Legend

Transcription

Legend

Toronto Transit Commission
Existing Conditions Report – Sheppard West Subway Station
Toronto–York Spadina Subway Extension
Prepared by:
AECOM Canada Ltd.
300 – 300 Town Centre Boulevard, Markham, ON, Canada L3R 5Z6
T 905.477.8400 F 905.477.1456 www.aecom.com
Date:
September, 2009
Project Number:
107259
G UIDING S OLUTIONS IN THE N ATURAL E NVIRONMENT
Memorandum
To: Mark Armstrong, Hatch Mott MacDonald
From: Jo-Anne Lane
Date: October 29, 2009
Ref: 209055
Re: Toronto York Spadina Subway Extension - Vegetation Communities Report
Methods
All sites were surveyed by a terrestrial ecologist and certified arborist during the summer of 2009.
Vegetation species, communities and ecological conditions were recorded and are presented below.
The standard source for most scientific names of vascular plants was the Ontario Plant List
(Newmaster et al., 1998). Plant rarity was determined using Distribution and Status of the Vascular
Plants of the Greater Toronto Area (Varga et al., 2000). Ecological communities were classified using
the Ecological Land Classification System for Southern Ontario (Lee et al., 1998) with additional
vegetation communities, and their local significance, from the TRCA’s Field Reference List 2009
(TRCA, 2009).
Existing Conditions
Site: Downsview Station Connection to Wilson Yard, Parc Downsview Park, West side of Allen
Road, south of Sheppard Avenue (Figure 1).
Site Description: The majority of the area is Old Field Meadow (CUM1-1) with two small wet areas,
supporting Narrow-leaved Cattail Mineral Shallow Marsh (MAS2-1) communities.
Wetland plant
species that occur in these marshes include Narrow-leaved Cattail (Typha angustifolia), Soft-stemmed
Bulrush (Scirpus validus) and Fox Sedge (Carex vulpinoidea). There are virtually no trees or shrubs
within the property requirements except for several saplings of Eastern Cottonwood (Populus
deltoidea) and Slender Willow (Salix petiolaris). A high proportion of the species identified in the Old
Field Meadow areas are weedy, introduced species. Some of the most common plant species include
Aster species (Symphyotrichum novae-angliae, S. ericoides), Canada Goldenrod (Solidago
canadensis), Smooth Brome (Bromus inermis), Timothy (Phleum pratensis), Cow Vetch (Vicia
cracca), Crown Vetch (Coronilla varia), Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense) and Common Milkweed
(Asclepias syriaca).
Significant Vegetation Species or Communities: The MAS2-1 wetland community near the north
end of the property requirements is supporting several locally rare and uncommon species:
144 Main St. North, Suite 206, Markham, Ontario, Canada
Tel: (905) 201 7622  Fax: (905) 201 0639
L3P 5T3
October 29, 2009
memorandum
ScientificName
Calamagrostis
canadensis
Carex tenera
Juncus dudleyi
Juncus nodosus
Salix petiolaris
CommonName
Canada Blue-joint
SRANK
S5
Toronto
U
Slender Sedge
Dudley's Rush
Knotted Rush
Slender Willow
S5
S5
S5
S5
R3
U
R6
R2
GTA
7E4
U
TRCARANKS
L4
R12
L4
L5
L4
L4
U
This area is also providing some marginal grassland habitat for birds and small mammals.
Mitigation: Re-vegetate any areas to be disturbed for construction with native meadow/grassland
species and native shrub species. In regards to the wetland supporting the locally and regionally rare
and uncommon plants, there are several options for mitigation. If possible, the planned property
requirements should re-located or reconfigured so as to avoid disturbing the wetland community.
Another option is to salvage the significant plant species and transplant them to a similar habitat. The
former option is preferable in terms of preserving the species at their habitat. Transplantation will
likely be only for a portion of the populations of the plants. The plants may not survive the
transplantation procedure or not survive in the new habitat. Additionally, suitable habitat with identical
environmental characteristics may be in short supply locally.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Site: ES #5, berm between Dufferin Street and Allen Road, just north of Sheppard Avenue and
west side of Allen Road (Figure 2).
Site Description: The area between Allen Road and Dufferin Street is a four or five meter high berm
that has been recently planted with at least 16 native shrub and tree species, the most common being
Silver Maple (Acer saccharinum), Common Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) and Staghorn Sumac
(Rhus hirta). The remainder of the area consists of old field meadow dominated by at least 30 weedy,
introduced species. Some of the more common plant species growing in this area include Smooth
Brome (Bromus inermis), Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense), Meadow Goat’s-beard (Tragopogon
pratensis) Bird’s-foot Trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) and Timothy (Phleum pratense).
The area to the west of Allen Road is a strip of maintained lawn with planted ornamental trees a
several ornamental shrubs.
Significant Vegetation Species or Communities: None on the west side of Allen Road and none
naturally occurring on the berm between Allen Road and Dufferin Street. Several planted species
have some rarity status. Kentucky Coffee-tree (Gymnocladus dioicus) is listed as Threatened both
nationally and provincially, and ranked S2 (imperilled) in Ontario by the Ministry of Natural Resources.
Common Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) is considered regionally rare in the Greater Toronto Area
(Varga et al. 2000). High-bush Cranberry (Viburnum opulus var. americanum) is considered locally
rare in the City of Toronto and is ranked L2 (Unable to withstand disturbance; some criteria are very
limiting factors; generally occur in high-quality natural areas, in natural matrix; probably rare in the
TRCA jurisdiction; of concern regionally) by the Toronto Region Conservation Authority.
Page 2
October 29, 2009
memorandum
Mitigation: Although the trees and shrubs were planted, they represent a certain amount of cost and
effort which should be replaced where possible. Native species, similar to those that were recently
planted, should be used for shrub and tree plantings. Additionally, native species should be used for
ground cover seeding. Tree protection and/or replacement measures will be implemented for trees
along the west side of Allen Road as described in the Arborist Report.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Site: EEB #1, northwest corner of Kodiak Crescent and Whitehorse Road (Figure 3).
Site Description: Maintained lawn between street, sidewalk and customer parking. Approximately
16 planted trees within the property requirements. There is one grouping of ornamental shrubs at the
southern end beside the entrance driveway, consisting of Winged Euonymous (Euonymous alata),
Mugo Pine (Pinus mugo), with some naturally occurring saplings of Green Ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica) and Bur Oak (Quercus macrocarpa) and Honey Locust (Gleditsia triacanthos). Some
weedy species also occur such as Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense), Dog-strangling Vine
(Cynanchum sp.) and Bitter Nightshade (Solanum dulcamara).
Significant Vegetation Species or Communities: None
Mitigation: Replant or compensate for removal of any ornamental shrubs. Tree protection and/or
replacement measures will be implemented as described in the arborist report.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Site: CP #2 & Sheppard West Station, Parc Downsview Park, south side of Sheppard Ave.
West, east of CN tracks (Figure 4).
Site Description: The majority of the area is a gravelly, vacant lot supporting a variety of weedy,
introduced species. The ELC community is CUM1-1, Dry – Moist Old Field Meadow. The most
common plant species growing in this area include Kentucky Bluegrass (Poa pratensis), Bird’s-foot
Trefoil (Lotus coniculatus), Cow Vetch (Vicia cracca), Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense) and Common
Milkweed (Asclepias syriaca). There is also a network of drainage ditches that support a few wetland
plant species. These ditches may be classified as Cattail Mineral Shallow Marsh (MAS2-1)
communities and are dominated by Narrow-leaved Cattail (Typha angustifolia) and Broad-leaved
Cattail (T. latifolia).
Significant Vegetation Species or Communities: One species was identified as Field Thistle
(Cirsium discolor), which is considered locally rare in Toronto and regionally rare in the TRCA and
MNR Site District 7E-4. However, identification of this species in the field is not conclusive and should
be confirmed.
Mitigation: Individual Field Thistle plants may be transplanted to other suitable locations, which
should be protected areas with similar ecological conditions.
Any landscaping that will be installed after construction is completed, such as trees, shrubs or other
plants should be species native to Toronto and adapted to the site conditions.
Page 3
October 29, 2009
memorandum
Tree protection and/or replacement measures will be implemented as described in the Arborist
Report.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Site: Cross Passage #3 area, west side of Tuscan Gate, north of Sheppard Avenue (Figure 5).
Site Description: There are approximately 10 naturally occurring trees measuring at least 20 cm
DBH within this property requirement area. The majority of the area is Native Forb Meadow (CUM1A) with a small area of Reed Canary Grass Mineral Meadow Marsh (MAM2-2) that supports a few
wetland plant species such as Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea), Broad-leaved Cattail
(Typha latifolia) and Fox Sedge (Carex vulpinoidea). There is an old fence line that contains some
regenerating White Elm (Ulmus americana) and Manitoba Maple (Acer negundo) and a few, nonnative shrubs, such as English Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), Tartarian Honeysuckle (Lonicera
tatarica) and Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica). Of the 50 species identified in this area, a
high proportion of them are weedy, introduced species. Some of the most common plant species
include Aster species (Symphyotrichum novae-angliae, S. ericoides), Canada Goldenrod (Solidago
cracca), Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense) and Common Milkweed (Asclepias syriaca).
Significant Vegetation Species or Communities: This area is providing some marginal grassland
habitat for birds and small mammals.
species and native shrub species. Tree protection and/or replacement measures will be implemented
as described in the Arborist Report.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Site: EEB #2, north side of St. Regis Crescent, east of Keele Street (Figure 6).
Site Description: Maintained lawn between St. Regis Crescent and customer parking for Mr.
Transmission. One planted Honey Locust tree.
replacement measures will be implemented as described in the Arborist Report.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Site: EEB #3, intersection of Keele Street and Toro Road (Figure 7).
Site Description: Maintained lawn between street, sidewalk and customer parking. Ten planted
trees within the property requirements. There are two groupings of ornamental shrubs along north
side of Toro Road, consisting of Winged Euonymous (Euonymous alata), Ninebark (Physocarpus
Page 4
October 29, 2009
memorandum
opulifolia) and Small Leaf Linden (Tilia cordata) with some weedy species such as Canada Thistle
(Cirsium arvense), Motherwort (Leonorus cardiaca) and Quackgrass (Elymus repens).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Site: EEB #4, south side of Pond Road, west of Keele Street (Figure 8).
Site Description: There are a number of planted trees within the property requirements along Pond
Road and Keele Street. The majority of the area is old field meadow dominated by weedy, introduced
species, and two baseball fields. The most common plant species growing in the old field area
include Smooth Brome (Bromus inermis) with some Black Medick (Medicago lupulina) and White
Clover (Trifolium repens). A variety of common, weedy species are also scattered throughout.
Significant Vegetation Species or Communities: None.
Mitigation: Tree protection and/or replacement measures will be implemented as described in the
Arborist Report.
________________________________________________________________________________
Site: Cross Passage/construction #5 compound area, southeast of Ottawa Road and west of
Vanier Residence, York University campus (Figure 9).
Site Description: Maintained lawn between street and sidewalks. Approximately 32 older, planted
trees and approximately 16 more recently planted trees within the property requirements. There are a
few weedy plant species growing within the group of trees at the south end of the area, such as
Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense), Field Sow-thistle (Sonchus arvensis ssp. arvensis), Yellow Avens
(Geum aleppicum) and Riverbank Grape (Vitis riparia).
Arborist Report.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Site: EEB #5, north and south sides of Ian MacDonald Boulevard, east of Ottawa Road, York
University Campus (Figure 10).
Site Description: South Side - There are approximately six planted trees within an area of
maintained lawn between street, sidewalk, bus stop and parking lot. This area is also adjacent to the
Boyer Woodlot. One grouping of ornamental shrubs is located in the central portion that includes
Page 5
October 29, 2009
memorandum
Fragrant Sumac (Rhus aromatica), Mugo Pine (Pinus mugo), Viburnum species and Spruce species
(Picea sp).
North Side – Mostly maintained lawn and approximately 92 planted Black Pine, Green Ash and Honey
Locust trees. The area can be classified as a Horticultural Mixed Plantation (CUP2-h). There are two
thicket areas (CUT1-b Buckthorn Cultural Thicket) around the planted pine trees. The species
composition is dominated by Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), some Tartarian Honeysuckle
(Lonicera tatarica), Riverbank Grape (Vitis riparia), Wild Red Raspberry (Rubus idaeus ssp. strigosus)
and a variety of weedy species including several highly invasive species such as Common Buckthorn,
Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata) and Dog-strangling Vine (Cynanchum sp.).
Significant Vegetation Species or Communities: The north area is providing some marginal
wildlife habitat value for a variety of birds and mammals including a Woodchuck (Marmota monax)
den. The area south of Ian MacDonald Boulevard is adjacent to Boyer Woodlot, a Fresh-Moist Sugar
Maple – Hardwood Deciduous Forest (FOD6-5). It is an intact, mature forest two hectares in size with
two woodland pools which are known to support breeding Wood Frogs and a variety of bird species.
Mitigation: Placement of any structures, direction of exterior lighting and construction activities all
should be sensitive to the wildlife habitat features in the adjacent woodlot. Structures should be sited
as far from the woodlot as possible. Exterior lighting should be minimal and directed down and away
from the forest edge. Construction fencing should be located as far from the forest edge as possible;
a minimum five metres is recommended. The construction fencing should be solid wood and be two
metres high. Both areas should be replanted with areas of thickets of native shrubs and trees. Tree
protection and/or replacement measures will be implemented as described in Arborist Report.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Site: EEB #7, south side of Interchange Way, west of Jane Street (Figure 11).
Site Description: There are six planted trees within the property requirements along Interchange
Way. The majority of the area is a gravelly, vacant lot supporting a variety of weedy, introduced
species. The ELC community is CUM1-c, Exotic Forb Meadow. The most common plant species
growing in this area include Kentucky Bluegrass (Poa pratensis), Bird’s-foot Trefoil (Lotus
coniculatus), Cow Vetch (Vicia cracca), Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense) and Common Milkweed
Arborist Report.
Page 6
October 29, 2009
memorandum
References
Lee, H. T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurray. 1998.
Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and Its Application.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development
and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02.
Newmaster, S.G., A. Lehela, P.W.C. Uhlig, S. McMurray and M.J. Oldham. 1998.
Ontario Plant List. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Forest Research Institute,
Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. Forest Research Information Paper No. 123, 550 pp. + appendices.
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2009.
ELC Vegetation Communities – Field Reference List and Ranks, March 2009.
Varga, S., D. Leadbeater, J. Webber, J. Kaiser, B. Crins, J. Kamstra, D. Banville, E. Ashley, G. Miller,
C. Kingsley, C. Jacobsen, K. Mewa, L. Tebby, E. Mosley and E, Zajc. 2000.
Distribution and Status of the Vascular Plants of the Greater Toronto Area. Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources, Aurora District. 103 pp.
Page 7
MAS2-1
CUM1-1
CUM1-1
MAS2-1
Legend
Study Area
ELC
Alignment Route
Downsview Station
Connection to
Wilson Yard
Figure 1
Toronto-York Spadina Subway Extension
Natural Environment Monitoring Program
Photo Base 2007
UTM Zone 17 N, NAD 83
0 10 20
-
40 Meters
1:2,659
ELC Code Description
CUM1-1 Cultural Meadow
MAS2-1 Cattail Mineral Shallow Marsh
Project 209055
October 2009
!
(
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
!
(
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
CUM1-1
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
!
(
(
!
Legend
(
!
Tree Locations
Study Areas
reet
(
!
!
(
(
!
(
!
t
Al l en S
(
!
(
!
!
(
(
(!
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
(!
!
(
(!
!
(
(!
!
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
(!
!
(
(!
!
((
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(!
!
(
(
(!
!
(
(!
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(!
!
(
(
!
(
!
(!
!
((
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(!
!
(!
!
(!
((
(
(!
!
(
!
(
!
(
(!
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
(
(
(
!
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(!
(!
!
(!
!
(
(
(
((
(!
(!
!
( !
!
(!
!
eet
in St r
D uff er
(
!
CUM1-1*
Proposed Location of
Extraction Shaft # 5
Building Footprint
Alignment Route
CUM1-1
Dry-Moist Old Field Meadow
CUM1-1* Old Field Meadow/Restoration Plantation *see text
Figure 2
Photo Base 2007
0
10 20
-
40 Meters
1:2,000
Project 209055
October 2009
Wh
ite
ho
r se
Ro
ad
(
!
! !
(
(
!!
(
(!
(
(
!
( (
!
!
(!
!
(
(
!
(
!
(
((!
!
!!
(
(!
!
(
t
(
!
ce
n
(
!
ar d
Av
e
nu
e
Legend
(
!
Cr
ak
epp
Ko
di
Sh
es
(
!
Tree Locations
Study Area
Emergency Exit
Building #1
Figure 3
Shrubs
Photo Base 2007
Building Footprint
Alignment Route
0
5
10
-
20 Meters
1:1,000
Project 209055
October 2009
ven ue
rd A
a
p
(
p
(!
Sh e
!!
(
(
!!
((
!
(
!
((
!
!(
!
(
!!
(
(
!
(
!
(
!
CUM1-1
Legend
(
!
Tree Locations
Study Area
Parc Downsview
Park Area
Figure 4
MAS2-1 (Drainage Ditch)
Photo Base 2007
Building Footprint
Alignment Route
0
20
40
-
80 Meters
1:3,000
CUM1-1
MAS2-1
Cattail Mineral Shallow Marsh
Project 209055
October 2009
(
!
! !
(
(
(
!
(
!
!
(
(
!
(
!
(
!
MAM2-2
MAM2-2
CUM1-A
Legend
(
!
Tree Locations
Study Area
Cross Passage #3
Figure 5
ELC
Photo Base 2007
Alignment Route
0
10
20
-
40 Meters
1:1,500
CUM1-A
Native Forb meadow
MAM2-2
Reed-Canary Grass Mineral Meadow Marsh
Project 209055
October 2009
(
!
St
re
is C
R eg
scen
t
K ee le
S tr eet
Legend
(
!
Tree Locations
Study Area
Emergency Exit
Building #2
Building Footprint
Alignment Route
Figure 6
Photo Base 2007
0
5 10
-
20 Meters
1:1,000
Project 209055
October 2009
126
231189
! 125
! 231182 (
(
( 116610
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
124
!
(
(
!
(
!
123
(
!
122
! 121
(
(
!
!
(
( 231183
!
120
( 231184 !
!
(
( 231185
!
119
(
( 231186 !
!
( 231187
!
116608
(
( 231188 !
!
116607
( 231189
!
( 116609
( 231190 !
!
(
!
(6
!
1
(5
!
(
!
(
!
3
!
( (
! !
(
4
2
127
! 128
(
(
!
148
(
!
! 130
(
( 131
!
( 132
!
133 !
(
(
!
147
(
!
146
(
!
145
134
! 135
(
( 136
!
( 137
!
( 138
!
( 139
!
(
!
!
(
143
(
!
144
(
!
142
(
!
140
(
!
Legend
(
!
Protected Trees
(
!
To Be Removed
Study Areas
Shrubs
Building Footprint
Alignment Route
Emergency Exit
Building # 3
Figure 7
Photo Base 2007
0 12.5 25
-
50 Meters
1:2,000
Project ######
Month Year
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
CUM1-1
(
!
Legend
(
!
Tree Locations
Study Area
Proposed Location
of Emergency Exit
Building #4
Building Footprint
Photo Base 2007
Alignment Route
CUM1-1
Old Field
Figure 8
0
5 10
20 Meters
1:1,000
Project 209055
October 2009
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
( !
!
(
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
!
(
(
!
(
!
( !
!
(
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
( !
!
(
(!
!
Legend
(
!
Tree Locations
Study Area
Proposed Location
of Cross Passage #5
Saplings and Lawn (x16)
Alignment Route
Figure 9
Photo Base 2007
0
5
10
-
20 Meters
1:1,000
Project 209055
October 2009
CUP2-h
FOD6-5
(
(!
(!
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
Legend
(
!
Tree Locations
Study Area
Building Footprint
Alignment Route
ELC
Shrubs
CUP2-h
Horticultural Mixed Plantation
FOD6-5
Fresh-Moist Sugar Maple-Hardwood Deciduous Forest
Proposed Location
of Emergency Exit
Building #5
Figure 10
Photo Base 2007
0
5
10
-
20 Meters
1:1,000
Project 209055
October 2009
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
CUM1-c
Legend
(
!
Tree Locations
Study Area
Building Footprint
Alignment Route
CUM1-c
Exotic Forb Meadow
Proposed Location
of Emergency Exit
Building #7
Figure 11
Photo Base 2007
0 4.5 9
-
18 Meters
1:872
Project 209055
October 2009
Heritage Impact Statement
Emergency Exit Building No. 4
Toronto York Spadina Subway Extension
City of Toronto, Ontario
DRAFT
Prepared for:
Hatch Mott MacDonald
2800 Speakman Drive
Mississauga, ON L5K 2R7
Tel: (905) 943-9600
Fax: (905) 855-8270
ASI File 09EA-354
April 2010
Heritage Impact Statement (Draft)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI) was contracted by Hatch Mott MacDonald, of Mississauga, to
conduct a Heritage Impact Statement for Emergency Exit Building No. 4, as part of the Toronto York
Spadina Subway Extension in the City of Toronto, Ontario. The study area is located in the southwest
corner of the intersection of The Pond Road and Keele Street, on the Keele Campus of York
University. This study was undertaken to identify if the subject study area retains cultural heritage
landscape features and to assess if the subject undertaking would impact the subject study area
and particularly a row of European Ash located along the southern side of the Pond Road, and
cultural heritage landscape features adjacent to the study area.
The proposed Emergency Exit Building No. 4 is located adjacent to two cultural heritage landscape
features: the Boynton Woodlot to the north and a double-row of Norway Maples to the east. The
subject study area, and extent of construction for the proposed undertaking, is void of built
structures and consists of grassed areas, a meadow and a tree line of seven European Ash. The
results of archival research and site analysis confirmed that the subject tree line of European Ash is
not considered a cultural heritage landscape feature. As a result, removal or encroachment to two
trees within this line will not directly and adversely impact the cultural heritage values of the area
and the overall campus. However, it has been noted that this tree line does serve as an effective
buffer between pedestrians and the proposed building, and also provides design continuity in
relation to the adjacent tree line of Norway Maples. As such, disturbance to this tree line should be
minimized where possible. Analysis of the study area and proposed landscaping plans and design
specifications also confirms that indirect impacts, including the introduction of visual or
atmospheric elements not in keeping with the setting of the area, are expected to be minimized. The
building has been proposed to be designed with materials and landscaping materials that are
sympathetic to the surrounding, natural environment and which are expected to result in a minimal
intervention.
Based on the results of archival research, site analysis, and examination of the proposed
undertaking the following mitigation measures have been developed:
1. Avoid direct impacts to the adjacent double-row of Norway Maples and the Boynton
Woodlot.
2. Minimize direct impacts to the tree line of European Ash located on the south side of the
Pond Road, where possible for the purposes of maintaining: a visual buffer between the
proposed building and pedestrians; and landscape design continuity in relation to the
adjacent double-row of Norway Maples.
3. Utilize sympathetic materials, colours, and landscaping treatments in the design of the
proposed building to minimize the visual impact of the proposed building on adjacent
cultural heritage landscape features and the overall natural setting of the study area.
4. This report should be filed and archived at the York University archives.
Page ii
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DIVISION
PROJECT PERSONNEL
Senior Project Manager:
Robert Pihl, MA, CAHP
Partner and Senior Archaeologist
Manager, Environmental Assessment Division
Project Manager:
Rebecca Sciarra, MA, CAHP
Cultural Heritage Specialist
Manager, Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage
Landscape Planning Division
Cultural Heritage Specialist:
Rebecca Sciarra
Project Administrator:
Sarah Jagelewski, Hon. BA
Research Archaeologist
Report Preparation:
Annie Veilleux, Hon. BA
Researcher
Graphics Preparation:
Annie Veilleux
Report Reviewer:
Rebecca Sciarra
Page iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... ii
PROJECT PERSONNEL ...................................................................................................................................... ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................................... iii
1.0
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1
Location and Property Description ................................................................................................. 2
1.2
Present Owner Contact .................................................................................................................. 2
1.3
Policy Framework .......................................................................................................................... 3
2.0
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND................................................................................................................. 8
2.1
Township Survey and Settlement................................................................................................... 8
2.2
Land Use History ........................................................................................................................... 9
2.2.1
1800-1850 ............................................................................................................................ 9
2.2.2
1850-1900 .......................................................................................................................... 10
2.2.3
1900-1960s ........................................................................................................................ 12
2.2.4
1960s – Founding of York University ....................................................................................13
2.3
Master Plans for York University....................................................................................................13
2.3.1
York University’s 1963 Master Plan.......................................................................................14
2.3.2
York University’s 1988 Master Plan ......................................................................................17
3.0
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND INTEGRITY.............................................................................................. 21
4.0
CONSERVATION STRATEGY ............................................................................................................... 22
4.1
Proposed Site Development ........................................................................................................ 22
4.2
Conservation Strategy Objectives ................................................................................................ 26
5.0
CONCLUSIONS AND MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................... 26
5.1
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 26
5.2
Mitigation Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 27
6.0
PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION ................................................................................................... 28
7.0
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 35
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................................... 37
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Location of the study area on York University Campus, City of Toronto. .............................................. 2
Figure 2: Map 10-4 Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes, excerpted from the York University Secondary
Plan (2009) ....................................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 3: Map 10-7 Open Space and Natural Heritage System, excerpted from the York University Secondary
Plan (2009) ....................................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 4: Approximate location of York University Campus on the 1851 Browne Map of York Township. .......... 10
Figure 5: Approximate location of York University Campus on the 1860 Tremaine Map of York County. ............ 11
Figure 6: Approximate location of York University Campus and the study area on the 1878 Illustrated Historical
Atlas Map of York Township. ............................................................................................................. 11
Figure 7: Master Plan for 15,000 Students (top) and diagram showing indigenous buffers along the campus
periphery in the “Landscaping Report”, excerpted from the Report on Master Plan for York University
Campus (1963) .................................................................................................................................15
Figure 8: 1960 air photo showing York University Keele Campus.................................................................... 16
Figure 9: 1969 air photo showing York University Keele Campus.................................................................... 16
Figure 10: 1975 air photo showing York University Keele Campus....................................................................17
Figure 11: Development Areas, excerpted from the 1987 York University Master Plan...................................... 18
Figure 12: Campus Sections, excerpted from the 1990 York Campus Landscape Inventory & Impact Study. .... 19
Figure 13: Biogeographical Inventory (top) and Inventory overlayed with the 1988 Master Plan (bottom),
excerpted from the 1990 York Campus Landscape Inventory & Impact Study. ................................. 19
Figure 14: Current aerial photography of the study area and its surroundings................................................. 20
Page iv
Figure 15: 1995 air photo (left) and 2002 air photo (right) of subject study area. The 1995 air photos.............. 21
Figure 16: Extent of construction and building layout associated with the proposed Emergency Exit Building
No. 4 ............................................................................................................................................. 23
Figure 17: Proposed landscape concepts and building design renderings associated with Emergency Exit
Building No. 4................................................................................................................................ 25
1.0
Page 1
INTRODUCTION
Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI) was contracted by Hatch Mott MacDonald, of Mississauga, to conduct
a Heritage Impact Statement for Emergency Exit Building No. 4, as part of the Toronto York Spadina
Subway Extension in the City of Toronto, Ontario. The study area is located in the southwest corner of
the intersection of The Pond Road and Keele Street, on the Keele Campus of York University (Figure 1).
The following report is presented in partial fulfillment for the Toronto-York Spadina Subway Extension
and will identify the impacts of the proposed undertaking of construction of Emergency Exit Building No.
4 on the cultural and natural heritage features within the study area. Specifically, this study was
undertaken to confirm if the subject undertaking would impact the double row of Norway Maples located
along the west side of Keele Street, south of the Pond Road, and to assess the impacts of the subject
undertaking on the subject study area and particularly a row of European Ash located along the southern
side of the Pond Road.
This research was conducted under the project direction of Rebecca A. Sciarra, Cultural Heritage
Specialist, ASI. The study follows the Terms of Reference for carrying out a Heritage Impact Statement
as provided by the City of Toronto Heritage Preservation Services Department. Research was completed
to investigate, document and evaluate the cultural heritage resources within the study area. This document
will provide:
•
•
•
a description of cultural heritage resources, including location, a detailed land use history of the
site and photographic documentation;
a description of the study area’s cultural heritage value as based on archival research, site
analysis, and provincially and municipally accepted criteria for establishing cultural heritage
significance; and
appropriate conservation measures and intervention strategies.
Page 2
Figure 1: Location of the study area on York University Campus, City of Toronto.
1.1
Location and Property Description
The study area under assessment is located on the south side of The Pond Road, west of Keele Street,
adjacent to the eastern boundary of York University’s Keele Campus. It consists of a relatively flat
meadow, bordered by a pedestrian sidewalk and a row of trees to the north. A pedestrian sidewalk and a
double row of trees is located adjacent to the eastern boundary of the study area.. The study area is found
within the South Keele Street Precinct as identified by the York University Secondary Plan (City of
Toronto 2009: Section 2.2.2), and within a York University cultural heritage landscape, one which is
defined as “the designated campus layout envisioned in the UPACE Master Plan (1963)” (UMA 2008:
18-19).
1.2
Present Owner Contact
The study area is currently located within the Keele campus of York University. As such, it is owned by
York University.
1.3
Page 3
Policy Framework
The authority to request this heritage assessment arises from the Environmental Assessment Act, Section
2(d) of the Planning Act, Section 3.1.5, Policies 1-13 of the City’s Official Plan, and Policy Statements
3.4.1, 3.4.4, and 3.4.5 of the York University Secondary Plan.
The analysis throughout the study process addresses cultural heritage resources under various pieces of
legislation and their supporting guidelines. Under the Environmental Assessment Act (1990) environment
is defined in Subsection 1(c) to include:
•
•
cultural conditions that influence the life of man or a community, and;
any building, structure, machine, or other device or thing made by man.
Additionally, the Planning Act (1990) and related Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) make a number of
provisions relating to heritage conservation. One of the general purposes of the Planning Act is to
integrate matters of provincial interest in provincial and municipal planning decisions. In order to inform
all those involved in planning activities of the scope of these matters of provincial interest, Section 2 of
the Planning Act provides an extensive listing. These matters of provincial interest shall be regarded
when certain authorities, including the council of a municipality, carry out their responsibilities under the
Act. One of these provincial interests is directly concerned with:
2.0
…protecting cultural heritage and archaeological resources for their economic,
environmental, and social benefits.
The PPS indicates in Section 4 - Implementation/Interpretation, that:
4.5
The official plan is the most important vehicle for implementation of this
Provincial Policy Statement.
Comprehensive, integrated and long-term planning is best achieved through
municipal official plans. Municipal official plans shall identify provincial interests
and set out appropriate land use designations and policies. Municipal official plans
should also coordinate cross-boundary matters to complement the actions of other
planning authorities and promote mutually beneficial solutions.
Municipal official plans shall provide clear, reasonable and attainable policies to
protect provincial interests and direct development to suitable areas.
Those policies of particular relevance for the conservation of heritage features are contained in Section 2,
Wise Use and Management of Resources, in which the preamble states that “Ontario's long-term
prosperity, environmental health, and social well-being depend on protecting natural heritage, water,
agricultural, mineral and cultural heritage and archaeological resources for their economic, environmental
and social benefits.”
Accordingly, in subsection 2.6, Cultural Heritage and Archaeological Resources, makes the following
relative provisions:
Page 4
2.6.1
Significant built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes shall be
conserved.
2.6.3
Development and site alteration may be permitted on adjacent lands to protected
heritage property where the proposed development and site alteration has been
evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected
heritage property will be conserved. Mitigation measures and/or alternative
development approaches may be required in order to conserve the heritage
attributes of the protected heritage property affected by the adjacent development
or site alteration.
This provides the context not only for discrete planning activities detailed in the Planning Act but also for
the foundation of policy statements issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act.
The City of Toronto’s Official Plan provides implementation tools for conserving resources impacted by
public works projects. Policy Statement 5, contained within Section 3.1.5 of the City Official Plan states:
The impacts of public works projects that may be in the vicinity of heritage resources,
including archaeological sites, will be assessed and appropriate mitigation measures to
minimize the impact upon the heritage resources will be used.
The approved York University Secondary Plan (City of Toronto 2009) also recognizes that York
University “has a number of important heritage resources, including…significant cultural heritage
landscapes… More contemporary heritage resources include the original surviving elements of the
University’s 1963 Master Plan” (City of Toronto 2009:15). Map 10-4 contained within the York
University Secondary Plan provides an illustration of cultural heritage landscapes areas and features
(Figure 2). The subject study area is located immediately adjacent to a cultural landscape feature located
along the west side of Keele Street.
Figure 2: Map 10-4 Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes, excerpted from the York University
Secondary Plan (2009)
Page 5
Page 6
The Secondary Plan provides a number of policies for the protection of built heritage and cultural
landscapes. Policy 3.4.1 indicates that “places and/or landscapes with cultural heritage value or interest”
as illustrated on Map 10-4 “will be conserved”. Policy 3.4.4 states that “development of lands in the
vicinity of places and/or landscapes with cultural heritage value will respect the scale, character and form
of the heritage buildings and landscapes. Appropriate setbacks, height, and massing relationship will be
required for new development located in the vicinity of identified heritage buildings, structures, or
landscapes”. As the study area under assessment is located in the immediate vicinity of a cultural heritage
landscape as illustrated on Map 10-4, the authority to request this heritage assessment arises from Policy
3.4.5 which states:
Heritage Impact Statements will be required for development proposals on or adjacent
to listed and/or designated heritage properties, places and/or landscapes with cultural
heritage value or interest shown on Map 10-4 and heritage resources within the Central
Campus Precinct.
The study area is located within the South Keele Street Precinct, which according to the Secondary Plan,
will be developed as a high-density, mixed use corridor (fronting Keele Street) and a medium density
urban village and greenway. The Secondary Plan also confirms that “a linear north-south natural heritage
feature will connect the Boynton Woodlot”, located north of the study area, “to the hydro corridor”,
located south of the study area, “to provide wildlife and habitat linkages (Section 2.2.2 p.9; and Policy
3.7.1.1). This Priority Restoration Area borders the western edge of the study area as illustrated on Map
10-7 of the Secondary Plan (Figure 3).
It should also be noted that the study area is bordered by a Greenway on both its northern and eastern
edges, as illustrated on Map 10-7 of the Secondary Plan (see Figure 3). Greenways are described as
corridors for pedestrian and cyclists that connect paths, natural heritage features, historic sites, cultural
landscape features, neighbourhoods, and other areas. Greenways are part of the larger “linked open space
and natural heritage system” that will be developed within the Secondary Plan area as per policy
statement 3.7.1.1.
Figure 3: Map 10-7 Open Space and Natural Heritage System, excerpted from the York University
Secondary Plan (2009)
Page 7
2.0
Page 8
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The following sections provide the results of archival research, review of background documents, and
historic mapping analysis. Primary and secondary source materials were consulted to outline the historical
background revolving around the planting of a tree line along the south side of Pond Road, and which
forms the northern boundary of the subject study area. This section was informed by the Cultural
Heritage Assessment Report (UMA 2008), the Master Plan of Archaeological Resources for the City of
Toronto – Black Creek Corridor (ASI 2006-draft), the Landscape Inventory and Impact Study, York
Campus (Daigle, Rocca, and Munn 1990) and a review of historic mapping.
2.1
Township Survey and Settlement
York University’s Keele Campus is located on the east part of Lots 22, 23, 24, and 25, Concession 4, in
the former Township of York, County of York, and now in the City of Toronto.
The land York University is located on was acquired by the British from the native Mississauga band
under the terms of the Toronto Purchase on September 25, 1787. The region was initially surveyed by
Alexander Aitken and Augustus Jones for land granting purposes to Loyalists and disbanded soldiers
between 1791 and 1793 (Miles & Co, 1878: iv). The land was originally under the authority of the Nassau
District Land Board which sat at Newark (Niagara) until the district boards were abolished by John
Graves Simcoe in November 1794. When Simcoe redefined the electoral boundaries for Upper Canada
the area which covers the modern City of Toronto formed part of the County of York in the East Riding
of York in the Home District.
The first land patents of York Township were granted in 1796 and by 1813, all of the township lands had
been allocated to settlers with the exception of those lots which remained as either Crown or Clergy
Reserves. By 1802, the township, bounded by the Humber River and Etobicoke Township to the west and
sharing a border with Scarborough Township to the east, contained a grist mill, two saw mills and two
taverns. In 1801, the combined population of York, Etobicoke and Scarborough Townships and the Town
of York numbered only 678. By 1840, the population of York Township numbered more than 5,000 and
this trend in growth and development continued throughout the 1880s. In its first 30 years, fine farms
were cleared in York Township among the rolling and well wooded countryside. The few early township
mills multiplied along the east side of the Humber River (the west side being Etobicoke Township);
during the 1840s, three sawmills operated on the Black Creek between Wilson and Sheppard Avenue
which supplied the needs of farmers in the nearby communities.
Two small hamlets were established in the area of the future York University campus. One of these
communities was Kaiserville which was located at the intersection of Jane Street and Steeles Avenue.
This community was named unofficially after the Kaiser family, Pennsylvania Germans who came to
Upper Canada towards the end of the eighteenth century. Kaiserville consisted of two blacksmith shops
(constructed in 1860 and 1885) and a wagon shop (constructed in 1860). The “Townline Church” was
built there in 1852 and was named on the Tremaine map as an Evangelical Association congregation. It
became an Episcopal Methodist Church and finally closed in 1885. A school was constructed here in
1824. This community also contained a sawmill run by John Dalziel, as well as a carpenter’s shop and a
wagon shop (Hart: 192, 225-226; Hopkins: 15; Brown 1997:142).
Page 9
The hamlet of Elia developed around the intersection of Keele Street and Finch Avenue by the early
1800s. The first Elia School was a log structure built in 1830 on Jacob Stong’s property on the northwest
corner of Keele and Finch on Lot 21, Concession 4 WYS. It was replaced in 1851 on the same site by a
frame building (SS18). In 1873, this school was replaced by a brick structure on the north-east corner of
the intersection which remained in use until 1956 (Hart: 105). An Episcopal Methodist Church was built
on Finch Street east of Keele Street in 1832 and replaced in 1851. The Elia Post Office was established in
the general store of William Snider, situated on Lot 20, Concession 4 WYS (Hart: 217). An IOOF Hall
(Canadian Order of Forestes, Court Elia, No. 524) was constructed on the southwest corner of Keele and
Finch in 1894. The land was leased for a 99 year period, but the Court was disbanded in March 1946 and
the building demolished in 1956 (Hart: 200, 217-218).
2.2
Land Use History
York University’s Keele Campus is located on the east part of Lots 22, 23, 24, and 25, Concession 4, in
the former Township of York, County of York.
2.2.1
1800-1850
The first settlers in the area of the present York University campus were Pennsylvanian Mennonites of
German origins in the early 1800s. An early map of York County compiled in ca. 1798-1800 indicates
that Lot 22, Concession 4 WYS was held as a Crown and Clergy Reserve or a Masting Reserve lot. Lot
23 was granted or leased to Alexander Gray Sr., Lot 24 to Peter E. Kaiser, and Lot 25 to Jacob Fisher.
Lot 22, Concession 4
On January 3, 1828, several of the lots which were held as Crown Reserve or Masting Reserve, including
Lot 22, Concession 4 WYA, were patented to King’s College.
In 1808, the Crown Patent of Lot 23 was transferred to Thomas Hamilton. At some point John Smith
acquired the land as he sold the entire 200 acres to Christian Hoover in 1826. With his wife Mary (née
Troyer) they built a log cabin on the north part of the lot, in the ravine on the east side of Black Creek
(UMA 2008:6). A board and batten house was built by Christian and his son Abraham in 1848 which still
stands today, though slightly altered (City of Toronto 2008:18).
While Peter Erlin Kaiser, an army officer, might have settled on Lot 24 as early as 1798, the Crown grant
was registered on title in 1846. Kaiser, however, died in 1824 and was buried on his farmstead, on the
east bank of Black Creek (UMA 2008:6).
In 1816, Daniel Stong married Elizabeth Fisher, the daughter of Jacob Fisher, and they settled on Lot 25.
Their farmhouse and barn are now part of Black Creek Pioneer Village (UMA 2008: 5)
2.2.2
Page 10
1850-1900
Historic mapping for this time period dates to 1851, 1860 and 1878. The evidence found on the Browne
map of 1851 suggests while a great part of York Township was well cultivated, the land now occupied by
York University campus was still heavily wooded (Figure 4). Numerous structures are indicated along
Jane Street on the west side of Black Creek.
Figure 4: Approximate location of York University Campus on the 1851
Browne Map of York Township.
A review of the 1860 Tremaine’s Map of the County of York and the map of York Township in the 1878
Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of York reveals that the same families continued to inhabit the
lands now occupied by York University campus (Figures 5 and 6).
Figure 5: Approximate location of York University Campus on the 1860
Tremaine Map of York County.
Figure 6: Approximate location of York University Campus and the study area on the
1878 Illustrated Historical Atlas Map of York Township.
Page 11
Page 12
Lot 22, Concession IV
The 1860 Tremaine Map indicates that John Boynton occupied Lot 22 and had a dwelling on the east side
of Black Creek. Boynton received the Crown Patent for this lot in 1855 (UMA 2008:6). The 1878 atlas
map shows the Boynton house in the same location. An orchard adjacent to the house has been added, as
well as a long laneway from Jane Street and over Black Creek.
In 1860, Abraham Hoover, the son of Christian and Mary Hoover, occupied Lot 23. According to census
returns, Abraham and his wife Elizabeth (née Cook) lived in a 1½-storey frame house in 1851 which,
based on the Tremaine Map, was located on the east bank of Black Creek. The census also indicates that
Christian and his wife Mary still lived in a log house on the property (UMA 2008:6). The 1878 atlas map
shows the Hoover house in the same location. An orchard adjacent to the house has been added, as well as
an access lane that connected Jane Street and Keele Street. This location of this historic laneway
corresponds to the location of present-day The Pond Road.
The Tremaine Map indicates that Lot 24 still belonged to the Peter E. Kaiser family and, similar to their
neighbours, their dwelling was located on the east bank of Black Creek. The 1878 map indicates that the
property had been divided in half from east to west. The south half was occupied by Jacob Kaiser and the
north half by Jesse Kaiser. They both had dwellings along the east bank of Black Creek and long
laneways provided access to their properties from Jane Street.
In the mid-1850s, David Stong sold 80 acres of his property to his son Jacob and his wife Sarah (née
Snider). The Tremaine Map indicates that the Stong dwelling was located on the northeast corner of the
lot. The present brick house was constructed in c.1855. In 1878, Jacob Stong owned both halves of Lot
25. The Stong house is still illustrated in the northeast corner of the lot with an orchard.
2.2.3
1900-1960s
Land in Lots 22 to 25, Concession 4 WYS was acquired for a new university campus in the early 1960s.
Up until then, the land remained in agricultural use and there were very little changes in the defining
landscape characteristics.
The farmstead associated with the Boynton family continued to operate until the 1964 at which point the
property was acquired for York University (UMA 2008:8). The buildings were removed, but the
farmstead location remains an historic Euro-Canadian nineteenth century archaeological site and is listed
in the City of Toronto’s Archaeological Master Plan.
The Hoover family continued to live on the property until the 1930s when the farm was sold to Dr. and
Mrs. Hart. According to local history, the Harts moved their house to this location after World War II, but
little is known about its origins. Mrs. Hart continued to live in the house after her husband’s death until
1964 when the land was taken over for the university. For many years the house was inhabited by York
faculty and administrators and it is now used for special university functions (UMA 2008:8).
Page 13
Like the neighbouring farms, the Kaiser farmstead was still active until the early 1960s when part of the
property was acquired for the new campus (UMA 2008:8). The Kaiser farmsteads are now registered as
nineteenth century Euro-Canadian archaeological sites.
The Stong family farm was taken over by Alfred and his wife around 1898 and their son Oliver sold the
property in 1951. In 1958, the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority acquired the
Daniel Stong farm on the west half of Lot 25. The farm became the centre for the Black Creek Pioneer
Village which opened in 1960. The Jacob Stong farm on the east side of the Lot was acquired for the new
university campus in the early 1960s (UMA 2008:8). The Georgian style farmhouse still remains on
campus along with the large gambrel roof barn (City of Toronto 2008:18).
2.2.4
1960s – Founding of York University
Incorporated under provincial statute in 1959, York University first held classes in 1960 at the downtown
campus of the University of Toronto. The following year, the university moved to its Glendon campus at
Bayview Avenue and Lawrence Avenue East and in 1962, the Province of Ontario provided 475 acres of
land at the southwest corner of Keele Street and Steeles Avenue. By 1966, the University had 600 acres.
University Planners, Architects and Consulting Engineers (UPACE) prepared a master plan for York
University (Report on the Master Plan for the York University Campus [1963]) and designed the initial
buildings at the site and the surrounding landscape. Construction began in 1964 and students were
welcomed at the Keele campus in September of 1965.
The original Master Plan for the University placed a great emphasis on the movement of people on
campus, with parking lots at the edges of campus and a central core reserved for pedestrians. The two
were to be separated by a ring road. The Master Plan set out to achieve an urban character with closely
spaced buildings and campus unity with quadrangles connected by pedestrian paths (City of Toronto
2008:3).
The Master Plan was updated in 1988 due to an unprecedented growth of the student population, and in
1991 a Secondary Plan was developed. The Secondary Plan was carried forward when the new Official
Plan was adopted by City Council in 2002. The current York University Secondary Plan and related
amendments was approved by City Council on December 4, 2009.
2.3
Master Plans for York University
This section synthesizes and analyzes information contained within Master Plans prepared for York
University in 1963 and 1987. The 1963 Master Plan, and its proposed landscaping schemes and designs,
aids in understanding and identifying significant cultural heritage landscape features located within the
Keele Street Campus and which has been previously identified as a designed cultural heritage landscape
(Unterman McPhail Associates 2008). Additionally, the 1987 Master Plan is also of relevance to the
current study. Although landscaping designs and schemes proposed as part of this Master Plan are not
necessarily of interest from a cultural heritage point of view, the Master Plan process examined and
analyzed natural and cultural heritage features located in the subject study area. Given that the subject
Page 14
study area had not been developed by the late 1980s, and proposed schemes from the 1963 Master Plan
for this area were never implemented, the landscape analysis conducted as part of the 1987 Master Plan
aids in tracing changes to landscape in this area over time and enables a clear understanding of the extent
to which this area retains cultural heritage landscape features, associated with either the designed
landscape of the Campus or the “pre-1964 agricultural landscape” (Unterman McPhail Associates
2008:15).
2.3.1
York University’s 1963 Master Plan
The Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (UMA 2008) identified individual cultural heritage landscape
areas located within the landscape of the larger York University Keele Campus. The results of this
analysis identified ‘Cultural Heritage Landscape 6’, which is generally described as the “designed campus
layout envisioned in the UPACE Master Plan (1963)” (UMA 2008:18). The report notes that heritage
attributes associated with this cultural heritage landscape area are linked to principles and landscaping
treatments put forward as part of the UPACE Master Plan. For example, the study notes that features such
as the Ring road and ceremonial drive from Keele Street may be considered heritage attributes associated
with ‘Cultural Heritage Landscape 6’, given that these design elements were implemented based on
recommendations put forward in the UPACE Master Plan.
The Master Plan also contains an appendix profiling the ‘Landscaping Report’ (Report hereafter)
prepared by Sasaki, Walker, and Associates Incorporated. A cultural heritage assessment report prepared
by Unterman McPhail Associates [UMA] notes that Hideo Sasaki was “a visionary landscape architect”
who designed several notable landscapes including the Stanford Library, Chronicle Pavilion in Concord,
grounds of the Foothill College, and Walt Disney World (Florida) (UMA 2008:10). In Ontario he worked
on Brock University, the Queen’s Park complex, and participated in the roof garden design at Place
Bonaventure in Montreal.
The Report specifically addresses strategic use and selection of plant materials and earth forms for the
purposes of “establish[ing] visual and spatial continuity to the campus. Plant materials are used to
insulate, or buffer, different types of land uses, to structure the outdoor living and circulation spaces, and
to blend and mold the various segments of the campus into a harmonious, well integrated unit” (UPACE
1963:54). The Report also provides specific guidance regarding the types of plant materials that should be
used and where. For example, landscape design recommendations included the following:
The edges of the campus should be visually delineated by a double row of trees to the
north and east… These visual boarders are penetrated by entrances which are further
defined by continuing the plantations of tree rows to the loop road. In this manner, the
large parking areas adjacent to the entrance roads are screened from view. As an
additional means of screening, the planted areas adjacent to the entrance roads will be
mounded. (UPACE 1963:55)
However, a review of the Report on the Master Plan for the York University Campus (UPACE 1963) and
aerial photography of the 1960s and 1970s indicates that the plan was not fully implemented in the
southern section of the campus and that there are no features of cultural heritage interest within the limits
of the study area relating to the Report and the 1963 Master Plan (Figures 7 to 10).
Page 15
Figure 7: Master Plan for 15,000 Students (top) and diagram showing indigenous buffers along the campus
periphery in the “Landscaping Report”, excerpted from the Report on Master Plan for York University Campus
(1963)
Figure 8: 1960 air photo showing York University Keele Campus
Page 16
Page 17
2.3.2
York University’s 1988 Master Plan
The 1988 York University, York Campus Master Plan outlined a number of development areas including
the academic core within the perimeter road system and other areas subdivided by quadrants. A review of
the Plan indicates that the study area is located within the Southeast Quadrant, which was intended for
long-term academic growth. The area was to be developed with the extension of the major street pattern
and the creation of local roads to establish streets and blocks (Figure 11).
In 1990, York University commissioned a Landscape Inventory and Impact Study (Daigle, Rocca, Munn)
(Inventory hereafter) as an adjunct to the York Campus Master Plan. The Inventory included a
Biogeographical Inventory which catalogued all the existing vegetation, wildlife, and drainage patterns on
campus and identified ecologically sensitive areas. The Human Uses section recorded the human
interactions with the campus, whether social, recreational or educational, documented significant extant
historical features, and provided a land use summary. The collected data allowed researchers to assess the
impacts of the Master Plan on the landscape and provide recommendations for alternatives. The Inventory
was prepared in conjunction with the Green Trail and Arboretum: Design Guidelines and Feasibility
Report which emphasised the importance of preserving the natural landscape of the Keele Campus even
as York University continues to develop and grow. The Inventory states:
Page 18
What remains of the landscape heritage of York is a living testimony to the natural and
cultural evolution of the land which deserves to be recognized and valued even in the face
of rapid change (1990:5).
For the purpose of the study, the campus was sub-divided into 20 sections, boundaries of which were
determined by the presence of dominant features such as a woodlot, or a group of buildings or playing
fields. Boundaries were sometimes altered to capture proposals made in the 1988 Master Plan. A review
of the Inventory indicates that the subject study area is located within the Fraser Drive Sports Field
section of the campus (Campus Section 1d; 1990:23), a site largely consisting of playing fields bordered
by a hedgerow to the west, several remnant hedgerow trees to the north, and a double row of young
Norway maples to the east (Figure 12). While the hedgerow/remnant hedgerow trees are reminiscent of
the land’s agricultural past and the ‘pre-1964 agricultural landscape’, the Norway maples relate to the
early landscaping plans of the University, which according to the Inventory “has enriched the campus
environment and should be incorporated into development plans”. According to the plant inventory, the
remnant hedgerow along the northern edge of the study area contained a red maple (Acer rubrum), a
silver maple (Acer saccharinum), three white willows (Salix alba), and two american elms (Ulmus
americana) (1990:23) ( Figure 13).
By overlaying the Inventory maps with the 1988 Master Plan, a number of potential site-specific
biogeographical and/or social impacts were identified (Figure 13). Impact #14 was identified in the
location of the study area whereby widening Fraser Drive (now The Pond Road) at Keele Street would
necessitate the removal of a mature red maple, and four young Norway maples (1990:25). It was
recommended that since the health of the red maple was deteriorating and the Norway maples could be
transplanted, a change in the plan was not required.
Figure 11: Development Areas, excerpted from the 1987 York University Master Plan.
Figure 12: Campus Sections, excerpted from the 1990 York Campus Landscape
Inventory & Impact Study.
Figure 13: Biogeographical Inventory (top) and Inventory overlayed with the 1988
Master Plan (bottom), excerpted from the 1990 York Campus Landscape Inventory &
Impact Study.
Page 19
Page 20
A review of current aerial photography clearly reveals that the Remnant Hedgerow (RH4) identified in
the 1990 Inventory is no longer extant (Figure 14). The trees along the northern boundary of the study
area are equidistant from each other and were obviously incorporated in this area as part of a landscaping
plan, likely associated with the widening of the Pond Road. A review of air photos between 1991 and
2002 confirms that the Remnant Hedgerow, originally extant at the northern boundary of the subject study
area, was intact until the late 1990s and likely removed in the early 2000s (Figure 15). One of the
recommendations of the 1990 Landscape Inventory & Impact Study dealt with the removal of trees in
order to implement some of the designs proposed in the 1988 Master Plan. The Inventory stated that
“removal” could mean transplanting trees with a mechanical tree spade rather than cutting them down.
This is especially relevant for younger and healthier trees, and trees that have become “integrated to the
social, educational, and recreational fabric of the campus landscape” or trees that have become
“integrated into the ecological fabric and community of plant and animal species living on the campus
landscape” (1990:6). According to the Inventory:
It should be noted that woodlot and hedgerow trees cannot be transplanted, unless they
are seedlings, because their roots have become too dispersed to allow for a proper
rootball. (...) Transplanted trees could be used as part of landscaping required for new
buildings or in preserved areas of the campus.
Figure 14: Current aerial photography of the study area and its surroundings
Page 21
Figure 15: 1995 air photo (left) and 2002 air photo (right) of subject study area. The 1995 air photos
shows that remnant hedgerow is still intact. The 2002 air photo confirms that this feature was removed,
likely in association with road improvements to the Pond Road.
Source: York University Map Library
3.0
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND INTEGRITY
A field review of the subject study area was undertaken the week of April 19th, 2010 by Rebecca Sciarra,
Cultural Heritage Specialist at ASI, to document the subject study area and collect data necessary to
identify cultural heritage landscape features and to assess impacts of Emergency Exit Building No. 4. For
the purposes of describing the existing conditions of the study area, an arborist report prepared for the
subject undertaking was consulted (Beacon Environmental 2009). Photographic documentation of the
subject study area can be found in Section 6.0.
The field review confirmed that the subject study area includes a tree line consisting of seven European
Ash (fraxinus excelsior) on its northern boundary and otherwise consists of grassed and meadow areas
located directly north of a baseball diamond. The subject study area is void of built structures and can be
described as an open space area with minimal vegetation. The study area is framed on its northern edge
by a grassed boulevard, a pedestrian sidewalk, lighting standards, and a row of European Ash that are
equidistant. To the west of the subject study area a smaller tree line consisting of four Red Maples (acer
rubrum) are extant and are much younger in age than the European Ash. Directly to the north of the
subject study area and located on the north side of the Pond Road is the Boynton Woodlot and
immediately east of the subject study area, a double row of Norway Maples is extant. Both of these
elements have been identified as cultural heritage landscape features in the York University Secondary
Plan.
Page 22
The seven European Ash located within the subject are equally spaced with approximately nine meters
between each tree. These trees are all of the same age, with all of them measuring between 16 and 19 cm
diameter at breast height (DBH). Each tree is also noted to be in good condition, as described in the
arborist report. Immediately west of the study area, an additional European Ash is extant and forms part
of the adjacent tree line. European Ash are a fast-growing species and are known as an excellent
landscaping or ornamental tree. They are also comparatively well suited to adapt to environments with
high pollution and as a result are often found on road sides in urban areas.
A review of background research and historic mapping confirms that this tree line was planted in its
current location , likely in the late 1990s or early 2000s. The 1990 Inventory report confirmed that the
current location of the European Ash was then occupied by a range of tree species including a red maple
(Acer rubrum), a silver maple (Acer saccharinum), three white willows (Salix alba), and two american
elms (Ulmus americana) (1990:23). These tree species were identified in 1990 as forming part of a
remnant hedge row that is likely associated with the ‘pre-1964 agricultural landscape’. It is currently
unknown when the extant European Ash were specifically planted in their current location. However, it is
quite likely that widening of the Pond Road during the late 1990s led to this alteration in landscape
features along the south side of the Pond Road. Additionally, given the current size of the European Ash,
it is possible that these trees were transplanted to this location.
Given that the subject tree line of European Ash were either planted during the 1990s or transplanted
from elsewhere on the campus, they are of minimal interest from a cultural heritage point of view. These
specific trees do not date back to early development and design of the York Campus, and their current
configuration does not correspond to original landscape designs put forward for this area in the 1963
Master Plan. Moreover, they are not associated with the ‘pre-1964 agricultural landscape’. However, it
should be noted that their uniform arrangement and the use of European Ash does represent a landscape
alteration very sympathetic with original landscape design intents of the 1963 Master Plan such as the use
of “plant materials… to insulate or buffer different types of land uses, to structure the outdoor living and
circulation spaces, and to blend and mold the various segments of the campus into a harmonious, wellintegrated unit” (UPACE 1963:54).
4.0
CONSERVATION STRATEGY
4.1
Proposed Site Development
The proposed Toronto-York Spadina Subway Extension requires that Emergency Exit Building No. 4 be
constructed as part of the planned operations. This proposed building is planned to be located on the south
side of the Pond Road, just west of Keele Street. The structure’s exact footprint has not yet been
confirmed, and as such, analysis of impacts of the undertaking has been based on the maximum area of
proposed alteration (Figure 17).
Page 23
Figure 16: Extent of construction and building layout associated with the proposed Emergency Exit Building
No. 4
Page 24
The proposed area of construction associated with Emergency Exit Building No. 4 has the potential to
remove individual trees forming part of the tree line of European Ash. Specifically, it is expected that
driveway access to the building from the Pond Road will require the removal or encroachment of at least
two of the trees located on the western end of the tree line. The maximum extent of construction
associated with Emergency Exit Building No. 4 will not directly impact or encroach upon the adjacent
Boynton Woodlot or double row of Norway Maples located along the west side of Keele Street.
Indirect impacts of the proposed Emergency Exit Building No. 4 were assessed based on a review of
proposed landscaping plans and material specifications for the building. The building is proposed to be
constructed with stone materials, in a ‘glacier buff veine’ colour and with a vertical vein orientation.
Proposed parking pads are proposed to be construed with permeable paving unilock materials in a ‘santa
fe’ color. Feather reed grass is proposed to be planted along the building’s western elevation and the
meadow area surrounding the parking pad and building will be planted with a seed mix matching the
existing meadow (See Figure 18).
Based on a review of these proposed building and landscaping concepts, the extent to which the
undertaking will result in visual or atmospheric elements not in keeping with the surrounding setting,
particularly the Boynton Woodlot and adjacent double row of Norway Maples, is very minimal. Use of
feather reed grass and a stone exterior with a vertical vein orientation is considered to be visually
sympathetic with the open space and natural features of the area. The proposed building is unlikely to
represent an obtrusive alteration given its use of stone colours resembling the colour of the proposed
feather reed grass. Additionally, retention of the double-row of Norway Maples along Keele Street and
retention of the majority of the tree line of European Ash will help to maintain visual screening.
Page 25
Figure 17: Proposed landscape concepts and building design renderings associated with Emergency Exit
Building No. 4
4.2
Page 26
Conservation Strategy Objectives
Based on the results of archival research, a site visit and analysis of impacts of the proposed undertaking,
the following conservation strategy has been developed. The conservation strategy has been developed in
accordance with Parks Canada’s Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in
Canada and the Ministry of Culture’s Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage
Properties (See Appendix A). The conservation strategy has been designed: to avoid adjacent cultural
heritage landscape features; minimize impacts on the tree line of European Ash, and result in a
sympathetic and minimal intervention in the surrounding landscape.
Following, Parks Canada’s Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada
and the Ministry of Culture’s Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties,
the following conservation objective should be adopted:
•
The proposed Emergency Exit Building No. 4 should be planned to avoid direct impacts to the
adjacent double-row of Norway Maples and the Boynton Woodlot to the north, and should
minimize impacts to the row of European Ash located on the south side of the Pond Road. While
it is understood that at least two of the European Ash will be removed or encroached upon,
construction and operational designs should be planned to minimize the number of trees removed
in this location. Although not identified as a cultural heritage landscape feature, this tree line
serves as an effective visual buffer between pedestrians and the proposed building and provides
design continuity in the immediate and surrounding area, based on its proximity to the double row
of trees located on the west side of Keele Street, south of the Pond Road. Additionally, design
specifications and landscaping treatments for the proposed building should be developed to result
in minimal intervention in the landscape.
5.0
CONCLUSIONS AND MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1
Conclusions
The proposed Emergency Exit Building No. 4 is located adjacent to two cultural heritage landscape
features: the Boynton Woodlot to the north and a double-row of Norway Maples to the east. The subject
study area, and extent of construction for the proposed undertaking, is void of built structures and consists
of grassed areas and a meadow and a tree line of seven European Ash. The results of archival research
and site analysis confirmed that the subject tree line of European Ash is not considered a cultural heritage
landscape feature. As a result, removal or encroachment to two trees within this line will not directly and
adversely impact the cultural heritage values of the area and the overall campus. However, it has been
noted that this tree line does serve as an effective visual buffer between pedestrians and the proposed
building, and also provides design continuity in relation to the adjacent tree line of Norway Maples. As
such, disturbance to this tree line should be minimized where possible. Analysis of the study area and
proposed landscaping plans and design specifications also confirms that indirect impacts, including the
introduction of visual or atmospheric elements not in keeping with the setting of the area, are expected to
be minimized. The building has been proposed to be designed with materials and landscaping materials
that are sympathetic to the surrounding, natural environment and which are expected to result in a
minimal intervention.
5.2
Page 27
Mitigation Recommendations
The proposed undertaking is not expected to directly impact adjacent cultural heritage landscape features
and indirect impacts, through the introduction of visual or atmospheric elements not in keeping with the
surrounding setting, are expected to be minimized. Based on this identification of impacts, the following
mitigation measures have been developed.
1. Avoid direct impacts to the adjacent double-row of Norway Maples and the Boynton Woodlot.
2. Minimize direct impacts to the tree line of European Ash located on the south side of the Pond
Road, where possible for the purposes of maintaining a visual buffer between the building and
pedestrians and landscape design continuity in relation to the adjacent double-row of Norway
Maples.
3. Utilize sympathetic materials, colours, and landscaping treatments in the design of the proposed
building to minimize the visual impact of the proposed building on adjacent cultural heritage
landscape features and the overall natural setting of the study area.
4. This report should be filed and archived at the York University archives.
6.0
Page 28
PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION
Plate 1: View
block of land
bounded by the
Pond Road to the
north, Jack
Evelyn Wiggins
Drive to the
west, and Keele
Street to the
east.
Plate 2: View of
study area
context, looking
east from west of
Jack Evelyn
Wiggins Drive.
Page 29
Plate 3: View of
grassed areas
and meadow,
looking south
from south side
of the Pond
Road.
Plate 4: View of
tree line along
east side Jack
Evelyn Wiggins
Drive.
Page 30
Plate 5: View
eastward across
area just south
of study area,
showing
meadow,
baseball
diamond, and
lone Freeman’s
Maple.
Plate 6: View of
subject tree line
of European Ash
and northern
boundary of
study area,
looking east
along the Pond
Road.
Page 31
Plate 7: Close-up
view of subject
tree line of
European Ash.
Plate 8: View of
subject tree line
of European Ash,
looking
southwest from
northwest corner
of Keele Street
and the Pond
Road.
Page 32
Plate 9: View of two European Ash expected to be
removed or encroached upon.
Plate 10: View of double-row of Norway Maple along
the west side of Keele Street, south of the Pond Road.
Page 33
Plate 11: View of double-row of trees located on west
side of Keele Street, north of the Pond Road.
Plate 12: View of
two trees part of
the European
Ash tree line and
the Boynton
Woodlot.
Page 34
Plate 13:
Interpretative
signage for the
Boynton Woodlot
Plate 14:
Contextual view
eastward along
the Pond Road.
7.0
Page 35
REFERENCES
Archaeological Services Inc.
2006 Spadina Subway Extension: Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment –
Preliminary Existing Conditions, Downsview Station via York University to Steeles
Avenue, City of Toronto, Ontario. Copy with author.
2006 Historical Overview and Assessment of Archaeological Potential of Lands Adjacent to
Black Creek, City of Toronto (Draft). Copy with author.
Beacon Environmental
2009 Arborist Report Toronto York Spadina Subway Extension: Emergency Exit Building No.
4. Electronic copy with author.
Brown, R.
1997
Toronto’s Lost Villages. Polar Bear Press, Toronto.
City of Toronto
2008 York University Background Study Land Use, Urban Design and Heritage- York
University Secondary Plan Update. Copy with author.
2009 Proposed York University Secondary Plan. Contained within the Final Report and
Attachments 1 – 2 – York University Secondary Plan Update, Schedule I. Available online at http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/ny/bgrd/backgroundfile-24543.pdf
Daigle, Jean Marc, Donna Rocca, and John Munn
1990 Landscape Inventory and Impact Study, York Campus. Downsview: York University.
Hart, P.
1968
Hopkins, J.
1994
Pioneering in North York. Toronto, General Publishing Company Limited.
North York Communities. Toronto, City of Toronto Heritage Section, Property and
Economic Development Department.
Miles & Company
1878 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of York. Toronto, Miles & Co
Ministry of Environment, Ontario
2006 Environmental Assessment Act
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ontario
2005 Ontario Planning Act.
2005 Provincial Policy Statement
Tremaine, George
1860 Tremaine’s Map of the County of York.
Page 36
Unterman McPhail Associates
2008 Cultural Heritage Assessment: Cultural Heritage Landscapes, York University, 4700
Keele Street, City of Toronto, Ontario. Copy with author.
Urban Planners, Architects and Consulting Engineers (UPACE)
1963 Report on the Master Plan for the York University Campus. Toronto.
[-------]
1967
Air Photo, Sheet Feb0130, City of Toronto. Accessed courtesy of City of Toronto
Archives
1975
Air Photo, Sheet Feb0114, City of Toronto. Accessed courtesy of City of Toronto
Archives
[-------]
York University
1987 York University, York Campus Master Plan. Downsview: York University.
Page 37
Appendix A
Conservation Principles
Page 38
Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties
1. RESPECT FOR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE:
Do not base restoration on conjecture. Conservation work should be based on historic documentation such
as historic photographs, drawings and physical evidence.
2. RESPECT FOR THE ORIGINAL LOCATION:
Do not move buildings unless there is no other means to save them.
Site is an integral component of a building or structure. Change in site diminishes cultural heritage value
considerably.
3. RESPECT FOR HISTORIC MATERIAL:
Repair/conserve - rather than replace building materials and finishes, except where absolutely necessary.
Minimal intervention maintains the heritage content of the built resource.
4. RESPECT FOR ORIGINAL FABRIC:
Repair with like materials. Repair to return the resource to its prior condition, without altering its
integrity.
5. RESPECT FOR THE BUILDING'S HISTORY:
Do not restore to one period at the expense of another period. Do not destroy later additions to a building
or structure solely to restore to a single time period.
6. REVERSIBILITY:
Alterations should be able to be returned to original conditions. This conserves earlier building design and
technique.e.g. When a new door opening is put into a stone wall, the original stones are numbered,
removed and stored, allowing for future restoration.
7. LEGIBILITY:
New work should be distinguishable from old. Buildings or structures should be recognized as products
of their own time, and new additions should not blur the distinction between old and new.
8. MAINTENANCE:
With continuous care, future restoration will not be necessary. With regular upkeep, major conservation
projects and their high costs can be avoided.
(Source: http://www.culture.gov.on.ca/english/heritage/info_sheets/info_sheet_8principles.htm)
Page 39
Standards for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada
1. Conserve the heritage value of a historic place. Do not remove, replace, or substantially alter its intact
or repairable character-defining elements. Do not move a part of a historic place if its current location
is a character-defining element.
2. Conserve changes to a historic place which, over time, have become character-defining elements in
their own right.
3. Conserve heritage value by adopting an approach calling for minimal intervention.
4. Recognize each historic place as a physical record of its time, place and use. Do not create a false
sense of historical development by adding elements from other historic places or other properties or
by combining features of the same property that never coexisted.
5. Find a use for a historic place that requires minimal or no change to its character-defining elements.
6. Protect and, if necessary, stabilize a historic place until any subsequent intervention is under-taken.
Protect and preserve archaeological resources in place. Where there is potential for disturbance of
archaeological resources, take mitigation measures to limit damage and loss of information.
7. Evaluate the existing condition of character-defining elements to determine the appropriate
intervention needed. Use the gentlest means possible for any intervention. Respect heritage value
when undertaking an intervention.
8. Maintain character-defining elements on an ongoing basis. Repair character-defining elements by
reinforcing their materials using recognized conservation methods. Replace in kind any extensively
deteriorated or missing parts of character-defining elements, where there are surviving prototypes.
9. Make any intervention needed to preserve character-defining elements physically and visually
compatible with the historic place, and identifiable upon close inspection. Document any intervention
for future reference.
Additional Standards Relating to Rehabilitation
1. Repair rather than replace character-defining elements. Where character-defining elements are too
severely deteriorated to repair, and where sufficient physical evidence exists, replace them with new
elements that match the forms, materials and detailing of sound versions of the same elements. Where
there is insufficient physical evidence, make the form, material and detailing of the new elements
compatible with the character of the historic place.
2. Conserve the heritage value and character-defining elements when creating any new additions to a
historic place or any related new construction. Make the new work physically and visually compatible
with, subordinate to and distinguishable from the historic place.
Page 40
3. Create any new additions or related new construction so that the essential form and integrity of a
historic place will not be impaired if the new work is removed in the future.
Additional Standards Relating to Restoration
1. Repair rather than replace character-defining elements from the restoration period. Where characterdefining elements are too severely deteriorated to repair and where sufficient physical evidence exists,
replace them with new elements that match the forms, materials and detailing of sound versions of the
same elements.
2. Replace missing features from the restoration period with new features whose forms, materials and
detailing are based on sufficient physical, documentary and/or oral evidence.
(Source: Excerpted from Parks Canada’s Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in
Canada, 2003)
Statement of Qualifications and Limitations
The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by AECOM Canada Ltd. (“Consultant”) for the benefit of the client (“Client”) in accordance
with the agreement between Consultant and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the “Agreement”).
The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report:
• are subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications contained in the
Report (the “Limitations”)
• represent Consultant’s professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of similar reports
• may be based on information provided to Consultant which has not been independently verified
• have not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and their accuracy is limited to the time period and circumstances in
which they were collected, processed, made or issued
• must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context
• were prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement
• in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the assumption that such
conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time
Unless expressly stated to the contrary in the Report or the Agreement, Consultant:
• shall not be responsible for any events or circumstances that may have occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared or
for any inaccuracies contained in information that was provided to Consultant
• agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above for the specific purpose described in the Report and
the Agreement, but Consultant makes no other representations with respect to the Report or any part thereof
• in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for variability in such conditions geographically
or over time
The Report is to be treated as confidential and may not be used or relied upon by third parties, except:
• as agreed by Consultant and Client
• as required by-law
• for use by governmental reviewing agencies
Any use of this Report is subject to this Statement of Qualifications and Limitations. Any damages arising from improper use of the Report or parts
thereof shall be borne by the party making such use.
This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report.
(107257_4ra_sept15-09_existingconditions_sheppardwestsubway_rkb.doc)
Distribution List
# of
Copies
Signature Page
Association / Company Name
1
1
AECOM Canada Ltd.
PDF
Hard
Copy
Report Prepared By:
Sarah Burgess, B. Sc. Hon.,
Environmental Technologist Diploma, Aquatic Ecologist
James MacKay, M.Sc.
Ecologist, Environment
Revision Log
Report Reviewed By:
Revision #
Revised By
Date
Issue / Revision Description
Karl van Kessel, BScH, MES, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Impact Analysis & Approvals, Environment
Richard Booth, Ph.D.
Senior Aquatic Scientist, Environment
-i-
Table of Contents
List of Tables
Letter of Transmittal
Statement of Qualifications and Limitations
Distribution List
page
1.
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1
2.
Aquatic Environment .................................................................................................. 1
3.
Terrestrial Environment.............................................................................................. 1
3.1
Vegetation .................................................................................................................................... 1
3.1.1
3.1.2
Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 1
Vegetation Communities.................................................................................................................. 1
3.1.2.1
3.1.2.2
3.1.2.3
3.1.2.4
3.1.3
3.2
Flora................................................................................................................................................. 2
Wildlife .......................................................................................................................................... 2
3.2.1
Breeding Birds ................................................................................................................................. 2
3.2.1.1
3.2.1.2
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.3
3.4
3.5
4.
Methodology............................................................................................................................ 2
Breeding Bird Community ....................................................................................................... 2
Small and Medium Mammals .......................................................................................................... 4
Amphibians ...................................................................................................................................... 4
Significant Species ....................................................................................................................... 4
Habitat Connectivity...................................................................................................................... 4
Designated Areas ......................................................................................................................... 4
3.5.1
3.5.2
3.5.3
3.6
Forests .................................................................................................................................... 1
Aquatic Communities .............................................................................................................. 2
Wetland Communities ............................................................................................................. 2
Cultural Communities.............................................................................................................. 2
Wetlands .......................................................................................................................................... 4
Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest ........................................................................................... 5
Environmentally Sensitive Areas ..................................................................................................... 5
Summary of Key Attributes and Functions ................................................................................... 5
References ................................................................................................................... 5
List of Figures
Figure 1. Sheppard West Station Study Area ............................................................................................................... 1 Figure 3 Vegetation Community Mapping Based on Ecological Land Classifications................................................. 3 (107257_4ra_sept15-09_existingconditions_sheppardwestsubway_rkb.doc)
Table 1.
Breeding Bird Survey Data for the Sheppard West Study Area..................................................................... 4
Table 2.
Key Natural Heritage Attributes and Functions .............................................................................................. 5
Appendices
A.
Plant Species List for Sheppard West Study Area
1.
Introduction
This report presents the findings of baseline conditions studies undertaken as part of the Toronto York Spadina Subway
Extension (TYSSE) for the Sheppard West Subway Station.
2.
Aquatic Environment
The Study Area is located south of Sheppard Avenue, west of Dufferin Street and adjacent to the east of Parc
Downsview Park; as identified in Figure 1.
There are no watercourses or fisheries habitat present within the Sheppard West study area.
3.
Terrestrial Environment
3.1
Vegetation
3.1.1
Methodology
An AECOM terrestrial ecologist conducted a plant community inventory in June of 2009. The vegetation communities
were classified according to the standardized method of Ecological Land Classification (ELC; Lee et al. 1998), with
classification taken to the ecosite level where possible. This system of classification is a province wide approach that
standardizes classifications based on broad community types and dominant species associations. Vegetation
communities accessible to the Terrestrial ecologist were classified to the finest level of vegetation type possible
3.1.2
Vegetation Communities
The Sheppard West station is situated in a largely urban-industrial setting. The site is a vacant field, adjacent to Parc
Downsview Park and a CN rail line. There are very few naturally vegetated areas within the site. The majority of the
vegetation is of a result of various forms of anthropogenic disturbances. These are primarily made up of ‘cultural’
communities that have been created and maintained by human activities; including cultural meadows and cultural
woodlots. The trees that are present on site are primarily mid-aged to mature with both deciduous and coniferous
species. In reference to the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC), none of the identified communities are listed
Figure 1.
Sheppard West Station Study Area
as rare within the province of Ontario.
Four vegetation community types were identified, consisting of 3 cultural communities and 1 wetland community.
To document and evaluate the impacts of the proposed station construction on the existing natural environment a
series of baseline studies were undertaken between April and July 2009. This involved data collection, a review of
previous activities, secondary source data collection, and field inventories of the natural environment.
3.1.2.1
Forests
No forest communities were identified within the study area.
requirements as identified by the standards of the ELC manual.
All wooded areas did not meet the classification
-1-
3.1.2.2
Aquatic Communities
No aquatic communities were identified
3.1.3
3.1.2.3
Fifty-one plant species were identified in the subject lands during field investigations (Appendix A). Thirty-one of the
species representing 61% of the total number identified are non-native to Ontario.
Wetland Communities
One wetland community was identified within the study area. The noted wetland consisted of a Cattail Mineral Shallow
marsh, as described below.
•
MAS2-1 – Cattail Mineral Shallow Marsh Type
Shallow marsh communities are defined as areas with variable flooding regimes with water up to 2m deep
and have standing or flowing water for much of the growing season. Narrow Leaved Cattail (Typha
angustifolia L.) is the dominant vegetation type within the polygon.
3.1.2.4
Cultural Communities
The majority of the subject lands are composed of young to mid-aged culturally defined vegetation communities,
including cultural meadow, cultural woodland, and cultural thicket, as described below.
•
CUM1-1 - Dry-Moist Old Field Meadow Type
Abandoned agricultural fields that are reverting to naturally vegetated areas are classified as cultural
meadows under ELC methodology, and are usually composed of a mixture of grass and herbaceous plant
species. Old-fields, account for large portion of the cultural communities within the study area. Common
species found in these old fields include Smooth Brome (Bromus inermis), Sweet White Clover, and
Queen Anne’s lace (Daucus carota). The absence of a shrub layer in these fields indicates that they have
been exposed to disturbance within the last few years.
•
CUW1 Mineral Cultural Woodland
Cultural woodlands are defined as an area with a relatively recent history of human disturbance, with tree
canopy cover between 35 and 60%. Cultural woodland is found within the study lands. The woodlands are
low in quality, and have a sparse understorey. The woodland is typically comprised of Trembling Aspen
and Balsam Poplar.
•
Flora
Terrestrial species significance was evaluated against national, provincial and regional criteria. National (COSEWIC) and
Provincial (COSSARO) rankings were consistent with those posted on the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC)
database. Provincially rare species were those ranked as S1-S3 by NHIC. Regional significance was based on rarity
rankings assigned in Site District 7E4 by Varga et al. (2000).
In reference to the above standards, there are no rare or endangered species within the Sheppard West study area.
3.2
Wildlife
Wildlife surveys were conducted for breeding birds, small to medium mammals and amphibians; as noted below.
3.2.1
Breeding Birds
Breeding bird surveys were conducted in order to assess wildlife attributes of the subject lands. Habitat requirements
are generally understood for many bird species, making them relatively valuable indicators of habitat quality function
and landscape connectivity. Observations of other wildlife and wildlife activity were also noted during site visits.
3.2.1.1
Methodology
Breeding bird surveys were conducted on May 26 and June 16, 2009 according to protocols developed by the Ontario
Breeding Bird Atlas (2008). Surveys were completed on calm, clear days between 05:00 and 11:00 hrs during peak
periods of singing and breeding behaviour. Surveys were conducted within vegetated areas and thickets present on
study lands along the rail line, west to Sheppard Avenue and South to the parking lot. Beacon Environmental
conducted studies east of the rail line. For consistency, bird species information has been compiled for both areas.
3.2.1.2
Breeding Bird Community
CUT1 Mineral Cultural Thicket
Cultural Thickets are defined as tree cover <25% and >25% shrub cover. One thicket is found bordering
the rail line and is highly disturbed containing mainly non-native species.
The Ontario Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) compiles, maintains and distributes information on natural
species, plant communities and spaces of conservation concern in Ontario. According to the NHIC none of the
communities identified at the Sheppard West location are significant or rare within the province of Ontario. Vegetation
communities are mapped in Figure 2.
AECOM identified 13 bird species were detected during May and June breeding bird surveys (Table 1). All of species
were believed to be breeding in the subject lands. Beacon Environmental identified 7 species east of the rail line. All of
the species identified by Beacon were common to the west study area with the exception of Mourning Dove (Zenaida
macroura). Two species, the European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) and House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) are nonnative.
-2-
4846000
623000
4846000
622000
Legend
CUT1 - Cultural Thicket
CUW1 - Cultural Decidious Woodland
CUM1-1 - Dry Moist Old Filed Meadow
MAS2-1 - Cattail Mineral Shallow Marsh
CUM1-1
CUT1
CUW1
Basemapping from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Orthophotography: 2007
MAS2-1
m
0
25
50
100
150
200
1:5,000
Toronto-York Spadina
Subway Extension
TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION
TYSSE DEPARTMENT
TORONTO-YORK SPADINA SUBWAY EXTENSION
SHEPPARD WEST STATION
4845000
4845000
Map Document: (N:\projects\0-aecom\107257\2009\Final\GISSpatial\MXDs\WorkingMXDs\107257ELCDownsview.mxd)
08/05/2009 -- 1:25:40 PM
UTM Zone 17N, NAD 83
©2009 AECOM Canada Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
This document is protected by copyright law and may not be used,
reproduced or modified in any manner or for any purpose except
with the written permission of AECOM Canada Ltd. ("AECOM") or
a party to which its copyright has been assigned. AECOM accepts
no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party
that uses, reproduces, modifies, or relies on this document without
AECOM’s express written consent.
622000
623000
August 2009
Project 107257
Figure 2
In general the observed species are disturbance tolerant bird species found in urban areas and small woodlots and
common to southern Ontario. European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris), Canada Goose (Branta Canadensis) and Redwinged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) were the most frequently detected bird species.
Two species; Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) and Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna), are
considered to be grassland sensitive species (OMNR 2000), however, both are relatively common throughout southern
Ontario.
None of the observed species are provincially or regionally rare in Ontario. None of the species observed are “Species
at Risk”.
Table 1.
Breeding Bird Survey Data for the Sheppard West Study Area
Common Name
Canada Goose
Killdeer
Mourning Dove
Northern Flicker
Willow Flycatcher
Eastern Kingbird
Northern Mockingbird
European Starling
Savannah Sparrow
Song Sparrow
Red-winged Blackbird
Eastern Meadowlark
American Goldfinch
Notes:
3.2.2
Scientific Name
Branta canadensis
Charadrius vociferus
Zenaida macroura
Colaptes auratus
Empidonax traillii
Tyrannus tyrannus
Mimus polyglottus
Sturnus vulgaris
Passerculus sandwichensis
Melospiza melodia
Agelaius phoeniceus
Sturnella magna
Cardeulis tristis
A = Area-sensitive
Species
A
A
Numbers of Presumed Pairs at Locations
West of Rail
(AECOM)
14 f
1
1
1
1
1
11 f
2
2
10
2
1
East of Rail
(Beacon)
3
1
1
3
2
5
2
0
f = some or all individuals feeding and not breeding on site, starling numbers include young of the year
Location 1 - AECOM study area west of railway
Location 2 - Beacon Environmental study area and data (field work June 23,2009), east of railway
Area Sensiteive Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. 151 p plus appendices.
Significant Species
The Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) was consulted for occurrences of nationally (COSEWIC) and/or
provincially (COSSARO) designated Species at Risk and Provincially Rare Species (S1-S3) within the subject lands. A
search of the database provided no records of any significant species previously found within the study site.
3.4
Habitat Connectivity
Existing vegetation units in southern Ontario have been highly fragmented by agricultural land, residential subdivisions
and roads. Fragmentation results in the reduction of total habitat available, and the isolation of remaining patches (Noss
1987). Retaining connections between the remaining vegetation units can protect the functionality of these communities
and in theory minimize some of the negative impacts associated with habitat fragmentation. Landscape connectivity is
defined as the “degree to which the landscape facilitates or impedes movement across habitat patches” (Taylor et al.
2006), and includes concepts such as wildlife corridors. Due to intense habitat loss and increasing fragmentation of
existing habitat patches in southern Ontario, habitat connectivity has become an important component of natural
heritage planning.
Linkages or corridors can vary in size and configuration, from minor connectors such as hedgerows to massive
kilometre wide features such as the Oak Ridges Moraine. Depending on the ultimate goal, corridors can be used to
connect terrestrial features, aquatic features or both. Properties of a corridor such as configuration, width, vegetation
structure and moisture, dictate what wildlife species are most likely to utilize the feature, and provide insight into
functional connectivity.
The value of habitat connectivity of the study site is limited as there are no associated habitat features connected to the
site. The study site is surrounded by developed land parcels primarily consisting of commercial and service oriented
businesses.
3.5
Designated Areas
3.5.1
Wetlands
Small and Medium Mammals
Mammal surveys were completed during breeding bird and amphibian surveys and involved incidental observations of
presence absence within the study area. No mammals were observed during AECOM field surveys.
3.2.3
3.3
Amphibians
Amphibian surveys were conducted at two points during the field season; in April 2009 and June 2009. No frog calls
were heard at either of the call surveys.
Wetlands are defined as lands that are either flooded by shallow water or areas where the water table is close to the
surface, have soils that are characteristic of water saturation, and have vegetation that has adapted to wet conditions
(Mitch and Gosselink 2000). Wetlands are evaluated by the OMNR according to the Ontario Wetland Evaluation
System (1994), in which the importance of a wetland is determined based on biological, social, hydrological and special
features. Evaluated wetlands are categorized as either provincially or locally significant. These designations protect
wetlands from development and alterations according to the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS 2005).
There are no Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) found within the subject lands. The presence of a cattail marsh
(approximate area 9.25 m2) is not a significant feature of the study area.
-4-
3.5.2
4.
Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest
An Area of Natural and Scientific (ANSI) is defined by the OMNR as an area that contains natural features that are
provincially or regionally significant (NHIC). Earth Science ANSIs contain important geological features, and Life
Science ANSIs contain representative ecological features. ANSIs are considered to be the best representation of a
natural area within each site district and can be considered as an ecological benchmark. Provincially designated ANSIs
are protected from development under the PPS.
There are no provincially or regionally designated Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) within the subject
lands.
3.5.3
References
Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, 2008:
Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,
and Ontario Nature. Editors: Michael D. Cadman, Donald A. Sutherland, Gregor G. Beck, Denis Lepage, and
Andrew R. Couturier. 728 pages.
Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and F.S. McMurray, 1998:
Ecological land classification of southern Ontario: First approximation and its application. Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field.
Guide FG-02.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
An area that has ecological significance may be identified as an Environmentally Significant Area (ESA) and designated
for protection by a municipality or Conservation Authority. Often times, ESAs overlap with designated ANSIs.
Mitch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink, 2000:
Wetlands, 3rd Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York.
There are no designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas within the subject lands.
Noss, R.F., 1987:
From plant communities to landscapes in conservation inventories: a look at the Nature Conservancy (USA).
Biol. Conserv. 41:11-37.
3.6
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2000:
Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. 151 pages plus appendices
Summary of Key Attributes and Functions
The following Table 2 summarizes the attributes and functions that are important within the study area, and for which
consideration should be provided during the planning process.
Table 2.
Function
Vegetation
Wildlife
Birds
Key Natural Heritage Attributes and Functions
Present on Site
Attribute
Location
f Yes
f Common Species
f Study area
f No
f Yes
f Common Species, area f Study Area
sensitive species
Significance / Sensitivity
f Not Significant
f Grassland area sensitive species (Savannah
Sparrow and Eastern Meadowlark)
Provincial Policy Statement, 2005:
Province of Ontario. Queen’s Printers. 38 pages.
Taylor, P.D., L. Fahrig and K.A. With, 2006:
Landscape connectivity: a return to the basics. In: K.R. Crooks and M. Sanjayan (eds.) Connectivity
Conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pp. 29-43.
Varga, S., 2000:
Distribution and Status of the Vascular Plants of the Greater Toronto Area. Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources, Aurora District.
-5-
Appendix A
(4ra- app ti pgs 11x17.doc)
Family / Species
Common Name
PTERIDOPHYTA
FERNS AND ALLIES
EQUISETACEAE
HORSETAIL FAMILY
Equisetum arvense L.
Field Horsetail
LILIOPSIDA
Non-native
Species
Present
X
MONOCOTS
CONVOLVULACEAE
MORNING GLORY FAMILY
Convolvulus arvensis L.
Field Bindweed
CORNACEAE
DOGWOOD FAMILY
Cornus stolonifera Michx.
Red-osier Dogwood
DIPSACACEAE
TEASEL FAMILY
+
X
X
GRASS FAMILY
Dipsacus fullonum L.
Teasel
Agropyron repens (L.)
Quack Grass
+
X
ELAEAGNACEAE
OLEASTER FAMILY
Bromus inermis Leyss.
Smooth Brome Grass
+
X
Elaeagnus angustifolia L.
Russian Olive
Dactylis glomerata L.
Orchard Grass
+
X
FABACEAE
PEA FAMILY
Phalaris arundinacea L.
Reed Canary Grass
X
Lotus corniculatus L.
Bird-foot Trefoil
+
X
Black Medic
+
X
POACEAE
+
X
+
X
Phleum pratense L.
Timothy
+
X
Medicago lupulina L.
Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud.
Common Reed
+
X
Melilotus alba Medic.
White Sweet-clover
+
X
TYPHACEAE
CATTAIL FAMILY
Melilotus officinalis (L.) Pall.
Yellow Sweet-clover
+
X
Typha angustifolia L.
Narrow-leaved Cattail
Trifolium pratense L.
Red Clover
+
X
Vicia cracca L.
Bird Vetch
+
X
HYPERICACEAE
ST. JOHN'S-WORT FAMILY
X
Hypericum perforatum L.
Common St. John's-wort
+
X
MAGNOLIOPSIDA
X
DICOTS
ACERACEAE
MAPLE FAMILY
Acer negundo L.
Manitoba Maple
APIACEAE
CARROT FAMILY
OLEACEAE
OLIVE FAMILY
Daucus carota L.
Wild Carrot, Queen Anne's Lace
+
X
Fraxinus americana L.
White Ash
Pastinaca sativa L.
Wild Parsnip
+
X
PLANTAGINACEAE
PLANTAIN FAMILY
ASCLEPIADACEAE
MILKWEED FAMILY
Plantago major L.
Broad-leaved Plantain
Asclepias syriaca L.
Common Milkweed
Vincetoxicum rossicum (Kleopov) Borh.
Dog-strangling Vine
ASTERACEAE
ASTER FAMILY
Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.
Common Ragweed
Arctium minus (Hill) Bernh.
Common Burdock
+
X
POLYGONACEAE
BUCKWHEAT FAMILY
X
Rumex crispus L.
Curly Dock
RANUNCULACEAE
BUTTERCUP FAMILY
Ranunculus acris L.
Tall Buttercup
X
+
X
RHAMNACEAE
BUCKTHORN FAMILY
X
Rhamnus cathartica L.
Common Buckthorn
X
+
X
+
X
+
X
+
X
Aster novae-angliae L.
New England Aster
Chrysanthemum leucanthemum L.
Ox-eye Daisy
+
X
ROSACEAE
ROSE FAMILY
Cichorium intybus L.
Chickory
+
X
Potentilla norvegica L.
Rough Cinquefoil
X
Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.
Canada Thistle
+
X
Prunus virginiana L.
Choke Cherry
X
X
SALICACEAE
WILLOW FAMILY
Solidago canadensis L.
Canada Goldenrod
Taraxacum officinale Weber
Dandelion
+
X
Populus balsamifera L.
Balsam Poplar
X
Tragopogon dubius Scop.
Goat's-beard
+
X
Populus deltoides Marsh
Cottonwood
X
BRASSICACEAE
MUSTARD FAMILY
Populus tremuloides Michx.
Trembling Aspen
X
Alliaria petiolata (Bieb.)Cavara & Grande
Garlic Mustard
Salix eriocephala Michx.
Heart-leaved Willow
X
CAPRIFOLIACEAE
HONEYSUCKLE FAMILY
VIOLACEAE
VIOLET FAMILY
Lonicera tatarica L.
Sambucus canadensis L.
Tartarian Honeysuckle
Common Elder
Viola sororia Willd.
Common Blue Violet
VITACEAE
GRAPE FAMILY
CHENOPODIACEAE
SPINACH FAMILY
Parthenocissus inserta (A. Kerner) Fritsch
Virginia Creeper
X
Chenopodium album L.
Lamb's-quarters
Vitis riparia Michx.
Riverbank Grape
X
(4ra- app ti pgs 11x17.doc)
+
+
+
X
X
X
X
X
G UIDING S OLUTIONS IN THE N ATURAL E NVIRONMENT
Memorandum
To: Mark Armstrong, Hatch Mott MacDonald
From: Jo-Anne Lane
Date: October 29, 2009
Ref: 209055
Re: Toronto York Spadina Subway Extension - Vegetation Communities Report
Methods
All sites were surveyed by a terrestrial ecologist and certified arborist during the summer of 2009.
Vegetation species, communities and ecological conditions were recorded and are presented below.
The standard source for most scientific names of vascular plants was the Ontario Plant List
(Newmaster et al., 1998). Plant rarity was determined using Distribution and Status of the Vascular
Plants of the Greater Toronto Area (Varga et al., 2000). Ecological communities were classified using
the Ecological Land Classification System for Southern Ontario (Lee et al., 1998) with additional
vegetation communities, and their local significance, from the TRCA’s Field Reference List 2009
(TRCA, 2009).
Existing Conditions
Site: Downsview Station Connection to Wilson Yard, Parc Downsview Park, West side of Allen
Road, south of Sheppard Avenue (Figure 1).
Site Description: The majority of the area is Old Field Meadow (CUM1-1) with two small wet areas,
supporting Narrow-leaved Cattail Mineral Shallow Marsh (MAS2-1) communities.
Wetland plant
species that occur in these marshes include Narrow-leaved Cattail (Typha angustifolia), Soft-stemmed
Bulrush (Scirpus validus) and Fox Sedge (Carex vulpinoidea). There are virtually no trees or shrubs
within the property requirements except for several saplings of Eastern Cottonwood (Populus
deltoidea) and Slender Willow (Salix petiolaris). A high proportion of the species identified in the Old
Field Meadow areas are weedy, introduced species. Some of the most common plant species include
Aster species (Symphyotrichum novae-angliae, S. ericoides), Canada Goldenrod (Solidago
cracca), Crown Vetch (Coronilla varia), Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense) and Common Milkweed
Significant Vegetation Species or Communities: The MAS2-1 wetland community near the north
end of the property requirements is supporting several locally rare and uncommon species:
144 Main St. North, Suite 206, Markham, Ontario, Canada
Tel: (905) 201 7622  Fax: (905) 201 0639
L3P 5T3
October 29, 2009
memorandum
ScientificName
Calamagrostis
canadensis
Carex tenera
Juncus dudleyi
Juncus nodosus
Salix petiolaris
CommonName
Canada Blue-joint
SRANK
S5
Toronto
U
Slender Sedge
Dudley's Rush
Knotted Rush
Slender Willow
S5
S5
S5
S5
R3
U
R6
R2
GTA
7E4
U
TRCARANKS
L4
R12
L4
L5
L4
L4
U
This area is also providing some marginal grassland habitat for birds and small mammals.
species and native shrub species. In regards to the wetland supporting the locally and regionally rare
and uncommon plants, there are several options for mitigation. If possible, the planned property
requirements should re-located or reconfigured so as to avoid disturbing the wetland community.
Another option is to salvage the significant plant species and transplant them to a similar habitat. The
former option is preferable in terms of preserving the species at their habitat. Transplantation will
likely be only for a portion of the populations of the plants. The plants may not survive the
transplantation procedure or not survive in the new habitat. Additionally, suitable habitat with identical
environmental characteristics may be in short supply locally.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Site: ES #5, berm between Dufferin Street and Allen Road, just north of Sheppard Avenue and
west side of Allen Road (Figure 2).
Site Description: The area between Allen Road and Dufferin Street is a four or five meter high berm
that has been recently planted with at least 16 native shrub and tree species, the most common being
Silver Maple (Acer saccharinum), Common Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) and Staghorn Sumac
(Rhus hirta). The remainder of the area consists of old field meadow dominated by at least 30 weedy,
introduced species. Some of the more common plant species growing in this area include Smooth
Brome (Bromus inermis), Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense), Meadow Goat’s-beard (Tragopogon
pratensis) Bird’s-foot Trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) and Timothy (Phleum pratense).
The area to the west of Allen Road is a strip of maintained lawn with planted ornamental trees a
several ornamental shrubs.
Significant Vegetation Species or Communities: None on the west side of Allen Road and none
naturally occurring on the berm between Allen Road and Dufferin Street. Several planted species
have some rarity status. Kentucky Coffee-tree (Gymnocladus dioicus) is listed as Threatened both
nationally and provincially, and ranked S2 (imperilled) in Ontario by the Ministry of Natural Resources.
Common Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) is considered regionally rare in the Greater Toronto Area
(Varga et al. 2000). High-bush Cranberry (Viburnum opulus var. americanum) is considered locally
rare in the City of Toronto and is ranked L2 (Unable to withstand disturbance; some criteria are very
limiting factors; generally occur in high-quality natural areas, in natural matrix; probably rare in the
TRCA jurisdiction; of concern regionally) by the Toronto Region Conservation Authority.
Page 2
October 29, 2009
memorandum
Mitigation: Although the trees and shrubs were planted, they represent a certain amount of cost and
effort which should be replaced where possible. Native species, similar to those that were recently
planted, should be used for shrub and tree plantings. Additionally, native species should be used for
ground cover seeding. Tree protection and/or replacement measures will be implemented for trees
along the west side of Allen Road as described in the Arborist Report.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Site: EEB #1, northwest corner of Kodiak Crescent and Whitehorse Road (Figure 3).
Site Description: Maintained lawn between street, sidewalk and customer parking. Approximately
16 planted trees within the property requirements. There is one grouping of ornamental shrubs at the
southern end beside the entrance driveway, consisting of Winged Euonymous (Euonymous alata),
Mugo Pine (Pinus mugo), with some naturally occurring saplings of Green Ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica) and Bur Oak (Quercus macrocarpa) and Honey Locust (Gleditsia triacanthos). Some
weedy species also occur such as Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense), Dog-strangling Vine
(Cynanchum sp.) and Bitter Nightshade (Solanum dulcamara).
replacement measures will be implemented as described in the arborist report.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Site: CP #2 & Sheppard West Station, Parc Downsview Park, south side of Sheppard Ave.
West, east of CN tracks (Figure 4).
Site Description: The majority of the area is a gravelly, vacant lot supporting a variety of weedy,
introduced species. The ELC community is CUM1-1, Dry – Moist Old Field Meadow. The most
common plant species growing in this area include Kentucky Bluegrass (Poa pratensis), Bird’s-foot
Trefoil (Lotus coniculatus), Cow Vetch (Vicia cracca), Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense) and Common
Milkweed (Asclepias syriaca). There is also a network of drainage ditches that support a few wetland
plant species. These ditches may be classified as Cattail Mineral Shallow Marsh (MAS2-1)
communities and are dominated by Narrow-leaved Cattail (Typha angustifolia) and Broad-leaved
Cattail (T. latifolia).
Significant Vegetation Species or Communities: One species was identified as Field Thistle
(Cirsium discolor), which is considered locally rare in Toronto and regionally rare in the TRCA and
MNR Site District 7E-4. However, identification of this species in the field is not conclusive and should
be confirmed.
Mitigation: Individual Field Thistle plants may be transplanted to other suitable locations, which
should be protected areas with similar ecological conditions.
Any landscaping that will be installed after construction is completed, such as trees, shrubs or other
plants should be species native to Toronto and adapted to the site conditions.
Page 3
October 29, 2009
memorandum
Tree protection and/or replacement measures will be implemented as described in the Arborist
Report.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Site: Cross Passage #3 area, west side of Tuscan Gate, north of Sheppard Avenue (Figure 5).
Site Description: There are approximately 10 naturally occurring trees measuring at least 20 cm
DBH within this property requirement area. The majority of the area is Native Forb Meadow (CUM1A) with a small area of Reed Canary Grass Mineral Meadow Marsh (MAM2-2) that supports a few
wetland plant species such as Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea), Broad-leaved Cattail
(Typha latifolia) and Fox Sedge (Carex vulpinoidea). There is an old fence line that contains some
regenerating White Elm (Ulmus americana) and Manitoba Maple (Acer negundo) and a few, nonnative shrubs, such as English Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), Tartarian Honeysuckle (Lonicera
tatarica) and Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica). Of the 50 species identified in this area, a
high proportion of them are weedy, introduced species. Some of the most common plant species
include Aster species (Symphyotrichum novae-angliae, S. ericoides), Canada Goldenrod (Solidago
cracca), Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense) and Common Milkweed (Asclepias syriaca).
Significant Vegetation Species or Communities: This area is providing some marginal grassland
habitat for birds and small mammals.
species and native shrub species. Tree protection and/or replacement measures will be implemented
as described in the Arborist Report.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Site: EEB #2, north side of St. Regis Crescent, east of Keele Street (Figure 6).
Site Description: Maintained lawn between St. Regis Crescent and customer parking for Mr.
Transmission. One planted Honey Locust tree.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Site: EEB #3, intersection of Keele Street and Toro Road (Figure 7).
Site Description: Maintained lawn between street, sidewalk and customer parking. Ten planted
trees within the property requirements. There are two groupings of ornamental shrubs along north
side of Toro Road, consisting of Winged Euonymous (Euonymous alata), Ninebark (Physocarpus
Page 4
October 29, 2009
memorandum
opulifolia) and Small Leaf Linden (Tilia cordata) with some weedy species such as Canada Thistle
(Cirsium arvense), Motherwort (Leonorus cardiaca) and Quackgrass (Elymus repens).
_________________________________________________________________________________
Site: EEB #4, south side of Pond Road, west of Keele Street (Figure 8).
Site Description: There are a number of planted trees within the property requirements along Pond
Road and Keele Street. The majority of the area is old field meadow dominated by weedy, introduced
species, and two baseball fields. The most common plant species growing in the old field area
include Smooth Brome (Bromus inermis) with some Black Medick (Medicago lupulina) and White
Clover (Trifolium repens). A variety of common, weedy species are also scattered throughout.
Arborist Report.
________________________________________________________________________________
Site: Cross Passage/construction #5 compound area, southeast of Ottawa Road and west of
Vanier Residence, York University campus (Figure 9).
Site Description: Maintained lawn between street and sidewalks. Approximately 32 older, planted
trees and approximately 16 more recently planted trees within the property requirements. There are a
few weedy plant species growing within the group of trees at the south end of the area, such as
Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense), Field Sow-thistle (Sonchus arvensis ssp. arvensis), Yellow Avens
(Geum aleppicum) and Riverbank Grape (Vitis riparia).
Arborist Report.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Site: EEB #5, north and south sides of Ian MacDonald Boulevard, east of Ottawa Road, York
University Campus (Figure 10).
Site Description: South Side - There are approximately six planted trees within an area of
maintained lawn between street, sidewalk, bus stop and parking lot. This area is also adjacent to the
Boyer Woodlot. One grouping of ornamental shrubs is located in the central portion that includes
Page 5
October 29, 2009
memorandum
Fragrant Sumac (Rhus aromatica), Mugo Pine (Pinus mugo), Viburnum species and Spruce species
(Picea sp).
North Side – Mostly maintained lawn and approximately 92 planted Black Pine, Green Ash and Honey
Locust trees. The area can be classified as a Horticultural Mixed Plantation (CUP2-h). There are two
thicket areas (CUT1-b Buckthorn Cultural Thicket) around the planted pine trees. The species
composition is dominated by Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), some Tartarian Honeysuckle
(Lonicera tatarica), Riverbank Grape (Vitis riparia), Wild Red Raspberry (Rubus idaeus ssp. strigosus)
and a variety of weedy species including several highly invasive species such as Common Buckthorn,
Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata) and Dog-strangling Vine (Cynanchum sp.).
Significant Vegetation Species or Communities: The north area is providing some marginal
wildlife habitat value for a variety of birds and mammals including a Woodchuck (Marmota monax)
den. The area south of Ian MacDonald Boulevard is adjacent to Boyer Woodlot, a Fresh-Moist Sugar
Maple – Hardwood Deciduous Forest (FOD6-5). It is an intact, mature forest two hectares in size with
two woodland pools which are known to support breeding Wood Frogs and a variety of bird species.
Mitigation: Placement of any structures, direction of exterior lighting and construction activities all
should be sensitive to the wildlife habitat features in the adjacent woodlot. Structures should be sited
as far from the woodlot as possible. Exterior lighting should be minimal and directed down and away
from the forest edge. Construction fencing should be located as far from the forest edge as possible;
a minimum five metres is recommended. The construction fencing should be solid wood and be two
metres high. Both areas should be replanted with areas of thickets of native shrubs and trees. Tree
protection and/or replacement measures will be implemented as described in Arborist Report.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Site: EEB #7, south side of Interchange Way, west of Jane Street (Figure 11).
Site Description: There are six planted trees within the property requirements along Interchange
Way. The majority of the area is a gravelly, vacant lot supporting a variety of weedy, introduced
species. The ELC community is CUM1-c, Exotic Forb Meadow. The most common plant species
growing in this area include Kentucky Bluegrass (Poa pratensis), Bird’s-foot Trefoil (Lotus
coniculatus), Cow Vetch (Vicia cracca), Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense) and Common Milkweed
Arborist Report.
Page 6
October 29, 2009
memorandum
References
Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and Its Application.
Newmaster, S.G., A. Lehela, P.W.C. Uhlig, S. McMurray and M.J. Oldham. 1998.
Ontario Plant List. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Forest Research Institute,
Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. Forest Research Information Paper No. 123, 550 pp. + appendices.
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2009.
ELC Vegetation Communities – Field Reference List and Ranks, March 2009.
Varga, S., D. Leadbeater, J. Webber, J. Kaiser, B. Crins, J. Kamstra, D. Banville, E. Ashley, G. Miller,
C. Kingsley, C. Jacobsen, K. Mewa, L. Tebby, E. Mosley and E, Zajc. 2000.
Natural Resources, Aurora District. 103 pp.
Page 7
MAS2-1
CUM1-1
CUM1-1
MAS2-1
Legend
Study Area
ELC
Alignment Route
Downsview Station
Connection to
Wilson Yard
Figure 1
Photo Base 2007
0 10 20
-
40 Meters
1:2,659
CUM1-1 Cultural Meadow
MAS2-1 Cattail Mineral Shallow Marsh
Project 209055
October 2009
!
(
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
!
(
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
CUM1-1
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
!
(
(
!
Legend
(
!
Tree Locations
Study Areas
reet
(
!
!
(
(
!
(
!
t
Al l en S
(
!
(
!
!
(
(
(!
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
(!
!
(
(!
!
(
(!
!
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
(!
!
(
(!
!
((
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(!
!
(
(
(!
!
(
(!
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(!
!
(
(
!
(
!
(!
!
((
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(!
!
(!
!
(!
((
(
(!
!
(
!
(
!
(
(!
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
(
(
(
!
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(!
(!
!
(!
!
(
(
(
((
(!
(!
!
( !
!
(!
!
eet
in St r
D uff er
(
!
CUM1-1*
Extraction Shaft # 5
Building Footprint
Alignment Route
CUM1-1
CUM1-1* Old Field Meadow/Restoration Plantation *see text
Figure 2
Photo Base 2007
0
10 20
-
40 Meters
1:2,000
Project 209055
October 2009
Wh
ite
ho
r se
Ro
ad
(
!
! !
(
(
!!
(
(!
(
(
!
( (
!
!
(!
!
(
(
!
(
!
(
((!
!
!!
(
(!
!
(
t
(
!
ce
n
(
!
ar d
Av
e
nu
e
Legend
(
!
Cr
ak
epp
Ko
di
Sh
es
(
!
Tree Locations
Study Area
Emergency Exit
Building #1
Figure 3
Shrubs
Photo Base 2007
Building Footprint
Alignment Route
0
5
10
-
20 Meters
1:1,000
Project 209055
October 2009
ven ue
rd A
a
p
(
p
(!
Sh e
!!
(
(
!!
((
!
(
!
((
!
!(
!
(
!!
(
(
!
(
!
(
!
CUM1-1
Legend
(
!
Tree Locations
Study Area
Parc Downsview
Park Area
Figure 4
MAS2-1 (Drainage Ditch)
Photo Base 2007
Building Footprint
Alignment Route
0
20
40
-
80 Meters
1:3,000
CUM1-1
MAS2-1
Cattail Mineral Shallow Marsh
Project 209055
October 2009
(
!
! !
(
(
(
!
(
!
!
(
(
!
(
!
(
!
MAM2-2
MAM2-2
CUM1-A
Legend
(
!
Tree Locations
Study Area
Cross Passage #3
Figure 5
ELC
Photo Base 2007
Alignment Route
0
10
20
-
40 Meters
1:1,500
CUM1-A
Native Forb meadow
MAM2-2
Reed-Canary Grass Mineral Meadow Marsh
Project 209055
October 2009
(
!
St
re
is C
R eg
scen
t
K ee le
S tr eet
Legend
(
!
Tree Locations
Study Area
Emergency Exit
Building #2
Building Footprint
Alignment Route
Figure 6
Photo Base 2007
0
5 10
-
20 Meters
1:1,000
Project 209055
October 2009
126
231189
! 125
! 231182 (
(
( 116610
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
124
!
(
(
!
(
!
123
(
!
122
! 121
(
(
!
!
(
( 231183
!
120
( 231184 !
!
(
( 231185
!
119
(
( 231186 !
!
( 231187
!
116608
(
( 231188 !
!
116607
( 231189
!
( 116609
( 231190 !
!
(
!
(6
!
1
(5
!
(
!
(
!
3
!
( (
! !
(
4
2
127
! 128
(
(
!
148
(
!
! 130
(
( 131
!
( 132
!
133 !
(
(
!
147
(
!
146
(
!
145
134
! 135
(
( 136
!
( 137
!
( 138
!
( 139
!
(
!
!
(
143
(
!
144
(
!
142
(
!
140
(
!
Legend
(
!
Protected Trees
(
!
To Be Removed
Study Areas
Shrubs
Building Footprint
Alignment Route
Emergency Exit
Building # 3
Figure 7
Photo Base 2007
0 12.5 25
-
50 Meters
1:2,000
Project ######
Month Year
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
CUM1-1
(
!
Legend
(
!
Tree Locations
Study Area
Proposed Location
of Emergency Exit
Building #4
Building Footprint
Photo Base 2007
Alignment Route
CUM1-1
Old Field
Figure 8
0
5 10
20 Meters
1:1,000
Project 209055
October 2009
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
( !
!
(
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
!
(
(
!
(
!
( !
!
(
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
( !
!
(
(!
!
Legend
(
!
Tree Locations
Study Area
Proposed Location
of Cross Passage #5
Saplings and Lawn (x16)
Alignment Route
Figure 9
Photo Base 2007
0
5
10
-
20 Meters
1:1,000
Project 209055
October 2009
CUP2-h
FOD6-5
(
(!
(!
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
Legend
(
!
Tree Locations
Study Area
Building Footprint
Alignment Route
ELC
Shrubs
CUP2-h
Horticultural Mixed Plantation
FOD6-5
Fresh-Moist Sugar Maple-Hardwood Deciduous Forest
Proposed Location
of Emergency Exit
Building #5
Figure 10
Photo Base 2007
0
5
10
-
20 Meters
1:1,000
Project 209055
October 2009
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
CUM1-c
Legend
(
!
Tree Locations
Study Area
Building Footprint
Alignment Route
CUM1-c
Exotic Forb Meadow
Proposed Location
of Emergency Exit
Building #7
Figure 11
Photo Base 2007
0 4.5 9
-
18 Meters
1:872
Project 209055
October 2009
AECOM
300 – 300 Town Centre Boulevard
Markham, ON, Canada L3R 5Z6
www.aecom.com
Memorandum
905 477 8400
905 477 1456
tel
fax
draft for discussion
To
Slavek Strzemieczny, TTC
CC
Judith Witzig, TTC
Subject
Natural Heritage Impact Study - TTC Sheppard West Station, Downsview Park,
near Sheppard Avenue West and Keele Street, Toronto
From
Sean Spisani
Date
February 5, 2010
1.
Page
Project Number
1
60116824-107259
Introduction
The Toronto-York Spadina Subway Extension Project (TYSSE) proposes the extension of the existing
Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) subway system across the municipal boundary between the City
of Toronto and The Regional Municipality of York. The proposal includes development of the
Sheppard West Station (SWS), a new subway station in the northern portion of Downsview Park, as
indicated on the accompanying figure. The SWS will extend the TTC subway system from the
existing Downsview Subway Station to the Vaughan Corporate Centre, City of Vaughan. This draft
Natural Heritage Impact Study (NHIS) addresses the proposed development of the Sheppard West
Station in support of a Site Plan Application to the City of Toronto.
Downsview Park is a former Canadian Forces Base (CFB), now managed by Parc Downsview Park
Inc. (PDP) as an urban park. CFB was in operation from 1947 to 1994. Upon closure of CFB
Downsview, the Federal Government established Parc Downsview Park Inc. PDP began as an
operating subsidiary of the Canada Lands Company Limited. In 2003, PDP was transformed into an
agent Crown Corporation and an agent of the Crown. The park includes a number of traditional
parkland, recreational and cultural amenities.
The portion of Parc Downsview Park subject to the site plan application is roughly bounded by
Sheppard Avenue West on the north, and Carl Hall Road on the south as indicated on the accompany
figure. Lands to the immediate south include a Farmers Market (a flea market development),
recreational buildings and Downsview Airport. A CN Rail/GO Rail line bisects the SWS site in a northsouth direction. Both parcels currently exist as old field meadows. The eastern parcel is operated by
the Department of National Defence and is currently fenced to exclude public use.
2.
2.1
Natural Heritage Policy Context
Toronto Official Plan
The Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy (TRCA 2004) is an analytical tool that identifies
Existing Natural Cover and Potential Natural Cover land units throughout the Toronto Region. The
Strategy employees a systems approach designed to protect natural heritage and increase the
60116824-107259_M_Feb 5 2010_Naturalimpactstudy_TTC.Docx
Page 2
Memorandum
February 5, 2010
amount and quality of forest and wetland habitats. The Natural Heritage System (TRCA 2004)
supports the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan (OP; 2007).
The proposed SWS location occurs within lands designated as Natural Heritage System, according to
the Toronto Official Plan. Applicable natural heritage policies appearing in Chapter Three of the OP,
including:
(10.)
Development is generally not permitted in the natural heritage system. Where the underlying
land use designation provides for development in or near the natural heritage system,
development will:
a)
b)
(12.)
recognize natural heritage values and potential impacts on the natural ecosystem as much
as is reasonable in the context of other objectives for the area; and
minimize adverse impacts and when possible, restore and enhance the natural heritage
system.
All proposed development in or near the natural heritage system will be evaluated to assess
the development’s impacts on the natural heritage system and identify measures to mitigate
negative impact on and/or improve the natural heritage system, taking into account the
consequences for:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
terrestrial natural habitat features and functions including wetlands and wildlife habitat;
known watercourses and hydrological functions and features;
significant physical features and land forms;
riparian zones or buffer areas and functions;
vegetation communities and species of concern; and
significant aquatic features and functions.
To assist this evaluation, an impact study may be required in accordance with guidelines established for
this purpose.
The Downsview Area Secondary Plan identifies the SWS location as Parks and Open Space;
however, the Downsview Area Secondary Plan Review provides a draft Recommended Land Use
Plan that re-designates a major portion of the subject lands as Employment Areas (City of Toronto,
2010). If the draft Secondary Plan is adopted, it is expected to become the authority on the natural
heritage, and the Official Plan map will be amended as a matter of course.
2.2
Conservation Authorities Act
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) regulates development under Ontario
Regulation 97/04 (Regulation for Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to
Shorelines and Watercourses) of the Conservation Authorities Act (TRCA 2006). TRCA identifies
regulated areas including, river or stream valleys, Great Lakes and large inland lake shorelines,
hazardous lands, watercourses and wetlands. A permit is required for all developments within a
regulated area as a condition of draft plan approval before construction can begin.
The study area is not expected to occur within a regulated area; however, a request to TRCA was
submitted in January 2010 to confirm.
Page 3
Memorandum
February 5, 2010
2.3
Provincial Policy
The proposed application is subject to Natural Heritage policies of the Provincial Policy Statement
(OMMAH 2005). Section 2.1 of the PPS requires that no development shall occur in:
a) significant habitat of endangered species and threatened species;
b) significant wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E1; and,
c) significant coastal wetlands.
Development may be permitted in the following features, if it can be demonstrated through an EIS that
the features and functions will not experience negative impacts:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
significant wetlands in the Canadian Shield north of Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E1;
significant woodlands south and east of the Canadian Shield;
significant valleylands south and east of the Canadian Shield;
significant wildlife habitat; and,
significant areas of natural or scientific interest.
The draft NHIS does not identify any natural heritage features indicated in Section 2.1 of the PPS that
occurs on or adjacent to the subject property.
3.
Methodology
Natural Heritage data for the study area was collected separately for the lands to the west and east of
the CN rail line, detailed in the table below.
Table 1. Summary of Field Investigations
West Parcel
East Parcel
(AECOM, 2009a)
(Beacon Environmental, 2009a-b)
Vegetation (Flora/ELC)
June, 2009
Summer, 2009
Breeding Birds
May 26 and June 16, 2009
June 12, June 23 and June 30, 2009
Breeding Amphibians
April and June, 2009
None
Incidental observation of all wildlife was also documented during AECOM investigations of the west
parcel.
Additional information reviewed during the preparation of this report includes:
•
•
Tree Preservation and Removal Plan – TTC Sheppard West Station, Downsview Park
(AECOM, 2009b); and
Natural Heritage Information Centre database (OMNR, 2010).
The following information was requested in January 2010; however receipt of this information was
pending at the time of report production:
•
•
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority flora and fauna species data and generic
regulation mapping; and
Downsview Park Terrestrial Assessments (Dougan and Associates, 2006).
Page 4
Memorandum
February 5, 2010
4.
Existing Conditions
Information obtained in all sources identified in the background review is consolidated in the following
sections.
4.1
Designated Natural Areas
4.1.1
Provincially Significant Wetlands
Wetlands are evaluated by the OMNR according to the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (1994), in
which the importance of a wetland is determined based on biological, social, hydrological and special
features. Evaluated wetlands are categorized as either provincially or locally significant. These
designations protect wetlands from development and alterations according to the Provincial Policy
Statement (PPS 2005). There is no Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSW) found within the subject
lands.
4.1.2
Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest
An Area of Natural and Scientific (ANSI) are defined by the OMNR as an area that contains natural
features that are provincially or regionally significant (NHIC). Earth Science ANSIs contain important
geological features, and Life Science ANSIs contain representative ecological features. ANSIs are
considered to be the best representation of a natural area within each site district and can be
considered as an ecological benchmark. Provincially designated ANSIs are protected from
development under the PPS. There are no provincially or regionally designated Areas of Natural and
Scientific Interest (ANSI) within the subject lands.
4.1.3
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
An area that has ecological significance may be identified as an Environmentally Significant Area
(ESA) and designated for protection by a municipality or Conservation Authority. Often times, ESAs
overlap with designated ANSIs. There are no designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas within the
subject lands.
4.2
Fisheries Resources
There are no watercourses or fisheries habitat present within the SWS study area (AECOM, 2009a).
4.3
Four vegetation communities were document according to Ecological Land Classification (ELC)
manual for Southern Ontario (Lee et al. 1998), including 2008 updates (often referred to as the draft
second approximation of ELC, as indicated on the accompanying figure). Communities are
summarized as follows:
•
Dry-Fresh Mixed Meadow Ecosite (MEMM3). Old field habitats account for the majority
of the study area. Dominant species include: Kentucky Bluegrass (Poa pratensis),
Smooth Brome (Bromus inermis), Sweet White Clover (Melilotus alba), Queen Anne’s
Lace (Daucus carota), Bird’s foot-trefoil (Lotus coniculatus), Canada thistle (Cirsium
arvensis), and Common Milkweed (Asclepias syriaca). All dominant species are nonnative except Common Milkweed.
Page 5
Memorandum
February 5, 2010
•
•
•
Cattail Graminoid Mineral Meadow Marsh Type (MAMM1-2). The site includes a small
wet feature in the southeast limit of the east parcel and series of ditches in the western
parcel. These low features support near-homogeneous stands of the non-native Narrowleaved Cattail (Typha angustifolia). All features appear to be created to facilitate
drainage, and/or result from National Defence use on the east parcel.
Dry-Fresh Deciduous Shrub Thicket Ecosite (THDM2). A thicket community follows
the west side of the CN Rail through the study area. Dominant species include European
Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), Tartarian Honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica), Staghorn
Sumac (Rhus typhina), and Chokecherry (Prunus virginiana).
Dry-Fresh Deciduous Woodland Ecosite (WODM4). A narrow linear cluster of
regenerating woody species occurs in the west parcel. Dominant species include
Trembling Aspen (Populus tremuloides), Balsam Poplar (Populus balsamifera), European
Buckthorn, and Chokecherry.
The Ontario Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) compiles, maintains and distributes
information on natural species, plant communities and spaces of conservation concern in Ontario.
According to the NHIC none of the communities identified at the Sheppard West location are significant
or rare within the province of Ontario.
4.4
Flora
The background documents indentified a combined 63 species of vascular plants for the study area
(Appendix A). Thirty-eight species are considered non-native to Ontario, representing 60% of all
species documented. This high proportion of non-native species is a likely result of the isolated
nature of the site within an urban context, and a history vegetation disturbance related to landuse.
Beacon Environmental (2009a) report the possible occurrence of Field Thistle (Cirsium discolor) in
the parcel east of the GO Rail line. Field Thistle is regionally rare according to Varga et al. (2000and
typically a prairie species not commonly found within urban areas. A photographic record of this plant
was not undertaken and it is therefore recommended that confirmation of the identification be
undertaken. All other species documented are considered common and widespread throughout
southern Ontario.
The tree inventory report (AECOM, 2009b) identified 71 trees and tree clusters, ranging in diameter
from 2.5 cm to 70 cm.
4.5
Breeding Birds
AECOM (2009a) identified 13 bird species were detected during May and June breeding bird surveys.
All of species were believed to be breeding in the subject lands. Beacon Environmental (2009b)
identified 7 species east of the rail line. All of the species identified by Beacon were common to the
west study area with the exception of Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura). Two species, the
European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) and House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) are non-native.
In general the observed species are disturbance tolerant bird species found in urban areas and small
woodlots and common to southern Ontario. European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris), Canada Goose
(Branta Canadensis) and Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) were the most frequently
detected bird species.
Page 6
Memorandum
February 5, 2010
Two species, Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) and Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella
magna), are considered to be grassland sensitive species (OMNR 2000), however, both are relatively
common throughout southern Ontario.
The Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) was consulted for occurrences of nationally
(COSEWIC) and/or provincially (COSSARO) designated Species at Risk and Provincially Rare
Species (S1-S3) within the subject lands. A search of the database provided no records of any
significant species previously found within the study site.
Table 2. Consolidated Breeding Bird Data
Common Name
Canada Goose
Killdeer
Mourning Dove
Northern Flicker
Willow Flycatcher
Eastern Kingbird
Northern Mockingbird
European Starling
Savannah Sparrow
Song Sparrow
Red-winged Blackbird
Eastern Meadowlark
American Goldfinch
Notes:
4.6
Scientific Name
Branta canadensis
Charadrius vociferus
Zenaida macroura
Colaptes auratus
Empidonax traillii
Tyrannus tyrannus
Mimus polyglottus
Sturnus vulgaris
Passerculus sandwichensis
Melospiza melodia
Agelaius phoeniceus
Sturnella magna
Cardeulis tristis
A = Area
Sensitive
Species
Numbers of Presumed Pairs at
Locations
West Parcel
(AECOM, 2009a)
14 f
1
A
A
1
1
1
1
11 f
2
2
10
2
1
East Parcel
(Beacon, 2009b)
3
1
1
3
2
5
2
0
f = some or all individuals feeding and not breeding on site, starling numbers include young of the year
Location 1 - AECOM study area west of railway
Location 2 - Beacon Environmental study area and data (field work June 23,2009), east of railway
Area Sensitive Source: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide
151 p plus appendices.
Small and Medium Mammals
Mammal surveys were completed during AECOM breeding bird and amphibian surveys and involved
incidental observations of presence absence within the study area. No mammals were observed
during AECOM field surveys.
4.7
Amphibians
Amphibian surveys were conducted at two points during the field season; in April 2009 and June
2009. No frog calls were heard at either of the call surveys.
4.8
Habitat Connectivity
Existing vegetation units in southern Ontario have been highly fragmented by agricultural land,
residential subdivisions and roads. Fragmentation results in the reduction of total habitat available,
and the isolation of remaining patches (Noss 1987). Retaining connections between the remaining
Page 7
Memorandum
February 5, 2010
vegetation units can protect the functionality of these communities and in theory minimize some of the
negative impacts associated with habitat fragmentation. Landscape connectivity is defined as the
“degree to which the landscape facilitates or impedes movement across habitat patches” (Taylor et al.
2006), and includes concepts such as wildlife corridors. Due to intense habitat loss and increasing
fragmentation of existing habitat patches in southern Ontario, habitat connectivity has become an
important component of natural heritage planning.
Linkages or corridors can vary in size and configuration, from minor connectors such as hedgerows to
massive kilometre wide features such as the Oak Ridges Moraine. Depending on the ultimate goal,
corridors can be used to connect terrestrial features, aquatic features or both. Properties of a corridor
such as configuration, width, vegetation structure and moisture, dictate what wildlife species are most
likely to utilize the feature, and provide insight into functional connectivity.
The value of habitat connectivity of the study site is limited as there are no associated habitat features
connected to the site. The study site is surrounded by developed land parcels primarily consisting of
commercial and service oriented businesses.
5.
Summary of Key Natural Heritage Attributes and Functions
The background review did not identify any Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSW), Areas of Natural
or Scientific Interest (ANSI) or Environmentally Significant Areas (ESA) designated lands within or
immediately adjacent the subject property; or any natural heritage features indicated in Section 2.1 of
the PPS that occurs on or adjacent to the subject property.
The following table summarizes the attributes and functions occurring within the study area.
Table 3. Natural Heritage Attributes and Functions
Category
Vegetation
Communities
Wetlands
Flora
Trees
Birds
Wildlife
Attribute
Significance / Sensitivity
• Predominately old field meadows, with minor components of
woody regeneration.
• Naturalized areas provide ecosystem services; i.e., mitigation of
urban heat sinks, air quality improvements, stormwater runoff,
aesthetic appeal, etc.
• All wetland units appear created to facilitate drainage, and/or
result from National Defence use.
• All species are common and widespread throughout southern
Ontario; expect an unconfirmed account of Field Thistle
(regionally rare).
• High proportion of non-native species.
• 71 trees and tree clusters identified ranging from 2.5 cm to 70
cm in diameter.
• Trees provide ecosystem services.
• All species are common breeders in southern Ontario, including
two area sensitive species.
• Only common and widespread
communities represented.
• None identified
• Wetlands are narrow ditches
typical of urban environments.
• No rare or uncommon species
identified;
however,
identification of Field Thistle
should be confirmed or denied.
• Only common and widespread
native species represented.
• Grassland
area
sensitive
species (Savannah Sparrow
and Eastern Meadowlark).
• None.
Page 8
Memorandum
February 5, 2010
6.
Impact Assessment and Mitigation Potential
The proposed development footprint was overlaid on vegetation community mapping and assessed in
terms of losses by community type. The following table provides the results of the analysis.
Table 4. Losses to Vegetation Communities by Area
Community
Dry-Fresh Mixed Meadow Ecosite (MEMM3)
Area (ha)
6.37
Cattail Graminoid Mineral Meadow Marsh Type (MAMM1-2)
0.14
Dry-Fresh Deciduous Shrub Thicket Ecosite (THDM2)
0.00
Dry-Fresh Deciduous Woodland Ecosite (WODM4)
0.25
TOTAL
6.77
The Tree Preservation and Removal Plan identified the required removal of 59 tree removals. All
removals are less than 30 cm diameter.
Losses to vegetation communities and trees could impact on the natural heritage attributes and
functions identified for the subject property (table 3, above) as follows:
1.
2.
3.
Reduction in ecosystem services provided by naturalized areas and trees;
Reduction in available habitat for grassland area sensitive species; and
Potential loss in habitat for Field Thistle (identification to be confirmed).
It is difficult to quantify potential implications for grassland breading birds. Although area-sensitive,
Savannah Sparrow and Eastern Meadowlark are probably the most abundant of grassland areasensitive species in Ontario, and the Eastern Meadowlark will use small patches (<10ha; OMNR,
2000). Both are common breeders throughout southern Ontario, and the Savannah Sparrow is not
solely a grassland species as it is found in many types of open habitat including agricultural field
edges. The proposal presents a quantifiable loss to potential breeding habitat (~6.77 ha); however,
extensive amounts of similar habitat currently exist on adjacent lands. Furthermore, grassland
species use meadows which occur naturally as succession habitat, created and/or maintained by
disturbance. These species are displaced to new sites as succession proceeds, and breeding
species with different habitat requirements move into to take their place. The proposal will likely
encourage urban tolerant breeding birds; however, this transition is consistent with the
Recommended Landuse Plan for the Downsview Area Secondary Plan (City of Toronto, 2010).
Design of the SWS station should mitigate potential losses by incorporating the following
recommendations:
•
•
Post-construction restoration should occur where possible within the context of the draft
Recommended Landuse Plan for the Downsview Area Secondary Plan (City of Toronto, 2010).
Compensation of tree removals via plantings at a minimum ratio of one tree per removal.
Where appropriate, all plantings should be tolerant of the urban environment, and native
to site district 7E4. Compensation plantings should occur on-site or within the
Downsview Area Secondary Plan area. Plantings should support Parks and Open Space
Page 9
Memorandum
February 5, 2010
•
•
•
7.
designations that are expected to be retained through the Downsview Area Secondary
Plan review.
Determine accuracy of Field Thistle identification. If identification is confirmed a
transplantation plan should be developed.
Implement tree barrier fencing as described by the Draft Tree Preservation and Removal
Plan (AECOM, 2009b).
All vegetation clearing is subject to the federal Migratory Birds Convention Act (1994).
This act makes it illegal to destroy almost all bird species and their nests. As the site
contains breeding birds, vegetation clearing should not take place between April 15 and
July 31. It is possible to remove vegetation at the beginning and end of this timing
window (when fewer birds are breeding) in smaller areas if the vegetation is thoroughly
checked for bird nests first by an appropriately qualified biologist and no nests are found.
Conclusions
When impacts are evaluated against the Natural Heritage policies of the Toronto OP (relevant
sections are provided in 2.1, it is clear that a compensation plan is required to improve the existing
natural heritage system. The evaluation has quantified the loss of naturalized areas at 6.77 ha. This
loss can be in part mitigated through the recommendations noted above, including post-restoration
planting. The recommendations are consistent with the natural environment components of the
Environmental Compliance During Design (City of Toronto Stations) appearing in the TYSSE Subway
Station Design Basis Memorandum (TTC, 2008). The relevant environmental compliance measures
are identified as T2.0, T2.1, T3.0 and T3.1 as provided in Appendix B.
Chapter 3, Section 10 of the OP requires development to “recognize natural heritage values and
potential impacts on the natural ecosystem as much as is reasonable in the context of other
objectives for the area”. The draft Downsview Area Secondary Plan Review provides a draft
Recommended Land Use Plan that re-designates a major portion of the subject lands as Employment
Areas (City of Toronto, 2010). Restoration efforts should focus on areas within portion of Parks and
Open Space designations that are expected to be retained through the Secondary Plan review
process, and should approximate the area of proposed hard landscaping.
Page 10
Memorandum
February 5, 2010
8.
References
AECOM, 2009a:
Draft Existing Conditions Report – Sheppard West Subway Station, Toronto-York Spadina
Subway Extension. Toronto Transit Commission. September, 2009.
AECOM, 2009b:
Draft Tree Preservation and Removal Plan – TTC Sheppard West Station. Toronto Transit
Commission. November, 2009.
Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, 2008:
Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature. Editors: Michael D. Cadman, Donald A. Sutherland,
Gregor G. Beck, Denis Lepage, and Andrew R. Couturier. 728 pages.
Beacon Environmental, 2009a:
TYSSE - Vegetation Communities Report. October, 29, 2009.
Beacon Environmental, 2009b:
Breeding Bird Surveys for TYSSE. August 12, 2009.
City of Toronto, 2007:
Official Plan. City Planning Division. Office Consolidation, August 2007.
City of Toronto, 2010:
Downsview Area Secondary Plan Review. http://www.toronto.ca/planning/downsview.htm;
Recommended Land Use Plan:
http://www.toronto.ca/planning/pdf/Downsview_MeetingPanels_Sept14_1.pdf.
Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and its Application.
Noss, R.F., 1987:
From plant communities to landscapes in conservation inventories: a look at the Nature
Conservancy (USA). Biol. Conserv. 41:11-37.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2000:
Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. 151 pages plus appendices
Provincial Policy Statement, 2005:
Province of Ontario. Queen’s Printers. 38 pages.
Taylor, P.D., L. Fahrig and K.A. With, 2006:
Landscape connectivity: a return to the basics. In: K.R. Crooks and M. Sanjayan (eds.)
Connectivity Conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pp. 29-43
Page 11
Memorandum
February 5, 2010
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2004:
Draft Toronto and Region Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy. April 15, 2004.
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2006:
ONTARIO REGULATION 97/04 Regulation for Development, Interference with Wetlands and
Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses. Map 105. Scale 1:10000. April 2006.
Toronto Transit Commision, 2008:
TYSSE Subway Station Design Basis Memorandum. Rev. 0. November 7, 2008.
Varga, S., 2000:
Natural Resources, Aurora District.
Figure
Appendix Title Pages.Docx
Legend
Limit of Study
o
eh
Study Area
d
t
field S
Bakers
R
rse
r
Rd
egis
St R
4846000
4846000
it
Wh
sN
Cr e
D
od
c
ami
Cer
egis
St R
623000
o
sw
es
Ch
622000
Property Required
Area Removed
s
Cr e
MAMM1-2
MAMM1-2
MEMM3
MAMM1-2
e
Gat
can
Tus
MAMM1-2
MEMM3
MEMM3
WODM-4
MEMM3
MAMM1-2
THDM-2
C
lH
ar
al
lR
d
Basemapping from Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Orthophotography: 2007
MAMM1-2
m
0
15 30
60
90
120
1:3,500
This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM’s client
and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties,
except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law
or for use by governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts
no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party
that modifies this drawing without AECOM’s express written consent.
Toronto-York Spadina
Subway Extension
Losses to Veg. Comm. By Area
ELC Code
Area (ha)
MAMM1-2
0.14
MEMM3
6.37
y Dr
r
u
r
D
John
THDM2
0.00
WODM-4
0.25
Grand Total
6.77
Sheppard Ave W
Map Document: (N:\projects\0-aecom\107257\2009\Final\GISSpatial\MXDs\WorkingMXDs\107257ELCDownsview.mxd)
02/03/2010 -- 8:19:44 AM
UTM Zone 17N, NAD 83
622000
TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION
TYSSE DEPARTMENT
ELC CODE Community Description
MAMM1-2 Cattail Graminoid Mineral Meadow Marsh Type
Dry - Fresh Mixed Meadow Ecosite
MEMM3
Dry - Fresh Deciduous Shrub Thicket Ecosite
THDM2
Dry - Fresh Deciduous Woodland Ecosite
WODM4
623000
TORONTO-YORK SPADINA SUBWAY EXTENSION
SHEPPARD WEST STATION
February 2010
Project 107257
Figure 2
Appendix A
Combined Plant List
Appendix A
Combined Plant List
Location
Family / Species
PTERIDOPHYTA
Common Name
EQUISETACEAE
HORSETAIL FAMILY
Equisetum arvense L.
Field Horsetail
GYMNOSPERMAE
Status
AECOM 2009a
Beacon 2009a AECOM 2009b
FERNS AND ALLIES
X
CONIFERS
PINACEAE
PINE FAMILY
Picea pungens
Colorado Spruce
+
X
Pinus longaeva Bailey
Bristle Cone Pine
+
X
Pinus resinosa Ait.
Red Pine
Pinus sylvestris L.
Scots Pine
+
X
LILIOPSIDA
X
MONOCOTS
POACEAE
GRASS FAMILY
Agropyron repens (L.)
Quack Grass
+
X
Bromus inermis Leyss.
Smooth Brome Grass
+
X
Dactylis glomerata L.
Orchard Grass
+
Phalaris arundinacea L.
Reed Canary Grass
Phleum pratense L.
Timothy
+
X
Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud.
Common Reed
+
X
Poa pratensis L.
Kentucky Blue Grass
+
TYPHACEAE
CATTAIL FAMILY
Typha angustifolia L.
Narrow-leaved Cattail
Typha latifolia L.
Common Cattail
MAGNOLIOPSIDA
X
X
X
X
X
DICOTS
ACERACEAE
MAPLE FAMILY
Acer negundo L.
Manitoba Maple
Acer platanoides L.
Norway Maple
ANACARDIACEAE
CASHEW FAMILY
Rhus typhina L.
Staghorn Sumac
APIACEAE
CARROT FAMILY
Daucus carota L.
Wild Carrot, Queen Anne's Lace
+
X
Pastinaca sativa L.
Wild Parsnip
+
X
+
X
ASCLEPIADACEAE
MILKWEED FAMILY
Asclepias syriaca L.
Common Milkweed
Vincetoxicum rossicum (Kleopov) Borh.
Dog-strangling Vine
X
+
X
X
X
ASTERACEAE
ASTER FAMILY
Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.
Common Ragweed
Arctium minus (Hill) Bernh.
Common Burdock
Aster novae-angliae L.
New England Aster
Chrysanthemum leucanthemum L.
Ox-eye Daisy
+
X
Cichorium intybus L.
Chickory
+
X
Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.
Canada Thistle
+
X
Cirsium discolor (Muhl. ex Willd.) Spreng.
Field Thistle
Solidago canadensis L.
Canada Goldenrod
Taraxacum officinale Weber
Dandelion
+
X
Tragopogon dubius Scop.
Goat's-beard
+
X
BRASSICACEAE
MUSTARD FAMILY
+
X
+
X
Alliaria petiolata (Bieb.)Cavara & Grande
Garlic Mustard
HONEYSUCKLE FAMILY
Lonicera tatarica L.
Tartarian Honeysuckle
Sambucus canadensis L.
Common Elder
CELASTRACEAE
STAFF-TREE FAMILY
Euonymus europaeus L.
Spindle-tree
CHENOPODIACEAE
SPINACH FAMILY
Chenopodium album L.
Lamb's-quarters
CONVOLVULACEAE
MORNING GLORY FAMILY
Convolvulus arvensis L.
Field Bindweed
CORNACEAE
DOGWOOD FAMILY
Cornus stolonifera Michx.
Red-osier Dogwood
DIPSACACEAE
TEASEL FAMILY
Dipsacus fullonum L.
Teasel
X
X
X
ID?
X
X
+
X
+
X
+
X
X
+
1 of 2
X
X
+
RR
CAPRIFOLIACEAE
(60116824-107259_M_Feb 5 2010_App A)
X
X
Appendix A
Combined Plant List
Location
Family / Species
+
RR
ID?
Common Name
Status
AECOM 2009a
+
X
Beacon 2009a AECOM 2009b
Elaeagnus angustifolia L.
Russian Olive
FAGACECAE
BEECH FAMILY
Quercus macrocarpa Michx.
Bur Oak
FABACEAE
PEA FAMILY
Lotus corniculatus L.
Bird-foot Trefoil
+
X
Medicago lupulina L.
Black Medic
+
X
Melilotus alba Medic.
White Sweet-clover
+
X
Melilotus officinalis (L.) Pall.
Yellow Sweet-clover
+
X
Trifolium pratense L.
Red Clover
+
X
Vicia cracca L.
Bird Vetch
+
X
HYPERICACEAE
ST. JOHN'S-WORT FAMILY
Hypericum perforatum L.
Common St. John's-wort
+
X
OLEACEAE
OLIVE FAMILY
Fraxinus americana L.
White Ash
PLANTAGINACEAE
PLANTAIN FAMILY
Plantago major L.
Broad-leaved Plantain
+
X
POLYGONACEAE
Rumex crispus L.
BUCKWHEAT FAMILY
Curly Dock
+
X
RANUNCULACEAE
BUTTERCUP FAMILY
Ranunculus acris L.
Tall Buttercup
+
X
RHAMNACEAE
BUCKTHORN FAMILY
Rhamnus cathartica L.
Common Buckthorn
+
X
ROSACEAE
ROSE FAMILY
Potentilla norvegica L.
Rough Cinquefoil
X
Prunus virginiana L.
Choke Cherry
X
SALICACEAE
WILLOW FAMILY
Populus balsamifera L.
Balsam Poplar
Populus deltoides Marsh
Cottonwood
X
X
Populus tremuloides Michx.
Trembling Aspen
X
X
Salix eriocephala Michx.
Heart-leaved Willow
X
ULMACEAE
ELM FAMILY
Ulmus pumila L.
Siberian Elm
VIOLACEAE
VIOLET FAMILY
Viola sororia Willd.
Common Blue Violet
VITACEAE
GRAPE FAMILY
Parthenocissus inserta (A. Kerner) Fritsch
Virginia Creeper
X
Vitis riparia Michx.
Riverbank Grape
X
X
X
X
X
Regionally Rare (Varga et al. 2000)
Identification questionable
References:
AECOM, 2009a: Draft Existing Conditions Report - Sheppard West Subway Station.
AECOM, 2009b: Tree Preservation and Removal Plan – TTC Sheppard West Station.
Beacon Environmental, 2009a: TYSSE - Vegetation Communities Report.
2 of 2
X
X
X
+
Non-native species
(60116824-107259_M_Feb 5 2010_App A)
X
X
X
Appendix B
Environmental Compliance
During Design
(City of Toronto Stations)

Legend

Transcription

Similar documents

Movato Kitchen Issue 2016

Guide Map - Ontario Science Centre

Porpidex 2011 User Group Program

family matters summer 2016 - Heritage Family Credit Union

Playdium is pleased to present our new Education Program

Conseil scolaire Viamonde?

Smile Resorts

word from the director of business development

magazine-awards.com - National Magazine Awards

Economic and Community Profile - Strathroy