershed Class Environmental Assessment (CH2M Hill Canada Ltd., 2017); Natural Heritage Evaluation and Inventory, Medway Valley Heritage Forest ESA (Dillon, 2015); Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (OMNR, 2010); One River Master Plan Environmental Assessment: Environmental Data Report (Draft) (Matrix Solutions Inc., 2017a); One River Master Plan Environmental Assessment: Fisheries Survey Summary, Thames River (Draft) (Matrix Solutions Inc., 2017b); Provincial Policy Statement (OMMAH, 2014); Regionally Rare Plants of Middlesex County (UTRCA, 2002); Reptile and Amphibian Exclusion Fencing, Best Practices (OMNR, 2013); Significant Wildlife Habitat: Technical Guide (OMNR, 2000); Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List (Government of Ontario (Ontario), 2017b); Species at Risk Public Registry (Government of Canada, 2016); Page 8

24 Subject Lands Status Report Harris Park (NRSI, 2013a); SoHo Redevelopment Environmental Impact Study (NRSI, 2013b); Thames Valley Corridor Plan (City of London, 2011); The London Plan (City of London, 2016); UTRCA 2012 London Watershed Report Cards (UTRCA, 2012); and, Westminster Ponds/Pond Mills ESA: Ecological Inventory and Management Zone Report Volume 1 (North- South Environmental Inc., 2015). 3.2 AGENCY CONSULTATION The MNRF was contacted to obtain information pertaining to Natural Heritage Features, Species at Risk (SAR), Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) and other environmental constraints along the RT route to ensure that available information was reviewed prior to initiating the field program. A copy of correspondence from Aylmer District MNRF staff outlining potential concerns in the vicinity of the RT route is provided in Appendix B. The MNRF administers the Endangered Species Act and Public Lands Act (Government of Ontario, 1990). Where the alignment has potential to affect a provincially listed Species at Risk, or their habitat, approval may be required under the ESA. Where the bed of a watercourse is disturbed or altered, authorization under the Public Lands Act may be necessary. A meeting was held on November 21, 2017 with MNRF staff to discuss ESA implications for the project, as well as requirements under the Public Lands Act. The information exchanged during this meeting was considered during the impact assessment, and formed the basis of recommendations for mitigation at sites where impacts to SAR have the potential to occur. The UTRCA was also contacted throughout the course of this study to obtain information pertaining to Natural Heritage Features, SAR, SCC, and other environmental constraints along the RT route to ensure that available information was considered during the impact assessment. The UTRCA provided fish, mussel, and benthic invertebrate study records for locations near each of the crossings in the Study Area, and occurrence data pertaining to Species at Risk reptiles within the Study Area. The fish records provided by the UTRCA were from DFO sampling runs. A copy of correspondence from UTRCA staff outlining potential concerns in the vicinity of the RT route is provided in Appendix B. Critical habitat details and other sensitive information pertaining to SAR have been intentionally omitted to protect the species, but are held on file at the office. A meeting was held with the RT project team and the UTRCA on November 15, 2017 to discuss the proposed works at each site, with a focus on potential hydraulic concerns at each site. The DFO was contacted to confirm the list of species that should be considered at Sites 2, 3, 4 and 5, potential critical habitat, and Species at Risk Act permitting requirements, if any. A record of correspondence is provided in Appendix B. 4 METHODS 4.1 FIELD PROGRAM Field visits by staff were conducted on 23 occasions between August 2015 and October Details of specific works completed during each site visit are provided in Table 1. Field surveys were conducted as per the City of London Environmental Management Guidelines (2007) to assess terrestrial, aquatic, wetland and wildlife resources within the Study Area and to confirm the presence of Natural Heritage Features and general site characteristics. Focus was given to rounding out information on portions of the Study Area or potential taxa where data was considered deficient. While each field survey had a primary purpose, incidental wildlife observations were collected during all surveys. Lists of vegetation, birds, amphibians, aquatic and incidental Page 9

25 wildlife species observed by during the field surveys are provided in Appendix C. Copies of field notes from the 2017 field program are provided in Appendix D. Prior to the field program, satellite images of the property, land use and topographical maps were reviewed to identify the presence of Natural Heritage Features, available habitat and the potential for SAR and SCC on the RT Routes. Background/secondary sources, including the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) and Land Information Ontario (LIO) data (MNRF, 2017a), were reviewed for aquatic collection records, Species at Risk, Significant Plant Communities, Wildlife Concentration Areas and Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) on or near the Study Area. The Study Area (Figures 1 to 6) covered in the background review included the Rights of Way (ROW) for the planned routes plus 300 m on either side; whereas, the boundaries of the seven sites were largely determined by the extent of existing Natural Heritage Features. Field surveys considered the adjacent lands, but focused on immediate impact areas as roadway expansion is likely to have the greatest potential for impact directly within the infrastructure footprint. Table 1 Field Survey Summary SURVEY METHODS SURVEY DATES STAFF Vegetation Vegetation surveys of Sites 1 to 6 were completed on at least two dates (once in spring and once in summer/fall). Focus was placed on rare species and SAR identified in the background review. Vegetation communities and land uses within 50 m of the RT Route was classified using the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) for Southern Ontario (Lee, 2008). Spring flora surveys were conducted at Sites 1 to 6 on May 26, 2016 with emphasis on spring ephemeral species. Surveys of documented SAR tree occurrences within the ROW were completed to verify species identifications (August 26, and October 17, 2016). Screening for SAR trees along route extensions and new alignments was completed on August 4 and October 13, Vegetation surveys were completed at Site 7, with visits in spring, summer and fall. Aug 28, 2015 Sophie Gibbs, Torrie Aug 31, 2015 Pyett, Josh Sept 3, 2015 Vandermeulen, Leanne Sept 17, 2015 Wallis, Erin Fitzpatrick Sept 29, 2015 May 26, 2016 Aug 26, 2016 Oct 17, 2016 June 22, 2017 August 4, 2017 August 14, 2017 September 20, 2017 October 13, 2017 Page 10

26 SURVEY METHODS SURVEY DATES STAFF Birds Two surveys were completed at each Site between May 24 and July 10, the official survey window. An active survey was conducted at Sites 1 through 7 along the RT Route to cover the range of habitats available on the Sites Screening for Barn Swallows was completed at Sites 2, 3, 4 and 5 on June 22, 2017 and August 4, Screening for suitable chimneys for Chimney Swift was completed June 22, 2017 and August 4, 2017 along the corridor where impacts to existing structures may occur. Amphibians Three evening field surveys for breeding amphibians were conducted at each of the 7 sites Surveys were 3 minutes in duration, and began at least a half hour after sunset on evenings with suitable weather conditions. June 3, 2016 June 13, 2016 June 22, 2017 July 6, 2017 August 4, 2017 April 11, 2016 May 11, 2016 June 1, 2016 Joshua Vandermeulen, Sophie Gibbs, Teresa Piraino Joshua Vandermeulen General Wildlife Supplemental observations of mammals, birds, insects, amphibians, and reptiles observed by staff were recorded during each field visit. Evidence of use (e.g. browse, tracks / trails, scat, burrows, and vocalizations) was also noted. Aug 19, 2015 Aug 28, 2015 Aug 31, 2015 Sept. 3, 2015 Sept 17, 2015 Sept 29, 2015 April 11, 2016 May 11, 2016 May 26, 2016 June 1, 2016 June 3, 2016 June 13, 2016 June 22, 2017 July 6, 2017 August 4, 2017 August 14, 2017 September 20, 2017 October 13, 2017 Joshua Vandermeulen, Sophie Gibbs, Torrie Pyett, Teresa Piraino, Erin Fitzpatrick, Leanne Wallis Page 11

27 SURVEY METHODS SURVEY DATES STAFF Aquatic Species & Habitat Water quality data (water temperature, ph, conductivity) was collected Description of stream anatomy including physical (pools, riffles runs) and biological (aquatic vegetation) features Community sampling at newly added Site 7 (backpack electrofishing) Passive mussel searches at Sites 3, 5 and 7 Aug 19, 2015 Sophie Gibbs, Torrie Aug 28, 2015 Pyett, Kim LeBrun, September 14, 2017 Steven Leslie 4.2 VEGETATION SURVEYS The scope of vegetation fieldwork and analyses included the following: Vegetation surveys were conducted between August 2015 and October 2016 for Sites 1 to 6, and June 2017 to September 2017 for Site 7 (Table 1), with emphasis on the identification of rare or at-risk vegetation species. Dominant and characteristic vegetation was described, and distinguishing features were noted for individual Sites, as required. The vascular plant species list provided in Appendix C includes results for all surveys completed at each Site ( ). A copy of the field notes for visits completed during 2017 are provided in Appendix D. Field notes for earlier visits are contained in Appendix D of the SLSR (, 2017). Vegetation communities and land uses within 50 m of the RT route have been mapped (Figures 14 26) using the standardized Ecological Land Classification (ELC) for southern Ontario second approximation (Lee, 2008). The second approximation was used given that it provides greater utility when describing built and natural environments. Vegetation communities are described in Section (Table 2). Vegetation community sensitivity and significance was evaluated with guidance from the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR, 2000) and the NHIC Ontario Plant Community (MNRF, 2015a). The potential for rare vegetation communities in the Study Area are summarized in Section 6.6. The RT route was screened for Species at Risk trees. This included verifying existing City of London records of Species at Risk. Results of this screening exercise are provided in Section Plant species status was evaluated using the rankings within the Middlesex Natural Heritage Study (UTRCA, 2003) and the Regionally Rare Plants of Middlesex County Updated 2002 (UTRCA, 2002), for regional significance; the current Species at Risk in Ontario List (MNRF, 2017b) for Ontario Species at Risk; and, the Species at Risk Act (Schedules 1 and 3), for Species at Risk in Canada. Page 12

28 4.3 WILDLIFE SURVEYS BIRD SURVEYS BREEDING BIRD SURVEYS Breeding bird survey protocols were completed based on recommendations given by the Forest Bird Monitoring Protocol (FBMP; Konze and McLaren, 1997) and Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas (OBBA; Bird Studies Canada et al., 2006). The Forest Bird Monitoring Protocol recommends completing standardized point counts to survey an area for breeding birds. However, these point counts are required to be at least 250 m apart and at least 100 m from the edge of a habitat type. Due to the limitations of the point count method for small sites with variable habitat, an active search was determined to be the most accurate, thorough, and efficient way to sample the breeding bird species within the various sites. This involved looking and listening for birds while moving between the different habitats at each Site. Breeding bird surveys were conducted on June 3 and June 13, 2016 for Sites 1 to 6, and on June 22 and July 6, 2017 for Site 7 during the timing window recommended by the OBBA (May 24 and July 10). At least six days separated the two rounds of surveys, and the surveys were completed within five hours of sunrise, in accordance with the protocols. While completing the surveys, breeding evidence was noted for each species. Breeding evidence is divided into four categories: confirmed (CONF), probable (PROB), possible (POSS), and none (NONE). Confirmed breeding evidence includes observations involving young or eggs; observations of adult birds carrying food, nesting material, or a fecal sac; observations of adult birds involved in a distraction display; or observations of adult birds exhibiting physiological evidence of a brood patch. Probable breeding evidence includes observations of a bird occupying territory for at least 7 days, visiting a nest site, or exhibiting territorial behaviour; observations of a pair in appropriate habitat; or observations of a pair copulating. Possible breeding evidence includes observations of a singing male or observations of a bird in suitable breeding habitat. Migrant or vagrant birds are considered to have no breeding evidence. SPECIES AT RISK SURVEYS During the EIS scoping meeting, comments provided by EEPAC were reviewed, including comments provided by Winifred. Wake, Chimney Swift Liaison, Nature London). Observations of Chimney Swifts, Barn Swallows and Cliff Swallows within the RT corridors and wider city, were provided, along with an analysis of the potential for impacts to three species as a result of the RT works. Barn Swallow and Chimney Swift are listed as Threatened at the federal and provincial level; while Cliff Swallows do not have at-risk status, although they are known to be in decline. All three species were noted during the 2015/2016 surveys; however, targeted surveys were not completed. To better understand the potential for impacts to these species, completed additional surveys during June and August 2017 to identify the following: Evidence of nesting by Barn Swallows and Cliff Swallows on the underside of bridges at Sites 2, 3, 4, and 5; and, The presence of suitable uncapped chimneys at properties along the RT corridors which may be impacted if the properties are expropriated and the buildings demolished. Areas surveyed included sections along the west, north, and south corridors where the proposed infrastructure extends beyond the ROW into private lots. Page 13

29 The scope of the surveys was established through consultation with the MNRF. It was determined that due to the potential for changes to habitat use, species listings, associated regulations, and the anticipated timing of the works (two to ten years in the future), quantitative surveys and entry/exit surveys for Barn Swallows and Chimney Swifts would not be necessary at this time. It was recommended that surveys be completed in the season prior to works being commenced to confirm the potential for impacts to these species. Survey protocols should be confirmed with the MNRF, and in the case of Chimney Swift, surveys should be completed for any building (with suitable nesting habitat) which may be demolished as a result of the proposed works HERPTOFAUNA SURVEYS Amphibian surveys were completed for Sites 1 to 6 and methodology was based on the Marsh Monitoring Program Amphibian Survey outlined by Bird Studies Canada (BSC). Surveys were not completed at Site 7 based on consultation with City of London Staff. Amphibian breeding survey methodology was detailed in the SLSR (, 2017). Sites near open water were surveyed for basking turtles during daytime wildlife surveys. General reptile surveys were completed by visual observation during each site visit, and included an assessment of the potential for reptile hibernacula. Field surveys were conducted in forested areas, along the edges of watercourses and underneath the bridges. Debris, logs, and other suitable cover objects were randomly lifted and inspected GENERAL WILDLIFE SURVEYS Visual observations of area wildlife (including mammals, reptiles, amphibians and insects) were recorded during the field surveys. Wildlife observations were based on observations such as incidental contact, scat evidence, and tracks. Incidental wildlife observations for each site are included in Appendix C. 4.4 AQUATIC HABITAT ASSESSMENT Aquatic habitat assessments were completed by in August 2015, and then updated in September 2017 to include the addition of the Site 7 Park and Ride location. Passive searches for mussels occupying habitat within the watercourses at Sites 3 and 5 where in-water works are being considered were completed as part of the 2017 field investigation. Passive searches were also completed at Site 7, because it was a new site, even though in-water works are not proposed. Passive searches were not carried out at Site 4 in 2017 due to high water levels. These detailed field investigations collected information for a number of channel parameters that will complement the fish occurrence records provided by UTRCA and MNRF. The assessments were carried out following industry standards and generally accepted protocols HABITAT CHARACTERIZATION Various characteristics, including stream morphology and riparian features, contribute to the health and stability of the watercourse and the habitat it provides for the aquatic community. The details regarding each of the habitat characteristics originally investigated by (i.e., classifications and definitions) was outlined in the SLSR (, 2017), so have not been included here. Instead, a general overview of the collection methods, as outlined below, has been provided. The following basic parameters were collected at each location to document existing fish and fish habitat conditions at each location: stream channel dimensions, general gradient and profile; bank/shoreline character (e.g., height and erosion); spring flow characteristics, including evidence of groundwater discharge; Page 14

30 morphology and substrates; instream/in-water cover opportunities (e.g., woody debris, undercut banks, boulders, vegetation); riparian vegetation; presence of physical barriers to fish movement; basic water chemistry readings (i.e., ph, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity); presence of potential critical or specialized habitat areas including potential spawning areas, good nursery cover, holding habitat (deeper refuge pools); disturbances and past habitat alterations (e.g., channelization, potential pollutant point sources); and, potential habitat enhancement opportunities PASSIVE MUSSEL SEARCHES Passive mussel searches were completed in September 2017 at those sites where potential in-water works were anticipated (Sites 3 and 5) to confirm potential presence of SAR mussels within the anticipated impact areas. Searches could not be completed at Site 4 as water levels were too deep. Passive searches were not conducted on those sites where in-water works were not anticipated to eliminate any un-necessary disturbance to SAR mussels potentially in the area of the road crossings. Searches were completed at Site 7 even though in-water works were not anticipated as access was easy and there have not been any searches previously carried out by other agencies to s knowledge. These passive searches were carried out using mussel viewers, with two people completing walking transects across the width of the channel, under and immediately upstream (50 m) and downstream (50 m) of the crossing location. Each passive search was carried out for one hour to ensure an efficient amount of time was spent looking for mussels, resulting in 2 man hours of searching at both locations. Once located, an attempt at identifying the species of mussel was then made, and a description of the habitat it was located in was provided to help with potential identification of SAR mussels. Mussel shells found along the bank or within the channel were collected for photo identification and recorded on the field notes, then returned to the banks BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY As outlined in the SLSR (, 2017), benthic community sampling was conducted within Mud Creek, Medway Creek, Thames River, North Thames River, and South Thames River by the UTRCA between the years of 2005 and The samples were collected using Rapid Bioassessment protocols, subsampled to include a minimum of 100 individuals in a subsample, and individuals were identified down to either Family (e.g., insects) or Phylum/Class level (e.g., worms, snails, and clams or mussels). Biotic Index tolerance values were then assigned to each taxon to provide a weighted average of the tolerance values to provide a level of classification for overall water quality conditions at the station. then carried out a series of analyses on the raw data provided to determine the overall diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates at the sample locations, and indicate the tolerance of the community to environmental degradation (i.e., communities with high tolerance values tend to occur in more degraded habitats). Page 15

31 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5.1 VEGETATION ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION Land use along the RT Route consisted primarily of highly developed cultural landscapes, including Residential and Commercial areas, roads, parking lots and university campus buildings. Cultural constructed green spaces, including cemeteries, parks, and golf courses were also commonly present, surrounded by the developed landscapes. Natural/naturalized communities along the RT Route primarily took the form of forests. Much of the RT Route follows the Thames River and its tributaries, as well as the low-lying area of Westminster Ponds/Pond Mills ESA. A total of 32 ecosites were identified along the RT Route. Of these ecosites, 10 are constructed cultural landscapes, 11 are forest/woodland, 4 are meadows, and one each of thicket, shoreline, treed swamp, wetland thicket, shallow marsh, shallow water and open water. These communities are shown in Figures 14 to 26 and are described in Table 2. For a list of vegetation species found within Sites 1 to 7 and along the RT Route, refer to Appendix C. Table 2 Vegetation Communities in the Study Area ELC CODE (NAME) CGL_2 (Constructed Parkland) CGL_4 (Constructed Recreational) CVC_1 (Commercial Business Sector) CVC_2 (Commercial Light Industry) CVR_1 (Low Density Residential) CVR_2 (High Density Residential) CVR_3 (Residential Single Family Residential) CVS_1 (Education) CVS_2 (Commercial and Institutional Health) POLYGON FEATURES AND SPECIES COMPOSITION Cemeteries, parks and trails, picnic areas, playing fields, common gardens, and golf courses. Vegetation took the form of landscaped trees, shrubs and lawn. Playing fields and sports domes. Vegetation if present was landscaped trees, shrubs and lawn. Highly developed commercial areas lacking significant vegetation. If present, vegetation took the form of landscaped trees, shrubs and lawn. Factories, Developed areas lacking significant vegetation. Highly developed residential areas consisting of detached homes. Significant vegetation was lacking. If present, vegetation took the form of landscaped trees, shrubs and lawn. Highly developed residential areas consisting of apartment buildings. Significant vegetation was lacking. If present, vegetation took the form of landscaped trees, shrubs and lawn. Developed residential areas consisting of single family dwellings. Significant vegetation was lacking. If present, vegetation took the form of shade trees, shrubs and lawn. Highly developed university campus. Significant vegetation was lacking. If present, vegetation took the form of lawn and landscape trees and shrubs. University Hospital buildings and surrounding parking areas. In general, significant vegetation was lacking. A narrow band of deciduous trees occupy the riparian area between a parking lot and Medway Creek. The majority of vegetation took the form of lawn and landscape trees and shrubs. Page 16

32 ELC CODE (NAME) FODM11 (Naturalized Deciduous Hedge- ROW) POLYGON FEATURES AND SPECIES COMPOSITION Naturalized hedgerow consisting of Black Walnut, Staghorn Sumac (Rhus typhina), Sugar Maple, Norway Maple (Acer platanoides) and Glossy Buckthorn (Frangula alnus). FODM1-4 (Dry Fresh Mixed Oak Deciduous Forest) FODM3-1 (Dry Fresh Poplar Deciduous Forest) Red (Quercus rubra) and White Oak (Quercus alba) dominant, with White Cedar (Thuja occidentalis) and Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum). This community was highly disturbed, with garden escape Lily-of-the-valley (Convallaria majalis) as dominant ground cover. A FODM7_3 (Fresh Moist Willow Lowland Deciduous Forest) inclusion was present along the Mud Creek corridor. Trembling Aspen dominated with American Basswood (Tilia americana), White Ash (Fraxinus americana), Black Cherry (Prunus serotina) and Black Locust. Forest was second growth likely arising from management or disturbance (e.g. cutting, clearing). Shrub layer was dominated by Glossy Buckthorn, Lilac (Syringa vulgaris) and Virgins Bower (Clematis virginiana), while the ground cover layer was dominated by Motherwort (Leonurus cardiaca) and Goldenrod species. FODM4-11 (Dry - Fresh Black Locust Deciduous Forest) FODM4-5 (Dry - Fresh Manitoba Maple Deciduous Forest) Deciduous forest dominated by Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) and Manitoba Maple (Acer negundo) with Trembling Aspen (Populus tremuloides) and Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis). Shrub layer was dominated by European Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), while the ground layer was dominated by bare soil, with sparse Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata) and Wild Lettuce (Lactuca virosa). Forest was highly disturbed. Species composition likely a result of disturbance or management. The woodlot at Mud Creek contained a water feature. Canopy was dominated by Manitoba Maple. Norway Maple, Red Maple, Black Walnut, and Crack Willow (Salix fragilis) were also found in the canopy. The shrub layer was dominated by young Manitoba Maple and European Buckthorn and the ground cover layer had abundant Poison Hemlock (Conium maculatum), Giant Ragweed, Stinging Nettle, and Garlic Mustard. FODM6 (Fresh-Moist Sugar Maple Deciduous Forest) FODM6-2 (Fresh- Moist Sugar Maple- Black Maple Deciduous Forest) Sugar Maple was abundant within the canopy, with occasional Ironwood, Bitternut Hickory (Carya cordiformsi), and White Ash. Rare occurrences of Kentucky Coffeetree were also noted in the canopy. European Buckthorn and Tartarian Honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica) were frequently noted in the understory, and the sparse ground cover contained goldenrod and aster species. Canopy was dominated by Sugar Maple. Black Maple (Acer), Black Walnut and American Beech were also present. Enchanter s Nightshade, Jumpseed (Persicaria virginiana), Bittersweet Nightshade (Solanum dulcamara), Goldenrod, and Avens species comprised the ground cover. FODM7 Fresh Moist Lowland Deciduous Forest) FODM8-3 (Fresh- Moist Cottonwood Deciduous Forest) Consisted primarily of Red Maple (Acer rubrum) and Trembling Aspen, with occasional Black Locust and Black Walnut. Ground cover was dominated by Joe-pye Weed (Eutrochium maculatum), Giant Ragweed and Stinging Nettle (Urtica dioica). Highly disturbed. This small vegetation community was dominated by Eastern Cottonwood (Populus deltoides ssp. deltoides). European Buckthorn and Glossy Buckthorn were abundant in the subcanopy. Page 17

33 ELC CODE (NAME) MASM1-1 (Cattail Mineral Shallow Marsh) MEGM3 (Dry-Fresh Graminoid Meadow) MEMM3 (Dry - Fresh Mixed Meadow) OAW (Open Water) SAF1 (Floating-leaved Shallow Aquatic) SHOR1 (Open Shoreline) SWDM3-3 (Swamp Maple Mineral Deciduous Swamp) SWTM5-8 (Non-native Mineral Deciduous Thicket Swamp) THDM2-6 (Buckthorn Deciduous Shrub Thicket) WODM4 (Dry-Fresh Deciduous Woodland) WODM4-4 (Dry - Fresh Black Walnut Deciduous Woodland) POLYGON FEATURES AND SPECIES COMPOSITION This community was dominated by Hybrid Cattail (Typha x glauca). Both marshes had an inclusion of Duckweed Floating-leaved Shallow Aquatic (SAF1-3). These inclusions were dominated by Lesser Duckweed (Lemna minor), Star Duckweed (Lemna trisulca) and Watermeal (Wolffia sp.) This community occupies an undeveloped lot dominated by grasses, surrounded by a single line of deciduous trees and shrubs. The lot appears to be regularly mowed or maintained as maincured lawn. Naturalized sites, consisted of approximately 1:1 grasses to forbs, and included many invasive species such as Japanese Knotweed (Fallopia japonica), Everlasting Pea (Lathyrus latifolius), Bird s Foot Trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) and Queen Anne s Lace (Daucus carota). Open water with floating or obvious submergent vegetation absent. Floating vegetation was dominated by Fragrant Water Lily (Nymphaea odorata). Buttonbush was present in more shallow areas and hummocks. Tree cover was less than 25%, consisting of young Trembling Aspen, American Elm (Ulmus americana), and Manitoba Maple and Willow species (Salix sp.). Vegetation included sparse Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), Common Ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) and Curly Dock (Rumex crispus). The canopy cover was dominated by Swamp Maple (Acer x freemanii), with some Eastern Cottonwood, Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and European Buckthorn. This community was dominated by European Buckthorn, and Grey Dogwood (Cornus racemosa) with Glossy Buckthorn. This community was previously classified as Grey Dogwood Thicket Swamp (SWTM2-3); however, the June 2017 survey showed that the two invasive buckthorn species now comprise a larger percentage of the shrub cover than Grey Dogwood. Ground Cover layer included Purple-leaved Willow Herb (Epilobium coloratum), Jewelweed and Bugleweed (Lycopus uniflorus). Often surrounded by Willow and Silver Maple. This vegetation community was dominated by European Buckthorn. Occasional Manitoba Maple, Black Locust, Tartarian Honeysuckle, Glossy Buckthorn, and Grey Dogwood were also present. There were abundant standing dead ash trees related to mass die-off from Emerald Ash Borer. The woodland has a sparse (35 60% cover) canopy dominated by Black Locust, Black Walnut, and Manitoba Maple. European was abundant within the understory. Abundant standing dead ash trees related to mass die-off from Emerald Ash Borer were also noted. Woodland was dominated by mature Black Walnut (Juglans nigra) with Virginia Creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), while Glossy Buckthorn, and Riverbank Grape (Vitis riparia) dominated the shrub layer. Goldenrod (Solidago sp.) was prevalent within the ground cover layer. Page 18

34 5.1.2 SPECIES AT RISK TREE SCREENING Surveys were completed by staff during August and October 2016, and June, August and October 2017 to verify the presence/absence of Species at Risk trees within 120 m of the ROW along the proposed RT Route. In addition to the targeted screening, the length of the RT Route was walked to document the presence of Species at Risk trees within or adjacent to the ROW. The surveys yielded observations of Kentucky Coffeetrees and Butternut adjacent to the RT Route (Figure 27), as follows: KENTUCKY COFFEETREE: 5 young trees, planted, less than 10 cm in diameter at breast height (dbh) in green space between Wellington Road and Nadine Ave, north of Southdale Road East; 6 young trees, planted, less than 10 cm dbh within a small park west of Wellington Road, north of Foxbar Road; 1 large (84 cm dbh) tree in the southwest corner of Victoria Park at Dufferin Avenue and Clarence Street; 11 trees ranging in size from 5 cm to 68 cm dbh on the Western University Campus, in a wooded area at the northwest corner of University Drive and Lambton Drive; 1 young specimen (less than 5 cm dbh) occurs near the northeast abutment of the University Drive bridge at Site 4; and, 6 trees, including 1 large (50 cm dbh) tree and 5 small (ranging from 4 cm to 19 cm dbh) trees on the south side of Lambton Drive. BUTTERNUT: 2 trees (45 cm and 37 cm dbh) were observed southeast of Lambton Drive, between the sports field and the University Tennis Centre. Tags on both trees indicated they are registered as part of the Western University s Sherwood Fox Arboretum collection. Western University was contacted for additional information about the two Butternuts adjacent to Lambton Drive. Official arboretum records do not exist for these individuals; however, given that the area is within the floodplain of the North Thames, and the species occurs elsewhere along the banks within the vicinity of the university, it is thought the trees are likely naturally occurring (Dr. R.G. Thorn, Associate Professor, Department of Biology, Curator, Western University Herbarium, pers. comm. December 11, 2017; Appendix B). Both specimens exhibit evidence of Butternut Canker, and one of them was assessed by a Butternut Health Assessor on behalf of the university (M. Lunau, Manager Landscape Services, Western University, pers. comm. December 11, 2017; Appendix B). Continued consultation with university staff during detailed design is recommended to obtain available information for these trees. Kentucky Coffeetrees have been part of city-wide planting programs since the early 1900 s and the more mature specimens noted within the Study Area were likely planted (Dr. R.G. Thorn, Western University, pers. comm. December 11, 2017). While it was evident that some of the smaller specimens elsewhere in the city were planted, younger specimens on the Western University campus may be naturally occurring. According to 2012 NHIC data, naturally occurring Kentucky Coffeetrees have only been documented at 20 locations in southwestern Ontario, and none are recorded for the City of London and surrounding area (MNRF, 2017b). Naturally occurring and planted Kentucky Coffeetrees receive protection under the ESA, whereas only naturally occurring Butternut are protected FLORA ASSESSMENT A total of 244 vascular plant species were recorded during the 2015, 2016, and 2017 field surveys completed for Sites 1 through 7. Of these identified species, 127 (52%) are native species and 88 (36%) are considered nonnative. Although less dominant in terms of percentage, non-native species were prevalent based on frequency of observation; the only two species observed at all seven sites, European Buckthorn and Norway Maple, are nonnative. Page 19

35 Significant flora observed was very limited; two Species at Risk (Kentucky Coffeetree and Butternut) and two other notable species were observed. Thirty Kentucky Coffeetrees were present within or adjacent to the ROW (Figure 27). Kentucky Coffeetrees are listed as Threatened in Ontario and receive protection under the ESA. Eleven of the thirty trees were planted in parks or roadsides; however, the others may be naturally occurring. Two Butternut were observed between Lambton Drive and the University Tennis Centre on the Western University campus. Both trees are tagged as part of the Sherwood Fox Arboretum. Tall Coreopsis (Coreopsis tripteris), which has an Ontario S-rank of S2 (very rare in Ontario; 5 20 occurrences) was observed at Site 6 (Figure 27); however, it occurred in a park area and was most likely planted. Eastern Redbud (Cercis canadensis) was also observed in Sites 1 and 4. Eastern Redbud is Extirpated from Ontario (SX) and all Redbuds in Ontario are now considered garden escapes, and therefore not significant. The majority of plant species identified through the vegetation field surveys are widespread, common in Ontario and globally. In addition to the species already mentioned, three regionally rare species in Middlesex County (UTRCA, 2003) were observed during the site investigation, including Common Evening Primrose (Oenothera biennis), Buffalo Berry (Shepherdia canadensis), and the hybrid Blue Cattail (Typha x glauca). With the exception of the hybrid cattail, which has provincial and global ranks of SNA and GNA (not applicable for conservation purposes), the other species are common or widespread throughout Ontario (S5) and globally (G5). A list of species observed during the site investigations, their S rank, G rank, COSEWIC and COSSARO status, and native/non-native status, is provided in Appendix C. SITE 1: OXFORD STREET WEST AT MUD CREEK Along Oxford Street West, two woodlots that fall within the Study Area were surveyed; polygon 6007, located on the south side of the road, and an unnumbered polygon, located on the north (Figures 7 and 14). Both polygons are associated with Mud Creek, which flows south through the Site. In addition to this field work conducted by, an Existing Ecological Conditions Report for the Mud Creek watershed was also completed by the City of London in In 2012, Delcan Corporation was retained by the City to provide an updated subwatershed report, and in 2014, LGL Limited (LGL) was retained by CH2M Hill Canada Ltd (CH2M) to provide natural heritage support for the Mud Creek Subwatershed Class Environmental Assessment. The Updated Existing Ecological Conditions Report by Delcan (2013) and the SLSR and EIS prepared by LGL (2016) provide a comprehensive description of the natural features found within the watershed. As part of the reports, Patches 6007 and the unnumbered polygon (labelled 6014 in that report) were surveyed. Polygon 6007, on the south side of Oxford Street West was classified as three ELC units, including FODM1-4 (Dry Fresh Mixed Oak Deciduous Forest), FODM7-3 (Fresh-Moist Willow Lowland Deciduous Forest Type) and FODM2-4 (Dry-Fresh Oak Hardwood Deciduous Forest Type) by Delcan (2013), and was later reclassified as FOD7A/8 (Manitoba Maple / Poplar Lowland Deciduous Forest) by LGL (2016). found that within the vicinity of the road, the canopy of this relatively small forest was dominated by Red and White Oak, with White Cedar and Sugar Maple. The canopy was more closed than usually seen in this ELC type, being approximately 90% closed. The shrub layer was sparse in the interior, consisting of European Buckthorn and Common Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), and dense on the forest edges, consisting of almost entirely European Buckthorn. The forest community was highly disturbed, with garden escape Lily-of-the-valley as a dominant ground cover, and significant patches of bare ground. Running through the polygon was a Willow Lowland Deciduous Forest Type (FODM7-3) inclusion, which follows Mud Creek. This inclusion was characterized by a dense closed canopy dominated by Willow, Trembling Aspen, and Silver Maple with a subcanopy of Willow, and Manitoba Maple. The ground layer in this inclusion was dense and diverse, with a greater portion of native species including Jewelweed, Purple Loosestrife, Motherwort and Watercress (Nasturtium officinale). The observations described in this report are more consistent with the Delcan (2013) findings; whereas the broader ELC ecosite descriptions provided by LGL may be limited due to the timing of their field investigation (fall 2014). The unnumbered polygon, or patch 6014 in the Mud Creek Subwatershed Study, was classified as a Mineral Cultural Woodland Ecosite (CUW1) in both the Delcan (2013) and LGL (2016) reports. This woodland was surveyed by staff and determined to be more accurately described as FODM4-11 (Dry - Fresh Black Locust Deciduous Forest Type), based on a higher percentage canopy cover. Since it was surveyed, the majority of the woodland adjacent to Oxford Street West has been removed by the landowner. The woodland was dominated Page 20

36 primarily by invasive species, Black Locust and Manitoba Maple with Trembling Aspen, Black Walnut and Hackberry. The shrub layer was dominated by European Buckthorn, Silky Dogwood (Cornus obliqua), and Willow species. In addition, a mature Eastern Redbud was observed near the road in the eastern section of the community. The ground layer was very sparse in large sections of the woodlot. Where it is vegetated, Garlic Mustard, Wild Lettuce, and Strawberry (Fragaria virginiana) were most common. The canopy and shrub layers remained the same around Mud Creek, and it therefore was not classified as a different ecosite or inclusion; however, some changes in the ground cover layer were observed. Sparse wetland plants such as Skunk Cabbage, Watercress and Broadleaf Arrowhead were observed in proximity to the creek. In summer 2017, the cleared woodlot was revisited and found to be regenerating, with Eastern Cottonwood and Black Locust being the dominant trees. The tallest Eastern Cottonwoods were approximately 10 feet tall. Glossy Buckthorn, European Buckthorn, and Tartarian Honeysuckle were the most commonly noted regenerating shrub species. LGL identified an MAS2-1 (Cattail Mineral Shallow Marsh) and SWT2 (Mineral Thicket Swamp) along Mud Creek where it runs parallel to the north side of Oxford Street West. also observed the cattail marsh. This feature does not appear on Map 5 of The London Plan, but was delineated on Figure 7 as an unmapped wetland and appears on the ELC mapping as MASM1-1 (Figure 14). Overall the vegetation community at Site 1 was representative of the Study Area; highly disturbed in areas close to development, though retaining a wide variety of native species. A total of 105 vascular plants were recorded during the 2015, 2016, and 2017 field surveys. Of those identified to species, 55 (52%) are native, and 44 (42%) are nonnative. One of these, Eastern Redbud, is provincially ranked as SX: Extirpated, however the specimen was a garden escape. Common Evening Primrose, a regionally rare species in Middlesex County was noted at this Site, but along with the other species identified, is widespread and common in Ontario and globally. SITE 2: NORTH THAMES CROSSINGS ON QUEENS AVENUE AND RIVERSIDE DRIVE Land use at the North Thames crossings on Queens Avenue and Riverside Drive was primarily constructed cultural areas, including parkland, residential and commercial areas. The exception was the naturalized open shoreline (SHOR1; Figures 8 and 15) along the Thames River. In addition to the field work conducted by, a SLSR for Harris Park was completed by NRSI (2013a) for the City of London. Harris Park includes the lands east of the river and north of Site 2. As part of the SLSR, vegetation surveys were conducted and much of the report is consistent with s survey results. Due to the rocky shoreline, and fluctuating water levels the SHOR1 type was sparsely vegetated with few trees, and very low canopy closure (approximately 20%). It was dominated by early successional tree species, including Trembling Aspen, Manitoba Maple, Silver Maple, and American Elm. While the majority of these trees are below 10 cm diameter at breast height (dbh), there were multiple large Trembling Aspens on the western river bank, including one over 100 cm dbh. Similarly, the ground cover layer was sparse, and included species such as Common Milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), Coltsfoot (Tussilago farfara), and Purple Loosestrife. Site 2 contained the smallest number of species recorded compared to all other sites. This is attributed to the small size of the area, combined with the rocky substrate and fluctuating water levels. A total of 28 vascular plants were recorded during the summer 2015 and spring 2016 field surveys. Of those identified to species, 14 (50%) are native species and 9 (32%) are considered non-native. No federal or provincial Species at Risk, or provincially rare species were recorded, which is consistent with the SLSR results for Harris Park (NRSI, 2013a). SITE 3: MEDWAY CREEK CROSSING ON WESTERN ROAD In addition to vegetation surveys conducted by in the summer of 2015 and spring of 2016, a Natural Heritage Inventory and Evaluation for the Medway Valley Heritage Forest ESA was completed by Dillon Consulting in The Medway Valley Heritage Forest ESA includes lands along Medway Creek from Fanshawe Park Road West, south and east to Western Road. Site 3 is located at the crossing of Medway Creek at Western Road (Figures 9 and 19) and includes woodlands along Western Road. Land use at the crossing of Medway Creek on Western Road was primarily Low Density Residential to the north, and Education (Western University campus) to the south. The crossing itself was mostly devoid of vegetation, given Page 21

37 that there is a retaining wall on the north side of the crossing and rip-rap under the bridge. Vegetation communities at Site 3 consisted of natural forest communities, parkland or naturalized hedgerows. The woodlot on the southwest corner of the Western Road / Windemere Road intersection was classified as a Poplar Deciduous Forest Type (FODM3-1), and was dominated by Trembling Aspen with American Basswood, Black Cherry and Black Locust. The forest was middle aged and likely represented secondary growth arising from management or disturbance of some kind. The shrub layer was dominated by Glossy Buckthorn, Lilac and Virgins Bower, and the ground cover layer by Motherwort, and Goldenrod species. Map 5 of the London Plan shows an unevaluated wetland in this woodlot; however, there was no evidence for such a wetland during field investigations. These results are consistent with the Natural Heritage Inventory and Evaluation for the Medway Valley Heritage Forest ESA (Dillon, 2015), which also did not map a wetland, and classified the areas as Deciduous Forest (FOD). Vegetation Patch #03003, on the northwest corner of the Western Road / Windermere Road intersection was identified as Black Walnut Deciduous Woodland Type (WODM4-4). This polygon was characterized by dominant mature Black Walnut, creating a canopy closure of approximately 75%. Virginia Creeper was abundant in the shrub layer, with sparse European Buckthorn and Riverbank Grape. Virginia Creeper shaded out most vegetation; however, some Goldenrod existed in the ground cover layer. Although the classification of Walnut Deciduous Woodland was given to this polygon, evidence from orthophotos suggests this classification may change further to the north and west of the polygon, outside of the Study Area. The naturalized hedgerows along Western Road (CVS2_2) fall within the university campus. They were populated with deciduous species such as Sugar Maple, Trembling Aspen, and Norway Maple. Denser and more diverse portions consisted of Sugar Maple, American Basswood, Black Walnut, and American Elm. The shrub layer consisted primarily of European Buckthorn, with some Staghorn Sumac, Virginia Creeper and Eastern Redbud. Overall, the vegetation community at Site 3 was representative of the Study Area; highly disturbed in areas in close proximity to human disturbance. A total of 67 vascular plants were recorded during the summer 2015 and spring 2016 field surveys. Of those identified to species 29 (43%) are native species and 29 (43%) are considered nonnative. Eastern Redbud was the only significant vegetation species observed on site and it is generally considered a garden escape, and is therefore not significant. All other species identified are widespread and common in Ontario and globally. This is consistent with the Medway Valley Heritage Forest ESA Natural Heritage Inventory (Dillon, 2015), which found significant vegetation along Medway Creek to the west, but no significant vegetation within the Study Area. SITE 4: NORTH THAMES CROSSING ON UNIVERSITY DRIVE Land use at the North Thames crossing on University Drive was almost entirely Education (CVS_1) (Western University campus) with Low Density Residential (CVR_1) to the south. The forest community that follows the river, including the unevaluated vegetation patch #03001, was classified as Lowland Deciduous Forest Ecosite (FODM7; Figures 10 and 20). The tree species varied, with abundant Red Maple, Sycamore, Black Locust, Black Cherry, Manitoba Maple, Basswood, and occasional Black Walnut. The ground cover was equally diverse; dominated by Jewelweed, Joe-pye Weed, Giant Ragweed, and Stinging Nettle. The polygon also shows evidence of the Thames River spring high watermark making its way into small depressions. A total of 60 vascular plants were recorded during the summer 2015 and spring 2016 field surveys. Of those identified to species 32 (53%) are native species and 20 (33%) are considered non-native. A young Kentucky Coffeetree, a Threatened species in Ontario, was observed near the northeast bridge abutment during a general reconnaissance survey during fall 2017 (Figure 27). There were no other federal or provincial Species at Risk, or provincially rare species recorded. Page 22

38 SITE 5: THAMES CROSSING ON WELLINGTON ROAD Land use at the Thames crossing on Wellington Road is encompassed by Parkland (CGL_2) and Low Density Residential (CVR_1). The forest community that follows the river was classified as Dry - Fresh Manitoba Maple Deciduous Forest (FODM4-5; Figures 11 and 23). This forest community was very narrow, and showed little diversity, being dominated by Manitoba Maple. Norway Maple, Black Walnut, Red Maple and Crack Willow (Salix fragilis) was also found in the canopy to a lesser degree. The shrub layer was dominated by young Manitoba Maple and European Buckthorn, and the ground cover layer had abundant Poison Hemlock, Giant Ragweed, Stinging Nettle, and Garlic Mustard. A total of 26 vascular plants were recorded during the summer 2015 and spring 2016 field surveys. Of those identified to species, 13 (50%) are native species and 10 (38%) are considered non-native. No federal or provincial Species at Risk, or provincially rare species were recorded. SITE 6: WESTMINSTER PONDS EAST OF WELLINGTON ROAD In addition to vegetation surveys conducted by during 2015, 2016, and 2017, several earlier studies have been completed for the area, including the Master Plan Update for Westminster Ponds/Pond Mills ESA (UTRCA, 2005) and an Ecological Inventory and Management Zone Report completed by North-South Environmental Inc. in Site 6 is located in the western portion of the area identified as the Westminster Ponds ESA (Figures 6 and 24). The 2015 report found 28 ELC communities, and 346 species of plants, including 3 that are provincially rare, and 3 that are regionally rare. Two of the regionally rare plants, Watershield (Brasenia schreberi) and Sweetflag (Acorus americana) were recorded within the area identified as Site 6 in this study. The UTRCA report found more than 200 vegetation communities, 757 species of vascular plants, including 30 that are nationally and/or provincially rare, and 60% of the plant species found in Middlesex County. The area surveyed by was considerably smaller, focusing along the Wellington Road ROW. The results are generally consistent with the two previous reports. The Westminster Ponds area had the greatest number of plant species (143) and the highest percentage of native species compared to other sites surveyed within the Study Area. The area surveyed by along Wellington Road contains forest, woodland, thicket, meadow, marsh, and swamp vegetation communities. The vegetated area adjacent to Wellington Road was identified as Cultural Thicket (CUT) in the Ecological Inventory and Management Zone Report, and was further refined during the current study into three vegetation communities: Buckthorn Deciduous Shrub Thicket (THDM2-6), Dry-Fresh Deciduous Woodland (WODM4), and Fresh-Moist Cottonwood Deciduous Forest (FODM8-3). All three communities had abundant European Buckthorn in the understory as identified in the Ecological Inventory and Management Zone Report. The woodland has a canopy cover of 35-60% dominated by Black Locust, Black Walnut, and Manitoba Maple. The forest has a canopy cover over 60% and was dominated by Eastern Cottonwood (Populus deltoides ssp. deltoides). Both the thicket and the woodland had abundant standing dead ash trees (Fraxinus sp.) related to mass die-off from Emerald Ash Borer. Two meadow vegetation communities are present, and were classified as Dry Fresh Mixed Meadow Type (MEMM3). The largest meadow is found at the north end of the site on the hospital grounds. The smaller meadow is found at the south end of the site on the tourism office grounds. These areas were not classified in the Ecological Inventory and Management Zone Report. Vegetation within the meadows is a common assemblage of native and non-native grasses and forbs. In addition, the south meadow appears to have been seeded with a prairie mix of grasses and forbs. Wetland delineation is generally consistent with that of the Ecological Inventory and Management Zone Report. Vegetation community classification is similar, with further refinement completed during the current study. Differences in classification of community type (e.g. marsh, thicket swamp, treed swamp) are minor and may be attributed to water level fluctuations, and inter-species competition. Page 23

39 Two shallow marsh vegetation communities are present, and were classified as Cattail Mineral Shallow Marsh (MASM1-1). They were dominated by Blue Cattail (Typha x glauca). This species is a hybrid of Common Cattail and Narrow-leaved Cattail, but is considered regionally rare in Middlesex County (UTRCA, 2003). Both marshes had an inclusion of Duckweed Floating-leaved Shallow Aquatic (SAF1-3). These inclusions were dominated by Lesser Duckweed (Lemna minor), Star Duckweed (Lemna trisulca) and Watermeal (Wolffia sp.). One thicket swamp is present, and was classified as Non-native Mineral Deciduous Thicket Swamp (SWTM5-8). This community was dominated by European Buckthorn, and Grey Dogwood (Cornus racemosa) with Glossy Buckthorn. This community was classified as Grey Dogwood Thicket Swamp (SWT2-9) in the Ecological Inventory and Management Zone Report. The current study shows that the two invasive buckthorn species now comprise a larger percentage of the shrub cover than Grey Dogwood. One treed swamp is present, and is classified as Swamp Maple Mineral Deciduous Swamp (SWDM3-3). The canopy cover was greater than 25% and dominated by Swamp Maple (Acer x freemanii), with some Eastern Cottonwood, Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and European Buckthorn. This area was included within the Grey Dogwood Thicket Swamp in the Ecological Inventory and Management Zone Report. A total of 143 vascular plants were recorded during the 2015, 2016, and 2017 field surveys. Of these species, 78 (55%) are native and 53 (37%) are non-native. Tall Coreopsis, a provincially rare species with an S-Rank of S2, was observed near the southern edge of the woodland (Figure 267 and is presumed planted. No federal or provincial Species at Risk, or other provincially rare species were recorded. SITE 7: EXETER ROAD PARK AND RIDE The Exeter Road Park and Ride land use is currently an OPP detachment office. In addition to the office building, there is an associated parking lot, and driveway. The built structures and related manicured open space appears as Commercial Business Sector (CVC_1) on Figure 26. Three vegetation communities are present: Manicured Open Space (mown lawn), Dry Fresh Mixed Meadow Type (MEMM3), and Cattail Mineral Shallow Marsh (MASM1-1). A recently vegetated area within the hydro corridor was noted as cleared during the summer 2017 field visit, with a crew actively seeding the plowed area. The manicured areas with the CVC_1 polygon consists of mown lawn with some planted trees. The species composition within the area suggests it was formerly a meadow, and would return to one quickly if not maintained by mowing. The subcanopy had a cover of 10-25% of planted Japanese Lilac (Syringa reticulata) and Norway Maple with some invasive European Buckthorn. The understory had a cover of 10-25% of European Buckthorn and Tall Goldenrod (Solidago altissima). The ground layer had a cover over 60% and was dominated by multiple grass species, with English Plantain (Plantago lanceolata), Black Medick (Medicago lupulina) and Bird s-foot Trefoil (Lotus corniculatus). The Dry Fresh Mixed Meadow Type (MEMM3) had a subcanopy with a cover of under 10% of Eastern Cottonwood, while the understory had a cover of under 10% of European Buckthorn. The ground layer had a cover of over 60% and was dominated by Tall Goldenrod, multiple grass species, Bird s-foot Trefoil, and Ox-eye Daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare). The Cattail Mineral Shallow Marsh (MASM1-1) is a linear vegetation community along Murray Drain. The subcanopy had a cover of 10-25% dominated by Sandbar Willow (Salix interior). The understory had a cover of over 60% and was dominated by Narrow-leaved Cattail (Typha angustifolia), Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and Great Hairy Willow-herb (Epilobium hirsutum). The ground layer had a cover of over 60% and was dominated by Jewelweed, with some Hedge Bindweed (Calystegia sepium ssp. angulata) and Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense). A total of 76 vascular plants were recorded during the three season 2017 field surveys. Of these species, 27 (36%) are native, and 36 (47%) are non-native. No federal or provincial Species at Risk, or provincially rare species were recorded. Page 24

40 5.2 WILDLIFE BIRDS BREEDING BIRD SURVEYS Breeding bird surveys were conducted on June 3 and June 13, 2016 at Sites 1 through 6, and June 22 and July 6, 2017 at Site 7. Surveys were completed within the May 24 to July 10 window, as recommended by the OBBA. Some of the sites have been studied previously, and breeding bird surveys were often completed. In addition to the results from the breeding bird surveys completed by in 2016, the following sections also synthesize data from these previous studies. A total of 57 bird species were observed by during the breeding bird surveys, including 37 species in Site 1, 27 in Site 2, 27 in Site 3A (Medway Creek Crossing), 32 in Site 3B (Woodlands Along Western Road), 28 in Site 4, 39 in Site 5, 44 in Site 6, and 21 in Site 7. An additional eight species were noted during the vegetation surveys. Seven provincially listed Species at Risk were observed on one or more of the sites, either during the field surveys or as referenced in previous studies. These species are: Bank Swallow, Barn Swallow, Chimney Swift, Eastern Meadowlark, Eastern Wood-Pewee, Wood Thrush, and Bald Eagle. A complete list of the bird species observed for each Site, including breeding evidence, as documented during the breeding bird surveys can be found in Appendix C. These species, as well as additional species noted incidentally during other surveys, are provided in a general wildlife table in Appendix C SITE 1: OXFORD STREET WEST AT MUD CREEK An Existing Ecological Conditions Report for the Mud Creek watershed was completed by the City of London in In 2012, Delcan Corporation was retained by the City to provide an updated subwatershed report. The Delcan report laid the foundation for subsequent work completed by LGL Limited in support of the Mud Creek Subwatershed Environmental Assessment led by CH2M Hill Inc. (2017). The SLSR and EIS report prepared by LGL (2016) provides a comprehensive description of the natural features found within the watershed. As part of the Report, Patch 6007 and an unnumbered polygon (identified by Delcan and LGL as Patch 6014) were surveyed, which are included in Site 1 of this report (Figure 7). Since the time of the survey, the unnumbered polygon has been mostly removed by the landowner. Breeding bird surveys were not completed by Delcan; however, birds were identified during other field visits, and a tally of all the species was appended to the report. Breeding bird surveys were completed by LGL in 2015 and included point counts within Patch 6007 and the unnumbered polygon (6014). A total of 13 bird species were identified by Delcan (2013) in Patch 6007 and the unnumbered polygon, the woodlands that form Site 1. Twelve species were noted in the unnumbered polygon (Patch 6014), the 4.0 ha woodland north of Oxford Street West. One Species at Risk, the Eastern Wood-pewee, was identified. Eastern Wood-Pewee is currently listed as species of Special Concern on the SARO List (MNRF, 2017b) and as such, is not afforded habitat protection. Five bird species were identified in Patch 6007, the woodland on the south side of Oxford Street West, of which none were Species at Risk. LGL identified a total of 32 birds, 22 of which were observed in the unnumbered patch (6014), and 6 which were observed in Patch One species at risk, Wood Thrush, was observed during the surveys but was found within the larger contiguous woodland west of Proudfoot Lane, outside the boundaries of the present Study Area. Page 25

41 A cumulative total of 37 species were observed on or within 120 m of Site 1 during the 2015/2016 field surveys. Breeding evidence was noted for each species observed, but was not confirmed; it was considered probable for 20 species, and considered possible for 10 species. The 7 species for which breeding evidence was not observed are species that are known to breed in the general area, but did not appear to be breeding on or within 120 m of RT Route. Eastern Wood-Pewee, a species of Special Concern in Ontario, was the only provincially listed Species at Risk observed on Site 1. A list of the bird species observed, including breeding evidence, can be found in Appendix C SITE 2: NORTH THAMES CROSSINGS ON QUEENS AVENUE AND RIVERSIDE DRIVE A SLSR for Harris Park was completed by NRSI (2013a) for the City of London. Harris Park includes the lands east of the river and north of Site 2. As part of the SLSR, migratory and breeding bird surveys were completed in Harris Park. Additionally, breeding evidence as provided for the species identified (NRSI, 2013a). A cumulative total of 39 bird species were identified by NRSI within Harris Park, including 23 during migratory bird surveys, and 36 during breeding bird surveys. Breeding evidence was noted for each species observed and was confirmed for 6 species, considered probable for 6 species, and considered possible for 24 species. Two provincially listed Species at Risk were observed by NRSI in Harris Park during their investigations: Chimney Swift (THR) and Barn Swallow (THR). The Thames River Corridor Plan was completed by the City of London (2011). A total of five bird species were observed within the vicinity of Site 2, but breeding evidence was not provided. None of the five bird species mentioned are Species at Risk. A cumulative total of 27 species were observed on or within 120 m of Site 2 during the 2015/2016 field surveys. Breeding evidence was noted for each species observed and was confirmed for 2 species, considered probable for 8 species, and considered possible for 13 species. The 4 species for which breeding evidence was not observed are known to breed in the general area, but did not appear to be breeding on or within 120 m of the RT Route. Provincially listed Species at Risk were not observed on Site 2. A list of the bird species observed, including breeding evidence, can be found in Appendix C SITE 3: MEDWAY CREEK CROSSING ON WESTERN ROAD A Natural Heritage Inventory and Evaluation for the Medway Valley Heritage Forest ESA was completed by Dillon Consulting for the City of London in The Medway Valley Heritage Forest ESA includes lands along Medway Creek from Fanshawe Park Road West, south and east to Western Road. The London RT crossing of Medway Creek at Western Road and adjacent woodland habitat comprise Site 3 (Figure 9). As part of the Natural Heritage Inventory and Evaluation, breeding bird surveys were completed by Dillon; however, they were not completed within 1 km of the crossing. A cumulative total of 48 bird species were identified by Dillon (2015) within the Medway Valley Heritage Forest ESA. Breeding evidence was noted for each species observed and was confirmed for 5 species, considered probable for 35 species, and considered possible for 1 species. Three provincially listed Species at Risk were observed over 1 km from Site 3 including Barn Swallow (THR), Eastern Wood-Pewee (SC) and Wood Thrush (SC). A cumulative total of 27 species were observed on or within 120 m of the crossing of Medway Creek (Site 3A of SLSR) during the 2015/2016 field surveys. Breeding evidence was noted for each species observed and was confirmed for 1 species, considered probable for 10 species, and considered possible for 11 species. The 5 species for which breeding evidence was not observed are known to breed in the general area, but did not appear to be breeding on or within 120 m of the RT Route. A cumulative total of 32 species were observed on or within 120 m of the woodlands along Western Road (Site 3B of SLSR) during the 2015/2016 field surveys. Breeding evidence was noted for each species observed, but was not confirmed for any species. It was considered probable for 15 species, and considered possible for 14 species. The 3 species for which breeding evidence was not observed are known to breed in the general area, but did not appear to be breeding on or within 120 m of the RT Route. Page 26

42 One provincially listed Species at Risk, the Chimney Swift, was observed on Site 3 (Figure 27). A list of the bird species observed, including breeding evidence, can be found in Appendix C SITE 4: NORTH THAMES CROSSING ON UNIVERSITY DRIVE A cumulative total of 28 species were observed on or within 120 m of Site 4 during the 2015/2016 field surveys. Breeding evidence was noted for each species observed and was confirmed for 2 species, considered probable for 5 species, and considered possible for 16 species. The 5 species for which breeding evidence was not observed are known to breed in the general area, but did not appear to be breeding on or within 120 m of the RT Route. Two provincially listed Species at Risk, Chimney Swift (THR) and Barn Swallow (THR), were observed on Site 4 (Figure 27). A list of the bird species observed, including breeding evidence, can be found in Appendix C SITE 5: THAMES CROSSING ON WELLINGTON ROAD An Environmental Impact Study for the SoHo Redevelopment was completed by NRSI for the City of London (2013b). The Study Site in the NRSI study included lands along the Thames River from Wellington Road to Adelaide Street North. Site 5 (Figure 11) is located along the west boundary of the area surveyed by NRSI. As part of the EIS for the SoHo Redevelopment, breeding bird surveys were completed. A cumulative total of 72 bird species were identified by NRSI during their site investigation. Breeding evidence was noted for each species observed and was confirmed for 4 species, considered probable for 16 species, and considered possible for 24 species. Three provincially listed Species at Risk were observed: Barn Swallow (THR), Eastern Wood-pewee (SC) and Chimney Swift (THR). A cumulative total of 39 species were observed on or within 120 m of Site 5 during the 2015/2016 field surveys. Breeding evidence was noted for each species observed and was confirmed for 4 species, considered probable for 16 species, and considered possible for 16 species. The 3 species for which breeding evidence was not observed are known to breed in the general area, but did not appear to be breeding on or within 120 m of the RT Route. One provincially listed Species at Risk, Barn Swallow, was observed on Site 5. A list of the bird species observed, including breeding evidence, can be found in Appendix C SITE 6: WESTMINSTER PONDS EAST OF WELLINGTON ROAD Surveys for breeding birds were completed as part of the Ecological Inventory and Management Zone Report (North-South Environmental Inc., 2015) and the present study. The entire Westminster Ponds/Pond Mills ESA was surveyed as part of the Ecological Inventory during 2013 and encompassed lands between Wellington Road to just east of Highbury Avenue, and Commissioners Road East to just south of Southdale Road East and Bradley Avenue. Site 6 is located in the western portion of the area identified as the Westminster Ponds ESA. A cumulative total of 73 bird species were observed by North-South Environmental Inc. during their site investigation. Breeding evidence was noted for each species observed and was confirmed for 7 species, considered probable for 34 species, and considered possible for 24 species. Seven provincially listed Species at Risk were observed, including Acadian Flycatcher (END), Bobolink (THR), Eastern Meadowlark (THR), Barn Swallow (THR), Chimney Swift (THR), Eastern Wood-pewee (SC), and Wood Thrush (SC). None of these species were recorded within Site 6. The closest avian SAR observation was for Eastern Wood-pewee on the south side of Saunders Pond approximately 300 m east of the ROW. A cumulative total of 44 species were observed on or within 120 m of Site 6 during the 2015/2016 field surveys. Breeding evidence was noted for each species observed and was confirmed for 5 species, considered probable for 20 species, and considered possible for 15 species. The 4 species for which breeding evidence was not observed are known to breed in the general area, but did not appear to be breeding on or within 120 m of the RT Route. Four provincially listed Species at Risk were observed on Site 6: Barn Swallow, Bank Swallow (THR), Eastern Wood-Pewee and Wood Thrush (Figure 27). A list of the bird species observed, including breeding evidence, can be found in Appendix C. Page 27

43 SITE 7: EXETER ROAD PARK N RIDE A cumulative total of 21 species were observed on or within 120 m of Site 7 during the 2017 breeding bird surveys. Breeding evidence was noted for each species observed and was confirmed for 5 species, considered probable for 6 species, and considered possible for 9 species. The one species for which breeding evidence was not observed is known to breed in the general area, but did not appear to be breeding on or within 120 m of the site. One provincially listed Species at Risk was observed on Site 7: Eastern Meadowlark (THR) (Figure 27). This species was observed on both survey dates, but was not consistently observed within suitable breeding habitat. A list of the bird species observed, including breeding evidence, can be found in Appendix C. SPECIES AT RISK SURVEYS Barn Swallow and Cliff Swallows The underside of bridges at Sites 2, 3, 4 and 5 were surveyed for the presence of nests. Incidental species observations were also noted. The following is a summary of these screening surveys: Site 2: North Thames Crossings at Queens and Riverside Drive Kensington Bridge (Riverside Drive) supports a large colony of Barn Swallows. Over 65 nests were noted, and additional nests are expected within areas that were obstructed from view. Barn Swallows were plentiful and active within the vicinity of the bridge. There were no Cliff Swallows observed. There were no active or old cup nests observed on the underside of the Queens Avenue Bridge. There were no Cliff Swallows observed. The difference in occupancy is likely due to the design of the bridges. The exposed steel girders of the Kensington Bridge provide ample surface area for nest building and appear to be favoured by the species. Site 3: Medway Creek Crossing at Western Road There were no nests or birds observed on the smooth concrete underside of this bridge. Swallows were foraging in the general area, but are thought to be nesting elsewhere. Site 4: North Thames Crossing at University Drive Fifteen Cliff Swallow nests were observed, along with nests of other species (Eastern Phoebe and House Sparrow). There were no Barn Swallows observed. Site 5: Thames River Crossing at Wellington Road Underside of the concrete bridge is very smooth and provides few opportunities for nesting. There were no cup nests observed. A Rock Pigeon was observed nesting on a small ledge near the abutment, and a European Starling was nesting in a drain pipe. Barn Swallows were observed foraging in the area, but are thought to be nesting elsewhere. Chimney Swifts Suitable, uncapped chimneys were observed at seven addresses within the search area. Chimney Swifts were observed in the vicinity of an Oxford Street West address, making it the only location where the species was observed at the time of the habitat surveys. Surveys and field summaries contain sensitive information and are held on file at the office. Page 28

44 5.2.2 HERPTOFAUNA Three amphibian surveys were conducted by between April 1 and June 30; survey dates were April 11, May 11 and June 1, The three surveys were within the respective windows as stated by the Marsh Monitoring Protocol (April 1-15, May 1-15, and June 1-15). The surveys were completed during suitable weather conditions, and commenced no earlier than 30 minutes after sunset, in compliance with the protocol. Sites near open water were surveyed for basking turtles during daytime wildlife surveys and incidental observations were recorded for all sites. The various sites have been studied previously. As part of these studies, amphibian or reptile surveys were often completed. In addition to the results from the nocturnal amphibian surveys completed by this year, the following sections in the report will also synthesize data from these previous studies. A total of 9 species of reptiles and amphibians were recorded by throughout the sites that make up the Study Area, including 1 species on Site 1, 0 on Site 2, 1 on Site 3, 4 on Site 4, 3 on Site 5, 37 on Site 6, and 1 on Site 7. These observations are based on results of targeted amphibian surveys, as well as incidental observations from surveys in 2015, 2016 and Two Species at Risk, Northern Map Turtle (SC) and Spiny Softshell Turtle (THR) were observed during each of the survey years within the North Thames River in the vicinity of Site 4. There were no other provincially listed Species at Risk observed at the sites during the field surveys. A list of the herpetofauna species observed for each site can be found in Appendix C SITE 1: OXFORD STREET WEST AT MUD CREEK An Existing Ecological Conditions Report for the Mud Creek watershed was completed by the City of London in In 2012, Delcan Corporation was retained by the City to provide an updated subwatershed report. The Delcan report laid the foundation for subsequent work completed by LGL Limited in support of the Mud Creek Subwatershed Environmental Assessment led by CH2M Hill Inc. (2017). The SLSR and EIS report prepared by LGL (2016) provides a comprehensive description of the natural features found within the watershed. As part of the Report, Patch 6007 and an unnumbered polygon (identified by Delcan and LGL as Patch 6014) were surveyed, which are included in Site 1 of this report (Figure 7). Since the time of the survey, the unnumbered polygon has been mostly removed by the landowner. Specific herpetofauna surveys were not completed by Delcan, however amphibians and reptiles were identified during other field visits, and a tally of all the species identified was appended to the report. Amphibian breeding surveys were completed by LGL in 2015 and included survey locations within unnumbered polygon (6014), and south of Patch No reptiles or amphibians were observed by Delcan in Patch 6007, while American Toad and Eastern Gartersnake were identified in the unnumbered polygon on the north side of Oxford Street West. Neither of these are Species at Risk in Ontario. Two amphibians and one reptile were observed by LGL within the Mud Creek Subwatershed, including Green Frog within the unnumbered polygon (Patch 6014) north of Oxford Street West. The other two species, American Toad and Snapping Turtle, were observed in the vicinity of the CN rail crossing approximately I km south of Oxford Street West and Proudfoot Lane. Snapping Turtle is listed provincially as a species of Special Concern and does not receive habitat protection under the ESA. One herpetofauna species, the Eastern Gartersnake, was observed on Site 1 during the 2015/2016/2017 field surveys. Eastern Gartersnake is not a Species at Risk in Ontario. A list of the species observed can be found in Appendix C. Page 29

45 SITE 2: NORTH THAMES CROSSINGS ON QUEENS AVENUE AND RIVERSIDE DRIVE A Subject Lands Status Report for Harris Park was completed by NRSI (2013a) for the City of London. Harris Park includes the lands east of the river and north of Site 2, the North Thames Crossing on Riverside Drive. As part of the Subject Lands Status Report, turtle basking surveys and snake surveys were completed in Harris Park by NRSI. Incidental observations of herpetofauna were also noted during additional field surveys. Northern Map Turtle was the only species identified during the field survey (NRSI, 2013a). The individual was observed basking on concrete at the west side of the river approximately 330 m north of Site 2. Northern Map Turtle is listed as a species of Special Concern in Ontario. No reptiles or amphibians were observed on Site 2 during the 2015/2016/2017 field surveys SITE 3: MEDWAY CREEK CROSSING ON WESTERN ROAD A Natural Heritage Inventory and Evaluation for the Medway Valley Heritage Forest ESA was completed by Dillon Consulting (2015) for the City of London. The Medway Valley Heritage Forest ESA includes lands along Medway Creek from Fanshawe Park Road West, south and east to Western Road. As part of the Natural Heritage Inventory and Evaluation, nocturnal amphibian call surveys following the Marsh Monitoring Protocol and targeted salamander surveys in early April were completed by Dillon. Incidental observations of herpetofauna were also noted during additional field surveys. Four species of amphibians were identified during site investigation: Spring Peeper, Grey Treefrog, American Toad, and Green Frog (Dillon, 2015). None of the species identified are Species at Risk in Ontario. No reptiles or amphibians were observed on Site 3 during the 2015/2016 field surveys; however, a single American Bullfrog was observed on the riverbank within the vicinity of the crossing during a survey in A list of the species observed can be found in Appendix C SITE 4: NORTH THAMES CROSSING ON UNIVERSITY DRIVE One amphibian species, Green Frog, and two reptile species, Northern Map Turtle and Spiny Softshell Turtle were observed in the vicinity of Site 4 during the 2015/2016/2017 field surveys. Spiny Softshell (THR) and Northern Map Turtle (SC) are Species at Risk in Ontario (Figure 26). A list of the species observed can be found in Appendix C SITE 5: THAMES CROSSING ON WELLINGTON ROAD An Environmental Impact Study for the SoHo Redevelopment was completed by NRSI (2013b) for the City of London. The Study Site in the NRSI study included lands along the Thames River from Wellington Road to Adelaide Street North. Site 5 is located along the west boundary of the area surveyed by NRSI. As part of the EIS for the SoHo Redevelopment, intensive snake surveys including targeted Queensnake surveys as well as turtle basking surveys were completed by NRSI. Incidental observations of herpetofauna were also noted during additional field surveys. Three species of reptile and two species of amphibian were identified during the field surveys: Snapping Turtle, Dekay s Brownsnake, Eastern Gartersnake, American Toad, and Green Frog (NRSI, 2013b). Snapping Turtle is listed as Special Concern in Ontario. During the site investigation completed by NRSI, a female Snapping Turtle was observed laying eggs within a manicured lawn area approximately 100 m east of Wellington Road (Figure 26). Two herpetofauna species were observed on Site 5 during the 2015/2016 field surveys, including American Toad and Green Frog. An American Bullfrog was heard calling in the vicinity of the crossing during a survey in None of the species identified at Site 5 are Species at Risk in Ontario. A list of the species observed can be found in Appendix C. Page 30

46 SITE 6: WESTMINSTER PONDS EAST OF WELLINGTON ROAD Surveys for breeding amphibians were completed as part of the Ecological Inventory and Management Zone Report (North-South Environmental Inc., 2015) and the present study. The entire Westminster Ponds/Pond Mills ESA was surveyed as part of the Ecological Inventory during 2013 and encompassed lands between Wellington Road to just east of Highbury Avenue, and Commissioners Road East to just south of Southdale Road East and Bradley Avenue. Site 6 is located in the western portion of the area identified as the Westminster Ponds ESA. Seven species of reptile and amphibians, including one Species at Risk, were observed during the Ecological Inventory completed by North-South Environmental Inc. (2015). Snapping Turtle (SC) was observed in ponds within the eastern portion of the ESA. Green Frog was the only species recorded within the Site 6 Study Area. The report also identified areas of vernal pooling that were suitable breeding grounds for amphibians. One of these ponds was identified within the wetland in the eastern half of Site 6. The earlier Master Plan Update (UTRCA, 2005) mentioned that 15 species of amphibian and nine reptile species have been found within the Westminster Ponds ESA Study Site based on the results of several previous inventories dating back to Provincially listed Species at Risk include Blanding s Turtle (THR), Butler s Gartersnake (END), Eastern Massasauga (THR), Milksnake (formally SC, now delisted), Jefferson Salamander (END) and Snapping Turtle (SC). Two of these species, the Butler s Gartersnake and Eastern Massasauga are now extirpated from the region. Three species of amphibians, Spring Peeper, Grey Treefrog and Green Frog, were observed on or within 120 m of Site 6 during the 2016 amphibian breeding surveys. Additionally, Northern Leopard Frog, Midland Painted Turtle, American Bullfrog, and Eastern Gartersnake were observed incidentally during other field surveys. None of the species identified on Site 6 are Species at Risk in Ontario. A list of the species observed can be found in Appendix C SITE 7: EXETER ROAD PARK N RIDE One amphibian species, Green Frog, was observed at Site 7 during the 2017 field surveys. A list of the species observed can be found in Appendix C MAMMALS AND GENERAL WILDLIFE Targeted mammal surveys were not completed by during the field surveys; however incidental observations of mammals were recorded during the field visits. The various sites have been studied previously. As part of these studies, targeted mammal surveys were not completed, however incidental observations of mammals was often included, and occasionally reports from the general public. In addition to the results from the 2015/2016/2017 field surveys, the following sections in the report synthesize data from these previous studies. A total of 12 species of mammals were observed within the sites that make up the Study Area during the site investigation, including 4 species on Site 1, 2 on Site 2, 2 on Site 3, 6 on Site 4, 2 on Site 5, 7 on Site 6, and 3 on Site 7. Observations of mammal species included scat and track evidence. Provincially listed Species at Risk were not observed during the 2015/2016/2017 field surveys. In other studies, the following Species at Risk in Ontario were either observed or have the potential to be found on one or more of the sites: Northern Myotis (Myotis septentrionalis), Little Brown Myotis (Myotis lucifugus), Tricoloured Bat (Perimyotis subflavus), and American Badger (Taxidea taxus). The bat species were identified by their vocal signatures, while the American Badger observation was of a transient individual and candidate habitat was not identified on any of the sites. A list of the mammal species observed for each Site can be found in Appendix C. Page 31

47 SITE 1: OXFORD STREET WEST AT MUD CREEK An Existing Ecological Conditions Report for the Mud Creek watershed was completed by the City of London in In 2012, Delcan Corporation was retained by the City to provide an updated subwatershed report. The Delcan report laid the foundation for subsequent work completed by LGL Limited in support of the Mud Creek Subwatershed Environmental Assessment led by CH2M Hill Inc. (2017). The SLSR and EIS report prepared by LGL (2016) provides a comprehensive description of the natural features found within the watershed. As part of the Report, Patch 6007 and an unnumbered polygon (identified by Delcan and LGL as Patch 6014) were surveyed, which are included in Site 1 of this report (Figure 7). Since the time of the survey, the unnumbered polygon has been mostly removed by the landowner. Specific mammal surveys were not completed by Delcan; however, mammals were observed during other field visits, and a tally of all the species identified was appended to the report. In 2015, LGL completed acoustic monitoring at four survey locations to establish habitat use by bats. With the exception of two federally and provincially significant species detected by LGL during the acoustic monitoring, the mammals found within the Mud Creek subwatershed were considered common and widespread species in this part of Ontario (Delcan, 2013; and LGL, 2016). No mammals were observed in Patch 6007, while Meadow Vole and White-tailed Deer were identified in the unnumbered polygon (Patch 6014) (Delcan, 2013). Neither of these are Species at Risk in Ontario. Eight mammals were observed by LGL during the field investigations of the Study Area, and are generally considered species that readily utilize anthropogenically-influenced environments. Six bat species were recorded during the acoustic monitoring surveys, including two Endangered species on the Species at Risk in Ontario List, Northern Myotis (END) and Little Brown Myotis (END). A cumulative total of four species were observed on Site 1 during the 2015/2016/2017 field surveys, including Eastern Cottontail, Groundhog, Raccoon and White-tailed Deer. None of the species identified by are Species at Risk in Ontario. A list of the species observed can be found in Appendix C SITE 2: NORTH THAMES CROSSINGS ON QUEENS AVENUE AND RIVERSIDE DRIVE A SLSR for Harris Park was completed by NRSI (2013a) for the City of London. Harris Park includes the lands east of the river and north of Site 2 (Figure 8). Specific mammal surveys were not completed by NRSI; however, mammals were observed during other field visits, and a tally of all the species identified, including those observations from members of the public was appended to the report. Two mammal species were identified during the field surveys: Raccoon and Eastern Chipmunk (NRSI, 2013a). The Status Report also identified candidate habitat for two provincially listed Species at Risk: Northern Myotis (END), and Little Brown Myotis (END). Observations or evidence of two mammal species, the Grey Squirrel and White-tailed Deer, were recorded on Site 2 during the 2015/2016/2017 field surveys. Neither species is a Species at Risk in Ontario. A list of the species observed can be found in Appendix C SITE 3: MEDWAY CREEK CROSSING ON WESTERN ROAD A Natural Heritage Inventory and Evaluation for the Medway Valley Heritage Forest ESA was completed by Dillon Consulting (2015) for the City of London. The Medway Valley Heritage Forest ESA includes lands along Medway Creek from Fanshawe Park Road West, south and east to Western Road. The crossing of Medway Creek at Western Road and associated woodland habitat is Site 3 (Figure 9). Specific mammal surveys were not completed by Dillon as part of the Natural Heritage Inventory, however mammals were observed during other field visits, and a tally of all the species identified was appended to the report. Thirty mammal species were identified during the field surveys, including observations from members of the public. Four of the species observed are listed as Species at Risk in Ontario, including American Badger (END), Northern Myotis (END), Little Brown Myotis (END), and Tricoloured Bat. The bats were identified by their vocal signatures based on audio recordings taken by members of the public. The American Badger was reported by local residents and was suspected on passing through the Study Area, as the ESA does not provide suitable habitat for that species (Dillon, 2015). Page 32

48 Observations or evidence of two mammal species, the Grey Squirrel and Red-backed Vole, were recorded on Site 3 during the 2015/2016 field surveys. Neither species is a Species at Risk in Ontario. A list of the species observed can be found in Appendix C SITE 4: NORTH THAMES CROSSING ON UNIVERSITY DRIVE Observations or evidence of six mammal species were recorded on or within 120 m of Site 4 (Figure 10) during the 2015/2016 field surveys, including Raccoon, Grey Squirrel, Beaver, Groundhog, Short-tailed Shrew, and White-tailed Deer. None of the species identified are Species at Risk in Ontario. A list of the species observed can be found in Appendix C SITE 5: THAMES CROSSING ON WELLINGTON ROAD An Environmental Impact Study for the SoHo Redevelopment was completed by NRSI (2013b) for the City of London. The Study Site in the NRSI study included lands along the Thames River from Wellington Road to Adelaide Street North. Site 5 (Figure 11) is located along the west boundary of the area surveyed by NRSI. Specific mammal surveys were not completed by NRSI as part of the Environmental Impact Study; however, mammals were observed during other field visits, and a tally of all the species identified was appended to the report. A total of seven mammal species were identified during the field surveys, including Eastern Cottontail, Eastern Grey Squirrel, Raccoon, Red Fox, Striped Skunk, White-tailed Deer and Woodchuck (NRSI, 2013b). The Status Report also identified candidate habitat for two provincially listed Species at Risk: Northern Myotis (END), and Little Brown Myotis (END). Two mammal species were observed on Site 5 during the 2015/2016 field surveys, including Eastern Chipmunk and Grey Squirrel. Neither of the species identified are Species at Risk in Ontario. A list of the species observed can be found in Appendix C SITE 6: WESTMINSTER PONDS EAST OF WELLINGTON ROAD An Ecological Inventory and Management Zone Report (North-South Environmental Inc., 2015) was completed for the entire Westminster Ponds/Pond Mills ESA and encompassed lands between Wellington Road to just east of Highbury Avenue, and Commissioners Road East to just south of Southdale Road East and Bradley Avenue. Site 6 is located in the western portion of the area identified as the Westminster Ponds ESA. The earlier Master Plan Update for Westminster Ponds/Pond Mills ESA was completed by UTRCA (2005) for the City of London. Signs of mammal presence were noted during the Ecological Inventory (North-South Environmental Inc., 2015), but dedicated searches were only completed for Coyote due to numerous sightings of the species within the area. In total, seven mammal species were observed during the Ecological inventory, including White-tailed Deer, Raccoon, Beaver, Striped Skunk, Meadow Vole, Coyote, and Red Fox. None of these species are considered Species at Risk in Ontario. The Master Plan Update mentioned that mammals found within the ESA included several species of mammals common to urban areas including Raccoon, Virginia Opossum, Red Fox, White-tailed Deer and Beaver (UTRCA, 2005). None of the mammals observed were identified as Species at Risk in Ontario. Seven mammal species were observed on Site 6 during the 2016 site investigation, including Eastern Chipmunk, Coyote, Grey Squirrel, Raccoon, Muskrat, Striped Skunk, and White-tailed Deer. None of the species identified are Species at Risk in Ontario. A list of the species observed can be found in Appendix C SITE 7: EXETER ROAD PARK N RIDE Three mammal species were observed on or within 120 m of Site 7 during the 2017 field surveys, including Eastern Cottontail, Muskrat and White-tailed Deer. None of the species identified are Species at Risk in Ontario. A list of the species observed can be found in Appendix C. Page 33

49 5.3 AQUATIC HABITAT The Study Area is located within the Upper Thames River Watershed and falls within the jurisdiction of the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA). The Thames River is the second largest river in southwestern Ontario, spanning 60 km and crossing both the Carolinian and the Great-Lakes St. Lawrence forest zones. The river is slightly entrenched by fluvial valleys, consisting of glacial till, clay and sand plains. The sinuous nature of the river has resulted in erosional and depositional activity including bank erosion, slumping, varied habitat types, and islands. Despite the fair to poor ranking of the water quality report card, the river sustains the most diverse aquatic community in Canada and is attributed to the broad range of habitat types (Quinlan, 2013). Nine fish and ten mussel Species at Risk have been documented in the Thames River basin. Three invasive species have also been documented in the Thames River basin, including Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio), Round Goby (Neogobius melanostomus) and Zebra Mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) (Source Water Protection, 2015). Generally, UTRCA regulates works within the floodplain and adjacent watercourse(s)/body(ies) under their Flood and Regulation Limits (Ontario Regulation 97/04). All the watercourses crossed by the study limits, as well as the Westminster Ponds, are mapped as a part of UTRCA s Flood and Regulation limits. A detailed description of the existing aquatic habitat conditions available within Sites 1 to 5 was originally provided in the SLSR (, 2017). However, because of the importance of the habitat characteristics as it relates to assessment of impacts of the proposed works, the existing habitat characteristics have been summarized below for each of the sites associated with the natural heritage system review. Site 6 has been intentionally omitted from this section, as the RT works will not impact habitats that directly support fish use SITE 1: OXFORD STREET WEST AT MUD CREEK Site 1 encompasses the Oxford Street West crossing of Mud Creek, a tributary of the Thames River. A number of previous studies have been carried out for the Mud Creek subwatershed, including an Existing Ecological Report completed by Delcan in 2013, and a Subwatershed Class Environmental Assessment completed by CH2M in the fall of completed a field investigation for this site in 2014 to fill in information gaps. The details of the field survey and the background information was provided in the SLSR (, 2017). A summary of that information has been provided below, with any updated information collected during their 2017 field reconnaissance also completed for this site. Within the study limits for the London RT, Mud Creek flows in a southwesterly direction through agricultural and manicured areas to Oxford Street West, runs parallel to Oxford Street West for approximately 370 m before meandering south to cross under Oxford Street West into a wooded area before meandering west to flow under Proudfoot Lane and out of the study limits. For the Existing Ecological Conditions Report (2013), Delcan established a sampling location 750 m upstream of the Oxford Street West crossing which was noted as the most natural habitat within the watershed because of its coldwater inputs and wooded riparian cover. notes that the wooded area on the north side of Oxford Street West has been removed since this sampling program. A second sampling location was established by Delcan 350 m downstream of the Oxford Street West crossing, and was determined to have poor quality habitat resulting from its channelized nature that lacked refuge habitat for fish. The City of London and the UTRCA also completed physical and biological assessments of the Mud Creek Subwatershed to support the Subwatershed Study. These assessments included collection of water quality and macroinvertebrate data to document the creek s suitability to support fish. The UTRCA completed both benthic and fish sampling upstream and downstream of Site 1. A complete list of fish species captured within the study limits has been provided in Appendix E. Generally, Mud Creek supports a diverse cool water community of bait, forage and pan fish including White Sucker, Smallmouth Bass and as variety of dace and minnow species. According to the biotic indices calculated from the benthic macroinvertebrate data collected in the vicinity of the Oxford Street crossing, taxa richness was fairly low (11-12 taxa) and dominated by Oligochaetes Page 34

50 and Chironomidae that indicate tolerance of stream and habitat degradation. Sensitive taxa numbers were also low (1-3 species), suggesting that the water quality within the sample site was fairly poor to poor overall. conducted field surveys at this location on August 28, 2015 and September 14, 2017 in order to update previously reported habitat conditions, and document channel characteristics not previously provided in detail in order to support a preliminary assessment of impacts to fish and fish habitat associated with the proposed works for the London RT. Mud Creek flows from east to west along the north side parallel to Oxford Street West, between the road infrastructure and manicured lawns associated with the commercial property immediately to the north. The channel has been historically straightened, and receives flows from a tributary to Mud Creek from a culvert below the parking lot north of the existing culvert. There are also two separate box culverts that convey Mud Creek under the private lane entrances between the Oxford Street West culvert inlet and the wooded area to the east. The majority of the channel within the study limits was densely vegetated by cattails and sedges, with very little open water present at the time of the survey. Water depths ranged from 0.2 to 0.75 m, with an average wetted width of 13 m. Substrates were dominated by silt and organics, with some patches of coarser materials throughout the reach. Channel morphology was dominated by flats, with small pools observed at the culvert inlet and pockets throughout the reach. The entrance culverts were almost 100% submerged and filled with substrates. Riparian vegetation consisted of manicured lawns associated with the commercial development, and cultural and meadow marsh species between the paved shoulder and the waterline. Instream cover was provided by the dense instream vegetation, as well as some overhanging bank vegetation. Baitfish were observed using the scour pool at the outlet of the tributary culvert from the parking lot, as well as in the open water areas immediately adjacent the two entrance lanes. Patches of Watercress were observed throughout the reach, suggesting that there are groundwater inputs in this reach, although neither seeps nor iron staining were evident SITE 2: NORTH THAMES CROSSINGS AT QUEENS AVENUE AND RIVERSIDE DRIVE Site 2 is located in the heart of London, encompassing both the Riverside Drive (Kensington Bridge) and Queens Avenue bridge crossings of the North Thames River. This portion of the North Thames River was one of the subject areas included in the One River Master Plan Environmental Assessment (Matrix Solutions Inc., 2017a and 2017b) that was initiated for the Thames River by the City of London to document existing conditions of the Thames River and valley corridor in order to evaluate all the projects as a whole and determine feasibility of implementing certain projects over others. In addition, the UTRCA carried out both benthic and mussel sampling upstream and downstream of the bridges to document existing aquatic species diversity. carried out aquatic field investigations at this location in August 2015 and September 2017, but focused the investigations on existing habitat conditions within the immediate vicinity of Queens Avenue and Riverside Drive in order to support an assessment of potential impacts on fish and fish habitat resulting from the London RT project. As a part of the One River project, Matrix Solutions Inc. undertook two seasonal field visits targeted to occur in late spring and summer to provide a more comprehensive list of fish species present within the study reaches (2017b). Collection methods included passive (minnow trap setting) and active (electrofishing, seining) methods to collect fish, with the hopes of avoiding sampling bias with collection methods. The results of this sampling indicated that this portion of the North Thames River, known as The Forks, has the highest diversity of fish species over all other sampling areas considered as part of the project. A complete list of the species captured by Matrix Solutions Inc. as well as those documented by other background sources have been included in Appendix E. Generally, this portion of the North Thames River supports a diverse coolwater forage and baitfish community with confirmed presence of Silver Shiner, an aquatic SAR. Matrix concluded that the presence of broad shallow riffle areas throughout the reach were inhabited by large schools of minnow species. Page 35

51 The UTRCA completed both benthic and mussel sampling upstream and downstream of Site 2. A complete list of mussel species captured within the study limits has been provided in Appendix E. Of note, UTRCA was able to confirm presence of Wavy-rayed Lampmussel, an aquatic SAR, within their sampling site. According to the biotic indices calculated from the benthic macroinvertebrate data collected in the vicinity of the bridges, taxa richness was fairly low and dominated by Oligochaetes and Chironomidae that indicate tolerance of stream and habitat degradation. Sensitive taxa numbers were also low, suggesting that the water quality within the sample site was fairly poor to poor overall. The field surveys documented channel morphology and habitat characteristics within the study reaches. The bridge crossings associated with Site 2 are located approximately 100 m upstream of where the North and South Thames Rivers meet, known as The Forks. Upstream of the bridges, the channel is relatively straight with armoured walls installed to control flooding concerns within this portion of the river. The banks of the river are heavily urbanized, with both commercial and residential development on either side. There is also a manicured park along the east side of the river upstream of the bridges. There is very limited instream vegetation present within the study reaches, and very little riparian habitat that would provide cover for the resident species. The river at the bridges was between 55 and 75m wide, with wetted depths ranging from 0.1 to m. Substrates were dominated by gravel and cobbles, with pockets of finer sand and silt mainly within the thalweg. Channel morphology was dominated by runs within the study reaches, and a scour pool downstream where the two rivers meet. There were also long cobble lateral bars and cobble islands that have formed around the bridge piers. Riparian vegetation consisted mainly of manicured parkland, as well as a few scattered trees along the banks of the river. Instream cover was provided by the cobbles and boulders, and a few areas where there was overhanging vegetation from the islands and banks. Both bridges are multi-span structures with piers set within the wetted edges of the river. At the time of the September 2017 field investigations the eastern-most span opening under the Kensington Bridge (Riverside Drive) was completely dry, and the thalweg was flowing through the middle span. There was no evidence of groundwater inputs into the channel, or permanent barriers to upstream movement observed by within the study reaches SITE 3: MEDWAY CREEK CROSSING ON WESTERN ROAD Site 3 is associated with the Western Road crossing of Medway Creek (Site 3A in the SLSR). UTRCA has carried out benthic, mussel and fish sampling within close proximity of this bridge crossing to classify existing water quality and fish habitat conditions within Medway creek. conducted additional field investigations in 2015 and 2017 to collect fish and mussel habitat assessments in order to provide a complete picture of the habitat available within Medway Creek. Within the study limits for the London RT, Medway Creek flows in an east-west direction along the south side of Windermere Road before meandering south to flow around the London University Hospital. The creek is surrounded by a narrow corridor of wooded landscape that is confined within residential and university development. The main portion of the flow passes through the south of the two span openings of the bridge. At the time of s field investigations, here was no flow (dry) in the northern of the two span openings, suggesting that the norther opening is used more during higher flow events, and sits dry during lower flow periods. As indicated, the UTRCA completed fish community and benthic surveys to classify water quality within the study limits. A complete list of fish species captured (including both mussels and fish) within the study limits has been provided in Appendix E. Generally, Medway Creek supports a diverse community of both mussel and fish species including forage, sport and baitfish species, and fish and mussel species at risk. According to the biotic indices calculated for the benthic macroinvertebrate data collected within the study limits, taxa richness was higher than at other stations, ranging from 13 to 25 taxa per station. The benthic population was dominated by the tolerant taxon Chironomidae, with Oligochaetes present in lower numbers. The sensitive taxa were present in moderate proportions of the community suggesting fairly poor water quality conditions. Page 36

52 conducted field surveys along the study reaches in August 2015 and September 2017 to update previously reported habitat conditions within the creek, and document channel characteristics not previously noted. Overall, Medway Creek is a wide, slow moving, shallow watercourse that is crossed by three separate bridges within 0.5 km of one another within the study limits. There was very little instream vegetation observed by ecologists within close proximity of the Western Road bridge. The average wetted width of the channel observed during 2017 field investigations was approximately 12 m, with water depths ranging from 0.1 to 0.7 m. Substrates were composed of a mixture of gravel and cobbles, with sand and silt intermixed with the coarser materials. Channel morphology was dominated by riffles and runs, and one small pool isolated along the northern bank downstream of the bridge that was providing refuge and nursery habitat Young-of-Year (YOY) observed for resident species. Riparian vegetation consisted of a wooded corridor along the edges of the banks, and then development and infrastructure beyond. In-stream habitat cover opportunities were limited to some undercut banks, boulders and cobble. In-stream vegetation was not present, and overhanging vegetation was estimated to shade approximately 10% of the watercourse. conducted passive mussel searches within the study limits of this site during the 2017 field investigations to determine whether the habitat within the road corridor, and specifically around the existing bridge piers had the potential to support mussel SAR. As a result of the passive surveys, it was determined that the habitat within the road ROW supports both SAR and non-sar mussel species. This is consistent with what UTRCA has gernally reported for this location. As mentioned, baitfish including YOY, were observed throughout the study reaches, specifically within the pool area to the north and downstream of the bridge SITE 4: NORTH THAMES RIVER AT UNIVERSITY DRIVE Site 4 is associated with the three span bridge crossing of the North Thames River by University Drive. The river flows in a southern direction within the limits of the London RT project. It is lined on both sides by a relatively narrow corridor of forest within the floodplain, and then university and residential development beyond. The UTRCA completed both mussel and fish community sampling along this reach to classify the habitat conditions generally. carried out follow up field investigations to collect both fish community and habitat characteristics of the channel to support UTRCA s conclusions regarding water quality and how it relates to fish habitat within the study reaches. According to the sampling surveys conducted by UTRCA, this portion of the North Thames River supports a diverse fish and mussel community including forage, bait and sport fish species including Walleye and Smallmouth Bass. A complete list of the species identified for this portion of the North Thames has been included in Appendix E. UTRCA reported capture of three aquatic species at risk within close proximity to the site, including Black Redhorse, Wavy-rayed Lampmussel and Silver Shiner. conducted field surveys within the study reaches in August 2015, and follow-up surveys in 2017 to confirm site conditions. The North Thames River is comprised of a permanent, moderate flowing, linear channel planform within the study limits. The river has a wetted width that ranged from 45 to 60 m, with water depths ranging from 0.2 m in the riffles to more than 1 m at the in-water piers where scouring around the footings has occurred. Channel morphology was comprised of riffles, runs and scour pools within the study reaches. Substrates were comprised of a mix of fine and coarse materials, with the coarser materials forming the riffles and the finer substrates exposed along the scour pools adjacent the bridge piers. Riparian and near shore vegetation consisted of Red Maple, Trembling Aspen, Black Walnut, and Black Locust, with very little understory vegetation. There was no instream vegetation observed by during either field visit, therefore instream cover is provided by the coarser substrates and some minor overhanging vegetation from the banks. Both bridge piers are located at least partially within the wetted portion of the channel. The easternmost piers were completely surrounded by water, with basal scour along the eastern bank suggesting some bank instability resulting from higher flow events. The western piers were partially within the wetted width of the channel during the 2017 investigations, and are assumed to be completely surrounded by water during higher flow events. Page 37

53 5.3.5 SITE 5: THAMES RIVER AT WELLINGTON ROAD This site is associated with the Wellington Road crossing of the Thames River in the south central portion of the City of London. The Thames River in general is a wide, meandering channel flowing in a west-east direction. Within the study limits for the London RT the channel reach is relatively straight. The river is lined by a very narrow corridor of forest habitat, with parkland and residential land uses beyond. This portion of the Thames River has the least amount of natural vegetation when compared to the other Thames River crossings within the study limits. The UTRCA completed mussel, fish and benthic macroinvertebrate sampling within the study reaches of the London RT. Fish sampling occurred at a station located approximately 650 m downstream of the bridge. Based on the fish community data collected by UTRCA, this portion of the Thames River supports a diverse coolwater community of bait, forage and pan fish including Rock and Smallmouth Bass. UTRCA reported the most diverse community of mussel species within the vicinity of the bridge, with a mix of both SAR and non-sar species including Wavy-rayed Lampmussel. According to the biotic indices calculated from the benthic macroinvertebrate data collected by UTRCA, the taxa richness within close proximity of the site was high (10 to 20 taxa), with the community dominated by the tolerant taxa groups, Oligochaeta and Chironomidae, and a relatively moderate number of sensitive taxa present, indicating that the water quality within this portion of the Thames River is fairly poor. completed field investigations within close proximity of the bridge crossing in August 2015, and September 2017 to document habitat and channel characteristics within the area where pier expansion may be required. The Thames River consisted of a slow moving, homogenous, relatively straight planform within the study limits. The river was approximately 60 m wide, with water depths ranging from 0.3 to m along the reach. Channel morphology was dominated by flats within the study limits, with a locally deeper section around the in-water pier where flows have created local scour pools. Substrates were dominated by silt and sands, with very few coarse materials within the road corridor. The water was very turbid during both the August 2015 and September 2017 field visit completed by ecology staff. Riparian vegetation consisted of a narrow strip of mature Trembling Aspen, Black Walnut, Manitoba Maple and Willow species, with a ground cover of Spotted Joe-pye Weed, Purple Loosestrife and Goldenrod species. There was very little instream vegetation observed within the study limits, resulting in very nominal instream cover for the resident species. What cover did exist was provided by in-stream woody debris and overhanging vegetation. also completed passive mussel searches within close proximity to the bridge during the 2017 field investigations to determine if habitat within the road corridor was suitable to support potential SAR mussels. Although observed numerous non-sar mussels throughout the study reaches, there were no SAR mussels observed SITE 7: EXETER ROAD PARK AND RIDE This site is associated with the existing OPP station in the southeast portion of the London RT study limits near Highway 401. This site was added to the London RT project in 2017, and as such, information for this site was not previously provided in the SLSR (, 2017). In 2017 conducted a detailed aquatic field investigation of the Murray Drain flowing parallel to the proposed Park and Ride location to document existing fish and habitat conditions within the study limits. This detailed analysis included fish community sampling, simple water quality parameters and habitat mapping to document habitat suitability within the London RT study limits. Murray Drain, a tributary of Dingman Creek, flows in an east to west direction within the study limits, along the southern edge of the OPP station property, and adjacent to both the Highway 401 and Wellington Road corridors, before crossing under Wellington Road north of the Highway 401 exit ramp and continuing in a westerly direction towards its outlet into the Thames River approximately 18 km west of the study area, near the community of Delaware. Page 38

54 The channel morphology within this portion of the Murray Drain displayed relatively homogenous habitat and substrates with very little change in channel parameters or substrate composition. collected information at four (4) transects spread out over 200 metres of channel. Wetted widths ranged from m at the time of the field investigations, with water depths ranging from m. Channel morphology was dominated by flats with a few buried riffles. The flats had substrates dominated by sand, silt, and organic materials, whereas the riffles were composed of gravel and sand, partially buried (embedded) by silt and organic materials. Instream vegetation was observed throughout the reach, however its density varied from 20% in the riffles, to 60% in the flat areas. Instream vegetation included Coontail, sedges, arrowhead species, and pondshield. A small amount of small woody debris, in the form of old tree stumps and branches, was also observed scattered throughout the reach. Riparian vegetation along this portion of the drain consisted of cultural meadow species dominated by Goldenrod, Milkweed, Cattail, Phragmites and Jewel-weed species. There was very little woody vegetation observed on the backs; limited to a scattering of Willow and Dogwood shrubs on the banks. There were no large mature trees that provided cover or shading for the channel. Fish community sampling was completed for the length of the reach assessed. This community sampling included spot shocking of various habitat elements throughout the channel using a backpack electrofisher. fisheries staff conducted 113 seconds of spot shocking at 80 hz and 100 volts. Water temperature within the drain at the time of the community sampling was 22 degrees Celsius. Based on the sampling conducted by, Murray Drain supports a relatively simple coolwater bait and forage fish community, including Largemouth Bass. A complete list of the fish species recorded by MNRF and for this location has been included in Appendix E. There are no direct crossings of this drain associated with the London RT project, however impacts to the lands adjacent to the watercourse have the potential to impact the fish community indirectly through alteration of the floodplain and adjacent lands. 6 SIGNIFICANCE AND SENSITIVITY 6.1 ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS The London Plan (2016) provides for the protection of Environmentally Significant Areas (ESA) and Earth Science and Life Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) within the City of London, as depicted on Map 5. The Westminster Ponds/Pond Mills ESA and the Medway Valley Heritage Forest ESA occur within the vicinity of the proposed RT route. The Westminster Ponds/Pond Mills ESA is the largest natural area in the City of London, covering approximately 250 ha. This ESA is significant for its size, variety of natural habitats, and plant diversity. The surrounding land uses include Commercial, Health infrastructure and Residential areas. The ESA includes lands between Wellington Road to the west to just east of Highbury Avenue to the east; and from Commissioners Road East in the north to just south of Southdale Road East and Bradley Avenue in the south. Site 6, being portions of Wellington Road along the London RT Route, runs along the western border of the Westminster Ponds/Pond Mills ESA (Figure 6). The regionally significant Westminster Ponds / Pond Mills ANSI also occurs within the portion of the ESA adjacent to Wellington Road. The Medway Valley Heritage Forest ESA covers approximately ha of privately and publicly owned land in north London, between Windermere, Sunningdale Road, Western and Wonderland Roads. The diverse terrestrial and aquatic habitats within the ESA provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species, including Species of Conservation Concern and Species at Risk (Dillon, 2015). The eastern extent of the Medway Valley Heritage Forest ESA occurs within Site 3 (Figure 9). Page 39

55 6.2 SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS, WETLANDS AND UNEVALUATED WETLANDS The PPS (OMMAH, 2014) provides for the protection of Provincially Significant Wetlands. The London Plan (2016) provides for the protection of Significant Wetlands, wetlands, and unevaluated wetlands within the City of London. The Westminster Ponds/Pond Mills ESA contains a Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW; Figure 6), and portions of the western edge fall within the Study Area and may be impacted by the proposed widening of Wellington Road. Unevaluated wetlands are mapped on the south bank of Medway Creek in the vicinity of Site 3; however, field investigations completed by did not support designation of wetland vegetation communities within these areas (refer to section for additional information). Unmapped wetlands occur along Mud Creek at Site 1, on the north side of Oxford Street West, and along the Murray Drain at Site 7. The wetlands along Mud Creek are to be relocated as part of the Mud Creek Subwatershed Class EA (CH2M, 2017), and direct impacts to their form or function as a result of the RT works are not anticipated. The wetlands associated with the Murray Drain at Site 7 are located within the Significant Valleyland and 30 m ecological buffer typically afforded to fish habitat. Direct impacts to the wetlands along Murray Drain are not anticipated. 6.3 SIGNIFICANT VALLEYLANDS AND VALLEYLANDS The PPS (OMMAH, 2014) and The London Plan (2016) provide for the protection of Significant Valleylands. Significant Valleylands are depicted on Map 5 of The London Plan, and also appear as Green Space Place Type on Map 1. In the Study Area, Significant Valleylands are found at: Site 1: Mud Creek at Oxford Street West (Figure 7); Site 2: North Thames River at Queens Avenue and Riverside Drive (Figure 8); Site 3: Medway Creek at Western Road (Figure 9); Site 4: North Thames River at University Drive (Figure 10); Site 5: Thames River at Wellington Road (Figure 11); and, Site 7: Murray Drain at the Exeter Road Park and Ride (Figure 13). By providing protection for Significant Valleylands, the Official Plan also provides for the protection of Fish Habitat, as described in 5.4 (Aquatic Habitat). Other natural heritage features and areas, including woodlands, wetlands, and wildlife habitat overlap with Significant Valleylands and contribute to the form and function of the valley feature. The corridor width of a Significant Valleyland is to be established and delineated as part of a secondary plan, environmental impact study and/or subject lands status report using criteria provided in the London Plan (Policy 1350_) with guidance from the City s Guidelines for Determining Setbacks and Ecological Buffers. In the case of Sites 2, 3, 4, and 5, development exists within the valleyland and as the RT project will involve modification to the existing infrastructure, further refinement of the corridor width and establishment of ecological buffers is not warranted. Page 40

56 In the case of Site 7, the valleyland encompasses the Murray Drain and associated riparian vegetation, which consisted largely of cultural meadow species and cattails, with occasional shrubs. There were no large mature trees that provided cover or shading for the channel. The area has been heavily influenced by existing land uses, including transmission corridors, transportation, commercial development and light industry. The vegetation communities are generally of low botanical quality, and the watercourse is a channelized ditch with little morphological variability. Nevertheless, the general area does provide limited habitat for breeding birds and habitat for a species of conservation concern (Monarch). As per the London Plan (2016) and the guidelines provided in the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (2005), and for the purposes of this report, the corridor width of the significant valleyland at Site 7 is considered to be 30 m on either side of the high water mark 1. However, within the vicinity of the proposed infrastructure, portions of the significant valleyland are characterized by manicured lawn and therefore offer limited ecological function. Impacts to the form or function of the valleyland are not anticipated provided there is no disturbance to the natural vegetation within the valleyland. 6.4 SIGNIFICANT WOODLANDS AND WOODLANDS Both the PPS (OMMAH, 2014) and The London Plan (2016) provide for the protection of Significant Woodlands within the City of London. The City of London defines Significant Woodlands as wooded areas within London that achieve a minimum of one High or five Medium criteria scores when the City s Guidelines for the Evaluation of Ecologically Significant Woodlands are applied (Policy 1340_ of the London Plan). In this way, the London Plan also provides for the protection of Woodlands and Unevaluated Vegetation Patches (identified on Map 5) that meet the threshold for significance. While no Significant Woodlands as mapped on Map 5 of The London Plan fall within the Study Area, several Woodlands and Unevaluated Vegetation Patches do. With the exception of the unnumbered patch at Site 1, these wooded areas will be treated as Significant Woodlands for the purposes of this EIS. Descriptions of these woodlands have been provided in Section 5.2. These patches include: Site 1, Patch removed by owner in 2016 (previously unnumbered) (Figure 7); Site 1, Patch 6007 (Figure 7); Site 3, Patch 3003 (Figure 9); Site 4, Patch 3001 (Figure 10); and Site 5, Woodlands east of Wellington Road (Figure 11). The unnumbered patch removed by the owner in 2016 (Figure 7) at Site 1 had not been evaluated for significance as part of this study; however, the Mud Creek Subwatershed EA (LGL, 2016) found that Patches 6007 and the unnumbered patch at Site 1 should be considered significant because they met at least one high criterion score for significance. The majority of the woodland on the north side of Oxford Street West was removed by the owner in the spring of 2016 and is therefore no longer considered significant for the purpose of this report. 6.5 HABITAT FOR ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES Species at Risk are defined as species listed as Threatened or Endangered provincially by the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) and subsequently are afforded protection under the ESA. The PPS (OMMAH, 2014) defines the significant habitat of Endangered or Threatened species as the habitat, as approved by the MNRF, that is necessary for the maintenance, survival and/or the recovery of a naturally occurring or 1 The High Water Mark as defined by Fisheries and Oceans Canada is the usual or average level to which a body of water rises to its highest point and remains for a sufficient time so as to leave a mark on the land. Page 41

57 reintroduced population of Endangered or Threatened species as listed on the ESA, and where those areas of occurrences are occupied or habitually occupied by the species during all or any part(s) of their life cycle. The MNRF is mandated to ensure accurate database information for the identification, listing and conduct of ongoing assessments for significant Endangered species and their related habitats. Species designated as Special Concern provincially, assigned a conservation status (S-Rank) of S1 to S3 or SH, or designated as Special Concern, Threatened, or Endangered by the Committee for the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) or under the federal Species at Risk Act, are considered Species of Conservation Concern (SCC). Confirmed habitat for SCC is considered Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) under the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and therefore is discussed further within the context of SWH (Section 6.6). A screening exercise was completed as part of the SLSR and involved developing a list of SAR and SCC known to occur within the vicinity of the Study Area or region from a review of various sources. The screening exercise was updated to reflect information gathered during the 2017 field program, as well as SAR related correspondence with the MNRF, UTRCA, and DFO (Appendix B). The SAR screening summary table is provided in Appendix F, and includes observations of SAR made during the 2015, 2016, and 2017 field surveys (Figure 27). Background lists and other SAR information are also provided in the summary table. Due to the documented occurrences and potential for a number of SAR and SCC within the Study Area, met with staff from the Aylmer District MNRF on November 21, 2017 to discuss ESA implications for the project. The information exchanged during this meeting was considered during the impact assessment, and formed the basis of recommendations for mitigation at sites where impacts to SAR have the potential to occur (Section 8). Those species that were discussed with the MNRF and have high potential to occur within the Study Area are discussed further below. While species listed as Special Concern on the SARO List (MNRF, 2017b) do not receive protection under the ESA, they have been included in the impact assessment. In many instances, avoidance and mitigation measures recommended for Endangered and Threatened species or other natural features and areas will provide protection / benefit to Special Concern species as well. Due to the anticipated construction phasing which is to occur over a nine-year period between 2019 and 2028, it is possible that species listings and associated regulation will change between the publication of this report, and construction at individual sites. For this reason, the potential for impacts to Species at Risk should be reassessed during detailed design to ensure appropriate measures are taken under the Act TERRESTRIAL SPECIES AT RISK The SAR and SCC screening exercise, and consultation with MNRF and UTRCA staff, resulted in a list of fourteen terrestrial species that have been confirmed or have high potential to occur within the London RT corridors. These species, descriptions of preferred habitat, and habitat potential within the Study Area are summarized in Appendix F, along with their provincial and federal status. FLORA Butternut (RT Route) Two specimens of this provincially Endangered species were observed on the Western University campus on the southeast side of Lambton Drive (Figure 27). The species and their habitat are protected under the ESA. Kentucky Coffeetree (Site 4 and RT Route) Thirty trees were observed within the Study Area, including one at the northeast abutment of the University Bridge at Site 4. The other specimens were observed within 50 m of the RT Route (Figure 27). Kentucky Coffeetree is listed as Threatened on the SARO List (MNRF, 2017b) and receives species and general habitat protection under the ESA. Page 42

58 BIRDS Bald Eagle (Site 1, potential at Sites 2, 4, and 5) Bald Eagle is listed as a species of Special Concern in Ontario (MNRF, 2017b) and is therefore, not afforded protection under the ESA. Bald Eagles are known to nest along the Thames River; however, nests sites were not identified within the Study Area. The single record for this species, consisted of a fly-over at Site 1 noted during a general wildlife survey during August Bank Swallow (Site 6) Bank Swallow is listed as a Threatened species in Ontario and receives habitat and individual protection under the ESA. A single Bank Swallow was observed flying over the western edge of Saunders Pond beyond the eastern boundary of Site 6. Suitable nesting habitat was not observed within the immediate area and it is assumed the bird was likely foraging. Barn Swallow (Sites 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) Barn Swallows were observed nesting at Site 2 (Kensington Bridge), and foraging over Sites 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. While suitable structures for nesting may occur within the vicinity of the sites, Barn Swallow nests were not observed on the Queens Avenue Bridge (Site 2), or the bridges at Sites 3, 4 and 5. Barn Swallow is listed as a Threatened species in Ontario (MNRF, 2017b). Exemptions under the ESA for this species are detailed under Ontario Regulation 242/08 (Government of Ontario). Chimney Swift (Sites, 2, 3, 4, and RT Route) Chimney Swifts were observed foraging for insects above Sites 2, 3 and 4, and on Oxford Street West in the vicinity of Platt s Lane. In each situation breeding evidence was not observed; however, active chimneys have been documented on Oxford Street West. Chimney Swifts are known to forage over a relatively large area throughout the day, and were likely using the airspace above Sites 2, 3 and 4 for this purpose, breeding elsewhere in the City. Chimney Swift is listed as a Threatened species in Ontario (MNRF, 2017b). Exemptions under the ESA for this species are detailed under Ontario Regulation 242/08 (Government of Ontario). Eastern Meadowlark (Site 7) This species is listed as Threatened on the SARO list and receives species and general habitat protection under the ESA. It was observed on two occasions at Site 7. Mixed meadow communities within this area may provide suitable breeding habitat for this species. Eastern-wood Pewee (Sites 1 and 6) Eastern Wood-Pewee is listed as a species of Special Concern in Ontario (MNRF, 2017b). The species was observed at Sites 1 and 6 within suitable habitat. As a species of Special concern it is not afforded protection under the ESA. Wood Thrush (Site 6) - Wood Thrush is listed as a species of Special Concern in Ontario (MNRF, 2017b) and is therefore, not afforded protection under the ESA. This species was observed at Site 6. HERPETOFAUNA Northern Map Turtle (Sites 2, 3, 4 and 5) The Northern Map Turtle is listed as Special Concern in Ontario (MNRF, 2017b) and does not receive protection under the ESA. This species is known to occur throughout the Study Area within the Thames River and its tributaries. Queensnake (Sites 3 and 4) - This species is known to occur in the vicinity of Sites 3 and 4. Queensnake is listed as Endangered in Ontario (MNRF, 2017b), and receives species and habitat protection under the ESA. Habitat protected for this species is described and regulated under Ontario Regulation 242/08 under the ESA. Snapping Turtle (all sites) This species is known to occur throughout the Thames River and its tributaries. The species is also known to occur in the Westminster Ponds / Pond Mills ESA, beyond the boundaries of Site 6, and may use Mud Creek and Murray Drain as a movement corridor within the vicinity of Sites 1 and 7, respectively. Snapping Turtle is listed as a species of Special Concern on the SARO List (MNRF, 2017b) and does not receive protection under the ESA. Spiny Softshell Turtle (Sites 2, 3, 4, and 5) This species is known to occur in the vicinity of Sites 2, 3 and 5, and was confirmed at Site 4 during the field investigation. This species receives species and general habitat protection under the ESA. Page 43

59 INSECTS Monarch (Sites 1 and 7) Monarchs and host plants (Milkweed) were observed at Sites 1 and 7. Milkweed is important to Monarch populations, as Monarch larvae feed exclusively on this plant. The Monarch is listed as Special Concern in Ontario (MNRF, 2017b) and does not receive protection under the ESA AQUATIC SPECIES AT RISK According to DFO s Distribution of Fish and Mussel Species at Risk maps, there are a number of fish and mussel species that have the potential to occur within the study limits of the London RT. However, through a SAR and SCC screening assessment, was able to narrow down the list of species with potential to inhabit the reaches of the project to those that have either been confirmed through sampling efforts, or their habitat has been confirmed within the watercourses along the proposed London RT corridor. These species, descriptions of preferred habitat, and habitat potential within the Study Area are summarized in Appendix F, along with their provincial and federal status. MUSSELS Wavy-rayed Lampmussel (Sites 2, 3, 4 and 5) - This species has been confirmed at all four sites. Wavy-rayed are listed as Threatened and therefore individuals and their habitat are protected under the ESA. Rainbow Mussel (Sites 2, 4 and 5) - DFO indicated that should consider this species as being potentially present within the Thames River and its major tributaries, although none have been confirmed within the vicinity of the London RT crossings. Rainbow Mussel were just recently (2017) down-listed to Special Concern under the ESA, and therefore no longer receive protection under the ESA. This species in still listed as Endangered under SARA and therefore receive habitat ad individual protection federally. Round Pigtoe (Sites 2, 4 and 5) - DFO indicated that should consider this species as being potentially present within the Thames River and its major tributaries, which are identified as critical habitat for this species according to DFO. No individuals have been confirmed within the vicinity of the London RT crossings. This species is listed as Endangered under the ESA and therefore receives both habitat and individual protection. This species is also listed as Endangered under SARA, and as such, receives protection federally as well as provincially. Rayed Bean (Sites 2, 4, 5 and 7) - DFO indicated that should consider this species as being potentially present within the Thames River and its major tributaries, although none have been confirmed within the London RT study limits. This species is listed as Endangered both provincially and federally, and therefore receives individual and habitat protection under the ESA and SARA. FISH Spotted Sucker (Sites 2, 4 and 5) - DFO indicated that should consider this species as being potentially present within the Thames River and its major tributary, although none have been confirmed within the London RT study limits. This species is listed as Special Concern under the ESA and SARA, and therefore does not receive habitat protection generally. Silver Shiner (Sites 2, 3, 4, and 5) This species has been confirmed at Sites 2, 3, 4 and 5. MNRF initially indicated that it should be considered at Site 7 also. Follow up consultation with MNRF confirmed that it can be dropped from Site 7. This species is listed as Threatened provincially and as such will receive individual and habitat protection within the study reaches. This species is only listed as Special Concern federally and therefore will not receive federal protection under SARA. Page 44

60 Northern Brook Lamprey (Sites 2, 4 and 5) - DFO indicated that should consider this species as being potentially present within the Thames River and its major tributary, although none have been confirmed within the London RT study limits. This species is listed as Special Concern both provincially and federally, and therefore does not receive habitat protection under the ESA and SARA. Black Redhorse (Sites 3 and 4) MNRF confirmed the presence of this species within the broader study limits at Site 3, and the potential for their presence within Sites 4 and 7. Based on available habitat within Site 7, there is little to no potential for this species to be within Murray Drain. This species is listed as Threatened provincially and therefore receives individual and habitat protection under the ESA. It is listed only as Special Concern federally and therefore will not receive habitat protection federally under SARA. 6.6 SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT Wildlife habitat is defined as areas where plants, animals, and other organisms live and find adequate amounts of food, water, shelter, and space needed to sustain their populations. Specific wildlife habitats of concern may include areas where species concentrate at a vulnerable point in their annual life cycle and areas that are important to migratory or non-migratory species (OMMAH, 2014). Wildlife habitat is referred to as significant if it is ecologically important in terms of features, functions, representation or amount, and contributing to the quality and diversity of an identifiable geographic area or Natural Heritage System (OMMAH, 2014). Development and site alteration within significant wildlife habitat is not permitted under the PPS (OMMAH, 2014) or The London Plan (2016). Guidelines and criteria for the identification of significant wildlife are detailed in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR, 2000), Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedules for Ecoregion 7E (MNRF, 2015b), and the Natural Heritage Reference Manual (OMNR, 2010). Significant wildlife habitat is described under four main categories: Seasonal concentrations of animals; Rare vegetation communities or specialized habitats for wildlife; Wildlife movement corridors; and Habitats of species of conservation concern. An assessment was carried out in the SLSR to determine the potential for Significant Wildlife Habitat on or within 120 m of the RT Route with a specific focus on Sites 1 through 6. Resources and protocols outlined in the OMNR Significant Wildlife Habitat: Technical Guide (OMNR, 2000) and the Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedules for Ecoregion 7E (MNRF, 2015b) were utilized to evaluate the potential for species concentration area occurrence. In addition, Significant Wildlife Habitat areas identified in earlier studies were also carried forward into the EIS. Newly surveyed areas of the RT Route, and Site 7 were assessed using applicable criteria and the results are provided herein. Habitats that were identified within the Study Area and have the potential to be impacted by the proposed works are discussed in Table 3, below. Page 45

61 Table 3 Significant Wildlife Habitat within the Study Area HABITAT TYPE Bat Maternity Colonies Turtle Wintering Areas Other Rare Vegetation Communities Turtle Nesting Areas Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Woodland) Special Concern and Rare Wildlife Species CANDIDATE SWH CRITERIA AND FIELD SURVEY RESULTS Candidate habitat is present within wooded ELC types throughout the Study Area. Moderate to high potential may exist within the larger forested areas associated with the Mud Creek Subwatershed, Medway Valley Heritage Forest ESA, and Westminster Ponds/Pond Mills ESA at Sites 1, 3 and 6, respectively. Confirmed SWH habitat is present along the North Thames River within the vicinity of Site 4 and within the South Thames River at Site 5 (Figure 27). The North and South Thames Rivers possess suitable soft and muddy substrates. Further, numerous turtles, including Northern Map Turtle, Spiny Softshell (current study) and Snapping Turtle (NRSI, 2013b) were identified during the field surveys. One provincially rare (S1-S3) vegetation community was identified within 50 m of the proposed RT Route. A Fresh-Moist Sugar Maple-Black Maple Deciduous Forest (FODM6-2) was identified on the north side of Lambton Drive within the Western University campus (Figure 20). This community is listed as S3? denoting uncertainty regarding its status as Vulnerable within the province. Two turtle species were observed by during the field surveys; however, nesting females and signs of nesting were not observed. Confirmed Snapping Turtle nesting was observed by NRSI (2013b) within a manicured lawn area approximately 200 m east of Wellington Road at Site 5 (Figure 27), and confirmed by UTRCA at Site 2. UTRCA also confirmed that turtle nesting habitat is known to occur within the vicinity of Site 4 and beyond the boundaries of Site 6 within the Westminster Ponds / Pond Mills ESA. Potential for nesting habitat should be considered at Site 3 as well. Candidate habitat is present in Site 6 approximately 50 m east of Wellington Road, in a pond west of Saunders Pond. Three species of amphibian were identified during the amphibian surveys, including Spring Peeper, Grey Treefrog, and Green Frog, two of which are identified as target species for significance. To be significant, surveys must confirm two or more of the listed frog species with at least 20 individuals (adults or eggs masses), or two or more of the listed frog species with Call Level Codes of 3. Only one species (Spring Peeper) was observed with a Call Level Code of 3. Surveys did not confirm population size; however, there is a possibility that the second criterion may be met at this location. Habitat for SAR species is discussed in Section 6.5, and Appendix F. Page 46

62 7 PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE London s Bus Rapid Transit Network has been identified as a way to solve a number of growth-related challenges facing the City by supporting plans for future intensification of growth within existing urban centres, management of traffic congestion and travel times, and providing incentives to get people out of their cars and into different modes of transport. A more compact pattern of growth will help to curb urban sprawl, thereby preserving rural, agricultural, and natural areas surrounding the City. The approved Rapid Transit Network, defined in the Rapid Transit Master Plan, is comprised of North, South, East and West corridors. These corridors were selected based on a corridor level screening and detailed corridor assessment completed as part of the Rapid Transit Master Plan, which was approved by Council in July A set of criteria and measures were developed to assess a number of alternatives, and considered major destinations or high activity centres such as major retail areas, post-secondary institutions, hospitals, and train / bus stations, combined population and employment densities, growth forecasts for the City, and current transit ridership and areas with high rates of boardings. Potential environmental impacts associated with these four corridors are assessed in this EIS in support of preplanning for the Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP). At this stage of the pre-planning, the designs are considered conceptual and are subject to change following further technical assessment; continued consultation with agencies, Aboriginal communities, stakeholders, and the public; as well as advancement of preliminary engineering design. The following sections describe the potential impacts to Natural Heritage Features or Areas as identified on Map 5 of the London Plan (2016), or as identified as part of this investigation, based on the preferred design concepts. It is noted that infrastructure policies of The London Plan specify that the Municipal Council prefers that infrastructure not be located within the Natural Heritage System, and new or expanded infrastructure shall only be permitted within the Natural Heritage System where it has been clearly demonstrated that it is the preferred alternative. The infrastructure plans described in the following sections represent the preferred alternatives, but are subject to change during completion of the Transit Project Assessment Process, and subsequent detail design phases. 7.1 SITE 1: OXFORD STREET WEST CROSSING OF MUD CREEK The existing four-lane urban cross-section along Oxford Street West in the vicinity of the Mud Creek crossing is to be widened to include two dedicated RT lanes and four general use lanes, while maintaining sidewalks on both sides (Figure 28). A platform and turning lanes are proposed at the anticipated intersection with Beaverbrook Avenue, further increasing the road cross-section in this area. Infrastructure and related grading are anticipated to extend beyond the existing ROW to the north, particularly in the vicinity of the east-west reach of Mud Creek within the western portion of this Site. It is expected that the RT works along Oxford Street West in the vicinity of Mud Creek will be completed following the works proposed by the Mud Creek Subwatershed EA (CH2M, 2017). As part of this EA, Mud Creek is to be realigned and its riparian corridor enhanced. Specifically, the reach to the north of Oxford Street West is to be realigned by the private landowner as part of a proposed development, and the reach to the south will be realigned by the City. The Mud Creek Subwatershed EA is proposing a new crossing for Oxford Street West approximately 190 m east of the existing crossing. The new skewed culvert will be sited to tie into the upstream channel section, and designed to accommodate the wider cross-section and side slopes required to support the proposed RT works. Continued coordination between the RT and Mud Creek Subwatershed EA project teams will ensure that impacts to Mud Creek associated with the proposed RT works are minimized. Although the majority of the works associated with Mud Creek will likely be dealt with prior to the RT works commencing, there may still be a need to address the existing culvert crossing of Oxford Street West. Currently a tributary of Mud Creek is conveyed through a culvert buried below the parking lot immediately upstream of Oxford Street West. It is unclear at the time of writing how Page 47

63 this drainage feature will be dealt with, and whether the existing culvert will remain in use following the realigned section to the east. The nature of the additional works (e.g., extension to the existing culvert to accommodate the wider road cross section) at the detailed design phase and will address potential impacts to this watercourse and its fishery. 7.2 SITE 2: NORTH THAMES CROSSINGS AT QUEENS AVENUE AND RIVERSIDE DRIVE There are two bridges at Site 2 where Queens Avenue and Riverside Drive cross the North Thames. These bridges are twinned, currently supporting one-way traffic eastbound along the Kensington Bridge (Riverside Drive to Dundas Place) and one-way traffic westbound along the Queens Avenue Bridge. The preferred alternative includes the Kensington Bridge continuing to support eastbound traffic, while the Queens Avenue Bridge will be widened by approximately 0.4 m (~ 0.2 m on either side) to accommodate two-way RT traffic in dedicated lanes, two westbound general traffic lanes, and a sidewalk on the north side (Figure 29). The existing parapet wall, sidewalk and deck will be removed and replaced as part of the proposed construction. By excluding a multi-use trail from the crossing, and decreasing the width of the lanes to 3.3 m and 3.5 m for westbound and bus lanes, respectively, full replacement of the structure and extensions/additions to the bridge piers and footings can be avoided at this location. As such, there are no works contemplated in this report below the bridge within the high water mark of the river. 7.3 SITE 3: MEDWAY CREEK CROSSING AT WESTERN ROAD The current Western Road crossing of Medway Creek includes five general use traffic lanes (including a northbound left-turn lane onto Windermere Road), two bike lanes, and two sidewalks. To accommodate two dedicated RT lanes and two multi-use paths, while maintaining the existing traffic lanes and sidewalks, the bridge will need to be widened. A BRT station is proposed across from the University Hospital approximately 75 m south of the bridge. This station was originally proposed at the crossing, but was moved south to reduce the overall roadway crosssection at Medway Creek, reduce the size of the resulting bridge structure, and reduce the construction duration for the bridge improvements. The design process considered a number of alignment alternatives for Western Road through this section. Given the complex topography and geometric requirements of the proposed BRT facility (and associated station), the alignment considered in this analysis involves widening of the existing Medway Creek bridge to the east by up to 16 m (Figure 30). This alignment allows for the implementation of an on-street, Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA)-compliant BRT station at a realigned University Hospital access south of the Medway Creek crossing, and minimizes subsequent grading and retaining wall requirements farther south along Western Road. The grade of Western Road over the Medway Creek structure will have to be raised by approximately 30 cm; to be accommodated through the use of additional light-weight concrete on the existing structure. The western limit of the new bridge will remain the same as the existing, reducing encroachment into the sensitive areas on the west side of the existing bridge. Widening to only one side (versus partial widening on both sides) allows for use of the existing structure during construction, reduces the time required for construction, provides an acceptable horizontal alignment for Western Road through the Windermere intersection, and minimizes the associated disturbance to the natural environment. There may be work required along the western limit of the structure to accommodate modifications to the sidewalk / multi-use pathway configuration and parapet wall. This replacement would be completed in stages, allowing for continued use of the existing bridge by traffic while the new section is being constructed. The new portion would be constructed to the east while traffic is maintained on the existing portion of the bridge, and then traffic would be shifted to the east so that works can be carried out on the west portion of the bridge. Page 48

64 Widening of the structure will result in additional footprint impacts within the Medway Creek Valley associated with the need for a wider central pier and abutments. Additional modelling should be completed at this site to confirm hydraulics and ensure there is no increase to floodlines, or erosion along the north side of the creek or downstream. In addition, the extent of grading around the bridge abutments and road cross-section will be determined at later design phases. 7.4 SITE 4: NORTH THAMES CROSSING AT UNIVERSITY DRIVE The existing University Drive bridge crossing the North Thames supports two lanes shared by general traffic and bicycles, with sidewalks on both sides. The design of this bridge is subject to on-going negotiations with the bridge owner, Western University; however, strengthening and widening of the bridge to accommodate the RT lanes is expected to result in a full bridge replacement. The new bridge will remain oriented along the same axis, but the overall footprint will be approximately 11.3 m wider than the current footprint to accommodate two dedicated RT bus lanes, two bike lanes and two sidewalks (Figure 31). The bridge itself is likely to be closed to general traffic from Sunset Drive on the east side of the bridge to Western Road, due to Western University plans and policies in development. The current, three-span bridge has two piers, one on the western bank of the river, and one within the wetted width of the river near the east bank. The bridge has been identified as a sizable restriction on the North Thames River, acting as a pinch point in the river responsible for frequent flooding of upstream residential and institutional properties. Under the proposed design, the new bridge is to be lengthened across the valley by shifting the abutment locations further from the river, in an effort to improve hydraulic capacity and alleviate upstream flooding to the extent possible. To support a longer bridge, a three-span configuration is proposed, with two piers constructed on either bank of the North Thames River very close to the water s edge. This design concept removes the eastern pier from the channel and shifts the in-water footprint to the edge of the water on either side of the river, opening up the flow path of the river. The construction method includes a prefabricated superstructure, which by nature, decreases the construction period and associated disturbance to local traffic and the surrounding natural environment. Additional hydraulic modelling needs to be completed for this location to find the balance between improved hydraulic capacity, and avoidance of potential downstream issues associated with increased erosion and scouring. The extent of grading along the banks and around the bridge abutments, and the need for scour protection of the pier footings along the banks will need to be determined at later design phases. 7.5 SITE 5: THAMES RIVER AT WELLINGTON ROAD The existing crossing of the Thames River at Site 5 supports four general use traffic lanes and sidewalks on both sides. To accommodate two dedicated RT bus lanes, while maintaining the existing traffic capacity and providing a multi-use path on the east side, the structure may need to be widened by up to 9.4 m (Figure 32). Given the current road alignment, the expansion is proposed to the east and will involve extension of the central pier and abutments (which are in or within close proximity to the wetted edge). Widening to one side is proposed as a faster and cheaper option, which allows for use of the existing structure during construction. The use of coffer dams is expected to facilitate work in the dry for a duration of approximately 3 to 7 months while the central pier is extended. An accessible portion of the Thames Valley Parkway occurs along the north shore of the river and extends underneath the bridge via a circular access ramp from the northeast side of the bridge. In response to the road and bridge widening, and to meet current accessibility standards, the access ramp may need to be regraded and/or realigned. These works will be coordinated with staff from the City s Environmental and Parks Planning Section. The extent of grading around the bridge abutments and road cross-section will be determined at later design phases. Page 49

65 7.6 SITE 6: WESTMINSTER PONDS EAST OF WELLINGTON ROAD Within the vicinity of the Westminster Ponds ESA, Wellington Road consists of four-lanes, with a sidewalk on the west side. Utility poles are located within a 10 m to 15 m strip between the edge of the easternmost northbound lane and the natural area. This strip consisted of a narrow gravel shoulder and manicured lawn. The existing four-lane road cross-section is being expanded to accommodate two dedicated rapid transit lanes, four general use lanes, a sidewalk on the west, and a multi-use trail on the east (Figure 33). Centre-running transit lanes have been proposed as this reduces the overall roadway cross-section and limits impacts into the Westminster Ponds. Factors including width of the ROW, proximity of buildings to the roadway, location of utilities, and sensitivity of natural features were considered in the determination of the preferred cross-section for this portion of the route. As part of the design for this section of the route, a 2.0 m landscape strip is required between the road shoulder and the multi-use pathway for utility poles and street lights. Opportunities to reduce or eliminate the 2.0 m landscape strip were considered in an effort to reduce potential impacts to the Westminster Ponds / Pond Mills ESA and ANSI to the east of Wellington Road. In order to accommodate utility poles and street-lighting, the landscape strip could not be reduced to less than 1.5 m between the back of curb and the edge of the multi-use pathway. The merits and drawbacks of graded side slopes and retaining walls were also considered in attempts to further reduce the area of encroachment into the Westminster Ponds area. It was determined that construction impacts, costs, and ongoing maintenance needs made a retaining wall a less desirable solution to reduce the width of the road cross-section in this area. By reducing side slopes from a 3:1 slope to a 2:1 slope, the area of impact has been reduced by m 2 from m 2 to m SITE 7: EXETER ROAD PARK AND RIDE A park and ride lot is being considered in the south-central portion of the site, between the OPP station and the Hydro One corridor. One potential configuration for this site is illustrated in Figure 33; other designs are under review by the project team and require consultation with MTO, OPP, Infrastructure Ontario, Hydro One and the UTRCA. While the RT route could end at White Oaks Mall, approximately 1.2 km north along Wellington Road, a park and ride location would make the RT system accessible to commuters coming into London along Highway 401. The park and ride lot at Exeter Road has been identified as a potential southern terminus; however, a turnaround using southbound from Wellington Road and a new access to the existing signalized intersection, approximately 200 m north of Exeter Road is also being explored to provide bus route flexibility for both Rapid Transit and the local conventional service. The Holiday Avenue turnaround was not identified as a site for investigation for the purposes of this report. There are no direct impacts to Murray Drain associated with the construction of the potential Park and Ride lot adjacent the OPP station, per the potential design concept illustrated in Figure 34. The increase in impermeable surface is likely to alter the floodplain and may create flooding concerns locally. These concerns will be reviewed further as the design details progress and alternative design concepts may be developed within the constraints illustrated on Figure 34. Page 50

66 8 IMPACT ASSESSMENT, MITIGATION AND NET EFFECTS 8.1 EXISTING IMPACTS An EIS is required to assess potential impacts, identify mitigation measures, and determine appropriate compensatory mitigation, if required. For infrastructure projects, as specified by the London Plan (2016), mitigation shall mean the replacement of the natural heritage feature removed or disturbed on a one-for-one land area basis. Compensatory mitigation shall mean additional measures required to address impacts on the functions of the natural heritage system affected by the proposed works. The impact assessment must consider the anticipated impacts associated with the RT project in relation to baseline conditions at each site; conditions which may already be impacted by local stressors or development. In this case, the RT corridors are proposed along existing roads within an urban area, where significant impacts to the natural environment have already occurred as a result of existing land use. The RT project provides an opportunity to upgrade and/or modify existing infrastructure, which would have eventually required replacement or maintenance work at some point in the future. Additional habitat fragmentation is not anticipated given the location of the corridors within a developed area. In addition, linkages and movement corridors associated with the significant valleylands within the Study Area will be maintained, and in some cases opportunities will be created to enhance degraded riparian areas. Non-native and invasive plant species were observed at Sites 1 to 7 where encroachments into the Natural Heritage System is anticipated. Approximately 36% of the plant species documented within the Study Area are considered non-native species, and of these, 25 are considered undesirable non-native species according to the City of London Environmental Management Guidelines (Table 4, Appendix C). In some cases, these species represent a large proportion of the vegetation community, and have resulted in lower native diversity and community structure (e.g., European Buckthorn and Glossy Buckthorn at Westminster Ponds ESA at Site 6). Removal of these species as part of an invasive species management strategy and replacement with native species through ecological restoration plans has the potential to increase native diversity, improve the quality of wildlife habitat, and restore the ecological integrity of these natural areas. The RT project will provide opportunities to enhance vegetation communities within Environmentally Significant Areas, Significant Valleylands, Woodlands, and unevaluated vegetation patches (considered significant for the purpose of this study). Throughout the Study Area, existing development within floodplains and alterations to watercourses has resulted in periodic flooding of roadways, residential, institutional, and industrial/commercial lands, and natural areas within the City. Hydraulic modelling associated with bridge design provides an opportunity to alleviate or improve flood conditions in some areas; thereby decreasing the risk to people and property upstream of the crossings. In addition, the development of a rapid transit system supports the City s plans for future intensification of growth within existing urban centres, and encourages people to use alternative modes of transport (i.e., bicycles, buses, walking, etc.) which will help to decrease greenhouse gas emissions. A more compact pattern of growth will help to curb urban sprawl, thereby preserving rural, agricultural, and natural areas surrounding the City. 8.2 POTENTIAL IMPACTS Environmental effects can be direct, where impacts are immediately incurred as a result of site preparation or construction activities, such as vegetation removal, increased sedimentation, erosion and turbidity, soil compaction, and habitat loss or fragmentation. Alternatively, environmental effects that are not immediately detected or occur adjacent to the proposed works may be considered indirect impacts. These impacts may be temporary such as those associated with the temporary disruption of features / habitats or displacement of species with changes in site Page 51

67 conditions (e.g., impact to water quantity / quality, temporary physical disturbance, erosion, etc.). Indirect impacts may also include long term effects on surface drainage, introduction of invasive species, and increasing anthropogenic pressures from pets, noise, and light. An assessment of potential impacts to natural features and functions associated with the construction of the RT corridors was undertaken by evaluating the details of the emerging technically preferred alternatives for Sites 1 to 7. As per The London Plan policies governing infrastructure projects, mitigation in the form of replacement on a onefor-one land basis is required for removal of a feature; whereas, compensatory mitigation is required where impacts to the function of the natural feature have occurred. Compensatory mitigation may include additional measures such as rehabilitation or remediation of areas beyond the area directly impacted, off-site works to restore, replace or enhance the ecological feature impacted by the proposed works, and use of replacement ratios that are greater than the one-for-one land area required. The potential impacts to identified natural heritage features, ecological functions, and species are explored on a site by site basis in relation to the proposed works at each site. A feature-based approach to anticipated impacts, recommended mitigation, and net effects after mitigation and/or compensatory mitigation have been applied, is provided in Appendix G. General construction-related impacts that have the potential to occur at all sites are outlined in Appendix H. General mitigation and compensation measures that are applicable for all sites are provided in Sections 8.3. This impact assessment is based on preliminary conceptual design details, which are subject to change. Potential impacts and recommended mitigation measures should be revisited at the detailed design phase of the project as designs are finalized SITE 1: OXFORD STREET WEST AT MUD CREEK The natural heritage system associated with Mud Creek is comprised of significant woodlands (unevaluated vegetation patch 6007), unevaluated wetlands (not mapped on Map 5), and a significant valleyland. These features provide habitat for fish, endangered and threatened species (bats), and significant wildlife habitat (bat maternity colonies, and habitat for species of conservation concern Eastern Wood-pewee and Monarch). The existing natural heritage system has been impacted by linear infrastructure (i.e, Oxford Street West and hydro corridor) that has resulted in fragmentation of the north-south movement corridor. In addition, the portion of Mud Creek within the RT Route has been historically straightened to accommodate the existing Oxford Street West infrastructure. Vegetation communities contained a high proportion of invasive species and the overall ecological integrity of the natural system has been degraded by current and past human activity within the general area. Some previously forested habitat to the north of Oxford Street West (unnumbered vegetation patch) was cleared by the landowner in 2016 as part of the development plans on those lands. This site falls within the area that will be modified and enhanced by the City as part of the Mud Creek Subwatershed EA (CH2M, 2017) on lands south of Oxford Street West, and by private land development to the north. It is anticipated that the works related to the Subwatershed EA and land development, including realignment of the creek, installation of a new culvert, and enhancement of the valley corridor, are to occur in advance of the RT works. The impacts to Mud Creek and its fishery will be considered a part of that project. The short to intermediateterm impacts associated with the Subwatershed EA are expected to result in improved habitat quality through implementation of proposed mitigation and compensation measures. Communication between the RT project team and the Subwatershed EA team has been ongoing, and will continue through the detailed design phases for both projects, to ensure that the works to the valley corridor will anticipate and accommodate the ultimate widening of Oxford Street West as part of the RT works, thereby minimizing the combined impacts to the natural system. The proposed infrastructure is largely within the existing ROW; however, grading to achieve the 6-lane crosssection is expected to extend beyond the ROW to the north. The road will be widened by up to 6 m, creating a slightly greater barrier to wildlife movement across the roadway, and increased potential for road mortality. As the natural heritage system associated with Mud Creek will largely be altered and restored beyond the anticipated road corridor as part of the Subwatershed EA, direct impacts to the identified natural heritage features are not anticipated as a result of the RT works. Based on the preferred design concept, vegetation removal is expected to be minor and restricted primarily to previously disturbed areas within the eastern portion of the site where the infrastructure Page 52

68 extends beyond the ROW. Should mature trees exist within the proposed vegetation removal areas, impacts to bat maternity roost sites (cavity trees) and roosting bats have the potential to occur. Potential impacts to Mud Creek are limited to works associated with the existing Oxford Street West culvert and habitat within the existing watercourse that will be left once the channel realignment and installation of the culvert to the east is completed. It is likely that the impacts to the former Mud Creek channel will be nominal, and limited to a minor increase in the shading of the habitat associated with a culvert extension or piping of the flows from the parking lot to a connection to Mud Creek downstream of the culvert. Construction of a larger, open-bottom box culvert (12 m wide, by 3 m high, by 42 m long, dimensions based on preliminary design) as part of the Mud Creek Subwatershed EA may provide opportunities for movement by amphibians, reptiles and small mammals provided some areas of dry passage are maintained.. Short-term impacts associated with construction have the potential to occur, but can be mitigated with the implementation of appropriate measures outlined within the following Items in Appendix G: 1 General Vegetation / Individual Street Trees; 2 Significant Woodlands and Woodlands; 3 Wetlands and Unevaluated Wetlands; 5 Significant Valleylands and Valleylands; 7 Impacts to Wildlife; 8 Migratory Birds; 9 Wildlife Passage; 12 Bald Eagle; 17 Eastern Wood-pewee; 18 Wood Thrush; 19 Monarch Butterfly; 21 Snapping Turtle; 32 Bat Maternity Colonies; and, 38 Mud Creek. Recommendations to mitigate common construction-related impacts are outlined in Appendix H. Net effects may include long-term negative impacts associated with a potential increase in wildlife road mortality due to the wider road cross-section required for the RT infrastructure. These impacts are expected to be nominal given the existing fragmentation of the valleyland and the nature of the resident wildlife. The new culvert may also serve to improve habitat connectivity and wildlife passage between portions of the valleyland north and south of Oxford Street West SITE 2: NORTH THAMES CROSSINGS AT QUEENS AVENUE AND RIVERSIDE DRIVE The natural heritage system at Site 2 is comprised of the North Thames significant valleyland, which supports habitat for fish, endangered and threatened species, and significant wildlife habitat (habitat for species of conservation concern Snapping Turtle and Northern Map Turtle). Widening of Queens Avenue and the associated super structure of the bridge is proposed to accommodate the RT Route at this site. As noted in Section 7, alterations to the Queens Ave bridge substructure are not being considered. Alterations to the Kensington Bridge (Riverside Drive) are not proposed. Below the high water mark of the North Thames River, the existing bridges have two sets of piers within the wetted width of the channel. These in-water piers impact the flow of the channel, alter the natural fluvial geomorphic function of the flow, and result in localized areas of exposed bed and deeper scour areas across the channel. The banks of the river within the London RT corridor are composed of layers of armour stone resulting in vertical banks Page 53

69 that lack vegetation. These vertical banks interrupt the river s ability to access its floodplain for energy dissipation and sediment loading, and the lack of bank vegetation significantly limits the amount of shade and cover for the resident fish species. There are no works proposed below the high water mark at this site. As such, the potential impacts on fish and fish habitat below the high water mark are limited to indirect or secondary impacts associated with construction, which can be mitigated with properly installed mitigation measures such as sediment and erosion control plans. The North Thames River provides habitat for a number of Endangered and Threatened species (Spiny Softshell, fish and mussel SAR), as well as species of conservation concern (Snapping Turtle and Northern Map Turtle). As there are no in-water works, direct impacts to these species and features are not anticipated. A large colony of Barn Swallows inhabit the underside of the Kensington Bridge (Riverside Drive), but there were no active or old cup nests observed on the underside of the Queens Avenue bridge. Impacts to Barn Swallow nesting habitat are not anticipated as works are restricted to the Queens Avenue bridge; however, confirmation of nest presence/absence is recommended prior to commencement of works so that appropriate measures can be taken to ensure compliance with the ESA. The preferred design concept is expected to result in minor impacts to vegetation adjacent to the Queens Avenue bridge within the significant valleyland. Within the vicinity of the site, vegetation adjacent to the bridge abutments and roadway is largely manicured or planted, and occurs within parkland or other constructed areas; significant species and communities were not identified. Potential impacts are expected to be minimal and can be mitigated through implementation of mitigation measures outlined in the following Items in Appendix G: 1 General Vegetation / Individual Street Trees; 5 Significant Valleylands and Valleylands; 7 Impacts to Wildlife; 8 Migratory Birds; 9 Wildlife Passage; 12 Bald Eagle; 14 Barn Swallow; 15 Chimney Swift; 20 Northern Map Turtle; 21 Snapping Turtle; 22 Spiny Softshell; 24 Wavy-rayed Lampmussel; 26 Silver Shiner; 28 Spotted Sucker; 29 Northern Brook Lamprey; 30 Turtle Nesting Area; and, 36 Thames River. In general, potential impacts to identified natural heritage features at this site are expected to be temporary, construction-related effects that can be avoided through implementation of standard mitigation measures (Appendix H). Net effects are not anticipated at this site. Page 54

70 8.2.3 SITE 3: MEDWAY CREEK AT WESTERN ROAD The natural heritage system at Site 3 is comprised of the Medway Valley Heritage Forest ESA, significant woodlands, significant valleylands, and associated habitat for fish, endangered and threatened species, and significant wildlife habitat (habitat for species of conservation concern, turtle nesting and wintering areas). The existing two span bridge has one pier located within the valley of Medway Creek, and an armoured wall along the north bank, adjacent to Windermere Road, that is composed of stacked armour stone. The northern span appeared to only be used during higher flow events; the main flows are conveyed through the southern span. A vegetated island has formed on the west side of the pier (upstream) as a result of the seasonally low flows and deposition experienced at this location; however, the in-water pier would still impact the flow of the channel during high flow events. The vertical bank to the north interrupts the river s ability to access its floodplain for energy dissipation and sediment loading, forcing higher flows against the southern bank where active bank erosion and scouring was observed during the 2017 field investigations. To accommodate the preferred design for the crossing of Medway Creek, widening of up to 16 m is proposed to the east. Widening the existing two span bridge will require construction of a larger, longer pier in the same location as the existing. This will result in additional shading of the channel resulting from the wider bridge decking, and an increase in the in-water footprint below the high water mark of the pier. The new pier will be constructed within the permanently wet portion of the channel, likely to the east of the existing footprint, resulting in potential impacts to fish and mussels, and their habitat. The works are expected to result in the limited loss of vegetation within the footprint of the proposed road and bridge abutments, as the area immediately east of the bridge consists primarily of constructed parkland (CGL_2), low density residential (CVR_1) and parking areas associated with the University Hospital (CVS_2) (Figure 19). The bank of Medway Creek on the east of the southern abutment had some limited herbaceous vegetation amongst riprap associated with a stormwater outfall from the nearby hospital parking area, with more natural riparian vegetation further east along the bank. To the north, trees adjacent to the constructed valley wall were largely nonnative species (Black Locust, Siberian Elm and European Buckthorn). By widening to the east, wooded areas within and adjacent to the Medway Valley Heritage Forest ESA and significant woodlands (unevaluated vegetation patch #3003) on the west side of the bridge beyond the ROW will be maintained. The significant valleyland provides a movement corridor for wildlife through this portion of the City. Passage by aquatic species (fish and turtles) is unlikely to be impacted by the expanded bridge structure; however, efforts should be made during construction to ensure that fish and wildlife can continue to move safely through the channel to habitats upstream and downstream of the bridge. Terrestrial wildlife are able to move through the valley along strips of land between the water s edge and the constructed valley wall to the north and the abutment to the south. Though not anticipated, the function of the valleyland as a movement corridor may be impacted during and after construction should expansion of the abutment or valley wall create an obstruction to wildlife. If obstructed, wildlife may attempt to cross the widened roadway in order to reach habitat upstream or downstream of the bridge, increasing the likelihood of road mortality. Maintenance of this movement corridor for terrestrial wildlife should be considered during detailed design, and is to include the creation of an eco-passage and/or erection of fencing to provide safe passage through the valleyland and discourage animals from entering the roadway, if deemed necessary due to an obstruction. This Site provides habitat for endangered and threatened species (Spiny Softshell, Queensnake, Wavy-rayed Lampmussel, Black Redhorse and Silver Shiner), and species of conservation concern (Northern Map Turtle and Snapping Turtle). The proposed works have the potential to directly impact habitat for these species through vegetation removal, habitat loss, alteration to banks and alteration of the channel bed. A comprehensive assessment of impacts and overall benefits to both aquatic and terrestrial species will need to be completed once design details are finalized to ensure that there are no net negative impacts to any of the SAR species. This will require on-going liaison with MNRF staff and the design team. Page 55

71 In addition to wildlife (turtles) that primarily utilize habitats below the high water mark at this Site, construction activities have the potential to cause short-term impacts to resident birds, mammals and amphibians. The greatest threat to avian species is associated with disturbance or destruction of nests during the nesting period, which can be mitigated by scheduling tree/vegetation removal, and alteration to bridge components where nesting occurs, outside of the breeding bird season. Surveys during 2017 did not identify nesting by Barn Swallows on the Western Road bridge. Surveys to confirm occupancy by at-risk species should be completed prior to alteration/construction to ensure that appropriate measures under the ESA are taken. Standard mitigation measures to exclude wildlife from the construction area are recommended to reduce the potential for harm/injury. Short-term impacts to wildlife due to noise, dust and vibrations associated with construction activities may cause certain wildlife to abandon or avoid the area. Mitigation measures to address impacts to the natural heritage system at Site 3 are outlined in the following Items in Appendix G: 2 Significant Woodlands and Woodlands; 3 Wetlands and Unevaluated Wetlands; 5 Significant Valleylands and Valleylands; 6 Environmentally Significant Areas; 7 Impacts to Wildlife; 8 Migratory Birds; 9 Wildlife Passage; 14 Barn Swallow; 15 Chimney Swift; 17 Eastern Wood-pewee; 18 Wood Thrush; 20 Northern Map Turtle; 21 Snapping Turtle; 22 Spiny Softshell; 23 Queensnake; 24 Wavy-rayed Lampmussel; 26 Silver Shiner; 27 Black Redhorse; 30 Turtle Nesting Area; 31 Turtle Wintering Areas; 32 Bat Maternity Colonies; and, 37 Medway Creek Recommendations to mitigate common construction-related impacts are outlined in Appendix H. Net residual effects below the high water mark are associated with both permanent and temporary alterations including an increase in the permanent footprint associated with a wider pier, and a loss of habitat potentially used by aquatic SAR species due to the potential encroachment of the increased pier footprint into the permanently wet area of the channel. In addition, the wider abutment footprints on both banks may result in the loss of habitat for Queensnake, Spiny Softshell and other turtles. It can be assumed that because of the number of SAR impacted by the works being contemplated for this bridge, including impacts to both the terrestrial features adjacent the bridge, as well as the channel and banks below the high water mark, an ESA Overall Benefit Permit will likely be required with overall benefit plans developed to address these impacts for each of the SAR. It is the aim of such plans to ensure that negative net effects to the species and/or their habitat does not occur. Page 56

72 While the construction-related effects can be avoided or mitigated through implementation of standard mitigation measures, the permanent changes to the significant valleyland can be offset by implementing a comprehensive compensation plan. To be most effective, this plan may be drafted in conjunction with the overall benefit plans for SAR, to ensure that there is no net negative impact on the features or various species at this site. It is recommended that the compensation plan include an Invasive Species Management Strategy (refer to Section 8.4) to help remove invasive plant species, and increase native diversity through appropriate plantings within the adjacent natural heritage system. Where possible, plantings should focus on restoration of the banks and wooded areas immediately adjacent to the crossing, but other sites in need of restoration or enhancement elsewhere within the natural heritage system would be suitable. Negative net effects following implementation of appropriate mitigation and compensation measures (as determined through continued consultation) at this site are not anticipated SITE 4: NORTH THAMES RIVER AT UNIVERSITY DRIVE The natural heritage system at Site 4 is comprised of significant woodlands and valleylands, habitat for fish, endangered and threatened species, and significant wildlife habitat (habitat for species of conservation concern, turtle nesting and wintering areas, and bat maternity colonies). The relatively high bridge elevation allows the valley to act as a movement corridor and habitat for wildlife, as well as a recreational corridor for the general public. The existing three span structure has two piers located within the valley of the North Thames River; one (eastern) completely within the wetted width of the channel, and the second (western one) located partially within the wetted edge of the channel, but fully within the high water mark of the river. A scour pool has formed around the east pier that is located within the main flow path, as well as the east side of the west pier that is partially wet. Because the east pier is located within the main flow path, it has impacted flow dynamics, natural fluvial geomorphological functions and erosion of the banks. The University and UTRCA have identified that the pier configurations create a local pinch point in the flow of the river, creating issues with flooding of the adjacent lands. The conceptual design is on-going, and further hydraulic modelling is required to determine if the flooding issues associated with the existing span configuration can be improved. Attempts are being made to increase the middle span configuration in order to locate the new bridge piers along the banks of the channel below the high water mark, but out of the permanently wet portion of the channel, if at all possible. Relocation of the piers may reduce the long term, permanent impacts on the SAR species identified as using habitat within the general area of the bridge for various life cycle functions. The wider bridge deck will result in an incremental increase in shading of the river; however, the bridge is located at such a height that the shading has nominal effects on fish and fish habitat within the channel. The removal of the east pier from the middle of the channel and relocating it to the river s east bank, will open up a portion of the channel bed previously covered by the pier, and allow for enhancement of the bed habitat for aquatic species (including SAR) using the habitat immediately adjacent. However, relocation of the pier to the river bank, will result in the alteration of bank habitat below the high water mark that is potentially used by SAR turtles (Spiny Softshell) and snakes (Queensnake). Therefore, a comprehensive assessment of impacts and overall benefits to both aquatic and terrestrial species will need to be completed in the development of design alternatives to ensure that there are no net negative impacts to any of the SAR species. This will require on-going liaison with MNRF staff and the bridge owner. To accommodate the wider bridge and new abutment locations, grading will be required to contour and shape the banks of the valleyland, resulting in removal of vegetation within the new footprint. This will likely result in permanent habitat loss associated with the new infrastructure footprint, as well as temporary losses within the construction area. While relatively minor, vegetation removal from the significant woodland may involve the removal of portions of the Lowland Deciduous Forest Ecosite (FODM7) on both sides of the valley. Both native and non-natives species were present within this community, including abundant Red Maple, Sycamore, Black Locust, Black Cherry, Manitoba Maple, Basswood, and occasional Black Walnut. Approximately 33% of the plants inventoried at Site 4 are considered non-native, including seven that are considered invasive (Table 4; Appendix C). Woodland removals could be mitigated through planting of appropriate native species, as close to the site of disturbance as possible, to achieve greater than one-for-one land area replacement. Additional compensation through implementation of invasive species management plans and enhancement plantings may also be considered. The loss in woodland area is not likely to result in significant negative impacts to the function of the woodland, or its Page 57

73 designation as significant. Indirect impacts to vegetation outside the work zone have the potential to occur, but can be addressed through implementation of standard mitigation measures (Appendix G). The young Kentucky Coffeetree, located north of the eastern bridge abutment (Figure 27), is likely to be impacted by grading associated with construction of the new bridge abutment. Changes to this structure may also result in reconstruction of the recreational trail system. Due to its small size, it is recommended that this tree be transplanted to avoid direct harm to the individual. If required, transplantation details are to be determined at detailed design through consultation with the MNRF. In addition to wildlife (turtles) that primarily utilize habitats below the high water mark at this site, construction activities have the potential to cause short-term impacts to resident birds, mammals and amphibians. The greatest threat to avian species is associated with disturbance or destruction of nests during the nesting period, which can be mitigated by scheduling tree/vegetation removal, and alteration to bridge components where nesting occurs, outside the breeding bird season. Surveys during 2017 did not identify nesting by Barn Swallows on the University Drive bridge, but Cliff Swallows (currently not listed, but under consideration) were observed nesting at this location. Surveys to confirm occupancy by at-risk species should be completed prior to alteration or construction to ensure that appropriate measures under the ESA are taken. Standard mitigation measures to exclude wildlife from the construction area are recommended to reduce the potential for harm/injury. Short-term impacts to wildlife due to noise, dust and vibrations associated with construction activities may cause certain wildlife to abandon or avoid the area; however, long-term effects are not anticipated. Mitigation measures to address impacts to the natural heritage system at Site 4 are outlined in the following Items in Appendix G: 2 Significant Woodlands and Woodlands; 5 Significant Valleylands and Valleylands; 7 Impacts to Wildlife; 8 Migratory Birds; 9 Wildlife Passage; 11 Kentucky Coffeetree; 12 Bald Eagle; 14 Barn Swallow; 15 Chimney Swift; 17 Eastern Wood-pewee; 20 Northern Map Turtle; 21 Snapping Turtle; 22 Spiny Softshell; 23 Queensnake; 24 Wavy-rayed Lampmussel; 26 Silver Shiner; 27 Black Redhorse; 28 Spotted Sucker; 29 Northern Brook Lamprey; 30 Turtle Nesting Area; 31 Turtle Wintering Areas; 32 Bat Maternity Colonies; and, 36 Thames River. Page 58

74 Net residual effects below the high water mark are anticipated to be both permanent and temporary, including a permanent decrease in the in-water footprint associated with the relocation of the piers, as well as a permanent increase in the footprint impacts on the valley and its associated habitat. Widening the span of the bridge may have a positive net effect by improving hydraulic capacity and thereby alleviating upstream flooding. It can be assumed that because of the number of SAR potentially impacted by the works associated with this bridge, including impacts to both the terrestrial features adjacent the bridge, as well as the channel and banks below the high water mark, an ESA permit will likely be required, with overall benefit plans developed to address these impacts for each of the SAR. In addition to these SAR requirements which are to achieve a net positive effect, it is expected that the implementation of mitigation and compensatory mitigation measures as outlined in Appendix G will be sufficient to offset impacts to the natural heritage system. It is expected that negative net effects will primarily be limited to a reduction in woodland habitat for a period of 20 to 40 years while plants and trees within the restoration / compensation areas grow SITE 5: THAMES RIVER AT WELLINGTON ROAD The natural heritage features associated with Site 5 include fish habitat, significant valleylands, significant wildlife habitat (turtle nesting and overwintering areas), SAR habitat (turtles and fish), SARA critical habitat, and significant woodlands along the valley. Although the existing bridge has a relatively low elevation profile over the Thames River, there is enough clearance below the bridge superstructure to allow for wildlife movement and recreational trail use. In fact, the City is investigating the re-design of the existing recreational trail to provide increased use of the trail system by the general public in concert with the RT network. The existing structure is a two span structure with one pier located in the middle of the river, completely surrounded by water. Scouring of the pier footing was noted. The location of the pier impacts flow dynamics and natural fluvial geomorphological functions of the river; however, the banks do not appear to have been negatively impacted by these impacts. To accommodate the wider road cross-section for the London RT, widening of the existing bridge to the east is proposed based on the existing road alignment and available right-of-way. Widening the existing bridge to the east will result in encroachment into the natural heritage system beyond the ROW. Widening the deck by approximately 9.4 m will require extensions to the existing in-water pier, as well as both abutments. Works on the abutments will likely require removal of localized vegetation on the banks, and potential re-grading of the bank to accommodate the changes to the recreational trail. Widening of the bridge is also likely to result in increased shading of the channel. An increase to the in-water footprint associated with the extension to the pier, and the increase in the permanent footprint below the high water mark associated with changes to the banks and the recreational trail system, has the potential to impact both aquatic and terrestrial SAR that use habitat within and in close proximity to the watercourse (fish, mussels and turtles). Associated impacts include the loss of habitat within the channel bed for the wider pier, loss of bank habitat for the abutments, and alteration of the bank habitat for the changes to the recreational trail. These impacts have the potential to impact SAR that have been confirmed within the London RT study limits. A comprehensive assessment of impacts and overall benefits to both aquatic and terrestrial species will need to be completed during detailed design to determine the net impacts to any of the federally or provincially listed SAR. This will require on-going liaison with MNRF, DFO, and the design team. To accommodate the wider bridge, grading will be required to contour and shape the banks, resulting in removal of vegetation within the new footprint. This may result in permanent habitat loss associated with the new infrastructure footprint, as well as temporary losses within the construction area. Removals associated with mature trees and woodland habitat are expected to be minor as vegetation on the east side of the bridge, within the footprint of the wider bridge, is largely disturbed or manicured parkland. Vegetation removal from the significant woodland on the northeast bank will involve the removal of portions of the Dry - Fresh Manitoba Maple Deciduous Forest (FODM4-5). This forest community was very narrow, and showed little diversity, being dominated by Manitoba Maple with rare occurrences of Norway Maple, Black Walnut, Red Maple and Crack Willow. Non-native species, including invasive European Buckthorn and Garlic Mustard were common within the understory. There is potential for grading of the southern bank to impact the significant woodland east of the bridge. The extent of impacts will need to be reassessed during detailed design. Woodland removals will need to be mitigated through planting of Page 59

75 appropriate native species to achieve greater than a one-for-one land area replacement as close to the site of disturbance as possible. Additional compensation through implementation of invasive species management plans and enhancement plantings may also be considered. The loss in woodland area is not expected to result in significant negative impacts to the function of the woodland, or its designation as significant. Indirect impacts to vegetation outside the work zone have the potential to occur, but can be addressed through implementation of standard mitigation measures (Appendix G). Turtles largely use the Thames River in this location as a movement corridor; however, nesting habitat has been confirmed within the vicinity of the proposed infrastructure. Avoidance and mitigation measures recommended in Appendix G will reduce disturbance to nesting turtles and long-term impacts to substrates within the nesting areas. In addition to wildlife (turtles) that primarily utilize habitats below the high water mark at this site, construction activities have the potential to cause short-term impacts to resident birds, mammals and amphibians. The greatest threat to avian species is associated with disturbance or destruction of nests during the nesting period, which can be mitigated by scheduling tree/vegetation removal outside the breeding bird season. Surveys during 2017 did not identify nesting by Barn Swallows on the Wellington Road bridge or other significant species. Surveys to confirm occupancy by at-risk species should be completed prior to alteration or construction to ensure that appropriate measures under the ESA are taken. Standard mitigation measures to exclude wildlife from the construction area are recommended to reduce the potential for harm/injury. Short-term impacts to wildlife due to noise, dust and vibrations associated with construction activities may cause certain wildlife to abandon or avoid the area. Mitigation measures to address impacts to the natural heritage system at Site 5 are outlined in the following Items in Appendix G: 2 Significant Woodlands and Woodlands; 5 Significant Valleylands and Valleylands; 7 Impacts to Wildlife; 8 Migratory Birds; 9 Wildlife Passage; 14 Barn Swallow; 17 Eastern Wood-pewee; 20 Northern Map Turtle; 21 Snapping Turtle; 22 Spiny Softshell; 24 Wavy-rayed Lampmussel; 25 Round Pigtoe; 26 Silver Shiner; 28 Spotted Sucker; 29 Northern Brook Lamprey; 30 Turtle Nesting Area; 31 Turtle Wintering Areas; 32 Bat Maternity Colonies; and 36 Thames River. Recommendations to mitigate common construction-related impacts are outlined in Appendix H. Net residual effects below the high water mark need to be considered, and are expected to include a permanent increase in the in-water footprint associated with a wider pier, as well as a permanent increase in the footprint impacts on the valley and its associated habitat associated with the works on the abutments and recreational trail. It can be assumed that because of the number of SAR potentially impacted by the works associated with this bridge, including impacts to both the terrestrial features adjacent the bridge, as well as the channel and banks below the high water mark, an ESA permit will potentially be required for changes to this structure with overall benefit plans Page 60

76 developed to address these impacts for each of the SAR. Due to the potential for critical habitat by a federally at-risk species (Round Pigtoe), it is also possible that a SARA permit will be required. Ongoing consultation with MNRF and DFO will be necessary to determine permitting requirements at this site. In addition to these SAR requirements which are to achieve a net positive effect, it is expected that the implementation of mitigation and compensatory mitigation measures as outlined in Appendix G will be sufficient to offset impacts to the natural heritage system at this site. It is expected that negative net effects will primarily be limited to a reduction in woodland habitat for a period of 20 to 40 years while plants and trees within the restoration / compensation areas grow SITE 6: WESTMINSTER PONDS EAST OF WELLINGTON ROAD The natural heritage features associated with Site 6 include the Westminster Ponds / Pond Mills PSW/ESA/ANSI and associated vegetation communities, significant wildlife habitat (amphibian breeding habitat - woodlands, potential bat maternity colony habitat, habitat for species of conservation concern Tall Coreopsis, Eastern Woodpewee, Wood Thrush). Foraging habitat for Threatened bird species (Barn Swallow, Bank Swallow) is also present at Site 6. This sensitive natural area is the largest natural area in the City of London, covering approximately 250 ha. This ESA is significant for its size, variety of natural habitats, and plant diversity; however, invasion by non-native species and significant die-off of ash trees due to Emerald Ash-borer has resulted in degradation of the wooded area within the vicinity of Wellington Road. The natural heritage system at Site 6 provides a variety of ecological functions related to woodlands (provision of wildlife habitat, clean air and long-term carbon storage, hydrological and nutrient cycling, etc.) and wetlands (provision of breeding habitat, regulation of surface water flows, maintenance and enhancement of water quality, storage capacity, etc.), in addition to social values associated with nature appreciation, hiking, etc. The existing four-lane road cross-section is proposed to be expanded to accommodate two dedicated rapid transit lanes, four general use lanes, a sidewalk on the west, and a multi-use trail on the east. Within the southern portion of the site, adjacent to the Dry-Fresh Deciduous Woodland (WODM4) and Cattail Mineral Shallow Marsh (MASM1-1) which is part of the PSW, the infrastructure is located within the ROW; but to the north, adjacent to the Buckthorn Deciduous Shrub Thicket (THDM2-8) portions of the multi-use trail encroach beyond the ROW. Grading is required to achieve a suitable cross-section and encroachment is most significant within the southern portion of the Site (Figure 33). Efforts were made to reduce encroachment into the natural area; however, in order to accommodate utility poles and street-lighting, the landscape strip between the back of curb and the edge of the multi-use pathway could not be reduced to less than 1.5 m. Side slopes associated with the road cross-section were increased from a 3:1 slope to a 2:1 slope to reduce the area of impact. These measures have decreased the overall impacts outside the ROW by 11.5% (from 3,304.6 m 2 to 2,923.8 m 2 ). The m 2 of habitat within the PSW that is to be impacted by grading represents approximately 7.9% of the area to be disturbed beyond the ROW. Temporary disturbance associated with construction (grading, movement of heavy machinery, etc.) may also occur. Mitigation in the form of habitat replacement at a ratio greater than a one-for-one land area will be required for the loss of m 2 of wetland and 2,690.7 m 2 of woodland habitats within the ESA. Further, due to the significance of this area, additional compensation is recommended to offset impacts to the function of this natural area. Indirect effects on the natural area associated with increased run-off, salt damage, introduction or spread of invasive species during construction have the potential to occur, in addition to typical construction-related impacts. Mitigation measures are provided in Appendix H to reduce and/or eliminate these negative effects on the natural system. Mitigation measures to address impacts to the natural heritage system at Site 6 are outlined in the following Items in Appendix G: 4 Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSW); 6 Environmentally Significant Areas; 7 Impacts to Wildlife; 8 Migratory Birds; 13 Bank Swallow; 14 Barn Swallow; Page 61

77 17 Eastern Wood-pewee; 18 Wood Thrush; 32 Bat Maternity Colonies; 33 Amphibian Breeding Habitat (Woodland); and, 35 Species of Conservation Concern (Tall Coreopsis). Recommendations to mitigate common construction-related impacts are outlined in Appendix H. Although the open water portions of the Westminster Ponds support a diverse community of fish species, the London RT works will not impact any of the habitat that supports fish use. As such, there are no net residual negative effects associated with fish and fish habitat for this site. The natural heritage system at Site 6 may experience a short-term reduction in wetland habitat while the replacement wetland vegetation becomes established, and longer-term reduction in woodland cover for a period of 20 to 40 years while trees grow and the community becomes established; however, overall it is anticipated that a positive net environmental effect can be gained at this site through the implementation of a comprehensive enhancement and restoration plan for the thicket and woodland communities adjacent to Wellington Road. This plan would include a focused invasive species management strategy (Section 8.4) to remove European Buckthorn and Glossy Buckthorn, as well as other invasive species from the thicket (THDM2-8) and woodland (WODM4) communities adjacent to Wellington Road. These vegetation communities were once dominated by native species, and in some cases were considered provincially significant, but have become overwhelmed by these invasive species. This compensatory mitigation would be completed in addition to habitat replacement at a ratio greater than the one-for-one land area required as mitigation and would involve a multi-year monitoring plan (Section 9). The details of this compensation plan would be established through consultation with the UTRCA and the City s Environmental and Parks Planning staff SITE 7: EXETER ROAD PARK AND RIDE The natural heritage system at Site 7 is comprised of the significant valleyland associated with the Murray Drain, associated fish habitat, and potential habitat for endangered or threatened species (Eastern Meadowlark), and significant wildlife habitat (habitat for species of conservation concern Monarch, Snapping Turtle). The natural heritage system at this site has been impacted by surrounding land use, including commercial development and linear infrastructure (roads, highways and hydro corridors). In addition, the portion of Murray Drain adjacent to the Site has been historically straightened to accommodate the existing infrastructure. The Park and Ride facility being considered at this Site would be located within the manicured area between the existing OPP station and the Hydro One corridor. There is currently no crossing of Murray Drain, and one is not required to support the proposed construction. As such, it is anticipated that impacts to fish and fish habitat within the drain will be limited to indirect, construction-related impacts associated with works within the floodplain, that can be largely mitigated with the implementation of standard sediment and erosion control measures (Section 8.3.1). Discussions are on-going with Hydro One to determine if lands within the utility corridor could be used for the Park and Ride facility. The significant valleyland associated with the Murray Drain may act as a movement corridor for wildlife, particularly semi-aquatic species (turtles), while the surrounding mixed meadow and manicured open areas provide foraging habitat for more tolerant avian and wildlife species. The potential infrastructure footprint provides for a 21 m setback from the Murray Drain, which encroaches into the 30 m significant valleyland width proposed as part of this EIS (Section 6.3). The encroachment is into a portion of the valleyland that is characterized by manicured grass and based on the surveys completed as part of this EIS, the area is thought to provide limited ecological function. Efforts should be made during design development to reduce or eliminate encroachment of the infrastructure footprint to achieve a minimum setback of 30 m from the high water mark of Murray Drain, if possible. If an encroachment into natural vegetation within the 30 m significant valleyland is unavoidable, appropriate mitigation and/or compensation measures must be determined through consultation with the City and UTRCA. While the proposed level of encroachment (9 m) is unlikely to impact the movement of wildlife through the valleyland, given that the infrastructure is proposed within a manicured area, long-term effects on the Murray Page 62

78 Drain associated with paving may occur. Paving will increase the proportion of impermeable surfaces within the floodplain of Murray Drain and may result in alterations to surface and ground water flows and flood conditions in the broader area. These concerns will be reviewed further as the design details progress. Hydraulic modelling is required to determine if reductions in the floodplain at this site may be possible by addressing a pinch point associated with an under-sized culvert at Wellington Road. Low impact development (LID) technologies should be considered to address stormwater flows from the paved parking lot. Eastern Meadowlark and Monarch were observed within the mixed meadow within the eastern portion of the Site. Impacts to this habitat are not anticipated with this conceptual location of the Park and Ride Lot, and as a result impacts to these species are unlikely to occur. Mitigation measures to address impacts to SAR and the natural environment at Site 7 are outlined in the following Items in Appendix G: 1 General Vegetation / Individual Street Trees; 3 Wetlands and Unevaluated Wetlands; 5 Significant Valleylands and Valleylands; 7 Impacts to Wildlife; 8 Migratory Birds; 9 Wildlife Passage; 16 Eastern Meadowlark; 19 Monarch Butterfly; 21 Snapping Turtle; and, 39 Murray Drain. Recommendations to mitigate common construction-related impacts are outlined in Appendix H. Net effects will include permanent loss of vegetation within the floodplain, and potential for indirect effects associated with alterations to surface and ground water flows and flood conditions. Improvements to flood conditions may be possible if work is done to address the undersized culvert at Wellington Road. Vegetation lost within the floodplain is not considered significant (manicured lawn); however, compensation to address encroachment into natural vegetation within the significant valleyland (if unavoidable) may be offset by enhancing the riparian vegetation to include native shrubs or trees, thereby providing additional cover for wildlife passage, creating more stratified habitat, and increased shading of the Murray Drain RT ROUTE Natural heritage features identified adjacent to the RT Route, outside the boundaries of Sites 1 to 7, include habitat for endangered or threatened species and significant wildlife habitat (other rare vegetation communities). Direct impacts to street trees have the potential to occur in all areas of the RT Route where road widening is proposed to accommodate the dedicated RT lanes. SAR tree surveys confirmed a total of 32 SAR trees (30 Kentucky Coffeetrees and 2 Butternut) within or adjacent to the ROW associated with the RT corridors (Figure 27). With the exception of a single Kentucky Coffeetree adjacent to the northeast abutment of the University Bridge at Site 4, removal or relocation of SAR trees is not anticipated. Mitigation and compensation for potential impacts to these species are provided in Items 10 and 11 of Appendix G. Negative net effects are not anticipated, provided mitigation measures are appropriately implemented, and requirements under the ESA are satisfied, where applicable. Page 63

79 Modifications to the road width and alignment may require expropriation where substantial encroachments into properties lining the route are required. Where expropriation and subsequent demolition or alteration of existing structures is possible, there is potential to have impacts on nest/roost habitat availability for Chimney Swift, a Threatened species. Sections of the RT corridors where infrastructure footprints encroach on private property, and/or overlap with existing buildings, were screened for suitable uncapped chimneys. Seven properties were identified that had potentially suitable chimneys (Section 5.3.1). Should demolition of these buildings be required as part of the RT works, surveys should be completed to confirm presence / absence of Chimney Swifts. Additional mitigation and compensation measures are detailed in Item 15 of Appendix G. Construction-related impacts and longer-term effects associated with road expansions are explored in Appendix H. Increased road widths are associated with the potential loss of landscape strips or street trees, and increases in impervious surfaces, salt damage, road dust, and mortality of wildlife. Salt damage, road dust pollution, and wildlife mortality may increase slightly, due to increased surface area for salt application, increased traffic volumes, and increased crossing distances, respectively; however, the changes are likely to be minor considering the routes are proposed in existing high traffic areas within an urban landscape. Incorporation of low impact development design strategies for stormwater management should be considered to promote infiltration and maintain green spaces within the road design. These technologies are particularly important in groundwater recharge areas. Tree planting plans to offset removals of street trees should be established through consultation with City staff during the detailed design phase of the project. A provincially rare vegetation community, Fresh-Moist Sugar Maple-Black Maple Deciduous Forest (FODM6-2) ranked S3? or Vulnerable, was observed on the north side of Lambton Drive within the Western University campus. Road widening is not proposed within the vicinity of this community, and potential impacts can be avoided by implementing the measures recommended in Item 31 of Appendix G. Mitigation measures to address impacts to SAR and the natural environment along the RT Route are outlined in the following Items in Appendix G: 1 General Vegetation / Individual Street Trees; 8 Migratory Birds; 10 Butternut; 11 Kentucky Coffeetree; 15 Chimney Swift; and, 34 Other Rare Vegetation Communities. Negative net effects are generally not anticipated for works within the RT corridors, provided appropriate mitigation and compensation measures are implemented. 8.3 GENERAL MITIGATION MEASURES FISH AND FISH HABITAT In addition to the site and species specific mitigation measures outlined in Appendix G, the following standard mitigation measures related to protection of fish and fish habitat should be considered as appropriate for each of the sites. Page 64

80 TIMING To avoid disruption to sensitive fish life stages for all the watercourses, all in or near-water works will be conducted within the permissible construction period of June 16 th to March 14 th of any given year, as identified by MNRF through the consultation process. However, notes that a tighter window may be required on those watercourses where Silver Shiner have been confirmed to ensure that bank rehabilitation works have time to take hold and revegetate before the spring or fall rainy season where sedimentation may become a concern for this species and its habitat. No equipment should be allowed to ford or otherwise enter the watercourse except as specified in the contract or unless authorized by the appropriate environmental agencies/permits. DEBRIS REMOVAL The removal of material shall be limited to what is necessary for the works and shall be removed by hand or with machinery operating from the banks or a floating barge. During structure removal works, suitable mitigation measures will be in place to trap and avoid materials from entering the watercourses (i.e., netting, floating debris barges, etc.). LAND-BASED IMPACTS THROUGH USE OF INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT Machinery will be operated on land in a manner that minimizes disturbance to the banks of the watercourses. A spill control/response plan, developed and implemented by the contractor to prevent deleterious substances from entering the watercourses, will need to be developed and kept on site. The plan will ensure that machinery arrives on site in a clean condition and maintained free of fluid leaks. It should also ensure that washing, refueling and servicing of machinery, along with the storage of fuel, is limited to the construction staging area, and a minimum of 30 m away from all watercourses. DEPOSITION OF DELETERIOUS SUBSTANCES Storage and stockpiling of soil and other fill material will be located a minimum of 30 m away from the watercourse, drainage and the top of steep slopes. Appropriate temporary flow passage measures should be developed and implemented, and supported by all appropriate erosion and sediment control measures, to isolate the temporary instream construction zones required for the in-water works for the pier extensions/replacements. Only clean materials free of fine particulate matter should be placed in the water for temporary construction measures (e.g. coffer dams should be constructed of pea gravel bags, geotextile fabric, sheet pile or other clean material). EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL The installation of Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) measures around the watercourses and drainage features outletting to the watercourses need to be installed proper to initiation of construction works, to prevent encroachment and the transfer of deleterious substances into the aquatic habitat. All ESC measures should be inspected regularly, and maintained by the Contractor to ensure they are functioning as intended throughout the construction period, and until such time as the bank areas have been restabilized or re-vegetated. Sediment-laden water (i.e., from dewatering activities) is to be treated, either by discharging it to a sediment filtration device, or through filter bags and onto vegetated strips before being allowed to enter into the watercourses to ensure that no entrained sediment is released to the watercourses supporting fish habitat. RESTORATION OF DISTURBED AREAS Minimize removal of vegetation, retain existing vegetation and stabilize exposed soils with vegetation where possible, and as soon as feasible following construction, to minimize changes to the banks of the watercourses, and shade provided to the local fish community. Limit the duration of soil exposure and stage construction on paved surfaces where possible. Limit the size of disturbed areas by minimizing non-essential clearing and grading. Page 65

81 8.3.2 CONTRACTOR AWARENESS Due to the high number of SAR that have the potential to be encountered within the Study Area, Contractor Awareness and Encounter Protocols will need to be developed with the relevant agencies and implemented following the contract documents and specifications. Qualified staff should be available during contract administration to ensure that appropriate measures are in place for the identification, handling, translocation and reporting of SAR. The following best management practices (BMP; MNRF, 2016) should be included as part of the contract administration process: A qualified expert should be present or available during the construction period to conduct searches, handle encounters, and relocate animals; Searches for SAR and other wildlife within the construction area should be conducted daily before and during construction activities. When SAR are found on a construction site, proper handling, translocation and reporting protocols should be followed. Protocols approved by the MNRF should be followed. Project-specific reporting and handling protocols should be developed in coordination with the appropriate agency personnel. Observation records should include the observer s name, date and time, species, location (descriptive and georeferenced), photographs, and action taken. 8.4 INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT STRATEGY A comprehensive compensation plan will need to be developed during detailed design to address potential impacts at each site (in addition to what might be required by either ESA, SARA or Fisheries Act Authorization requirements). This plan will include standard mitigation measures for the replacement of habitat or natural heritage features at a one-for-one land area and will include additional measures such as rehabilitation or remediation of areas beyond the area directly impacted, off-site works to restore, replace or enhance the ecological feature impacted by the proposed works, and use of replacement ratios that are greater than the one-for-one land area required as proposed in Section 8.2 and Appendix G, where applicable. As indicated previously, there is an opportunity to enhance native habitats at most sites where the introduction and spread of invasive species is threatening natural plant diversity and the integrity of the natural system. Compensation plans should include an invasive species management strategy for City and UTRCA owned lands within the vicinity of the proposed infrastructure at each site. This strategy should include, but not be limited to the following: Implementation of a Clean Equipment Protocol to reduce the spread of invasive species by contaminated mud, gravel, soil and plant materials on construction equipment (refer to Appendix H); Removal of invasive species from the natural heritage system using BMPs established by the Ontario Invasive Plant Council. This may include treatment of species in advance of implementation to reduce the risk of spread and mitigate potential impacts (e.g. Phragmites australis); Develop an ecological restoration plan using appropriate native species; Planting plans are to be developed and implemented by trained or licenced professionals to restore the existing invaded or degraded areas to improve overall ecological integrity and success of plantings; and, A three year monitoring plan is recommended to ensure success of new plantings, replacement plantings where necessary, and continued removal of invasive species. Page 66

82 9 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING PLAN Avoidance of impacts cannot be achieved for this project due to the sensitive nature of the natural environment, and the extent to which existing infrastructure must be modified to accommodate the RT Routes. Mitigation and compensation measures recommended in this EIS aim to minimize environmental impacts and reduce the magnitude and extent of negative net effects. A two part Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP) is recommended to document the implementation of the mitigation and compensation measures during and after construction. Part 1 of the EMMP will consist of a Construction Monitoring Plan to monitor construction-related impacts, document success or deficiency of the implemented mitigation measures (e.g., Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, Spill Control / Response Plan, etc.), and provide guidance on remedial actions/provisions for when mitigation is not successful. This plan will be developed during the detailed design phase. Part 2 of the EMMP is to consist of a long-term Post-construction Monitoring Plan to evaluate the success of the restoration / compensation efforts and to assess cumulative impacts on the Natural Heritage System. This plan should include contingency/remedial provisions that will be triggered if effects exceed a pre-determined threshold. For example, the need for supplementary plantings would be triggered if survival rates reach a specified percentage (e.g., 50%), or wildlife fencing would be erected to encourage movement through the valley if there is evidence of increased road mortality at a particular site. Compensation and monitoring requirements for SAR, to be determined at the detailed design phase in consultation with agency staff, should also be integrated into this plan. Recommendations for monitoring include, but are not limited to: Success of woodland and wetland restoration plantings; Transplantation success for plants and trees; Evidence of bank erosion or scouring at or downstream of sites with in-water works; Success / wildlife use of newly created habitat; Wildlife monitoring to confirm continued use of known habitat features post-construction (e.g., basking and nesting sites by turtles); Evidence of increased road mortality by wildlife at Sites 3, 4, and 5, or effectiveness of existing or enhanced movement corridors; Stability of bank restoration areas and success of vegetative growth on banks; and, Identification of drainage issues associated with increased impermeable surface at Site 7 related to the functioning of Murray Drain. Removal of invasive species as part of the Invasive Species Management Strategy and Ecological Restoration Plans would continue during Part 2 of the EMMP. Page 67

83 10 NEXT STEPS 10.1 PERMITS AND APPROVALS Permits and approvals from various agencies (MNRF, DFO, and UTRCA) will need to be obtained prior to commencing works at each of the sites evaluated in this EIS. Specifically: Each site occurs within areas regulated by the UTRCA under Ontario Regulation 157/06 for Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses and a permit will need to be obtained from UTRCA prior to engaging in RT-related works within these regulated areas. A Letter of Advice from the MNRF, or an Overall Benefit Permit under clause 17(2)(c) of the ESA will be required prior to commencing RT-related works at Sites 2, 3, 4, and 5. It is recommended that MNRF be consulted during detailed design, approximately one year prior to initiation of site preparation and construction activities at each site (Sites 1 to 7) to confirm that work to obtain the necessary permits and approvals is understood, and that changes to species listings, or applicable legislation/regulations have been addressed. The extent and nature of the proposed disturbance, as depicted on detailed design drawings, must be evaluated by the MNRF before a decision can be made regarding permit requirements. Additional field work or screening may be necessary to confirm the proposed works will not have an impact on SAR. Depending on the extent of in-water works at Sites 3, 4 and 5, assessment of serious harm to fish and fish habitat will need to be confirmed with DFO under the Fisheries Act to determine if a Fisheries Act Authorization will be required. This is currently done through a Request for Review form submitted to DFO s regulatory review team, however it is important to note that this terminology and process may change prior to the detail design stage of this project. If DFO determines that a Fisheries Act Authorization is required, this authorization will also require the development and implementation of off-setting and monitoring plans, to provide enhancement to the fish community within the study reaches. SARA permits may also be required if impacts to federally listed species are anticipated. DFO will provide direction related to SARA listed species and permit requirement at the time of the serious harm review. A new or modified Licence of Occupation under the Public Lands Act may be required at Sites 2, 3, 4 and 5 where modifications to the existing crossings are proposed. It will be necessary to consult with the MNRF to confirm that proposed modifications to bridges, as part of the RT works, are acceptable based on the terms and conditions of the existing authorization, or to confirm that a new Licence of Occupation will be required for changes to the specific crossing COMMITMENTS TO FUTURE WORK The impact assessment detailed within this report is based on preliminary conceptual design details. Potential impacts and recommended mitigation measures should be revisited at the detailed design phase of the project as designs are finalized to ensure that negative net effects are minimized or eliminated through implementation of appropriate mitigation or compensation measures. It is recommended that the following surveys be completed in advance of finalizing the construction documents, to ensure that requirements under the ESA and SARA are appropriately addressed, and sufficient time is available to obtain necessary permits: Nest surveys for Barn Swallows (and other applicable SAR species at the time) in the breeding season prior to construction activities on the bridges at Sites 2, 3, 4 and 5; Entry-exit surveys for Chimney Swifts where damage to suitable chimneys is unavoidable. Surveys should be completed during the breeding season prior to commencement of the demolition or construction activities; Screening for suitable bat cavity trees where removal of mature trees are proposed to permit road widening (Sites 3, 4, 5, and 6); Page 68

84 The need for additional targeted surveys for SAR mussels will be discussed with MNRF and DFO at detailed design, once footprint impacts are known, to address potential permitting and related works issues. Mussel rescue/relocations will be required at all locations where mussels have been confirmed within the in-water footprint; Completion of a Butternut Health Assessment for Butternut trees adjacent to Lambton Drive, if realignment or widening of the road is to occur within 50 m of the trees; and, Additional screening as required based on future changes to species listings or habitat regulations of the ESA. 11 CLOSURE This report has been prepared by Canada Inc. The assessment represents the conditions at the subject properties only at the time of the assessment, and is based on the information referenced and contained in the report. The conclusions presented herein respecting current conditions represent the best judgment of the assessors based on current environmental standards. attests that to the best of our knowledge, the information presented in this report is accurate. The use of this report for other projects without written permission of the client and is solely at the user s own risk. Thank you for the opportunity to complete this report. We trust that this information is satisfactory for your requirements. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance. Page 69

85 12 REFERENCES Bird Studies Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Environment Canada, Ontario Nature, and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas Internet Site. CH2M Hill Canada Limited (CH2M) Mud Creek Subwatershed Class Environmental Assessment: Final Report. Prepared for The City of London. 859 pp. City of London City of London: Environmental Management Guidelines. 154 pp. Available at: Guidelines-2007.pdf City of London Thames Valley Corridor Plan. Final Report, December City of London Environmental Impact Studies (EIS) Guidelines and Checklist. Available at: City of London The London Plan. Council Adopted, June 23, Minister Approved, December 28, pp. Delcan Corporation (Delcan) Dingman Creek Subwatershed Study Update. Volume 1: Main Report. Prepared for The Corporation of the City of London, Environmental Services Water, Sewer and Drainage Division. Delcan Corporation (Delcan) Existing Ecological Conditions Report Mudcreek Subwatershed, City of London. Prepared for The Corporation of the City of London. Dillon Consulting Limited (Dillon) Natural Heritage Evaluation and Inventory, Medway Valley Heritage Forest ESA. Project Number Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Aquatic Species at Risk Maps. Ontario South West Maps 20 and 21. Available online: Government of Canada. 1985a. Fisheries Act c. F-14. Available online at: Government of Canada. 1985b. Navigation Protection Act. Available online at Government of Canada Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (S.C. 1994, c. 22). Available at: Government of Canada Species at Risk Act (SARA). Available online at: Government of Canada Species at Risk Public Registry. Available online at: Government of Ontario Public Lands Act. Available online at: Government of Ontario Ontario Regulation 97/04: Content of Conservation Authority Regulations under subsection 28 (1) of the Act: Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses. Available at: Government of Ontario Ontario Regulation 157/06: Upper Thames River Conservation Authority: Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses. Available at: Government of Ontario Endangered Species Act (ESA). Available online: Government of Ontario Ontario Regulation 242/08: General under Endangered Species Act, Available at: Halloran, Joe, Anderson, Hayley and Tassie, Danielle Clean Equipment Protocol for Industry. Peterborough Stewardship Council and Ontario Invasive Plant Council. Peterborough, ON. 20 pp. Page 70

86 Konze, K. and M. McLaren Wildlife Monitoring Programs and Inventory Techniques for Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Northeast Science and Technology. Technical Manual TM pp. Lee, H.T Ecological Land Classification Evolution update. ELC Portal Website: LGL Limited Environmental Research Associates (LGL Ltd.) Mud Creek Subwatershed Class Environmental Assessment: Subject Lands Status Report and Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared for CH2M on behalf of The City of London. 190 pp. Matrix Solutions Inc. 2017a. One River Master Plan Environmental Assessment: Environmental Data Report (Draft). 107 pp. Matrix Solutions Inc. 2017b. One River Master Plan Environmental Assessment: Fisheries Survey Summary, Thames River (Draft). 20 pp. Middlesex County Middlesex Natural Heritage Systems Study: A study to identify the natural heritage systems in Middlesex County. Project management by Upper Thames River Conservation Authority in cooperation with Middlesex County Conservation Authorities. 48 pp. Ministry of the Environment and Energy Water Management: Policies, Guidelines, Provincial Water Quality Objectives. Queen s Printer for Ontario. Natural Resources Solutions Inc. (NRSI). 2013a. Subject Lands Status Report Harris Park. Project No Prepared for the City of London. Natural Resources Solutions Inc. (NRSI). 2013b. SoHo Redevelopment Environmental Impact Study. Project No. 1354A. Prepared for the City of London. North-South Environmental Inc. (2015). Westminster Ponds/Pond Mills ESA: Ecological Inventory & Management Zone Report. Volume pp. Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy Water Management: policies, guidelines, provincial water quality objectives. Available at: Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (OMMAH) Provincial Policy Statement. Queen s Printer for Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) Significant Wildlife Habitat: Technical Guide. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement. Second Edition. Queen s Printer for Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) Reptile and Amphibian Exclusion Fencing: Best Practices, Version 1.0. Species at Risk Branch Technical Note. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. 11 pp. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2015a. Natural Heritage Information Centre Species Lists. Available at Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2015b. Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedules for Ecoregion 7E. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) Best Management Practices for Mitigating the Effects of Roads on Amphibian and Reptile Species at Risk in Ontario. Queen s Printer for Ontario. 112 pp. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2017a. Natural Heritage Areas Mapping Make-a- Map Online Tool. Available at: aturalheritage&locale=en-us. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2017b. Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) list. Available at: Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) Environmental Guide For Fish And Fish Habitat. Available at: Page 71

87 Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) Environmental Guide for Wildlife Mitigation. Updated final report submitted by Eco-Kare International to the Ministry of Transportation, St. Catharines, Ontario. 107 pp. Ontario Road Ecology Group, Toronto Zoo A Guide to Road Ecology in Ontario, prepared for the Environment Canada Habitat Stewardship Program for Species at Risk. 72 pp. Pers. comm. Winifred Wake, Chimney Swift Liaison (volunteer) for Nature London. April 5, 2017 via S. Levin, EEPAC and March 17, Quinlan, K., Upper Thames River Conservation Authority The Thames River, Ontario: Canadian Heritage River System Ten Year Monitoring Report Source Water Protection Thames-Sydenham and Region Source Protection Committee: Upper Thames River Source Protection Area Assessment Report. Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) Regionally Rare Plants of Middlesex County Updated Available at: Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) The Middlesex Natural Heritage Study: A Natural Heritage Study to Identify Significant Woodland Patches in Middlesex County. Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) Master Plan Update 2005 Westminster Ponds / Pond Mills Environmentally Significant Area. Upper Thames River Conservation Authority. 2012a. The Forks: 2012 Watershed Report Card. Upper Thames River Conservation Authority. 2012b. Dingman Creek: 2012 Watershed Report Card. Canada Inc. () London RT Project: Subject Lands Status Report. 196 pp. Page 72

88 FIGURES

89 KILALLY ROAD GAINSBOROUGH ROAD ROBINS HILL ROAD KIPPS LANE HURON STREET SARNIA ROAD CHEAPSIDE STREET OXFORD STREET EAST OXFORD STREET WEST ADMIRAL DRIVE CRUMLIN SIDEROAD WORTLEY ROAD Ü VETERANS MEMORIAL PARKWAY OLD VICTORIA ROAD CLARKE ROAD HIGHWAY 401 FIGURE 4 FIGURE 2 FIGURE 3 FIGURE 5 FIGURE 6 HURON STREET SANDFORD STREET 2ND STREET DUNDAS STREET GORE ROAD BRADLEY AVENUE FANSHAWE PARK ROAD EAST FANSHAWE PARK ROAD WEST WINDERMERE ROAD WESTERN ROAD WONDERLAND ROAD NORTH ADELAIDE STREET NORTH COLBORNE STREET RICHMOND STREET QUEENS AVENUE KING STREET HALE STREET SPRINGBANK DRIVE HAMILTON ROAD COMMISSIONERS ROAD WEST POND MILLS ROAD WELLINGTON ROAD HIGHBURY AVENUE SOUTH WHITE OAK ROAD EXETER ROAD WILTON GROVE ROAD DINGMAN DRIVE HYDE PARK ROAD RIVERSIDE DRIVE WAVELL STREET COMMISSIONERS ROAD EAST SUNNYSIDE DRIVE GLENORA DRIVE BRIARHILL AVENUE ST GEORGE STREET CENTRAL AVENUE DUFFERIN AVENUE YORK STREET BRYDGES STREET EGERTON STREET HORTON STREET EAST GREY STREET GRAND AVENUE EMERY STREET WEST THOMPSON ROAD BASELINE ROAD EAST UPPER QUEEN STREET FERNDALE AVENUE ANDOVER DRIVE SOUTHDALE ROAD EAST JALNA BOULEVARD ERNEST AVENUE BESSEMER ROAD VISCOUNT ROAD SOUTHDALE ROAD WEST BOSTWICK ROAD WHARNCLIFFE ROAD SOUTH WONDERLAND ROAD SOUTH HIGHWAY 402 TRAFALGAR STREET 0 1,000 2,000 m MAP INDEX LEGEND L LINE ROUTE 7 LINE ROUTE RAPID TRANSIT STUDY AREA MAP INDEX GRID Data Source: Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Base Mapping, March LONDON RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY For City of London DATE: JANUARY 2018 PROJECT: SCALE: 1:55000 FILE. NO.: F1 FIGURE 1 HIGHWAY 401 BASELINE ROAD EAST MAIN STREET OUTER DRIVE SANATORIUM ROAD COLONEL TALBOT ROAD

90 FOSTER AVENUE LAUREL STREET ANN STREET PAUL STREET MILL STREET KINGSWAY AVENUE WYATT STREET STANLEY STREET CHEAPSIDE STREET WALMER GROVE EDGAR DRIVE Mud Creek Central London RICHMOND STREET Unnumbered The Coves SITE 1 TALBOT STREET ST GEORGE STREET WESTERN ROAD PLATTS LANE TROTT DRIVE GROSVENOR STREET ESSEX STREET BEAUFORT STREET MCDONALD AVENUE ST JAMES STREET PROUDFOOT LANE HORIZON DRIVE GUNN STREET CHERRYHILL PLACE HYMAN STREET ALBION STREET WILSON AVENUE WOODWARD AVENUE RIVERSIDE DRIVE FORWARD AVENUE SITE 2 PICCADILLY STREET PICCADILLY STREET ST PATRICK STREET EMPRESS AVENUE JOHN STREET DUNDAS STREET DUFFERIN AVENUE CLARENCE STREET KING STREET RIDOUT STREET NORTH BEAVERBROOK AVENUE YORK STREET SPRINGBANK DRIVE HORTON STREET EAST SIMCOE STREET GREY STREET BYRON AVENUE EAST ASKIN STREET WHARNCLIFFE ROAD SOUTH SITE 5 RIDOUT STREET SOUTH WELLINGTON STREET KENT STREET BECHER STREET ALBERT STREET HORTON STREET WEST VICTOR STREET EUCLID AVENUE HILL STREET SOUTH STREET BRUCE STREET DUCHESS AVENUE ELMWOOD AVENUE EAST BRISCOE STREET WEST GRAND AVENUE MARLEY PLACE COLUMBIA AVENUE BRITANNIA AVENUE BLACKFRIARS STREET CENTRAL AVENUE PALL MALL STREET TOZER AVENUE CHARLES STREET QUEENS AVENUE CAVENDISH CRESCENT THE RIDGEWAY CROMWELL STREET WALMER GARDENS GOWER STREET SUMMIT AVENUE MAURICE STREET KENSINGTON AVENUE CARLING STREET THAMES STREET SEAWOOD AVENUE DUKE STREET CRAIG STREET RIDGEWOOD CRESCENTELMWOOD PLACE CARFRAE CRESCENT TECUMSEH AVENUE EAST MACKAY AVENUE FORBES STREET EVERGREEN AVENUE BATHURST STREET BEACONSFIELD AVENUE GREENSIDE AVENUE TALBOT STREET ORCHARD STREET The Cove Thames River North Thames River BRIGHTON STREET Thames River L LINE ROUTE 7 LINE ROUTE Ü m NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES - WEST AREA LONDON RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY For City of London DATE: JANUARY 2018 PROJECT: LEGEND RAPID TRANSIT STUDY AREA RAILWAY SITES 1, 2 & 5 BOUNDARY SUBWATERSHED BOUNDARY WATER FEATURES AREAS OF NATURAL & SCIENTIFIC INTEREST (ANSI) ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS (ESA) SIGNIFICANT WOODLANDS WOODLANDS UNEVALUATED VEGETATION PATCHES WOODLAND PATCH NUMBER PROVINCIALLY SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS UNEVALUATED WETLANDS SIGNIFICANT VALLEYLANDS UNEVALUATED VALLEYLANDS UTRCA REGULATION LIMIT REGULATORY FLOODLINE MAXIMUM HAZARD LINE Data Source: Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Base Mapping, March City of London, London Plan (2016), Maps 5 & 6. UTRCA SCALE: 1:15000 FILE. NO.: F2 FIGURE 2 BEACHWOOD AVENUE FERGUSON PLACE LANGARTH STREET WEST EMERY STREET WEST BEAVERBROOK AVENUE CAPULET LANE FARRAH ROAD REDOAK AVENUE BLACKSMITH STREET CAPULET WALK OXFORD STREET WEST THORNWOOD DRIVE INVERNESS AVENUE DONEGAL DRIVE OAKRIDGE DRIVE DUNEDIN DRIVE CAYLEY DRIVE WONDERLAND ROAD NORTH SAMUEL PLACE PINEWOOD DRIVE MARY AVENUE TROWBRIDGE AVENUE AUBURN AVENUE BLOXAM AVENUE SOUTHCREST DRIVE ROBIN ROAD BERKSHIRE DRIVE

91 LORNE AVENUE ELIAS STREET QUEENS AVENUE FLORENCE STREET CAMPUS DRIVE WETHERED STREET OAKSIDE STREET HANSULD STREET PRINCESS AVENUE YORK STREET LITTLE SIMCOE STREET BEATTIE AVENUE WILTON AVENUE VAN STREET DOULTON STREET LANGMUIR AVENUE MOFFAT CRESCENT Central London DUNDAS STREET Pottersburg Creek ALUMNI ROAD TECHNOLOGY DRIVE OXFORD STREET EAST HOWLAND AVENUE MARDELL STREET 1ST STREET 2ND STREET HALE STREET CHEAPSIDE STREET LANDOR STREET HIGHBURY AVENUE NORTH MORNINGTON AVENUE QUEBEC STREET BRYDGES STREET EGERTON STREET TRAFALGAR STREET KING STREET ASHLAND AVENUE LYMAN STREET MCNAY STREET BARKER STREET BOULLEE STREET APPEL STREET LINWOOD STREET STUART STREET CLEMENS STREET FRANCES STREET PINE STREET OAK STREET ROSS STREET GAMMAGE STREET ELLIOTT STREET GROSVENOR STREET MAITLAND STREET PICCADILLY STREET MCMAHEN STREET HARTLET STREET DALE STREET DIXIE STREET COMMERCIAL CRESCENT BURDICK PLACE SPRUCE STREET THIEL STREET BURSLEM STREET BORDEN STREET HAIG STREET WAVELL STREET KIWANIS PARK DRIVE GRAYDON STREET GLASS AVENUE CORNISH STREET FLANDERS ROW RHINE AVENUE WISTOW STREET EMPIRE STREET EASTMAN AVENUE OAKLAND AVENUE FELLNER AVENUE HUME STREET FLEET STREET SALISBURY STREET CONNAUGHT AVENUE NIGHTINGALE AVENUE MCCORMICK BOULEVARD WOODMAN AVENUE CHARLOTTE STREET DORINDA STREET BURBROOK PLACE KELLOGG LANE ELM STREET ASH STREET MAJOR STREET STERLING STREET SACKVILLE STREET LOGAN AVENUE WALLACE STREET FALAISE ROAD PARTRIDGE STREET ALLEN AVENUE HEATHER CRESCENT ASHLAND AVENUE OAKLAND AVENUE STERLING STREET BEDFORD ROAD ST JAMES STREET ST JAMES STREET THORNTON AVENUE BRANT STREET WATLING STREET CARLTON AVENUE WOLSELEY AVENUE ELIZABETH STREET ALFRED STREET PALL MALL STREET CENTRAL AVENUE ELIAS STREET ENGLISH STREET ROSEDALE STREET PALACE STREET CARTWRIGHT STREET PRINCESS AVENUE COLBORNE STREET ONTARIO STREET YORK STREET WILLIAM STREET RECTORY STREET HAMILTON ROAD HILL STREET BATHURST STREET HORTON STREET EAST SIMCOE STREET DUFFERIN AVENUE HEWITT STREET MARSHALL STREET LITTLE GREY STREET SOUTH STREET GREY STREET DREANEY AVENUE NELSON STREET SMITH STREET BURWELL STREET MAITLAND STREET ELIZABETH STREET KING STREET CENTRAL AVENUE WALKER STREET LOVETT STREET STEDWELL STREET REDAN STREET MAMELON STREET PEGLER STREET PHILIP STREET Thames River L LINE ROUTE 7 LINE ROUTE Ü m NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES - EAST AREA LONDON RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY For City of London DATE: JANUARY 2018 PROJECT: LEGEND RAPID TRANSIT STUDY AREA RAILWAY SUBWATERSHED BOUNDARY WATER FEATURES AREAS OF NATURAL & SCIENTIFIC INTEREST (ANSI) ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS (ESA) SIGNIFICANT WOODLANDS WOODLANDS UNEVALUATED VEGETATION PATCHES WOODLAND PATCH NUMBER PROVINCIALLY SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS UNEVALUATED WETLANDS SIGNIFICANT VALLEYLANDS UNEVALUATED VALLEYLANDS UTRCA REGULATION LIMIT REGULATORY FLOODLINE MAXIMUM HAZARD LINE Data Source: Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Base Mapping, March City of London, London Plan (2016), Maps 5 & 6. UTRCA SCALE: 1:15000 FILE. NO.: F3 FIGURE 3

92 PHILLBROOK DRIVE ROLAND LANE CAMDEN ROAD DOON DRIVE WHITEACRES DRIVE GLENMORE DRIVE Medway Valley Heritage Forest ESA PERTH DRIVE WYCHWOOD PARK LAWSON ROAD BROMLEIGH AVENUE HEATHCOTE AVENUE MIDDLEWOODS PHILIP AZIZ AVENUE SARNIA ROAD BOBBYBROOK DRIVE RIVERTRACE CLOSE SHAWNA ROAD BUTTERCUP COURT MCGARRELL DRIVE WENDY CRESCENT DALEVIEW CRESCENT FANSHAWE PARK ROAD EAST FANSHAWE PARK ROAD WEST Mud Creek Medway Creek SITE Masonville Creek LOUISE BOULEVARD SITE Stoney Creek HASTINGS DRIVE SHARON DRIVE KATHRYN DRIVE TOOHEY LANE ELMDALE AVENUE SPRUCEDALE AVENUE HILLSIDE DRIVE SUNNYSIDE DRIVE SHAVIAN BOULEVARD AMBLESIDE DRIVE RYERSIE ROAD RICHMOND STREET WINDERMERE ROAD Central London EPWORTH AVENUE UNIVERSITY DRIVE LAMBTON DRIVE HURON DRIVE WESTERN ROAD HURON STREET REGENT STREET THE PARKWAY WILLIAM STREET HARRISON AVENUE SHERWOOD AVENUE COOMBS AVENUE MAITLAND STREET COLBORNE STREET GEARY AVENUE HILLVIEW BOULEVARD MILFORD CRESCENT FAWN COURT ROBINSON LANE SPENCER CRESCENT MORAINE CRESCENT HESKETH STREET MARCUS CRESCENT GRANGEOVER AVENUE MIDDLESEX DRIVE MAYFAIR DRIVE OXFORD DRIVE RAMSAY ROAD BRESCIA LANE CANTERBURY ROAD BROUGHDALE AVENUE WILLOWDALE AVENUE CARRICK LANE SHADY LANE MASONVILLE CRESCENT GERALDINE AVENUE RIDGE ROAD MCCLURE DRIVE ST BEES COURT CARNFORTH ROAD GREEN ACRES DRIVE BUTTERMERE ROAD LAVENDER WAY PAISLEY STREET ORKNEY PLACE TALLWOOD DENALI TERRACE North Thames River L LINE ROUTE 7 LINE ROUTE Ü m NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES - NORTH AREA LONDON RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY For City of London DATE: JANUARY 2018 PROJECT: LEGEND RAPID TRANSIT STUDY AREA RAILWAY SITES 3 & 4 BOUNDARY SUBWATERSHED BOUNDARY WATER FEATURES AREAS OF NATURAL & SCIENTIFIC INTEREST (ANSI) ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS (ESA) SIGNIFICANT WOODLANDS WOODLANDS UNEVALUATED VEGETATION PATCHES WOODLAND PATCH NUMBER PROVINCIALLY SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS UNEVALUATED WETLANDS SIGNIFICANT VALLEYLANDS UNEVALUATED VALLEYLANDS UTRCA REGULATION LIMIT REGULATORY FLOODLINE MAXIMUM HAZARD LINE Data Source: Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Base Mapping, March City of London, London Plan (2016), Maps 5 & 6. UTRCA SCALE: 1:15000 FILE. NO.: F4 FIGURE 4 ELGIN DRIVE RAYMOND AVENUE BERNARD AVENUE ADELAIDE STREET NORTH STEELE STREET BLOOMFIELD DRIVE BROUGH STREET WESTVIEW DRIVE KININVIE DRIVE VICTORIA STREET CHEAPSIDE STREET ST GEORGE STREET FORD CRESCENT CHRISTIE STREET FRASER AVENUE CASTLEGROVE BOULEVARD WALMER GROVE GLENRIDGE CRESCENT FRIARS WAY ABBEY RISE CHESHAM AVENUE RIPPLETON ROAD

93 STANLEY STREET LITTLE SIMCOE STREET EGERTON STREET VAN STREET WORTLEY ROAD HYDRO STREET CAIRN STREET YORK STREET FLORENCE STREET HAMILTON ROAD GREY STREET HORTON STREET EAST SIMCOE STREET HILL STREET SOUTH STREET BATHURST STREET RECTORY STREET MAITLAND STREET WILLIAM STREET WELLINGTON STREET BYRON AVENUE EAST ASKIN STREET WATERLOO STREET BRUCE STREET NELSON STREET The Coves Dingman Creek Central London SITE 5 TRAFALGAR STREET GRAND AVENUE MARLEY PLACE CLARENCE STREET RIDOUT STREET NORTH RICHMOND STREET THAMES STREET HORTON STREET WEST BEACONSFIELD AVENUE SPRINGBANK DRIVE VICTOR STREET EUCLID AVENUE EDWARD STREET CATHCART STREET WHARNCLIFFE ROAD SOUTH BRISCOE STREET EAST LANGARTH STREET EAST ADELAIDE STREET SOUTH TECUMSEH AVENUE EAST WESTON STREET BAKER STREET JOSEPHINE STREET JACQUELINE STREET DREANEY AVENUE CRAIG STREET SACKVILLE STREET CARFRAE CRESCENT ELMWOOD AVENUE EAST WALKER STREET LOVETT STREET MAMELON STREET SMITH STREET OLIVER STREET ADA STREET HOLBORN AVENUE BROOKSIDE STREET BOND STREET RIDOUT STREET SOUTH DEVONSHIRE AVENUE TREVITHEN STREET MOORE STREET HIGH STREET BELGRAVE AVENUE IROQUOIS AVENUE ELWORTHY AVENUE MCCLARY AVENUE HIGHWAY AVENUE FOXBAR ROAD WINDSOR AVENUE GARFIELD AVENUE LAMBETH AVENUE VERONICA AVENUE KING EDWARD AVENUE EMERY STREET EAST ROSEL CRESCENT THOMPSON ROAD SCENIC DRIVE FAIRVIEW AVENUE GLADSTONE AVENUE CHESTER STREET EMERSON AVENUE HELENA AVENUE WESTMINSTER AVENUE BELHAVEN ROAD HIGHLAND AVENUE TALBOT STREET Thames River COVE ROAD HYATT AVENUE ERIE AVENUE STEDWELL STREET REDAN STREET ARDAVEN PLACE MCKENZIE AVENUE PHILIP STREET PERCY STREET BASELINE ROAD EAST BUCKINGHAM STREET BELLEVUE AVENUE DEANE STREET LUNDY LANE LOCKYER STREET Thames River L LINE ROUTE 7 LINE ROUTE Ü m NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES - SOUTH CENTRAL AREA LONDON RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY For City of London DATE: JANUARY 2018 PROJECT: LEGEND RAPID TRANSIT STUDY AREA RAILWAY SITE 5 BOUNDARY SUBWATERSHED BOUNDARY WATER FEATURES AREAS OF NATURAL & SCIENTIFIC INTEREST (ANSI) ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS (ESA) SIGNIFICANT WOODLANDS WOODLANDS UNEVALUATED VEGETATION PATCHES WOODLAND PATCH NUMBER PROVINCIALLY SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS UNEVALUATED WETLANDS SIGNIFICANT VALLEYLANDS UNEVALUATED VALLEYLANDS UTRCA REGULATION LIMIT REGULATORY FLOODLINE MAXIMUM HAZARD LINE Data Source: Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Base Mapping, March City of London, London Plan (2016), Maps 5 & 6. UTRCA SCALE: 1:15000 FILE. NO.: F5 FIGURE 5 FRANK PLACE EMERY STREET EAST MURRAY STREET DEVONSHIRE AVENUE ELWORTHY AVENUE ST NEOTS DRIVE CHESTER STREET AVERILL CRESCENT WELLINGTON ROAD HIGHLAND HEIGHTS MARKLAND DRIVE BASELINE ROAD EAST DUNDEE PLACE DOVER PLACE CARNEGIE LANE CHIPPENDALE CRESCENT EAGLE DRIVE COMMISSIONERS ROAD EAST HUNTINGDON DRIVE COWAN AVENUE HIGHVIEW AVENUE EAST LEATHORNE STREET HARMONY ROAD SUMNER ROAD CHIDDINGTON AVENUE OUTLOOK ROAD CHEVIOT ROAD UPPER QUEEN STREET VINCENT CRESCENT FERNDALE AVENUE

94 Westminster Ponds/ Pond Mills ESA OUTLOOK ROAD FRONTENAC ROAD WELLINGTON ROAD Westminster Ponds/ Pond Mills ANSI / ESA SOUTHDALE ROAD EAST DEARNESS DRIVE BRADLEY AVENUE Central London Dingman Creek SITE 6 Saunders Pond JERMYN PLACE NADINE AVENUE EBURY CRESCENT Tumblesons Pond Spettigues Pond WILLOW DRIVE MILLBANK DRIVE ADELAIDE STREET SOUTH POND MILLS ROAD NEWBOLD STREET BESSEMER ROAD SITE L LINE ROUTE 7 LINE ROUTE Ü m NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES - SOUTH AREA LONDON RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY For City of London DATE: JANUARY 2018 PROJECT: LEGEND RAPID TRANSIT STUDY AREA RAILWAY SITES 6 & 7 BOUNDARY SUBWATERSHED BOUNDARY WATER FEATURES AREAS OF NATURAL & SCIENTIFIC INTEREST (ANSI) ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS (ESA) SIGNIFICANT WOODLANDS WOODLANDS UNEVALUATED VEGETATION PATCHES WOODLAND PATCH NUMBER PROVINCIALLY SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS UNEVALUATED WETLANDS SIGNIFICANT VALLEYLANDS UNEVALUATED VALLEYLANDS UTRCA REGULATION LIMIT REGULATORY FLOODLINE MAXIMUM HAZARD LINE Data Source: Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Base Mapping, March City of London, London Plan (2016), Maps 5 & 6. UTRCA SCALE: 1:15000 FILE. NO.: F6 FIGURE 6 DOWNING CRESCENT EBURY PLACE HARROW COURT ANTRIM CRESCENT WELLINGSBORO ROAD GRIEVE PLACE GLENBANNER ROAD BRIDLINGTON ROAD UPCOTT CRESCENT DUDLEY CRESCENT BEXHILL CLOSE ADSWOOD ROAD ASHBURY AVENUE KINBURN CRESCENT HILLHEAD ROAD SURREY COURT HARDING CRESCENT OSGOODE DRIVE BEXHILL DRIVE HARGRIEVE ROAD TOWERLINE PLACE INVICTA COURT CONSORTIUM COURT HIGHWAY 401 ROYCE COURT HIGHWAY 401 HIGHWAY 401 WILTON GROVE ROAD SISE ROAD HIGHWAY 401 UPPER QUEEN STREET HOMEVIEW ROAD FERNDALE AVENUE CRAWFORD STREET EDEN AVENUE CRESTON AVENUE NIXON AVENUE MATHERS STREET DULANEY DRIVE CLIFTON CRESCENT DUNDALK DRIVE JOSSELYN DRIVE WINBLEST AVENUE KRISTINA CRESCENT WHITE OAK ROAD ELVIRA CRESCENT COLETTE DRIVE JUTTA CRESCENT ROSAMOND CRESCENT SASHA CRESCENT DEVON ROAD MURIEL CRESCENT MONTGOMERY ROAD ASHLEY CRESCENT JALNA BOULEVARD PATIENCE CRESCENT CHESWICK CIRCLE SARAH CRESCENT CONWAY LANE CONWAY DRIVE LACEY CRESCENT FENNELL CRESCENT RENNY CRESCENT NICHOLAS CRESCENT ALAYNE CRESCENT ERNEST AVENUE CLARA CRESCENT FAIRCHILD CRESCENT PIERS CRESCENT AUGUSTA CRESCENT ARCHER CRESCENT HOLIDAY AVENUE GREENFIELD DRIVE SHOLTO DRIVE EXETER ROAD SHAMROCK ROAD DURROW STREET MEG DRIVE

95 LEGEND SITE 1 BOUNDARY WATERCOURSE PARCEL BOUNDARY REGULATORY FLOODLINE UNMAPPED WETLAND UTRCA REGULATION LIMIT SIGNIFICANT VALLEYLANDS PROUDFOOT LANE UNEVALUATED VALLEYLANDS UNEVALUATED VEGETATION PATCHES WOODLAND PATCH NUMBER k AMPHIBIAN SURVEY LOCATION * PATCH REMOVED BY LANDOWNER IN 2016 Mud Creek Unnumbered (*Removed) 240 k OXFORD STREET WEST BEAVERBROOK AVENUE 255 Data Source: Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Base Mapping, March City of London, London Plan (2016), Maps 5 & 6. UTRCA Ü m EXISTING CONDITIONS: SITE 1 - OXFORD STREET WEST AT MUD CREEK LONDON RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY For City of London DATE: JANUARY 2018 SCALE: 1:3000 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoE GIS User Community Four terrestrial species at risk have been documented at this site and will be considered as part of the impact assessment and mitigation discussion. PROJECT: FILE. NO.: F7 FIGURE 7

96 RIVERSIDE DRIVE LEGEND WILSON AVENUE HARRIS PARK ENTRY SITE 2 BOUNDARY PARCEL BOUNDARY REGULATORY FLOODLINE WATER FEATURES SIGNIFICANT VALLEYLANDS UTRCA REGULATION LIMIT k AMPHIBIAN SURVEY LOCATION North Thames River HARRIS PARK GATE 235 THAMES STREET QUEENS AVENUE 245 DUNDAS STREET 235 k DUNDAS STREET 0 50 m Data Source: Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Base Mapping, March City of London, London Plan (2016), Maps 5 & 6. UTRCA Ü EXISTING CONDITIONS: SITE 2 - NORTH THAMES CROSSING AT QUEENS AVE & RIVERSIDE DR Thames River LONDON RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY For City of London DATE: JANUARY 2018 SCALE: 1:1500 Four terrestrial and eight aquatic species at risk have the potential to occur at this site and will be considered as part of the impact assessment and mitigation discussion. 235 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community PROJECT: FILE. NO.: F8 FIGURE 8

97 WESTCHESTER DRIVE RICHMOND STREET LEGEND SITE 3A & 3B BOUNDARY PARCEL BOUNDARY CANTERBURY ROAD REGULATORY FLOODLINE COLLIP CIRCLE SUBWATERSHED BOUNDARY SIGNIFICANT VALLEYLANDS UNEVALUATED WETLANDS ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS (ESA) COLLIP GATE WATER FEATURES UNEVALUATED VEGETATION PATCHES WOODLAND PATCH NUMBER k k UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ENTRY 240 Medway Creek UTRCA REGULATION LIMIT k AMPHIBIAN SURVEY LOCATION 255 PERTH DRIVE WINDERMERE ROAD Medway Valley Heritage Forest ESA GLENMORE DRIVE Medway Creek CORLEY DRIVE m Data Source: Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Base Mapping, March City of London, London Plan (2016), Maps 5 & 6. UTRCA Ü EXISTING CONDITIONS: SITE 3 - MEDWAY CREEK CROSSING ON WESTERN ROAD 245 WELLINGTON DRIVE 250 LONDON RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY For City of London DATE: JANUARY 2018 SCALE: 1:3000 WESTERN ROAD Six terrestrial species and three aquatic species at risk have the potential to occur at this site and will be considered as part of the impact Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus assessment DS, USDA, and USGS, mitigation AeroGRID, discussion. IGN, and the GIS User Community PROJECT: FILE. NO.: F9 FIGURE 9

98 245 LEGEND SITE 4 BOUNDARY PARCEL BOUNDARY REGULATORY FLOODLINE PERTH DRIVE UTRCA REGULATION LIMIT WATER FEATURES UNEVALUATED VEGETATION PATCHES WOODLAND PATCH NUMBER 240 SIGNIFICANT VALLEYLANDS k AMPHIBIAN SURVEY LOCATION UNIVERSITY DRIVE k SUNSET STREET LAMBTON DRIVE North Thames River WESTVIEW DRIVE THE PARKWAY 0 30 m Data Source: Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Base Mapping, March City of London, London Plan (2016), Maps 5 & 6. UTRCA Ü EXISTING CONDITIONS: SITE 4 - NORTH THAMES CROSSING ON UNIVERSITY DRIVE LONDON RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY For City of London DATE: JANUARY 2018 SCALE: 1:1250 Eight terrestrial and eight aquatic species at risk have the potential to occur at this site and will be considered as part of the impact Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus assessment DS, USDA, and USGS, mitigation AeroGRID, discussion. IGN, and the GIS User Community PROJECT: FILE. NO.: F10 FIGURE 10

99 LEGEND SITE 5 BOUNDARY PARCEL BOUNDARY REGULATORY FLOODLINE WATER FEATURES WOODLANDS SIGNIFICANT VALLEYLANDS WELLINGTON STREET UTRCA REGULATION LIMIT k AMPHIBIAN SURVEY LOCATION 235 Thames River WELLINGTON ROAD k 235 FRONT STREET 240 HIGH STREET FRONT STREET Four terrestrial and eight aquatic species at risk have the potential to occur at this site and will be considered as part of the impact assessment and mitigation discussion. KENNON PLACE Significant Wildlife Habitat: Turtle overwintering & nesting habitat is present within or adjacent to this site. Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community 0 30 m Data Source: Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Base Mapping, March City of London, London Plan (2016), Maps 5 & 6. UTRCA EXISTING CONDITIONS: SITE 5 - THAMES CROSSING ON WELLINGTON ROAD LONDON RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY For City of London DATE: JANUARY 2018 PROJECT: SCALE: 1:1000 FILE. NO.: F11 FIGURE Ü 11

100 WELLINGTON ROAD CENTRAL LONDON DINGMAN CREEK SITE 6 BOUNDARY PARCEL BOUNDARY LEGEND REGULATORY FLOODLINE SUBWATERSHED BOUNDARY PROVINCIALLY SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS WATER FEATURES 280 AREAS OF NATURAL & SCIENTIFIC INTEREST (ANSI) ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS (ESA) WILKINS STREET 280 UTRCA REGULATION LIMIT k AMPHIBIAN SURVEY LOCATION 280 SANDRINGHAM CRESCENT 280 Westminster Ponds / Pond Mills ESA / ANSI k Saunders Pond 0 50 m Data Source: Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Base Mapping, March City of London, London Plan (2016), Maps 5 & 6. UTRCA Ü EXISTING CONDITIONS: SITE 6 - WESTMINSTER PONDS EAST OF WELLINGTON ROAD Five terrestrial species at risk are known to occur on or adjacent to the site and will be considered as part of the impact assessment and mitigation discussion. LONDON RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY For City of London DATE: JANUARY 2018 SCALE: 1:2300 VERULAM STREET Significant Wildlife Habitat: Amphibian Breeding Habitat - Woodlands & Habitat for Species of Conservation Concern is present within or adjacent to this site. Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community 275 PROJECT: FILE. NO.: F12 FIGURE 12

101 260 LEGEND BESSEMER ROAD ROYCE COURT 260 SITE 7 BOUNDARY MAXIMUM HAZARD/FLOODLINE SIGNIFICANT VALLEYLANDS 260 UNMAPPED VEGETATION PATCH REMOVED BY LANDOWNER IN 2017 PRIOR TO SITE INVESTIGATION WATERCOURSE EXETER ROAD WELLINGTON ROAD WELLINGTON ROAD * Removed 260 Murray Drain HIGHWAY 401 WILTON GROVE ROAD 0 50 m Data Source: Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Base Mapping, March City of London, London Plan (2016), Maps 5 & 6. UTRCA Ü HIGHWAY 401 Two terrestrial species at risk were documented within this study area and will be considered as part of the impact assessment and mitigation discussion. EXISTING CONDITIONS: SITE 7 - EXETER ROAD PARK & RIDE LONDON RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY For City of London DATE: JANUARY 2018 SCALE: 1: Significant Wildlife Habitat: Habitat for Species of Conservation Concern is present at this site. Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community PROJECT: FILE. NO.: F13 FIGURE 13