G UIDING S OLUTIONS IN THE N ATURAL E NVIRONMENT

Natural Heritage Impact Study & Ravine Stewardship Plan 1091-1096 Leslie Street (On The Park) City of Toronto Prepared For: IOTP Developments Inc. Prepared By: Beacon Environmental Ltd.

337 W

STREET, GUEL Tel: (519) 826 0419

O O L W I C H

P H

, ONTARIO, CANAD Fax: (519) 826 9306

A

Date:

Project:

March 2015

214454

N1H 3W4

Natural Heritage Impact Study & Ravine Stewardship Plan 1091-1096 Leslie Street

Table of Contents 1. 2.

Introduction ...............................................................................................1 Methods ....................................................................................................3 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

Background Review...................................................................................................... 3 Field Investigations ....................................................................................................... 4 Site Visit ....................................................................................................................... 4 Environmental Policy Review........................................................................................ 4 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3 2.4.4 2.4.6

3.

Existing Conditions...................................................................................7 3.2 3.3 3.4

Vegetation Communities............................................................................................... 8 Wildlife........................................................................................................................ 10 Summary of Significant Natural Heritage Features and Areas .................................... 10 3.4.1 3.4.2

4. 5. 6.

Design ........................................................................................................................ 14 Construction Recommendations ................................................................................. 14 Post-Development Recommendations........................................................................ 15

Stewardship Opportunities ....................................................................15 7.1 7.2 7.3

8. 9. 10. 11.

Significant Natural Area and Features ........................................................................... 10 Species at Risk and Species of Conservation Concern ................................................ 10

Constraints Analysis...............................................................................11 Description of the Proposed Development ...........................................11 Impact Assessment & Mitigation ...........................................................13 6.1 6.2 6.3

7.

Provincial Endangered Species Act (2007) ..................................................................... 4 Provincial Policy Statement (2014) .................................................................................. 4 City of Toronto Official Plan (Office Consolidation 2010)................................................. 5 City of Toronto Ravine and Natural Feature Protection By-law (2002)............................ 5 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Policies and Regulations ........................... 6

Site Cleanup ............................................................................................................... 16 Invasive Species Control ............................................................................................ 16 Ravine Enhancement Plantings .................................................................................. 18

Implementation and Cost Schedule .......................................................18 Policy Conformity ...................................................................................19 Summary..................................................................................................21 References...............................................................................................22

Natural Heritage Impact Study & Ravine Stewardship Plan 1091-1096 Leslie Street

Figures Figure 1. Site Location ................................................................................................................... ….2 Figure 2. Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................. 9 Figure 3. Proposed Development ..................................................................................................... 12 Figure 4. Ravine Stewardship Plan ................................................................................................... 17 Tables Table 1. Site Plan Components ........................................................................................................ 19 Table 2. Ravine Stewardship Plan Implementation Schedule and Cost Estimtate .......................... 198 Table 3. Conformity to Applicable Environmental Policies and Legislation ...................................... 199 Appendices Appendix A.

Terms of Reference

Appendix B.

Photo Log

Appendix C.

Natural Heritage Information Centre and Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario Background Data Summary

Appendix D.

Recommended Native Species Planting List for RSP

Natural Heritage Impact Study & Ravine Stewardship Plan 1091-1096 Leslie Street

1.

Introduction

Beacon Environmental Ltd. (Beacon) was retained by IOTP Developments Inc. to prepare a Natural Heritage Impact Study (NHIS) and Ravine Stewardship Plan (RSP) for a proposed re-development of properties at 1091 – 1096 Leslie Street, located at the northeast corner of Leslie Street and Eglinton Avenue East in the City of Toronto. The location of the site is illustrated on Figure 1. The total area of the site is approximately 2.38 ha. The site is presently occupied by a vacant hotel, which at the time of the site visit was undergoing demolition, paved roadway, paved parking lot, manicured lawn with some planted trees and a small part of a cultural thicket. To the north of the site there are three existing condominium buildings, a parking structure and landscaped green space. To the south of the site are two existing commercial buildings occupied by two car dealerships. The valleylands of the West Don River are situated to the southwest of the site. The valleylands are identified in the City of Toronto Official Plan as forming part of the City’s Natural Heritage System (NHS). The valleylands are also designated by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) as a Candidate Regionally Significant Life Science Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI). The site does not overlap with any portions of the NHS or the Candidate ANSI. There is a small area of cultural thicket on a slope in the southwest corner of the site that overlaps with Ravine and Natural Feature Protection Area (RNFPA), and is subject to the City of Toronto’s Ravine and Natural Feature Protection (RNFP) By-law law (Chapter 658-1 of the City’s Municipal Code). The purpose of the RNFP By-law is to regulate activities within the RNFPA and protect natural features (primarily trees and landforms) and functions (ecological and hydrologic) associated with the City’s ravine systems. Additionally, lands within 10 m of a ravine features are regulated by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). The eastern boundary of the site is flanked by a railway corridor, the embankments of which are identified as RNFPA and also regulated by the TRCA; however the regulated area in this location does not extend onto the site. IOTP Developments Inc. is proposing to redevelop the site for the purposes of accommodating four condominium apartment buildings and twenty three story townhouse units. It is the City of Toronto’s policy to require that an NHIS be prepared in support of proposed developments or site alterations within or adjacent to the NHS. The primary objective of the NHIS is to demonstrate that the proposed development will not adversely impact the natural features and functions associated with the NHS. The secondary objective of the NHIS is to demonstrate compliance with applicable environmental legislation, regulations and policies. The NHIS achieves these objectives by a) characterizing the site’s natural heritage features and functions, b) evaluating the significance and sensitivities of the features and functions present, c) establishing ecologically appropriate development limits to avoid potential impacts and with consideration for the applicable legislation and policies, and d) where applicable, identifying additional mitigation measures that can serve to protect the NHS, restore and enhance its functions. The natural environment policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan allow for a NHIS to be scoped based on the nature and extent of the project. Given that the site is separated from the NHS by Leslie Street, and that the majority of the proposed re-development will be limited to the tableland portion of

Page 1

Rd Mills Don

Lesli e

St

R CP

Don R iver

( We

st Br anch )

Eg

Ave

E

Mills

St

Av e

n Egli

Av ton

First Base Solutions Web Mapping Service 2013 UTM Zone 17 N, NAD 83

n ch eE

Subject Property

Figure 1

IOTP Development Inc.

Rd

ie sl Le

Bayview

River W Bra Don

Site Location

y lle y Pk w Don Va

eE e Av re nc

Don

Law

on lin t

0

500 1,000

2,000 Metres

1:60,000 Project 214454 March 2015

Natural Heritage Impact Study & Ravine Stewardship Plan 1091-1096 Leslie Street

the site that already support existing development the risk of the proposed re-development impacting the NHS is considered low. A RSP is generally prepared in cases where development may encroach or impact upon the RNFPA. The RSP identifies a strategy for protecting and enhancing the natural heritage features and ecological functions associated with the RNFPA. The RSP included in this report has been prepared in accordance with the City of Toronto’s Ravine Stewardship Plan Guidelines (2006). The scope of this NHIS was discussed with the TRCA (pers. corr. M. Rapus – January 8, 2015). Terms of Reference that reflect this discussion were prepared by Beacon Environmental on January 15, 2015 and submitted to the City and TRCA. A copy of the Terms of Reference is included in Appendix A. The NHIS and RSP have been scoped to include the following: 1. Biophysical characterization of the natural features on and immediately adjacent to the subject property (i.e. slopes, vegetation, drainage, etc.) based on available background information and information collected from the site assessment, which will be completed in the winter of 2015; 2. Screening of the subject property for potentially suitable habitat for endangered and threatened species through consultation with MNRF and information collected from the winter site assessment; 3. Identification of opportunities for habitat restoration and enhancement of existing features and rehabilitation of affected features through the RSP limited to the ravine area and including consideration of recommended buffer and setback areas; 4. Impact assessment to identify the net environmental impacts associated with the proposed development; and 5. Policy conformity analysis to demonstrate that the proposed development complies with applicable environmental legislation, policies, and regulations. It is our understanding that City and TRCA staff completed a site visit with representatives from IOTP Developments Inc. on September 16th 2014 and that the purpose of the visit was to review site conditions and the location of the proposed entrance road off of Leslie Street. No feature staking (i.e. slopes, vegetation) was completed as it was felt that the topographic survey plan was accurate.

2. 2.1

Methods Background Review

As part of the background review, Beacon Environmental consulted the following data sources to obtain information related to natural heritage resources on and adjacent to the site: • • •

The City of Toronto Official Plan (2010 Consolidation) TRCA Living City Policies (LCP) (2014) Arborist Report for On the Park (Scott Torrance Landscape Architect Inc., 2014) On The Park Residential Redevelopment Site Servicing and Stage 1 Stormwater Management Report (R.V. Anderson Associates Ltd., 2015) Page 3

Natural Heritage Impact Study & Ravine Stewardship Plan 1091-1096 Leslie Street

• • • • •

Aerial photography (2013) Soil and physiography mapping (Chapman and Putnam, 2007) Natural Heritage Information Center (NHIC) databases Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario (ABBO) databases Geotechnical Investigation 1100 Eglinton Avenue East (Toronto Inspection Ltd., 2014)

A request for additional natural heritage information was also made to the MNRF and TRCA.

2.2

Field Investigations

A site visit was completed by Beacon on January 15, 2015. Vegetation communities on the site were mapped and described according to the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) System for southern Ontario (Lee et al. 1998), which involved recording dominant plant species and general biophysical characteristics of each community. The site was also surveyed for any potentially suitable habitat for any Species at Risk (SAR) that are known to occur in the vicinity of the site (i.e. Butternut and Barn Swallow).

2.3

Site Visit

The physical top of valley slope and edge of natural features identified on the topographic survey plan and was previously verified to be accurate by the TRCA during a site walk completed on September 16, 2014. Beacon was not present during this site walk however we concur with the limits to the natural features that were identified during this site walk.

2.4

Environmental Policy Review

The following sections provide a summary of the various provincial and local environmental policies and legislation that may be relevant to the site.

2.4.1 Provincial Endangered Species Act (2007) SAR in Ontario are those listed as provincially endangered, threatened or special concern at the provincial level; however the act only regulates the habitat of those that are endangered or threatened. Correspondence from the MNRF (E. Nardone, Aurora District, 2014), indicated that they have records of one SAR in the vicinity of the site: •

Butternut (Juglans cinerea) – Endangered;

The Ontario Endangered Species Act (2007) provides legal protection to endangered and threatened species.

2.4.2 Provincial Policy Statement (2014) Under the Planning Act (1990), municipalities are required to conduct land use planning in a manner that is consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) (MMAH, 2014). The PPS contains policies related to the protection of natural heritage features and functions, as well as natural hazards. Page 4

Natural Heritage Impact Study & Ravine Stewardship Plan 1091-1096 Leslie Street

Under Section 2.1 of the PPS, no development or site alteration is permitted within: a) significant wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E; and b) significant coastal wetlands. For the remaining features, listed below: a) b) c) d) e) f)

Significant wetlands north of the Canadian Shield north of Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E; Significant woodlands in Ecoregions 6E and 7E; Significant valleylands in Ecoregions 6E and 7; Significant wildlife habitat Significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI’s) ; and Significant coastal wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E not covered above.

Development and site alteration is not permitted within the features listed above unless it has been demonstrated (typically through an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) or a comparable technical study) that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions. Furthermore, consistent with Policies 2.1.6 through 2.18 of the PPS (2014), no development is permitted: a) Within fish habitat (except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements); b) Within habitat of endangered and threatened species (except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements); and c) On adjacent lands to any of the features listed above unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions. Some of these features (i.e., provincially significant wetlands and ANSIs) are identified by the MNRF, while others are to be identified by the local area municipalities or planning authorities (i.e., significant woodlands, significant valleylands, significant wildlife habitat). Threatened and endangered species are designated at the provincial level, but their habitat is typically identified or verified at the sitespecific level, and if present then confirmed by MNRF. It is expected that even where features have been identified at the provincial, regional or local levels that verification and some level of refinement will be required at the site-specific basis.

2.4.3 City of Toronto Official Plan (Office Consolidation 2010) The City of Toronto Official Plan identifies the parkland on the west side of Leslie Street, across the road from the site, as NHS. Any development or site alteration proposed within or adjacent to the NHS may require a NHIS. The purpose of the NHIS is to document existing features and functions, assess the potential impact on the system, and identify measures to mitigate any adverse effects and/or improve the system.

2.4.4 City of Toronto Ravine and Natural Feature Protection By-law (2002) The south west corner of the site overlaps with the RNFPA, and subject to the City’s RNFP By-

Page 5

Natural Heritage Impact Study & Ravine Stewardship Plan 1091-1096 Leslie Street

(Chapter 658-1 of the City’s Municipal Code). The RNFP By-law is a regulatory tool used to protect natural features (primarily trees and landforms) and functions (ecological and hydrologic) associated with the ravine system through environmentally responsible management. Under the By-law there is a requirement to apply for a permit prior to undertaking any works that may injure a tree or involve the placement or dumping of fill, or altering the grade of the land within the regulated ravine area. Additionally, the City may require that a RSP be prepared. An RSP is generally prepared in cases where development may encroach or impact upon the RNFPA. The RSP identifies a strategy for protecting and enhancing the natural heritage features and ecological functions associated with the RNFPA.

2.4.5 City of Toronto Tree Protection By-law City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 813 regulates the destruction of trees on public and private property. A permit is required to remove the following: • •

Trees measuring 30 cm or greater in diameter at breast height (DBH, measured 1.4 m above grade) located on private property, and All trees of any size located on City-owned property.

2.4.6 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Policies and Regulations The TRCA regulates wetlands, watercourses, valleylands, shorelines, and other hazard areas pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06 - Regulation for Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses. The TRCA’s LCP (2014) contains the principles, goals, objectives, and policies approved by the TRCA Board for the administration of TRCA’s legislated and delegated roles and responsibilities in the planning and development approvals process. The policies provided in the LCP guide the TRCA in its commenting roles under the Planning Act and Environmental Assessment Act(s) which typically relate to the PPS sections on natural heritage, natural hazards and water. Under the LCP it is the policy of the TRCA that the natural system is comprised of water resources, natural features and areas, natural hazards and any associated potential natural cover and/or buffers and that development and site alteration not be permitted in the natural system, except in accordance with the policies provided in the LCP. Water resources include both surface and groundwater resources that are an underlying and fundamental component of the Natural System and include lakes, rivers, streams, ponds, wetlands, seasonally flooded areas, riparian areas and aquifers. Natural features and areas include valley and stream corridors, wetlands, fish habitat, woodlands, wildlife habitat, habitat of endangered and threatened species, species of concern, ANSI’s, key natural heritage features as per Provincial plans and Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs). Natural hazards include lands that are subject to flooding and erosion within valley and stream corridors and along the Lake Ontario shoreline and unstable soils or bedrock. Page 6

Natural Heritage Impact Study & Ravine Stewardship Plan 1091-1096 Leslie Street

Potential natural cover is land within the target natural heritage system that is not existing natural cover, but is needed to achieve TRCA’s targets for regional biodiversity and the long term health of the Natural System. Under the LCP the limit of the natural system is to be determined by the greater of the outer limits of the natural features and or natural hazards to development or site alteration and include: • • • • • •

a 10 metre buffer from the greater of the long term stable top of slope/bank, stable toe of slop, regulatory flood plain, meander belt and any contiguous natural features or areas; a 10 metre buffer from the drip line of a woodland and any contiguous natural features or areas; a 30 metre buffer from provincially significant wetlands and a 10 metre buffer for all other wetlands and any contiguous natural features or areas; a 10 metre buffer from the greater limit of the flood hazard, erosion hazard and/or dynamic beach hazard of the Lake Ontario shoreline and any contiguous natural features or areas; any additional distances prescribed by federal, provincial or municipal requirements or standards; and any additional distances demonstrated as necessary through technical reports.

The physical top of valley slope and edge of natural features identified on the site plan has been verified to be accurate by the TRCA during a site walk completed on September 16, 2014. Beacon Environmental was not present during this site walk; however we concur with the limits to the natural features that were identified during this site walk. Subsequent correspondence with the TRCA (pers. comm. M. Rapus – January 8, 2015) indicated that the TRCA could support the development of the access road from the site to Leslie Street within the RNFPA provided measures were implemented to ensure that the integrity of the slope and wooded area were maintained during and after construction. This approach is believed to be suitable as the majority of the RNFPA that would be affected by the proposed development currently consists of manicured lawn and planted trees. A small portion of thicket habitat will need to be removed in order to construct the proposed entrance road at this location; however the loss of vegetation can be compensated for through enhancements proposed in the RSP.

3.

Existing Conditions

Approximately 887 m2 of the site overlaps the RNFPA. This portion of the site contains part of a thicket that is part of a larger wooded area, manicured lawn and paved roadway. The tableland portion of the subject properties contains a residential building, which was undergoing demolition at the time of the site visit, manicured lawn, planted trees, landscaped areas, paved roadways and paved parking lots. There are no natural features or habitats associated with the tablelands. The lands to the north and east of the subject properties are completely urbanized. The lands across the road from the subject to the south and west are part of the West Don River Valley and include Wilket Creek, Serena Gundy and E.T. Seton Park, all of which form part of the City of Toronto’s NHS.

Page 7

Natural Heritage Impact Study & Ravine Stewardship Plan 1091-1096 Leslie Street

3.1

Physiography, Soils and Topography

The site is situated in the Iroquois Plains physiographic region near the boundary of the South Slope physiographic region (Chapman and Putnam, 2007). The tableland portion of the property is relatively flat. The valleyland portion is fairly steep with the top of slope at 125 mASL and the bottom of slope at 112 mASL. Borehole sampling, conducted by Toronto Inspection Ltd. (2014) provides a summary of the subsoils that were encountered at the site. The soil surface was comprised of a layer of sandy loam topsoil that was approximately 150mm to 300mm thick. Beneath the surface layer was a layer of fill that extended to depths of 0.6 to 0.4 m from the existing ground level. The fill layer consisted of sandy silt, clayey silt, sand and gravel with the occasional pieces of wood, tile, root, concrete or brick. Other layers that were encountered beneath the fill layer included a sandy silt till, a clayey silt tell/clayey silt and sand. Groundwater was encountered at depths of 23.4 to 29.8 m below grade. It is the opinion of Toronto Inspection Ltd. That the groundwater levels beneath the site represent a continuous groundwater table and that the water in the lower sand deposit could be under minor sub-artesian conditions (Toronto Inspection Limited, 2014).

3.2

Vegetation Communities

The tableland portions of the site is presently occupied by a vacant hotel building, which was partially demolished at the time of the site visit, as well as associated parking lots, paved roadways, grassed areas, landscaped areas and planted trees. As such, there are no natural vegetated areas on the tableland. The wooded area that overlaps the south west corner of the site is comprised of two habitat types: Common Buckthorn - Sumac Cultural Thicket (CUT1-) and Dry – Fresh Sugar Maple - Oak Deciduous Forest (FOD5-3). The vegetation communities at the site are illustrated on Figure 2. Representative photos of the site are included in Appendix B. Unit 1: Common Buckthorn - Sumac Cultural Thicket (CUT1-A) The Common Buckthorn - Sumac Cultural Thicket (CUT1-1) contains a sparse White Ash (Fraxinus americana) and Manitoba Maple (Acer negundo) canopy layer. The shrub layer, which is the dominant layer within this community, contains a dense layer of Staghorn Sumac (Rhus typhina) around the outer edge of the community with a dense layer of Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) within the centre of the community. The herbaceous layer is comprised primarily Dogstrangling Vine (Cyanchum nigrum) and Tall Goldenrod (Solidago, altissima). Unit 2: Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple – Oak Deciduous Forest (FOD5-3) The Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple – Oak Deciduous Forest (FOD5-3) contains a dense Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum), Red Oak (Quercus rubra) and Basswood (Tilia Americana) canopy and sub-canopy. The shrub layer is comprised of Common Buckthorn and Staghorn Sumac. Due to the season that the survey was completed only Tall Goldenrod and Dog-strangling Vine was observed in the ground layer.

Page 8

Polygon # 1 2 3

ELC Community

Common Buckthorn - Sumac Cultural Thicket (CUT1-A)

Dry - Fresh Sugar Maple - Oak Deciduous Forest (FOD5-3) Thicket Hedgerow (TH)

Existing Conditions

Figure 2

IOTP Developments Inc.

Legend Site

Lesli e S tr eet

Property Boundaries ELC Community

Toronto Natural Heritage System

Toronto Ravine and Natural Feature Protection Area TRCA Regulation Limit

Top of Bank (Surveyed October 29, 2014) Dripline (Surveyed October 29, 2014)

3

1

First Base Solutions Web Mapping Service 2013 2

UTM Zone 17 N, NAD 83 0 5 10

20 Metres

1:1,000

Project 214454 March 2015

Natural Heritage Impact Study & Ravine Stewardship Plan 1091-1096 Leslie Street

Unit 3: Thicket Hedgerow (TH) Visibility of the thicket hedgerow was limited to the presence of a wall along the eastern edge of the site. Species that were visible from the end or overtop of the wall included a sparse Manitoba Maple canopy/sub-canopy, and a dense Staghorn Sumac and Common Buckthorn shrub layer.

3.3

Wildlife

The only natural area on the site is the wooded area located along the ravine on the southern half of the western property boundary. This wooded area does provide suitable habitat for a variety of urban tolerant wildlife. No significant or sensitive species have been observed on the site. A request for background natural heritage information was made to TRCA (pers. comm. J. Bester – January 19, 2015); however no data has been received as of the date of submission for this report.

3.4

Summary of Significant Natural Heritage Features and Areas

3.4.1 Significant Natural Area and Features Significant areas that were identified in the vicinity of the site as a result of the background review and field investigation include the City of Toronto’s NHS, the Wilket Creek Forest ESA, and the West Don River Valley Candidate Regionally Significant Life Science ANSI. None of these significant natural areas overlap with the site. They are all situate to the west of Leslie Street and isolated from the site. A portion of the southwest corner of the site is identified as RNFPA. The area mapped as RNFPA correspond with a slope and wooded features. The slope is part of the original valley landform and could be considered a Significant Valleyland. The RNFPA also captures tablelands comprised of lawn. No other significant natural areas or features (i.e. significant wetlands, significant woodlands, significant wildlife habitat, or provincially significant ANSI’s) were identified on the site.

3.4.2 Species at Risk and Species of Conservation Concern A search of the NHIC and ABBO databases yielded records for 12 SAR and 23 Species of Conservation Concern (SOCC) in the vicinity of the site and environs. A complete list of these species is provided in Appendix C. The majority of the records are historical (i.e., prior to 1993) and not considered reliable due to their inaccuracy and changes to available habitat in the vicinity of the site. Correspondence from the MNRF (E. Nardone, Aurora District, 2014), indicated that they have records of Butternut in the vicinity of the site. A survey of the thicket and woodland habitat on/adjacent the site determined that this species in not present in this area. An assessment of the habitat preferences of the SAR that have been recorded in the vicinity of the site determined that no potentially suitable habitat for SAR listed in Appendix C was identified on the site. Page 10

Natural Heritage Impact Study & Ravine Stewardship Plan 1091-1096 Leslie Street

An assessment of the habitat preferences of the SOCC that have been recorded in the vicinity of the site determined that potentially suitable habitat for one SOCC, Eastern Wood-Pewee (Contopus virens), may be present within the woodland habitat southwest of the site. No other potentially suitable habitat for SOCC listed in Appendix C was identified on/adjacent the site.

4.

Constraints Analysis

The site does not overlap with the NHS and is separated from the NHS by Leslie Street. As such, the site is not constrained by the City`s environmental policies relating to the NHS. The southwest corner of the site corresponding with the wooded area and slope is however identified as overlapping with the RNFPA and is subject the City of Toronto RNFP By-law (Chapter 658-1 of the City’s Municipal Code). The slope and 10 m setback to the top of slope are subject to TRCA regulations. Development is generally not permitted in RNFPA and TRCA Regulated Areas, unless it can be demonstrated through an NHIS and RSP that the proposal will not adversely impact on the RNFPA and Regulated Area to the satisfaction of the City and TRCA. As such, portions of the site corresponding with the ravine slope and wooded area should be considered to be development constraints. The remainder of the site does not support natural heritage features and as such would therefore not represent a constraint to development.

5.

Description of the Proposed Development

The proposed re-development plan for the site will consist of four condominium apartment buildings and twenty three story townhouse units. As indicated on the site plan (Graziani and Corazza Architects Inc., 2015) Tower A is a 28 story condominium that contains 249 residential units. Tower B is a 39 story condominium that contains 443 residential units. Tower C is a 29 story condominium that contains 330 residential units. Tower D is a 34 story condominium that contains 358 residential units. A number of commercial units will also be included within the condominium buildings as part of the development. The site plan is presented in Figure 3 and the areas of the various site plan components are provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Site Plan Components Site Plan Component

2

Area (m )

Combined Building footprint

10,516

Paved surfaces Landscaped open space

8,479 2,046 21,041

Total:

These buildings will have a combined footprint of 10,516 m2 that will support green roof systems with a combined total minimum area of 6,309 m2. The development also includes four levels of underground parking that will be accessed from an interior roadway. In order to provide access to site

Page 11

Figure 3. Proposed Development

Natural Heritage Impact Study & Ravine Stewardship Plan 1091-1096 Leslie Street

from Leslie Street, an entrance road has been proposed that will require traversing lands that are identified as within the limits of the RFNPA and TRCA Regulation Area. The total combined area of soft landscaping on site will be 2,046 m2 with an additional 977 m2 outside of the property line including a total of 51 trees will be planted on site and an additional 22 trees will be planed outside of the property line. Due to the small area to be re-developed and the high building coverage the storm water management approach is primarily based on the provision of individual measures for each property block of the development. Stormwater rates will be addressed using oversized sewers that will discharge through an orifice pipe that would be connected to the Leslie Street storm sewer. Stormwater quality will be addressed using a stormwater treatment system that would be municipally owned and operated and is therefore subject to the approval of the City. Details of the stormwater management plan are provided in the Site Servicing and Stage 1 Stormwater Management Report prepared by R.V. Anderson Associates Limited (2015).

6.

Impact Assessment & Mitigation

The proposed re-development will be confined primarily to the tableland portions of the site that are already urbanized and not environmentally constrained. As such, impacts to the natural environment from the proposed re-development will generally be avoided. However, in order to facilitate site access from Leslie Street, a single entrance road is required and is proposed at the southwest corner of the site. The proposed entrance road will require traversing lands that are part of the RFNPA and TRCA Regulation Area and represent Significant Valleylands. The affected area is comprised of a thicket vegetation community (Unit 1) situated on a slope adjacent to Leslie Street. The community is dominated by Staghorn Sumac and Common Buckthorn. The proposed entrance road will require the removal of approximately 243 m2 of thicket habitat to accommodate grading. Aside from the valleyland landform, there are no natural heritage features associated with this community that would be affected. As described in Section 5, other than the significant valleyland, the site does not support any significant natural areas or features. Significant natural areas, including the City`s NHS, Candidate Regionally Significant ANSI and Environmentally Significant Areas (ESA) are associated with West Don River valleylands and Wilket Creek Park on the west side of Leslie Street. These natural areas are separated and isolated from the site by Leslie Street. As such, the proposed re-development will not directly impact any significant natural areas. There are also a few planted/landscaped trees associated with the existing development that will be removed as a result of the development however these features are not environmentally significant and can be compensated for through replacement and landscape plantings. It is not anticipated that the proposed re-development will directly or indirectly impact upon significant natural features as such features are not associated with the site. It is however anticipated that the proposed re-development could potentially result in localized impacts to some of the natural features on and adjacent to the site.

Page 13

Natural Heritage Impact Study & Ravine Stewardship Plan 1091-1096 Leslie Street

Potential impacts to natural features on and adjacent to the site may include: • • • •

Impacts to downstream aquatic features from construction runoff; Loss of thicket habitat; Disturbance to nesting birds from proposed vegetation removals; Increased bird strikes with buildings.

These impacts can be largely avoided and mitigated through best management practices incorporated into the design and construction of the development. Mitigation measures that can be implemented are as follows:

6.1

Design 1. The proposed re-development should be designed to achieve Tier 1 Toronto Green Standards. 2. The proposed re-development, including associated roads and servicing infrastructure (sewers, catch basins, culverts, etc.) should be contained within the accepted development limits as agreed to by the City of Toronto and TRCA. 3. An erosion and sediment control plan should be prepared in accordance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Urban Construction (TRCA et al. 2006). 4. Runoff from paved surfaces should be diverted to the City’s storm water system or equivalent on-site storage and treatment. 5. Landscaping plans for the development portion of the site should utilize local native species to the extent feasible. 6. Landscaping plans for areas outside the development should be comprised exclusively of local native species. 7. Any outdoor lighting associated with the development adjacent to the ravine should incorporate shielding or other measures to prevent light spillage into the natural area. This should reduce impacts to wildlife in the valley. Refer to Bird-Friendly Development Guidelines (City of Toronto, 2007) for direction on reducing light pollution. 8. The introduction of buildings with glazing adjacent to forested valleys can potentially increase the risk of bird-building collisions. Birds are unable to perceive clear or reflective glass and sometimes fly into windows when trees are reflected in the glass because they perceive the reflection as forest. There are a number of options available that help make glass visible to birds. For example, patterns or films applied to glass can reduce reflection and provide visual markers that allow birds to perceive and avoid the windows. Since most bird strikes occur within the first 12 m above grade, it is important that windows on the lower levels receive some treatment. It is recommended that the building design incorporate some of the mitigation measures outlined in the Bird-Friendly Development Guidelines (City of Toronto, 2007) to reduce the potential of bird collisions with the building.

6.2

Construction Recommendations 1. All construction and development related activities must be confined to the established limit of development, with the exception of those areas subject to naturalization and/or where landscaping works are approved.

Page 14

Natural Heritage Impact Study & Ravine Stewardship Plan 1091-1096 Leslie Street

2. Prior to site preparation, the limit of development should be fenced off with erosion and sediment control (ESC) consisting of paige wire fencing and fitted with filter cloth and toed-in to prevent runoff and encroachment into the adjacent natural area. Fencing at the development limit should be regularly inspected and maintained in good working order throughout the construction period. Access points should be provided to afford access to the setback area for the purpose of building demolition and removal of fill and waste. 3. Vegetation clearing should be undertaken outside the breeding bird season which generally extends from mid-April to late-July. The federal Migratory Birds Convention Act (1994) protects the nests, eggs and young of most bird species from harassment, harm, or destruction. Should vegetation removals be proposed within the breeding season noted above, then an Ecologist should be retained to complete nest searches to determine if active nests or territorial birds are present, and make appropriate recommendations to comply with the requirements of the Act.

6.3

Post-Development Recommendations 1. Following construction, the erosion and sediment control measures should be removed after soils are sufficiently vegetated and stabilized. Exposed soils should be stabilized as soon as possible through re-vegetation using native species or other appropriate methods.

7.

Stewardship Opportunities

In addition to the mitigation measures described above, the site provides some limited opportunities for stewardship of the ravine environment. The NHIS has identified several stewardship opportunities that could be implemented both on site and off site to enhance the ecological condition and function of the RNFPA. While there is only a small portion of the site that overlaps with the RNFPA, there nevertheless exist some limited opportunities to implement management measures that can effectively improve the ecological health of the ravine environment. Portions of the ravine on site as well as off site contain some litter and foreign debris. The removal of this waste can effectively improve the feature aesthetics and also promote re-vegetation by exposing soils for vegetation colonization. The thicket community (ELC Unit 1) is dominated by non-native invasive vegetation which has substantially degraded the overall quality of this community. Similarly, the forested community (ELC Unit 2) to the south and on neighbouring lands has been identified as containing Dog Strangling Vine and Garlic Mustard, two other highly invasive species. These non-native and invasive species are known to significantly impact the ecology of natural woodlands by displacing native species, and altering the structure of native forest communities through shading and competition. Implementation of invasive species control measures can help improve the ecological integrity of these communities. Additionally, the re-introduction of quality native species on lands immediately adjacent to the ravine through planting can help improve the quality of the area. To capitalize on these stewardship opportunities, a RSP has been prepared that identifies environmental issues and solutions. These are described below as follows:

Page 15

Natural Heritage Impact Study & Ravine Stewardship Plan 1091-1096 Leslie Street

7.1

Site Cleanup

There are several locations in the RNFPA, both on site and adjacent to the site where refuse and foreign debris has been deposited. This refuse and debris is not only undesirable from an aesthetic perspective, it supresses vegetation growth and potential for natural regeneration. The observed waste is comprised of debris and wind blown litter. Removal of this surface waste from ELC Units 1 & 2 can improve the aesthetic and ecological quality of the site and help facilitate naturalization efforts. Objective: • To improve the ecological quality and condition of the ravine environment and increase opportunities for vegetation establishment. Strategy: • Remove all surface waste from ELC Units 1 & 2 Actions: • • • • •

7.2

Extract all foreign debris and waste from the NHS by hand. The area for debris removal is shown on Figure 4. Remove waste from site and dispose of appropriately. Re-vegetate exposed bare soils with native groundcovers. Inspect & Monitor.

Invasive Species Control

Vegetation on the site contains populations of non-native species, including several invasive species. Once established, these species have the effect of displacing native species and reducing overall diversity. They also represent a seed source that can impact on the ravine environment. It is proposed that the most invasive species, including Common Buckthorn, Dog-Strangling Vine, Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata), and Manitoba Maple, be targeted for control. Objective: • To reduce populations and seed sources of invasive and non-native species in the ravine environment. Strategy: • Selectively remove non-native invasive species from ELC Units 1 & 2 • Species to be targeted include: o Common Buckthorn, o Dog-Strangling Vine, o Garlic Mustard, and o Manitoba Maple. Actions: • • • •

Protect native vegetation. Identify and mark non-native invasive vegetation to be removed. Obtain permit for tree removals. Invasive species should be removed using brush cutters and/or hand tools Page 16

Ravine Stewardship Plan

Figure 4

Lesli e S tr eet

IOTP Development Inc.

Legend Site

Ravine Stewardship Plan Management Area

First Base Solutions Web Mapping Service 2013 UTM Zone 17 N, NAD 83 0

o lint Eg

10

ue ven nA

20 t Eas

40 Metres

1:1,250

Project 214454 March 2015

Natural Heritage Impact Study & Ravine Stewardship Plan 1091-1096 Leslie Street

• • •

7.3

Apply herbicide (e.g. glyphosate or triclopyr) to cut stumps to prevent re-sprouting. Dispose of vegetation at a waste management or composting facility. Inspect & monitor.

Ravine Enhancement Plantings

Following the removal of invasive species, the gaps created should be under planted with native trees and shrubs to increase the diversity and quality of the vegetation in the ravine. Objectives: • To restore native vegetation to the ravine. • To introduce a native seed source to the ravine. Strategy: • Selectively under-plant portions of ELC Units 1 & 2 with native trees, shrubs and herbaceous vegetation (See Appendix D for a list of recommended species). Actions: • • •

8.

Identify planting sites for species to be planted. Inspect, monitor and maintain for a two year period following plantings. Replace dead material as necessary.

Implementation and Cost Schedule

An implementation and cost schedule for carrying out the RSP is provided in Table 2.

Table 2. Ravine Stewardship Plan Implementation Schedule and Cost Estimate Item 1.0

-

-

Unit Cost

Total

Lump Sum Subtotal

$1,000 $1,000

Invasive Species Control 2) Removal of invasive species within the designated area

3.0

Unit

Site Cleanup 1) Removal of trash/debris within designated area

2.0

Qty.

-

-

Lump Sum Subtotal

$1,500 $1,500

Ravine Enhancement Plantings 3) Supply, plant, mulch, maintain Deciduous Tree 150-175 cm tall in 3 gal pot

10

ea.

$55

$550

4) Supply, plant and maintain deciduous shrubs 25-40 cm tall in 1 gal pot

50

ea.

$25

$1,250

Page 18

Natural Heritage Impact Study & Ravine Stewardship Plan 1091-1096 Leslie Street

Qty.

Unit

Unit Cost

Total

5) Supply, plant and maintain Deciduous Shrubs 50 cm tall in 3 gal pot

34

ea.

$37

$1,258

6) Supply, plant and maintain groundcover vine in 1 gal pot

9

ea.

$20

$180

Subtotal

$4,233

Item

4.0

9.

Supervision, Inspection and Reporting (Year 1 and 2) 7) Ecologist or Landscape Architect to identify and mark vegetation for removal and planting areas

4

-

$135

$540

8) Ecologist or Landscape Architect to inspect plant material, supervise planting and inspect completed work

24

-

$135

$3,240

9) Ecologist or Landscape Architect to inspect once annually at the end of the warranty period.

12

-

$135

$1,650

10) Reporting

4

-

$135

$540

Subtotal

$4,350

Total

$11,083

Policy Conformity

This section demonstrates how the proposed development complies with existing environmental policies and legislation at the provincial and municipal level. A discussion of environmental planning policies applicable to the proposed development is provided in Section 1.3. A summary of how the proposed severance conforms to applicable environmental policies is presented below in Table 3.

Table 3. Conformity to Applicable Environmental Policies and Legislation APPLICABLE POLICY / LEGISLATION

Policy Intent

EIS Findings & Recommendations

Compliance

Endangered Species Act (2007)

To protect the habitats of threatened and endangered species.

No threatened or endangered species were identified on the site.

Yes

To protect fish habitats.

No fish habitat was identified on the site.

Yes

Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) (2014) 1. Fish Habitat

Page 19

Natural Heritage Impact Study & Ravine Stewardship Plan 1091-1096 Leslie Street

APPLICABLE POLICY / LEGISLATION 2. Significant Habitat of Threatened and Endangered Species

Policy Intent

EIS Findings & Recommendations

Compliance

The PPS does not permit development or site alteration in the significant portions of the habitat for threatened and endangered species.

No significant habitat of threatened or endangered species was identified on the site.

Yes

3. Significant Wetlands

The PPS does not permit development or site alteration in significant wetlands.

No wetlands or provincially significant wetlands were identified on the site.

Yes

4. Significant Woodlands

The PPS does not permit development or site alteration in significant woodlands unless it can be demonstrated through an EIS that there will be no negative impacts.

No significant woodlands were identified on the site.

Yes

The PPS does not permit development or site alteration in significant valleylands unless it can be demonstrated through an EIS that there will be no negative impacts.

The West Don River valleylands west of the site/Leslie Street represents a candidate significant valleyland. The RNFPA extends from these valleylands onto southwest corner of the site. An entrance road to the site is proposed that will encroach on the RNFPA. The extent of construction is too small to significantly impact on this landform.

Yes

5. Significant Valleylands

6. Significant Wildlife Habitat 7. Significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI)

City of Toronto Official Plan (2007)

City of Toronto Ravine and Natural Feature Protection Bylaw (2002)

The PPS does not permit development or site alteration in significant wildlife habitat unless it can be demonstrated through an EIS that there will be no negative impacts. The PPS does not permit development or site alteration in Provincially Significant ANSI’s unless it can be demonstrated through an EIS that there will be no negative impacts. Development is generally not permitted within the NHS unless it can be demonstrated that adverse impacts to the NHS can be minimized, and where possible, the system and be restored and enhanced. Under this by-law there is a requirement to apply for a permit prior to undertaking any works that may injure a tree or involve the placement or dumping of fill, or altering the grade of the land

No significant wildlife habitat was identified on the site.

Yes

The West Don River Valley is a Candidate Regionally Significant Life Science ANSI is situated to the west of the site and will not be impacted by the proposed development.

Yes

No NHS was identified on the site.

Yes

Portions of the site are identified as RNFPA. In order to facilitate site access from Leslie Street, a single entrance road is required and is proposed at the southwest corner of the site within the RFNPA. The

Yes

Page 20

Natural Heritage Impact Study & Ravine Stewardship Plan 1091-1096 Leslie Street

APPLICABLE POLICY / LEGISLATION

Toronto Region Conservation Authority Living City Policies (2014)

Policy Intent

EIS Findings & Recommendations

within the regulated ravine area.

affected area is comprised of a thicket vegetation community (Unit 1) situated on a slope adjacent to Leslie Street. The community is dominated by sumac and common buckthorn. The proposed entrance road will require the removal of approximately 243 m2 of thicket habitat to accommodate grading. Measures that will be implemented as part of the RSP will improve the biological health and functions of the remaining natural areas on and adjacent the site through the removal of debris/litter and invasive species and the planting of native tree and shrub species. A permit will be required in order to undertake development in this area.

The TRCA regulates hazard lands including valleylands, floodplains, watercourse, and wetlands. TRCA policies generally do not permit development or site alteration within hazard lands without a permit. TRCA’s LCP (2014) state that a development setback should be applied from 10 metres from the greater of the long term stable top of slope/bank, stable toe of slop, regulatory flood plain, meander belt and/or from the dripline of a woodland and any contiguous natural features or areas.

The south west corner of the site contains a ravine slope that is regulated by TRCA. With the exception of an entrance road, the proposed re-development will be confined to lands outside the RNFPA and TRCA Regulated Area. Development is generally not permitted within such areas; unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City and TRCA that potential adverse impacts can be minimized to maintain the integrity of the slope and associated wooded area to the south. It is understood that a permit will be obtained from the TRCA in order to undertake development in this area.

Compliance

Yes

10. Summary This NHIS and RSP was prepared in accordance with the Terms of Reference (Appendix A). The NHIS used information collected through a review of relevant background information and scoped field investigations conducted in 2015. The report describes existing natural heritage features on the site, identifies environmental constraints to development, and addresses potential impacts of the proposed development on the natural heritage features and functions associated with the properties with consideration for the applicable policies and legislation. Mitigation recommendations are also provided to ensure that natural heritage features and functions receive adequate protection during

Page 21

Natural Heritage Impact Study & Ravine Stewardship Plan 1091-1096 Leslie Street

and after construction, and include recommendations that will result in a net ecological gain for this area as compared to current conditions. The site is currently largely developed with a small portion of the south west corner containing a small thicket community that is connected to a deciduous forest south west of the site. This area is within the RFNPA and TRCA regulation limit. A portion of this thicket falls within the footprint of the proposed development where a new access road to Leslie Street proposed. The placement of the road in this location would result in the removal of approximately 243 m2 of thicket habitat. Measures will be implemented as part of the development in order to maintain the integrity of the slope during and post construction (i.e. implementing sediment and erosion control measures, re-grading the slope to a suitable grade) and compensate for the thicket habitat that will be removed as a result of the development. In summary, it is our opinion that the proposed development will not adversely impact the natural heritage resources or ecological functions associated with the NHS or RFNPA provided the mitigation and enhancement measures recommended in this report are implemented. It is also our opinion that the proposed development is in compliance with applicable provincial and municipal natural heritage policies. Report prepared by: Beacon Environmental

Report reviewed by: Beacon Environmental

Rob Aitken, B.Sc. Ecologist

Ken Ursic, B.Sc, M.Sc. Senior Ecologist

11. References Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada's Canadian Wildlife Service, Ontario Nature, Ontario Field Ornithologists and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2006. Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas Database, 31 January 2008. http://www.birdsontario.org/atlas/aboutdata.jsp?lang=en. Accessed January 2015. Conservation Authorities Act, O. Reg. 166/06. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority: Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetland and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses. Chapman, L.J. and Putman, D.F. 2007. The Physiography of Southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey Special, Miscellaneous Release – Data 228 City of Toronto. 2000. Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 813, Trees.

Page 22

Natural Heritage Impact Study & Ravine Stewardship Plan 1091-1096 Leslie Street

City of Toronto. 2002. Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 658, Ravine and Natural Feature Protection. City of Toronto. 2006. Ravine Planning – Urban Forestry, Guideline for Development of a Ravine Stewardship Plan. City of Toronto. 2007. Bird-Friendly Development Guidelines. Accessible at http://www.toronto.ca/planning/environment/guidelines.htm City of Toronto. 2010. Official Plan. Adopted by City Council November 2002. Approved, in part, with modifications by the Ontario Municipal Board June 2006 and further approved by the Board December 2010. Consolidated December 2010. Endangered Species Act, S.O. 2007, C-6. Graziani and Corazza Architects Inc. 2015. Proposed Residential Development Deltera Inc. Project Statistics and T.G.S Checklist. 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. SCSS Field Guide FG-02. 225 pp. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 2014. Provincial Policy Statement. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2015. Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) URL: http://www.giscoeapp.lrc.gov.on.ca/web/ MNR/NHLUPS/NaturalHeritage/Viewer/Viewer.html. Accessed January 2015. R.V. Anderson Associates Limited. 2015. On The Park Residential Redevelopment – Site Servicing and Stage 1 Stormwater Management Report. Prepared for IOTP Development Inc. Scott Torrance Landscape Architect Inc. 2014. Arboriest Report for On The Park, Leslie Street, Parts of Lot 1, concession 3, East of Yonge Street, City of Toronto, Ontario. December 5, 2014. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Conservation Halton, Credit Valley Conservation, Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, Central Lake Ontario Conservation, Grand River Conservation Authority, Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, Hamilton Conservation Authority. 2006. Erosion and Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construction. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 2014. The Living City Policies for Planning and Development in the Watersheds of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. November 28, 2014. Page 23

Natural Heritage Impact Study & Ravine Stewardship Plan 1091-1096 Leslie Street

Toronto Inspection Ltd. 2014. Report on Geotechnical Investigation 1100 Eglinton Avenue East Toronto, Ontario. Report No.: 3760-13-G-TRI-C. November 18, 2014.

Page 24

Appendix A Terms of Reference

G UIDING S OLUTIONS IN THE N ATURAL E NVIRONMENT

Thursday, January 15, 2015

BEL-214454

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Planning and Development 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, ON M3N 1S4 Attn: Mark Rapus, Senior Planner Re:

Terms of Reference for Scoped Natural Heritage Impact Study (NHIS) and Ravine Stewardship Plan (RSP) for 1087,1091, and 1095 Leslie Street, Toronto

Dear Mr. Rapus, The purpose of this letter is to submit, for your review and approval, Terms of Reference for a scoped Natural Heritage Impact Study (NHIS) and Ravine Stewardship Plan (RSP) in support of a residential/commercial re-development project for Deltera Inc. (Tridel) at 1091 – 1096 Leslie Street in the City of Toronto. Beacon Environmental was retained by Deltera to prepare these studies in support of the re-development application. Notably, while the NHIS and RSP studies were not specifically identified as required in support of this application on the City of Toronto Planning Submission Checklist (dated October 22, 2014), it is our understanding from our telephone conversation on January 8, 2014 that the TRCA did recommend that these studies be undertaken during the October 16, 2014 pre-consultation meeting, but that they were left off the checklist accidentally. Therefore, these Draft Terms of Reference for these studies is being provided as the first step in getting this work underway. As you are aware, the subject property is located on the north east corner of Leslie Street and Eglinton Avenue East in the Banbury Don Mills Neighbourhood. It is situated across the street from Willet Creek and Sunnybrook Park which form part of the City of Toronto’s Natural Heritage System. City of Toronto Official Plan policies require that any development proposals near the Natural Heritage System be supported by a NHIS that demonstrates that the development will not adversely impact the Natural Heritage System. Portions of the subject property are also identified as Ravine and Natural Feature Protection Area (RNFPA). These portions of the property are subject to the Ravine and Natural Feature Protection ByLaw (Chapter 658 of the Municipal Code). Under this by-law, a permit is required to remove trees or conduct any site alterations within the RNFPA. The application for a permit requires an inventory of trees, tree removal, protection and replacements plans, as well as stewardship and rehabilitation plans (i.e., formally known as a Ravine Stewardship Plan (RSP)). It is our understanding that tree inventory and removal, protection and replacement plans are being submitted by Scott Torrance Associates as part of the current application. Beacon Environmental will be using this information, in conjunction with the information collected through the NHIS, to prepare a RSP to support the permit application process. 337 W

STREET, GUELPH, ONTARIO, CANAD Tel: (519) 826 0419  Fax: (519) 826 9306

O O L W I C H

A

N1H 3W4

T ERMS

OF

R EFERENCE F OR N ATURAL H ERITAGE I MPACT S TUDY 1091-1096 L ESLIE S TREET , T ORONTO

To streamline the process, the RSP will be appended to the NHIS and will include details of a strategy to naturalize the ravine area, as well as any buffers and setbacks. The City has guidelines (City of Toronto, 2006) for preparing an NHIS. The guidelines are comprehensive and require characterization of the natural features and evaluation of many aspects of the development proposal (e.g., slope analysis, grading, drainage, tree removals, servicing, building impacts to birds, etc.). However, it is my understanding though our telephone conversation that given the nature of the redevelopment proposal and the fact that the site is somewhat removed from the Natural Heritage System, that the TRCA is amenable to scoping the requirements of the NHIS and RSP for this site. Beacon Environmental has prepared the following Draft Terms of Reference that outline our proposed approach to a preparation of a combined NHIS and RSP. Our approach will include the following: 1. Biophysical characterization of the natural features on and immediately adjacent to the subject property (i.e. slopes, vegetation, drainage, etc.) based on available background information and information collected from the site assessment, which will be completed in the winter of 2015; 2. Screening of the subject property for potentially suitable habitat for endangered and threatened species through consultation with MNRF and information collected from the winter site assessment; 3. Identification of opportunities for habitat restoration and enhancement of existing features and rehabilitation of affected features through the RSP limited to the ravine area and including consideration of recommended buffer and setback areas; 4. Impact assessment to identify the net environmental impacts associated with the proposed development; and 5. Policy conformity analysis to demonstrate that the proposed development complies with applicable environmental legislation, policies, and regulations. It is our understanding that TRCA has already visited the property and does not require staking of slopes or vegetation features as these are well defined and are already clearly depicted on the survey plans. Therefore this component has also been excluded from our scope of work. As you are aware, the TRCA regulates valleylands and ravines and requires a fill/site alteration permit for any development or site alteration proposals within TRCA regulated areas. On the subject property, the TRCA regulation limits apply to all lands within 10 m of the City’s RNFPA. It is our understanding that the NHIS and RSP studies will be reviewed as part of the TRCA permitting process. To ensure that the NHIS and RSP studies are scoped and prepared to the satisfaction of the City and TRCA, we have prepared the following Draft Terms of Reference for your review and consideration. The Draft Terms of Reference are presented on the following page and describe the various study components.

Page 2

T ERMS

OF

R EFERENCE F OR N ATURAL H ERITAGE I MPACT S TUDY 1091-1096 L ESLIE S TREET , T ORONTO

Draft NHIS and RSP Terms of Reference Purpose The NHIS and RSP will be prepared utilizing available background information and will be supplemented with the findings of field investigations aimed at characterizing natural heritage features and their associated functions. The NHIS will identify development constraints and opportunities, assess potential impacts of the proposed development on these features and functions, and make recommendations for impact avoidance and mitigation. The RSP will identify opportunities for restoration and enhancement of existing natural features as recommend remediation measures where necessary. Background Review Background information related to natural heritage resources in the vicinity of the property will be compiled and reviewed. This will include available aerial photography, natural resource mapping, data available from the TRCA, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forests (MNRF) and the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC), and any other relevant information. In addition, the relevant environmental/natural heritage policies that may apply to the subject property including, but not limited to, the Provincial Policy Statement, City of Toronto Official Plan and By-laws, TRCA Living City Policies and TRCA Regulations will be reviewed and considered in relation to the proposed development and its potential impacts on the Natural Heritage System. Field Studies Site investigations will be completed by an Ecologist over the winter of 2015 who will characterize the natural heritage features at the site, identify development constraints, assess potential impacts and screen for suitable habitat for Species at Risk that have been recorded in the vicinity of the site. Vegetation communities will be mapped and classified in accordance with the Ecological Land Classification for southern Ontario (Lee et al., 1998). Incidental winter wildlife observations will also be recorded. Analyses A number of analyses will be completed utilizing the information obtained through the background review and scoped field surveys. The significance and sensitivity of natural heritage features on site and in the adjacent lands will be assessed to determine which features qualify as significant using applicable criteria (i.e. RNFPA, Natural Heritage System, Environmentally Significant Areas, significant wildlife habitat, significant wetlands, significant woodlands, significant valleylands, habitats of endangered and threatened species, and ANSIs) and represent constraints to development.

Page 3

T ERMS

OF

R EFERENCE F OR N ATURAL H ERITAGE I MPACT S TUDY 1091-1096 L ESLIE S TREET , T ORONTO

Ecologically appropriate buffers will also be established based on sensitivity of any significant features to the proposed land use changes. An impact assessment will be undertaken to assess the potential impact of the proposed development on the existing significant natural features and their ecological functions. The impact assessment will include recommendations for impact avoidance, mitigation and enhancement as appropriate. Finally, a policy conformity analysis will be completed to identify how the proposed development complies with applicable provincial and municipal policies and regulations. Reporting It is proposed that the NHIS and RSP be prepared using the following report outline: Section 1 - Introduction: This report section will include a description of the study purpose, objectives and scope of work, study area, study team members and roles. Section 2 – Methods: This report section will describe the various methodologies used to characterize the biophysical environment, including background reviews and field surveys. Section 3 - Environmental Policy Framework: This report section will summarize the environmental planning context for the NHIS, including a description of provincial and municipal environmental legislation, policies and regulations directly relevant to the NHIS and RSP. Section 4 – Existing Conditions: This report section will summarize the findings of the background reviews and field investigations. It will describe the biophysical environment and identify the significance and sensitivities of the biophysical resources using established criteria. Section 5 - Constraints and Opportunities: This report section will identify natural heritage related to the proposed development. The constraint analysis will be used to identify appropriate buffers to the significant natural heritage features and / or areas in relation to the proposed redevelopment. Opportunities for enhancement of the ravine environment will be identified. Section 6 - Description of the Proposed Development: This report section will describe the proposed development. The description will include a summary of proposed grading activities, servicing and stormwater management, and subdivision design. Section 7 - Impact Assessment and Recommended Mitigation: This report section will describe potential anticipated impacts of the proposed development on the identified significant natural heritage features and functions as well as appropriate mitigation measures (e.g., restoration and enhancement of the natural features). Section 8 – Recommended Mitigation: This report section will describe appropriate mitigation measures that are recommended to be implemented in the design, construction and post-development phase to prevent/minimize impacts to natural heritage features. This will Page 4

T ERMS

OF

R EFERENCE F OR N ATURAL H ERITAGE I MPACT S TUDY 1091-1096 L ESLIE S TREET , T ORONTO

include details of a strategy to naturalize the ravine area and any recommended buffers and setbacks. Section 9 - Policy Conformity Analysis: This report section will evaluate the proposed development plan and identify how it conforms to applicable environmental legislation, policies, and regulations at the provincial and municipal levels. Section 10 - Conclusions: This report section will include a high level summary of the study findings and recommendations, and make concluding remarks including a statement of net impacts. We trust that the Draft Terms of Reference presented above are sufficiently comprehensive to address the requirements for a scoped NHIS and RSP for the subject property. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss the study requirements further, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, Beacon Environmental

Ken Ursic, M.Sc. Senior Ecologist (519) 826-0419 ext. 23 [email protected]

cc:

Lynn Poole – City of Toronto Steve Daniels – Deltera (Tridel) Michael Mauro – Tridel Tony Volpentesta - Bousfields

Page 5

Appendix B Photo Log

Appendix B - Photo Log

Photo 1. Existing condominium undergoing demolition (western half of site)

Photo 2. Thicket/Woodland southwest of site

Photo 3. Sumac Thicket (CUT1-1)

Photo 4. Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple – Oak Deciduous Forest (FOD5-3)

Photo 5. RNFPA and TRCA regulated area where access road is proposed

Photo 6. Existing parking lot along eastern half of site

Page B-1

Appendix C Natural Heritage Information Centre and Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario Background Data Summary

Appendix C

Appendix C Natural Heritage Information Centre and Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario Background Data Summary Species

Group

Last Observed

Queensnake Regina septemvittata

Reptile

1858

END

END

S2

Red Mulberry Morus rubra

Plant

1941

END

END

S2

Redside Dace Clinostomus elongatus

Fish

1926

END

END

S2

Butternut Juglans cinerea

Plant

2004

END

END

S3?

Spiny Softshell Apalone spinifera

Reptile

1982

THR

THR

S3

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor

Bird

2005

SC

THR

S4

Bank Swallow Riparia riparia

Bird

2005

THR

THR

S4B

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica

Bird

2002

THR

THR

S4B

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica

Bird

2005

THR

THR

S4B

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus

Bird

2005

THR

THR

S4B

Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica

Bird

2005

THR

THR

S4B

Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna

Bird

2005

THR

THR

S4B

Broad Beech Fern Phegopteris hexagonoptera

Plant

1890

SC

SC

S3

Eastern Musk Turtle Sternotherus odoratus

Reptile

1982

SC

SC

S3

Eastern Ribbonsnake Thamnophis sauritus

Reptile

1913

SC

SC

S3

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus

Bird

2005

SC

SC

S3

COSEWIC COSSARO

SRANK

Page C-1

Appendix C

Species

Group

Last Observed

Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentine

Reptile

2009

SC

SC

S3

Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens

Bird

2005

SC

SC

S4B

Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina

Bird

2005

THR

SC

S4B

Biennial Gaura Oenothera gaura

Plant

1905

-

-

S3

Geyer's Yellow Monkeyflower Erythranthe geyeri

Plant

1897

-

-

S1

Old-field Toadflax Nuttallanthus canadensis

Plant

-

-

-

S1

Black Cohosh Actaea racemosa

Plant

1974

-

-

S2

Painted Skimmer Libellula semifasciata

Insect

1908

-

-

S2

Stiff Gentian Gentianella quinquefolia

Plant

1877

-

-

S2

Woodland Pinedrops Pterspora andromedea

Plant

1891

-

-

S2

Swamp Darner Epiaeschna heros

Insect

1941

-

-

S2S3

Unicorn Clubtail Arigomphus villosipes

Insect

-

-

-

S2S3

Green-striped Darner Aeshna verticalis

Insect

-

-

-

S3

Ram's-head Lady's Slipper Cypripedium arietinum

Plant

1925

-

-

S3

Sharp-fruited Rush Juncus acuminatus

Plant

1926

-

-

S3

White-haired Panicgrass Dichanthelium praecocius

Plant

1911

-

-

S3

Yellow Stargrass Hypoxis hirsuta

Plant

1933

-

-

S3

Erect Knotweed Polygonum erectum

Plant

1904

-

-

SH

Giant Lacewing Polystoechotes punctatus

Insect

1934

-

-

SH

COSEWIC COSSARO

SRANK

Page C-2

Appendix D Recommended Planting List

Appendix D

Appendix D Native Species Recommended for Naturalization

Scientific Name Common Name Acer saccharum var. saccharum Sugar Maple Fagus grandifolia American Beech Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak Prunus serotina Wild Black Cherry Tilia americana American Basswood Carpinus caroliniana ssp. virginiana American Hornbeam Corylus cornuta ssp. cornuta Beaked Hazelnut Diervilla lonicera Northern Bush-honeysuckle Sambucus racemosa var. racemosa Red-berried Elder Viburnum acerifolium Maple-leaf Viburnum Cornus alternifolia Alternate-leaf Dogwood Amelanchier arborea Downy Serviceberry Amelanchier laevis Smooth Serviceberry Prunus virginiana var. virginiana Choke Cherry Rosa blanda Smooth Rose Rubus odoratus Purple-flowering Raspberry Lonicera dioica Glaucous Honeysuckle Aquilegia canadensis Wild Columbine Aster macrophyllus Big-leaved Aster Carex pensylvanica Pennsylvania Sedge Desmodium canadense Showy Tick-trefoil Elymus hystrix Bottlebrush Grass Eupatorium rugosum White Snakeroot Geranium maculatum Wild Geranium Helianthus divaricatus Woodland Sunflower Hydrophyllum virginianum Virginia Waterleaf Monarda fistulosa Wild Bergamot Penstemon hirsutus Hairy beard-tongue Smilacina racemosa False Solomon's Seal Solidago flexicaulis Zig-zag goldenrod

Plant Form Tree Tree Tree Tree Tree Tree Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Shrub Vine Ground cover Ground cover Ground cover Ground cover Ground cover Ground cover Ground cover Ground cover Ground cover Ground cover Ground cover Ground cover Ground cover

Page D-1