Fisheries Habitat Assessment

Fisheries Habitat Assessment

Lincolnville GO Station Improvements

RQQ-2015-CST-080

Prepared for: Metrolinx 20 Bay Street, Suite 1800 Toronto ON M5J 2W3

Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd. 300W-675 Cochrane Drive

Markham ON L3R 0B8

File No. 1135200010 August 29, 2017

Draft Disclaimer

This document is a draft and is provided for information only. The information contained herein is subject to change during the Transit Project Assessment Process. The final version of this document will be available following the Notice of Completion.

Memo

as \\cd1215-f01\work_group\01609\active\1135200010\planning\report\aquatic assessment\mem_1135200010_aquatic-assessment_08292017_fin.docx

To: Alex Blasko From: Sean Stuart

Markham ON Office Markham ON Office

File: 1135200010 Date: August 29, 2017

Reference: Metrolinx: Lincolnville Layover and GO Station Improvements – Fisheries Habitat Assessment

1 PURPOSE OF SURVEY Metrolinx is proposing to improve the Lincolnville Layover and GO Station (the facility) near Stouffville, Ontario by adding new tracks to increase layover storage capacity.

This memo summarizes the results of fisheries habitat assessments conducted on November 7, 2016, May 5, 2017, July 20, 2017, and August 23, 2017 by Sean Stuart. More specifically, it includes:

• Characterization of fisheries habitat, based on key aquatic habitat features and their sensitivity to alteration

• Determination of potential fisheries and aquatic habitat constraints associated with the proposed layover expansion

• Management recommendations based upon completion of a Headwater Drainage Feature Assessment

• Discussion of potential direct and indirect effects on fish and fish habitat, as they relate to the Fisheries Act

2 LOCATION OF SURVEY The existing facility is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Tenth Line and Bethesda Road (west of York Durham Line) in the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville.

The existing property includes two drainage features and a pond. One feature is connected to a tributary of Reesor Creek, and is referred to in this memo as Reach 1. The second feature is a constructed stormwater management facility located along the eastern edge of the property. The pond is located at the northern edge of the property. Figure 1, attached, shows the location of the property along with the surrounding natural features.

3 BACKGROUND DATA Reesor Creek is a subwatershed within the Duffins Creek watershed. The Fisheries Management Plan for Duffins and Carruthers Creeks (TRCA 2004) classifies Reesor Creek as coldwater fish habitat and Reach 1 is further classified as Small Riverine Coldwater Habitat.

August 29, 2017 Alex Blasko Page 2 of 8

Reference: Metrolinx: Lincolnville Layover and GO Station Improvement – Fisheries Habitat Assessment


Within the Duffins Creek watershed, Small Riverine Coldwater Habitat can support the following species:

• American Brook Lamprey (Lethenteron appendix)

• Blacknose Dace (Rhinichthys atratulus) • Bluntnose Minnow (Pimephales notatus) • Brook Stickleback (Culaea inconstans) • Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) • Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) • Common Shiner (Luxilus cornutus) • Creek Chub (Semotilus atromaculatus) • Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas)

• Iowa Darter (Etheostoma exile) • Johnny Darter (Etheostoma nigrum) • Longnose Dace (Rhinichthys cataractae) • Mottled Sculpin (Cottus bairdii) • Northern Redbelly Dace (Chrosomus eos) • Pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) • Rainbow Darter (Etheostoma caeruleum) • Slimy Sculpin (Cottus cognatus) • White Sucker (Catostomus commersonii)

Coldwater species such as American Brook Lamprey, Brook Trout and Brown Trout require permanently flowing water with cold temperatures and gravel substrates to carry out their various life stages, including spawning. Brook Trout specifically require groundwater upwellings for spawning. While most of the above species are known to inhabit small watercourses, species such as Bluntnose Minnow, Creek Chub, Fathead Minnow, Northern Redbelly Dace, and Pumpkinseed also inhabit shallow ponds and wetlands (Scott and Crossman 1998; Holm et al. 2009).

LGL Ltd. (LGL) conducted a fish habitat assessment in 2007 prior to the construction of the existing facility. The LGL assessment included Reach 1 along with the ditches and swales present on the property at that time. The assessment concluded that the ditches and swales did not function as direct fish habitat. Although fish were not captured in Reach 1 at the time of field investigations, it was assessed as direct fish habitat due to potential for it to function as seasonal fish habitat (LGL 2007). A second fish habitat assessment was conducted by LGL in 2012 to determine the potential for Redside Dace (Clinostomus elongatus) habitat within the property. The 2012 assessment determined the ditches and swales were infilled between 2007 and 2012. The assessment also noted that Reach 1 had changed from a channel dominated by native grasses (in 2007) to a sod-lined swale.

The 2012 assessment conducted by LGL documented that Reach 1 flowed through culverts under a large berm along the southern boundary of the property and then under Bethesda Road, connecting to a Reesor Creek tributary immediately south of Bethesda Road. The assessment concluded that Reach 1 no longer functioned as direct fish habitat because the culvert under Bethesda Road was too long for fish to successfully swim upstream and the culvert through the berm was perched, creating a barrier to fish passage. Furthermore, Reach 1 was no longer connected to the pond located north of the property, and therefore flow through Reach 1 had been significantly reduced compared with conditions documented in 2007. The LGL assessment also identified that the stormwater management (SWM) facility had been constructed along the eastern edge of the property (LGL 2012). SWM facilities that are not connected to a waterbody that contains fish at any time do not support a commercial, recreational, or Aboriginal fishery; therefore, the Fisheries Act is not applicable.




4 FIELD SURVEY

4.1 METHODS

Field investigations were conducted on November 7, 2016, May 5, 2017, July 20, 2017, and August 23, 2017. Field investigations included documentation of key habitat features (e.g., in-water cover, substrate characteristics) within Reach 1 along with the SWM facility. The November 7, 2016 site visit was conducted under low flow conditions and the May 5 site visit was conducted under high flow conditions as 44.5 mm of rain fell prior to the site visit (Environment Canada 2017). The July 20, 2017 site visit was conducted under low flow conditions as there was no significant rainfall during the previous 48 hours. Photographs of each reach were taken during the field survey and are presented in a photolog in Attachment 1.

4.2 RESULTS

4.2.1 Reach 1

Stantec’s 2016 and 2017 field investigations confirmed the results of LGL’s 2012 assessment. Reach 1 is a straightened, grass-lined swale that begins north of the existing parking lot and continues south to Bethesda Road (Photos 1-4). The bankfull width of the channel is approximately 0.5 m wide and 0.5 m deep and is densely vegetated with grasses. On May 5, 2017, the wetted width of the channel was 0.5 m with an average depth of 0.15 m. The channel flows around a water tower in a grass-lined swale prior to turning east and discharging into a stormwater drainage ditch located at the southeasterly edge of the water tower (Photo 5). The ditch then parallels Bethesda Road for approximately 60 m before discharging into the south end of the SWM facility, from there, water then passes through a concrete weir and culvert prior to flowing under Bethesda Road through a corrugated steel pipe culvert. After flowing under the road, water ultimately discharges into Reesor Creek.

As noted by LGL, the drainage structure outlet north of Bethesda Road is perched and not passable by fish. Beginning at the northern boundary of the water tower and extending to the confluence with the stormwater drainage ditch, Reach 1 is lined with riverstone that does not include a low flow channel (Photo 6). The riverstone is also a barrier to fish movement under high and low flow conditions when water flow percolates through the substrate as observed during the May 5, 2017 field investigations. Flow is intermittent as the channel was dry during the November 7, 2016 and July 20, 2017 field investigations.

Photographs of Reach 1 are included in Attachment 1.

4.2.2 Pond

The pond located at the northern edge of the property consists of open water surrounded by cattail marsh with sparse submergent aquatic vegetation. Water flows into the pond from the north through roadside drainage ditches along York-Durham Line. The pond does not have an outlet and is therefore not connected to any aquatic features on the property.




5 HABITAT SUMMARY Results of the 2016 and 2017 field investigations confirmed LGL’s conclusions that Reach 1 is a vegetated swale that is poorly connected to downstream habitats and does not function as fish habitat. Reach 1 indirectly contributes to downstream habitat through the conveyance of water and nutrients during the spring freshet and storm events. The stormwater management facility located on the eastern boundary of the property is not considered fish habitat. The northern pond is not connected to any downstream aquatic habitats and is not considered fish habitat.

6 HEADWATER DRAINAGE FEATURE ASSESSMENT Although Reach 1 does not function as direct fish habitat, it contributes flow and nutrients to habitats downstream of the property during the spring freshet and storm events. Reach 1 meets the definition of a Headwater Drainage Feature (HDF) as defined in the Evaluation, Classification and Management of Headwater Drainage Features Guidelines (TRCA and CVC 2014). An assessment was completed in accordance with the guidelines to determine the function of the HDF and recommend management options that will maintain its function within the watershed.

Table 1 provides a summary of the HDF assessment. Results of field investigations indicate that the intermittent flow, limited riparian habitat, and fish habitat indicates that Reach 1 functions as a contributing feature to Reesor Creek. Based upon the HDF guidelines, management recommendations for Reach 1 are to mitigate the function of Reach 1. As a result, we are recommending that if Reach 1 is altered for the layover expansion, the riparian zone and flows within Reach 1 be replicated during design.

As part of subsequent planning phases for the project, it is anticipated that TRCA will be engaged directly through its Voluntary Project Review process, which will include a review of the methods and results of this assessment.

Table 1: Headwater Drainage Feature Assessment

Drainage Feature

Segment

Hydrology Modifiers Riparian Fish Habitat Terrestrial Habitat

Management Recommendation

1 Contributing N/A Contributing Contributing Limited Mitigation

7 MITIGATION MEASURES AND FISHERIES ACT IMPLICATIONS Potential impacts to fish habitat can include direct habitat loss or indirect impacts to habitat. Sediment introductions can affect fish due to increased turbidity of the water column, which can impair vision and subsequent feeding by fish that are sight-hunters. Suspended sediments can also abrade gill membranes leading to physical stress, and impact prey organism’s behavioral changes (i.e. avoidance, etc.). Heavier sediments can deposit on bottom substrates that may be used for spawning, incubation of juvenile fish, or food production, thereby impacting those habitat functions.




The proposed layover expansion is not anticipated to impact the pond and as the pond is not connected to the aquatic habitats located on the property, the proposed layover expansion will not impact the pond.

Our understanding that the expansion may require alterations to Reach 1. Based on existing conditions, Reach 1 does not provide direct fish habitat; however, it does provide flow to fish habitat downstream of the existing facility. Altering flow to downstream habitats may impact these habitats if flows are reduced such that the habitat is unusable by fish to carry out their life processes. Erosion and downstream sediment transport can have indirect effects on fish and fish habitat located downstream.

Potential indirect effects to fish habitat can be mitigated with standard environmental protection measures, including:

• Timing of the work to reduce the risk of impacts to fish by avoiding sensitive life periods such as spawning. Since Reach 1 and Reesor Creek are coldwater watercourses, the typical timing window provided by TRCA is allowing work to proceed from July 1 to September 15 for coldwater watercourses

• Preventing sediment from entering waterbodies by trapping as close to the source as possible (using methods such as silt fencing or filter logs)

• Reducing the area and duration of soil exposure to the extent possible

• Diverting runoff away from exposed soils

• Keeping runoff velocities low

• Implementing debris/waste containment and removal

• Retaining existing vegetation where feasible

• Completing post-construction site restoration (i.e., application of cover and re-vegetation of cleared areas)

To reduce the risk of causing serious harm to fish, we recommend the following measures be included when designing the proposed layover expansion:

• Timing of works within the channels should be scheduled between July 1 and September 15 to reduce the risk of potential downstream effects on spawning fish.

• Use of appropriate erosion and sediment control measures such as sediment fencing or filter logs (e.g., SiltSoxx™).

• Following construction, restore disturbed substrate areas to pre-construction conditions to the extent possible.

The Fisheries Act prohibits projects causing serious harm to fish unless authorized by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). This applies to activities in or near waterbodies that support




fish that are part of, or that support a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal (CRA) fishery. Effective November 25, 2013, proponents can assess projects under DFO’s Self-Assessment process. If the Self-Assessment criteria cannot be met, proponents should contact DFO for a formal review or authorization under the Fisheries Act. It is our opinion that the proposed layover expansion is unlikely to result in serious harm to fish due to the limited function of Reach 1 as fish habitat and if the above recommendations are implemented into the final design.

Please feel free to contact the undersigned if you have any questions.

Regards,

STANTEC CONSULTING LTD.

Sean Stuart, CISEC Aquatic Biologist Phone: (905)415-6409 Fax: 905-474-9889 [email protected]

Attachment: Photo Log Figure 1

8 REFERENCES Environment Canada. 2017. Daily Data Report for May 2017: Toronto Buttonville Airport. Accessed

June 14, 2017 at http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_data/daily_data_e.html?StationID=53678&timeframe=2&StartYear=1840&EndYear=2017&Day=13&Year=2017&Month=5#

Holm, E., N.E. Mandrak and M.E. Burridge. 2009. Freshwater Fishes of Ontario. Royal Ontario Museum.

LGL Ltd. 2007. GO Transit North Stouffville Station Phase 1 Fisheries Impact Assessment Report. Prepared for GO Transit c/o of R.V. Anderson Associates Limited. May 2007.

LGL Ltd. 2012. Species at Risk Screening, Lincolnville Station Proposed Train Fueling Station, York-Durham Line, Town of Whitchurch Stouffville. Letter addressed to Mr. John Does, P.Eng, R.V. Anderson Associates Ltd. Dated February 1, 2012.

Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman. 1998. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Galt House Publications Ltd.

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). 2004. Fisheries Management Plan for Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.

TRCA and CVC. 2014. Evaluation, Classification and Management of Headwater Drainage Features Guidelines. TRCA Approval July 2013 (Finalized January 2014).

http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_data/daily_data_e.html?StationID=53678&timeframe=2&StartYear=1840&EndYear=2017&Day=13&Year=2017&Month=5

http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_data/daily_data_e.html?StationID=53678&timeframe=2&StartYear=1840&EndYear=2017&Day=13&Year=2017&Month=5




PHOTO LOG

Photo 1: Facing north along Reach 1 at eastern edge of existing parking lot (November 7, 2016).

Photo 2: Facing south along Reach 1 at eastern edge of existing parking lot (November 7, 2016).

Photo 3: Facing north along Reach 1 at eastern edge of existing parking lot (May 5, 2017).

Photo 4: Facing south along Reach 1 at eastern edge of existing parking lot (May 5, 2017).

Photo 5: Facing confluence of Reach 1 and stormwater drainage channel (May 5, 2017).

Photo 6: Facing riverstone channel at northern boundary of water tower (May 5, 2017).




PHOTO LOG

Photo 7: Facing north along Reach 1 at eastern edge of existing parking lot (July 20, 2017).

Photo 8: Facing confluence of Reach 1 and stormwater drainage channel (July 20, 2017).

Photo 9: Facing north along Reach 1 at eastern edge of northern parking lot (July 20, 2017).

Photo 10: Facing drainage structure outlet (July 20, 2017).

Photo 11: Facing Bethesda Road culvert outlet (July 20, 2017). Photo 12: Facing south toward pond (August 23, 2017).

Project Location

Client/Project

Figure No.

Title

Newmarket

PickeringRichmond

Hill

WhitbyKingCity

Uxbridge

REGIONAL HIG HWA

Y47

BAYVIEW AVE

MCCOWAN RD

HWY 716TH AVE

BROCKRD

WARDEN AVE

DAVIS DR W

YONGE ST

GOODWOOD RD

KEELE ST

REACH ST

BATHURST ST

DUFFERIN ST

HWY 11

LAKE RIDGE RD

LESLIE ST

THICKSON RD N

9TH LINE

AURORA RD

9TH CON RD

SANDFORD RD

REG RD 8

REG RD 21

YORK DURHAM LINE

KENNEDY RD

SIMCOEST N

UV7

UV12UV48

UV401

UV7A

UV412

UV404

UV407

UV400

Reach 1

Water Tower

StormwaterManagement

Facility

Goodwood/GlasgowWetland Complex

10Th Line

Sleepy Hollow Lane

Bethesda Road

Bethesda RoadYork Durham LineTown Of

Whitchurch-Stouffville

Township OfUxbridge

641000

641000

642000

642000

4873

000

4873

000

1

Notes

0 60 120metres

LegendStudy Area

Existing Commuter

Parcel Boundary (York Region)

Major Road

Minor Road

Stormwater Management Facility

Watercourse

Provincially Significant Wetland

Unevaluated Wetland (per OWES)

Cold Water

Lower Tier Municipality

Greenbelt Designation BoundaryOak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan

\\c

d12

15-f

01\

wo

rk_g

rou

p\0

1609

\Ac

tive

\113

5200

010\

pla

nnin

g\

dra

win

g\

MXD

\A

PC\R

ep

ort

_Fig

ure

s\EA

\11

3520

0010

_EA

_Fig

01_N

atu

ralF

ea

ture

s.m

xd

Re

vise

d: 2

017-

08-2

9 By

: bc

ow

pe

r

($$¯

1:5,000 (At original document size of 11x17)

1135200010 REVA

Disclaimer: This figure has been prepared based on information provided by others as cited under the Notes section. Stantec has not verified the accuracy and/or completeness of this information and shall not be responsible for any errors or omissions which may be incorporated herein as a result.

Prepared by SE on 2017-08-29

Lincolnville Station Existing NaturalFeatures

1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N2. Base features produced under license with the Ontario Ministry of NaturalResources and Forestry © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2016.3. Orthoimagery © First Base Solutions, 2017. Imagery Date, 2016.4. York Region Data downloaded from York Region Open Data (20161024).

METROLINXRQQ-2015-CST-080: ENGINEERING

Regional MunicipalityOf York

Documents

Fisheries Habitat Assessment