3. Existing Conditions · MEFM1-2 FODM5 THD THD WOD THDM2 SA WOD FODM11/FOCM5 MAMM1-12 WOD WOD WOD...

Sheppard East Light Rail Vehicle Maintenance and Storage Facility Transit Project Assessment – Environmental Project Report

AECOM 60118979-111853_18ra_July07-10_Sheppard E LRV MSF EPR.Docx 31

3. Existing Conditions

The following sub-sections provide a description of the existing conditions on the site, and where appropriate, the surrounding lands. This section has been organized so that each discipline falls into the follow factors:

Natural Environment; Social Environment; and

Traffic and Transportation.

Additional technical details for each discipline can be found in the following documents are available for review at the TTC Transit City Office, and on the project website3:

Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments;

Stage 1 and Stage 2 Archaeological Assessments;

Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment; Air Quality Assessment; Noise and Vibration Assessment;

Traffic Impact Study; Natural Heritage Impact Statement; Arborist Report; Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan; Geotechnical Design Report; and Toronto Zoo Viewshed Analysis

3.1 Natural Environment

3.1.1 Terrestrial Natural Heritage

3.1.1.1 Vegetation Communities

While meadows comprise the majority of land on-site, there are scattered and clustered trees around the site that are primarily deciduous species. Most of the trees are young, but there are some mid-aged or older trees as well. Overall, 15 vegetation community types were identified. Figure 3.1 identifies the environmental features observed on the study site, including vegetation communities. There are very few naturally vegetated areas on the site. The majority of the vegetation has resulted from various forms of anthropogenic disturbances. The site has been used for historical agricultural purposes and aggregate extract activities. These are primarily composed of „cultural‟ communities that were created and maintained by human activities, including meadows, woodlands, and thickets. According to the Provincial Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC), none of the identified communities are listed as “Rare” within Ontario. Forest Communities

One forest was identified in the northeast corner of the study site. The FODM5 Dry-Fresh Sugar Maple Deciduous Forest area is dominated by Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum), with White Ash (Fraxinus americana) as a common associate. There are small numbers of Red Oak (Quercus rubra), Manitoba Maple (Acer negundo), Eastern White Cedar (Thuja occidentalis), Eastern Hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), White Birch (Betula papyrifera) and a single larger White Pine (Pinus strobus). The forest is approximately mid-aged with a few individuals over 50 cm dbh. The northern portion of the forest is considered higher quality than the portion further south, because non-native species are much more prevalent in the southern portion, including Norway Maple (Acer platanoides) and Dog Strangling Vine (Vincetoxicum rossicum). The forest is fairly steeply sloped in several directions as it forms a small ravine around the north end of the watercourse which is a tributary of Morningside Creek. There is a healthy amount of downed woody

3. www.toronto.ca/transitcity (Sheppard East LRV Maintenance and Storage Facility)

http://www.toronto.ca/transitcity

Map Document: (N:\projects\0-aecom\111853\2010\Final\GISSpatial\MXDs\ReportMXDs\Sheppard\EnvironmentalProjectReport\111853NaturalEnviroExistingCond_EPR_SC.mxd)06/10/2010 -- 10:56:12 AM

MEM

MEM

MEFM1-2

FODM5

THD

THD

WOD

THDM2

SA

WOD

FODM11/FOCM5

MAMM1-12

WOD

WOD

WOD

THDM3

MAMM1-12

MASM1-2

THDM4-1THDM4

MAMM1-2

MASM1-2

THDM4-1

MASM1-2

MASM1-2

MAMM1-12

Rouge River Valley ANSIMorningside Creek Forest ESA

Sheppard Avenue East

Thornmount Drive

Venture Drive

Water Tow

er Gate

4852

000

4852

000

UTM Zone 17N, NAD 83

1:2,500

Natural EnvironmentExisting Conditions

Sheppard Avenue East LRV MSF

Legend

Vegetation Communities

Breeding AmphibiansAmerican Toad

Green Frog

Provincially SignificantLife Science ANSI

ESA (TRCA)

Project Site

Figure 3.1

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 partythat modifies this drawing without AECOM’s express written consent.

Basemapping from Ontario Ministry of Natural ResourcesOrthophotography: 2007

0 25 50 75 10012.5

m

Code Vegetation Community

Wetland

Terrestrial

Aquatic

June 2010Project 60118979



debris in the forest. The forest is notably fragmented by a clearing in the centre of this patch of forest. This clearing was created to form a dry pond for stormwater management. There is a concrete structure in the centre of this clearing that functions to control flows transmitted via a corrugated steel pipe (CSP) to Morningside Creek under the former CP Rail embankment to the north. Aquatic Communities

Only one aquatic feature was identified during field investigation:

SA Shallow Aquatic

This site supports little aquatic vegetation. It may contain poor water quality as it likely receives surface water runoff from part of the property and adjacent industrial lands.

Wetland Communities

Several small wetland communities are located within the study site. The wetlands found on the tableland are the result of soil characteristics and leftover remnants of the previous land use, which has created topography conducive to collecting and retaining small amounts of water. On-site wetland communities include:

MAMM1-12 Common Reed Graminoid Mineral Meadow Marsh Type

These wetlands are dominated by Common Reed (Phragmites australis) which is a non native invasive species that can create dense monocultures once it gets into wet habitat.

MAMM1-2 Cattail Graminoid Mineral Meadow Marsh Type

Only one of these wetlands is found within the study area and is dominated by narrow leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia).

MASM1-2 Bulrush Mineral Shallow Marsh Type

These relatively small wetlands are located adjacent to the narrow leaved cattail polygon and are dominated by native Bulrush (Juncus articulatus L). This rush is somewhat uncommon in Toronto.

Cultural Communities

The majority of the study site is composed of young, culturally influenced vegetation communities, including: meadows, thickets, woodlands and hedgerows, due to its history as first an agricultural site, and secondly as a dumping area for the adjacent industrial property. „Cultural‟ vegetation communities on the site include:

FODM11 – Naturalized Deciduous Hedgerow Ecostudy area & FOCM5 – Naturalized Coniferous Hedgerow Ecostudy area

These communities are usually found on the fringe of agricultural fields or between properties along fence lines, and typically do not provide significant habitat for either flora or fauna species. Within the study site they are comprised of both coniferous and deciduous species, including Eastern White Cedar (Thuja occidentalis), Manitoba Maple (Acer negundo), Poplars (Populus), and Apple (Malus pumila).

MEM – Mixed Meadow

Abandoned fields, including agricultural or old construction study areas that revert to naturally vegetated areas, are classified as cultural meadows under ELC methodology. Cultural meadows, which account for a large portion of the study site‟s cultural communities, are primarily composed of a mixture of grass and herbaceous plant species. Common species found in these fields include Smooth Brome (Bromus inermis), Dog Strangling Vine, Queen Anne‟s Lace (Daucus carota), Common Milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), Canada Goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), and Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense).



MEFM1–2 Aster Forb Meadow Type

This meadow type is located in an area that appears to have been previously excavated as part of a previous land use. As a result, there is little or no topsoil, and the area is quite dry with few plants observed.

WOD Deciduous Woodland

Cultural woodlands are defined as an area with a recent history of human disturbance, and include a tree canopy cover of between 35% and 60%. Several cultural woodlands exist within the study site. The woodlands are generally low quality, and in places have a sparse understorey due to piles of asphalt that were dumped here, approximately a few decades ago. They contain: Balsam Poplar (Populus balsamifera), Trembling Aspen (Populus tremuloides), Eastern Cottonwood (Populus deltoides), and Siberian Elm (Ulmus pumila) amongst other species.

THD Deciduous Thicket & THDM2 Dry-Fresh Deciduous Shrub Thicket & THDM3 Dry-Fresh Deciduous Hedgerow Thicket

Cultural thickets are defined as tree cover <25% and >25% shrub cover. Thickets within the study site are typically comprised of a mix of species, including Heart Leaved Willow (Salix eriocephala), Crack Willow (Salix fragilis), Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), White Ash (Fraxinus americana). Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), Hawthorns (Crataegus), Trembling Aspen, and Eastern Cottonwood.

3.1.1.2 Flora

A total of 95 plant species were identified on the site through field investigations. Forty-one species are non-native, representing 43% of the total number identified. This is a high ratio of non-native species by Ontario standards, which is indicative of the historical site disturbance. Species significance was determined at the national, provincial and regional scales. Provincially rare species were those ranked as S1-S3 by NHIC. Regional significance was based on rarity rankings assigned in York Region by Varga et al. (2000). In reference to these standards, none of the plant species found within the study area are defined as Species at Risk or Provincially Rare. A search of the NHIC database (2009) identified one plant species within the study area: (Plagiothecium latebricola) Lurking Leskea (S2) recorded in 1983-05-11; however, investigations on the study site did not detect the presence of this species. One species detected, Greenish Sedge (Carex viridula), is identified as “Regionally Rare” within the City of Toronto. It may not be as uncommon as this status suggests, however. This species was found in a wet area near the juncture of the small cattail patch (MAMM1-2) and a bulrush marsh (MASM1-2) to the north. Neither the TRCA nor the City of Toronto had botanical records for the property. Overall, the study site is highly disturbed, forming mainly cultural vegetation communities, with non-indigenous invasive species being the dominant flora in many locations. Dog Strangling Vine (Cynanchum rossicum) is abundant in parts of the site, especially in the central meadows. This species is considered the „single most virulent invasive vascular plant in Ontario‟ (TRCA 2008). Several other invasive species, with varying degrees of invasiveness, are also present on the site. These are: Tartarian Honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica), Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), Norway Maple (Acer platinoides), Manitoba Maple (Acer negundo), Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata) Russian Olive (Eleagnus angustifolia) Siberian Elm (Ulmus pumila), and Common Reed (Phragmites australis) and are listed in the Invasive Exotic Species Ranking for Southern Ontario (Urban Forest Associates Inc. 2002).

3.1.1.3 Wildlife

Breeding Birds

Twenty-five bird species were recorded during breeding bird surveys. Almost all of these are breeding species, while a few breed nearby and feed on the property. The most abundant species was Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus). This species is very common in southern Ontario in a variety of open areas containing tall vegetation, as well as marshes. Most other species observed are characteristic of open semi-disturbed habitats such as the meadow and thickets that occur on the property. Some species require trees, but are not forest species per se (e.g., Warbling



Vireo Vireo gilvus, Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula, American Robin Turdus migratorius etc.). None of the species observed are Species at Risk (either nationally or provincially) and none are provincially rare. All species recorded are common in the GTA, although some are likely to be less frequently recorded in Toronto due to urbanization (e.g., Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii, Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottus, Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum). The latter two indicate that there is a moderate amount of thicket habitat, as these two are usually found in larger areas of thicket. Two area-sensitive open land species were recorded: Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) and Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis). These two species are common in the GTA in larger grassy fields (meadowlark) or larger old fields or cultivated lands (Savannah Sparrow). Northern Rough-winged Swallow (Stelgidopteryx serripennis), a species that feeds on the property, probably breeds in the sand banks along the Rouge River. Thus, there is a moderate diversity of breeding bird species, mainly those of open country and thicket habitats, however no species recorded are rare or unexpected. Most of the habitats adjacent to the site are urban, with the exception of the Rouge River valley. In that particular area, there is a maple-hemlock-oak forest on the valley slopes. Although no area-sensitive forest birds were identified during the surveys, it is likely that within the larger forest there are several forest area-sensitive breeding birds. Amphibians

Amphibian surveyors did not record any rare or threatened species. American Toad (Bufo americanus) and Green Frog (Rana clamitans) were identified breeding in a pond in the northwest corner of the property (Figure 3.1). The pond‟s source of water is most likely surface water runoff from the site and the neighbouring industrial lands. These amphibians are common species in southern Ontario that are tolerant of disturbed habitats. Many toad tadpoles were observed in this pond. While no frogs were recorded, amphibian breeding habitat may also occur in two or three other small areas of pooled water that exist in the east-central portion of the site, as well as in the creek. Another species, Spring Peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), was recorded within the study site during the non-breeding season. It may or may not breed on the property. Other Fauna

One mammal species, the White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) was observed on the site. Other mammal species are expected to occur on the property, such as Raccoon (Procyon lotor), Striped Skunk (Mephitis mephitis), Meadow Vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) and Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis). No turtle habitat exists on the property. MNR has no rare species records for the property.

3.1.1.4 Designated Areas

Wetlands

Wetlands are evaluated by MNR according to the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (1994), in which the importance of a wetland is determined based on the biological, social, hydrological and special features of the wetland. 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 Wetlands (PSWs) found within or adjacent to the study site. Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest

An Area of Natural and Scientific (ANSI) is defined by MNR as an area that contains natural features that are provincially or regionally significant (as found on the NHIC). Earth Science ANSIs comprise important geological features, while Life Science ANSIs include representative ecological features. ANSIs are considered to be the best representation of a natural area 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 ANSIs within the study site, however the Rouge River Valley Life Science ANSI is situated to the north of the property (see Figure 3.2).

Map Document: (N:\projects\0-aecom\111853\2010\Final\GISSpatial\MXDs\ReportMXDs\Sheppard\EnvironmentalProjectReport\111853DesignatedNaturalAreasEPR.mxd)06/10/2010 -- 10:46:46 AM

Rouge River Valley ANSIMorningside Creek Forest ESA


Thornmount Drive

Venture Drive

Water Tow

er Gate

4852

000

4852

000


1:2,500

Designated Natural Areas &

Associated Environmental Restrictions



Figure 3.2



0 25 50 75 10012.5

m²

Legend

Boundary LinesCity of Toronto Ravine & Natural Feature Protection Limit

Top of Bank (TRCA July, 2009)

10m Top of Bank Off-set (Required)

ESA (TRCA)

30 m ESA Off-set

Provincially SignificantLife Science ANSI

30 m ANSI Off-set

Rouge Park Boundary

Project Site



Environmentally Significant 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 ESAs within the study site. A TRCA-recognized ESA, Morningside Creek Forest ESA is located north of the study site, as shown in Figure 3.2. Note that the City of Toronto is currently (2009) determining its boundary for the ESA, which may differ from the existing TRCA delineated boundary. Ravine Protection By-law

Portions of the subject property are within the City of Toronto Ravine and Natural Feature boundary and are subject to the City of Toronto Ravine Protection By-law (Chapter 658) of the Municipal Code (Figure 3.2). These areas include the northeastern portion of the property, and areas on either side of the watercourse (most of the eastern boundary of the property and a portion at the south end of the property). The Ravine Protection By-law regulates and seeks to prohibit the injury and destruction of trees, filling, grading and dumping in ravines and associated wooded areas with the City of Toronto. A permit is required to do works in this ravine area. Private Tree Protection By-Law

The Private Tree Protection By-law (Chapter 813, Article 3) of the Municipal Code requires a permit to injure or destroy any tree having a dbh (diameter at breast height – diameter measured at 1.4 meters above the ground) equal to or greater than 30 cm within the City. The majority of the property falls under this By-law (that which is not within the Ravine and Natural Feature limit). A permit is required to remove trees within this area. Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program

The Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program (TRCA 1994) provides “direction to land use planning and development projects, within/or adjacent to valley and stream corridors.” The boundaries of the valley corridor are determined as: a minimum of 10 m inland from the top of valley (if the slope is stable); or, 10 m inland from the predicted long term stable top of valley as projected from the existing stable toe of slope, or from the predicted location of the toe of slope shifted as a result of stream erosion over a 100 year period (if the slope is not stable). (Section 3.1.1; TRCA 1994). TRCA and AECOM staked the top of bank on June 23, 2009, which is shown on Figure 3.2. On the same date, the dripline of the wooded area in the northeastern portion of the property was staked with TRCA (Figure 3.2). Conservation Authorities Act

A portion of the property is within the TRCA Regulated Area under Ontario Regulation 166/06 (Regulation for Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses) of the Conservation Authorities Act (TRCA 2006) (Figure 3.3). Alterations and grading etc. within this area are not allowed without a permit from the TRCA. It will be necessary to obtain a permit from the TRCA to re-align the watercourse within a culvert.

3.1.2 Aquatic Environment

The watercourse located on the subject lands is part of an engineered surface water drainage feature that services a catchment that is roughly 109 hectares in size and is illustrated in Figure 3.3.



Figure 3.3 Watercourse Boundaries and Open Watercourse

The boundaries of the watershed are delineated in Figure 3.3 in black, and the watercourse in blue. The watercourse consists of three dry flood control ponds that are interconnected by a series of culverts and open channels. Only the open channels and dry ponds are illustrated in Figure 3.3. The watercourse drains from West to East, starting at Nielson Road and turns to flow in a Northerly direction to Pond C. At Pond C, there is an engineered structure that controls the discharge into Morningside creek. The reach of the watercourse that is directly impacted by the development originates from the outfall of Pond B (south of Milner Avenue, which is south of Sheppard Avenue) to Pond C. The watercourse controls and conveys runoff from a watershed that is approximately 109 hectares and extends south to Highway 401. The first section of open channel occurs north of Milner Avenue. This reach flows north-northeast toward Sheppard Avenue East where it enters a culvert passing beneath the road. The watercourse travels within the culvert for approximately 30 m. The watercourse returns to being an open channel north of Sheppard Avenue, but enters the study area through a short 13.5 m long culvert passing beneath the City of Toronto Works yard driveway. The watercourse enters the study area at the southwest corner of the property (Figure 3.4). On the property, the watercourse flows northeast through an open field for approximately 200 m before turning north. The north section of the watercourse is approximately 400 m long and terminates at a concrete catch basin in the northeast corner of the property. The watercourse enters the catch basin via a 1 m x 2 m angled bar rack grate at the base of a 15 m tall (approximate) concrete overflow stack centred within the basin (Figure 3.4, Photo 8). From this point the watercourse passes underground for approximately 30 m exiting through a perched culvert located outside the study area. Water flows from the culvert to Morningside Creek through a poorly defined channel. There is insufficient flow from the culvert outlet to allow upstream fish passage. Moreover, fish cannot pass the perched culvert outlet nor could fish pass the 30 m underground culvert and catch basin/overflow structure to access the subject watercourse.

WATERCOURSE

NN Nee e

ii i ll l ss soo o

nn n R

R Roo o

aa add d

MMM iii lll nnn eee rrr AAA vvv eee

N

Map Document: (N:\projects\0-aecom\111853\2010\Final\GISSpatial\MXDs\ReportMXDs\Sheppard\EnvironmentalProjectReport\111853WatercourseFeatures_EPR_SC.mxd)06/10/2010 -- 11:29:39 AM


Repac R

oad

Conlins R

oad

Thornmount D

rive

Auto Mall Drive

Water Tow

er Gate

Venture Drive

Grand M

arshall Drive

4852

000

4852

000


1:3,000

Watercourse Features

Sheppard Avenue East LRV MSFLegend

Over flow Tower

Railway

Project Site

Culvert

Common Reed Filled Channel

Open Channel

ESA (TRCA)

Estimated Floodline

Ontario Regulation166/06 line

Natural CoverForest

Meadow

Wetland



0 50 10025

m

1

2 Typical ponding of water withinCommon Reed lined channel due to restricted flow.

1

1 Photo of concrete block liner with vegetation (August 2009)

1

1

1

1

11

3 Photo showing density of channel vegetation

5 Storm water outfall entering channel through concrete line spill basin on west side of channel.

4 Debris dam (partial flow restriction).

6 Tile drains located at the top of bank adjacent to path

7 Watercourse looking south from over flow tower. Note the severe channel restriction caused by collapse of bank.

8 Over flow tower. Water flows underground to perched culvert north of therail line.


Figure 3.4



Within the study area, the watercourse is lined over its entire length with an embedded concrete block treatment (Figure 3.4, Photo 1). The channel has been engineered to contain the watercourse and minimize channel erosion. Consequently there is very little differentiation in full channel width or depth over its length. Full channel width is approximately 4 m and depth is approximately 2 m. One stormwater outfall (Figure 3.4, Photo 5) and one tile drain outfall (Figure 3.4, Photo 6) contribute flow to the watercourse. The stormwater outfall is a 60 cm corrugated steel pipe (CSP) culvert located on the east bank of the watercourse approximately 410 m north of the Sheppard Avenue culvert. A large concrete basin lines the bank of the watercourse at the culvert intercept. The tile drain outfall feeds into a half pipe CSP that intercepts the watercourse 100 m further downstream. Historical localized erosion has compromised the stability of the basin resulting in damage to the half pipe over much of its length. The instream habitat of the watercourse can be described by two distinct areas. The first, is a 400 m section of Common Reed vegetated channel immediately north of the Sheppard Avenue. Common Reed growth is extremely dense and significantly reduces flow velocity through this reach (Figure 3.4, Photo 2, Photo 3). The wetted channel width in this section was approximately 1 m and depth was 0.15 m, on average at the time of the survey. There was no measureable flow and no evidence of a scoured bed and bank within this section. Surface algal colonies were present throughout the section indicating stagnant water conditions. Accumulated instream debris, possibly from the spring melt had created 3 natural dams which further reduced flow through this section (Figure 3.4, Photo 4). Finally, there was no evidence of groundwater contribution either through visual observations of seeps or watercress within this reach. The second section is associated with the transition of the watercourse into the ravine lands. This section is a 200 m reach associated with an open channel with very little aquatic vegetation. Medium to large trees lined the channel at the north end of the study area and small shrubs were present along the entire reach (Figure 3.4, Photo 7). The wetted width was 0.5 m and depth was 0.05 m on average and the channel did demonstrate some evidence of scoured bed and bank instability at the time of the survey. Water velocity within this reach was typically 0.5 m per second. A common observation within this reach was the slumping of banks and subsequent infilling of the channel. In one area a large volume of soils and vegetation had slid into the watercourse; narrowing the channel significantly. No complete channel obstructions were observed however. Wetted seeps were present at several locations along the watercourse, however watercress was not observed at any time within these areas. The seeps were therefore likely the result of shallow sub-surface flow of infiltrated rainwater (as per Section 3.1.3.3). In general, the watercourse has been highly impacted historically and in recent years. Much of the upstream areas have been buried and there has been considerable realignment of the channel over much of its length. There is no direct connection to Morningside Creek as a result of the overflow tower and culvert outlet beneath the former CP Rail embankment. Furthermore, connection to upstream habitats is greatly restricted by extensive underground alignments. Passage within the channel is seasonally restricted by dense Common Reed growth and there are no well defined pool – riffle complexes within the subject watercourse due to its artificial design and block liner. The riparian vegetation throughout large reaches of the subject watercourse is relatively non-existent and likely limits factors such as allochthonous inputs, flow storage and conveyance, water temperature and benthic invertebrate colonization. All of these factors contribute to relatively non productive, contributing habitat conditions. Visual fish inspections (minimum 20 minutes) were undertaken at 4 locations (2 within the Common Reed section and 2 within the valley section). Fish were not observed at any of these locations. Electrofishing surveys were not undertaken because the watercourse provides direct fish habitat due to its restricted connection to other areas of fish habitat and the seasonal intermittence of flow. In addition, no known Species at Risk (SAR) are reported within the subject watercourse as per correspondence with Ministry of Natural Resources; however, redside dace (Clinostomus elongates), which are listed as Endangered under the Provincial Endangered Species Act (ESA), are documented as being present downstream of the subject site in Morningside Creek. The immediate value of this stream is considered to be its contribution of allocthonous inputs to Morningside Creek, and is therefore considered to be indirect, contributing fish habitat.



3.1.3 Hydrogeology and Groundwater

3.1.3.1 Physiography and Topography

Regionally, the study site is located within the Iroquois Plain physiographic region, which is characterized by a prominent ridge located south of Finch Avenue, north of the study site. This ridge represents the former Lake Iroquois Shoreline. The Iroquois Plain physiographic region is a relatively flat, south sloping region that extends from the till plain of the South Slope region to Lake Ontario (Chapman and Putnam, 1984). Dense till soils can often be found at surface in upland areas and underlie the Glacial Lake Iroquois shoreline sediments. These sediments are primarily a gravely sand that grade to the south into laminated silts and clays. Within the boundaries of the study site, till soils are expected to be detected at surface, but some isolated areas of Iroquois Shoreline sand and gravel may also be found. The site topography is generally flat with areas of small depressions. A watercourse runs from the south end of the site around the eastern perimeter and ends at a dry stormwater management pond in the northeast corner of the site. The flat-lying site dips steeply in the northeast corner and enters a small valley system and a dry stormwater management pond.

3.1.3.2 Geology

Based upon the results of borehole drilling and field investigations conducted as part of the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), the primary surficial material at the study site is the Newmarket Till Aquitard (Figure 3.5). It should be noted that the description of surficial geology at the site has been modified from the native soil description provided by Barnett et al. (1991) to reflect the results of the borehole drilling and the historical extraction of Iroquois sand and gravel from the area. Fill materials were also identified to be present at surface. The Newmarket Till is a compact, stony, silty, sandy diamicton that is generally poorly drained and is up to 50 m thick in places. Geological mapping also indicates that Lake Iroquois Shoreline sand and gravel deposits are present on the property at the north and south ends (Sharpe, 1980). Drilling investigations at the site confirm the presence of thick till soils as well as, a thin, isolated area of Iroquois Shoreline sands at the south end near MW1. Cross-sections A-A‟ (Figure 3.6) and B-B‟ (Figure 3.7) describe the subsurface geology of the site, based on the results of borehole drilling. The Thorncliffe Formation underlies the Newmarket Till and is likely exposed at surface near the base of the Morningside Creek Valley, located to the north of the site. The bedrock is comprised of flat-lying Palaeozoic limestones and shales of Georgian Bay Formation that underlie the overburden sediments throughout the analysis area. These last two units are deep in the stratigraphic sequence and are not exposed at the study site. The aerial photographic records for the site show that Lake Iroquois sand and gravel deposits have been extracted from a pit located near the north central portion of the site (Figure 3.5). Sand and gravel pit operations have also extracted materials from locations to the south and east of the site. The aggregate extraction activities removed the Iroquois sand and gravel deposits from a former raised beach form on the site. The floor of the former pit is clearly identified on the historic photographs and consists of native till soils. Slope Stability

A detailed engineering analysis of slope stability was undertaken separately as part of the geotechnical investigation of the Sheppard East LRV MSF. The Geotechnical Design Report is available for review at the TTC Transit City Office, and on the project website4. The engineering analysis was carried out for three slope cross-sections utilizing computer software SLIDE (version 5.035) developed by Rocscience Inc. These cross-sections are shown in Figures 3.8, 3.9 and 3.10. The slope stability analyses were based on an effective stress limit equilibrium analysis for long term slope stability using Morgenstern-Price, Spencer, Bishop and Janbu methods. The results of the slope stability analysis are summarized in Table 3.1 below.



Map Document: (N:\projects\0-aecom\111853\2010\Final\GISSpatial\MXDs\ReportMXDs\Sheppard\EnvironmentalProjectReport\111853SurficialGeologyEPR.mxd)06/10/2010 -- 11:21:55 AM

Morningside Creek


Thornmount Drive

Venture Drive

Water Tow

er Gate

BH22

TP-5TP-4

TP-3

TP-2

TP-1

MW-7

MW-6

MW-5

MW-4

MW-3

MW-2

MW-1

645000

645000

4852

000

4852

000


1:2,500

Surficial Geology



Legend

Monitoring Location

Monitoring Well

Test Pit

Project Site

Surficial Geology

19: Modern alluvial deposits (Silt, Sand and Gravel)

9b: Littoral-foreshore deposits (Sand and Gravel)

8a: Massive-well laminated(Silt and Clay)

5b: Stone-poor, carbonate-derived silty to sandy till (Newmarket Till)



0 50 10025

m

Figure 3.5

*Note: Surficial geology within the Study Area has been modified from Provincial Geological Mapping by Barnett et al. (1991) to reflect the results of site specific borehole information and analysis. The surficial geology outside of the Study Area has not been confirmed to the same extent and is presented only for reference.

Site Surficial Geology*Newmarket Till

Lake Iroquois Shoreline (Sand and Gravel)



Table 3.1 Slope Stability Analysis

Section Type of Slope Slide Minimum Factor of Safety for Potential Slope Slides

Normal Groundwater High Groundwater

Section 0+290 Overall Slope Slide 2.1 1.8 Section 0+350 Overall Slope Slide 1.8 1.8 Section 0+420 Overall Slope Slide 1,7 1.7

The calculated factor of safety for the sections for overall slope slide varied from 1.7 to 2.1 which is considered adequate with respect to the industry standards and conservation authority policy guidelines. The slope stability analysis indicates that the subject slope has adequate factor of safety against potential deep seated slope slides and a stability setback is not required. With regard to erosion, an erosion allowance is recommended in areas where the watercourse position is within 15 m of the slope toe. The Ministry of Natural Resources recommends a 2 m erosion setback for clayey silt till deposit, for 5 to 30 m bankfull width (Ministry of Natural Resources 2002). In consideration of the prevailing soil and site conditions, a minimum of 2 m erosion set-back is used where the watercourse is located at the slope toe. However, where an existing floodplain of 2 m or more is located between the watercourse and the slope toe, river erosion should not affect the slope within the design life of 100 years and an erosion setback is not required for those areas. The native soils comprising the subject slope consist of very stiff to hard clayey silt glacial till deposit. Based on the results of the slope stability and erosion analysis, the subject slope is considered to be stable and the existing physical top of bank is considered to be the Long Term Stable Slope Crest (LTSSC). TRCA policy requires a 10 m setback from the greater of the Physical Top of Bank, Staked Top of Bank, and the LTSSC for all new development. The sewer relocation will generally be 10 m or more setback from the LTSSC/staked top of bank except for a small section where the sewer is shown 6.1 to 8.5 metres from the LTSSC/staked top of bank. The proposed facility may be carried out safely and should not adversely impact the overall stability of the valley slope with the following mitigation measures:

Construction will be conducted in a manner that does not result in surface erosion of the slope. In particular, site grading and drainage should be designed to prevent direct concentrated or channelized surface runoff from flowing directly over the slope. In particular, site grading and drainage should be designed to prevent direct concentrated or channelized surface runoff from flowing directly over the slope. Water drainage from down-spouts, sumps, road drainage, and the like should not be permitted to flow over the slope, but a minor sheet flow may be acceptable.

A healthy vegetative cover should be maintained on the slope. Any slope areas disturbed by construction should be restored with suitable native vegetation, however, it is understood that there will be no construction beyond the top of the bank.

The configuration of the slope should not be altered without prior consultation with a geotechnical engineer. In particular, the slope should not be steepened.

3.1.3.3 Hydrogeology

Groundwater Recharge/ Discharge

The primary surficial material at the study site is the Newmarket Till Aquitard. This is a major regional aquitard, given its low hydraulic conductivity (10-9 to 10-8 cm/s, Sharp et al., 1996) and its presence at surface over most of the study area. These till deposits restrict groundwater flow and groundwater infiltration (i.e., recharge), and confine deeper aquifer units (e.g., Thorncliffe Formation).



The presence of low permeability till soils at surface of the study site will limit the amount of infiltration that can occur at the site and will promote runoff of surface water during even moderate rainfall evens. Areas of ponded surface water were identified on the site (Figures 3.11 and 3.12) and further confirm the low recharge function of the area. Runoff is anticipated to greatly exceed recharge at this site. In a small area at the south end of the study site, Iroquois Shoreline sand and gravel deposits were identified. The presence of these soils will promote infiltration over their limited extent. The water table in these sediments is anticipated to be near surface because the underlying Newmarket Till does not permit drainage to depth. Although a detailed water balance was not completed for the site, an estimate of approximately 100 mm/yr for infiltration through till soils in the Rouge River Watershed was made by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) in their Rouge River State of the Watershed Report (TRCA 2007) and is considered reasonable for the study site.

Figure 3.11 Looking north along the access road at

the eastern edge of the property. Note

the ponded water within the path derived from

shallow groundwater interflow.

Figure 3.12 A close up of the ponded water along the

access road. Very minor groundwater

discharge from interflow was observed.

Significant groundwater discharge areas are not anticipated to be found on site, due to the presence of tight till soils at surface. Some minor seeps, interpreted to be derived from groundwater interflow, were found where surficial fill materials or weathered till soils are exposed along breaks in slope or low-lying areas (see the two photos above). Minor groundwater seeps were identified from the observation of slightly wetted soils along the steep valley side located at the northeastern edge of the study site. These are interpreted to come from isolated sand seems within the till and do not contribute to surface water flow in the watercourse. According to groundwater flow mapping (Figure 3.13), minor groundwater discharge may be occurring into the watercourse along the eastern site boundary, although stream temperature measurements suggest that the watercourse is surface water fed (i.e., water temperatures mimic air temperatures). The small amount of discharge from this deposit into the watercourse may not be significant enough to provide a thermal buffering capacity for the surface water or even to sustain flow during drought conditions. Groundwater Flow

The regional groundwater flows northwest to southeast, but locally, groundwater flow directions mimic surface topography. Shallow groundwater at the site tends to flow eastwards towards the watercourse along the eastern property boundary (Figure 3.13). Groundwater flow at the very north end of the site is northwards towards Morningside Creek. Overall, downwards groundwater flow through the Newmarket Till to deeper aquifer units likely dominates groundwater movement at the site. Minor lateral groundwater flow may occur in the Lake Iroquois shoreline sediments located at the south end of the site. Groundwater levels measured in the seven on-site monitoring wells on October 26, 2009 range in depth from 1.095 to 7.87 metres below ground surface (mbgs).

Map Document: (N:\projects\0-aecom\111853\2010\Final\GISSpatial\MXDs\ReportMXDs\Sheppard\EnvironmentalProjectReport\111853GWContoursEPR.mxd)06/10/2010 -- 10:49:38 AM

Former McAsphalt Site

Morningside Creek

138

139

136

137

135

134

MW-7138.88 (3.35)

MW-4133.53 (2.97)

MW-2136.71 (0.98)

MW-1134.23 (3.51)

MW-3139.325 (0.335)

MW-5138.97 (0.91)

MW-6136.19 (7.11)

139

136

137


Thornmount Drive

Venture Drive

Water Tow

er Gate

138

135

134

645000

645000

4852

000

4852

000


1:2,500

Potentiometic Surface and Goundwater Flow


Groundwater Contours

Groundwater Flow Direction

Site Features

Dumped Asphalt

Former Gravel Pit


Piled Material

Salt Dome

Works Yard

Project Site

ESA



0 50 10025

m

Monitoring Well

MW-1134.23 (3.51)

Monitoring Well ID

Water Level(mASL)

Water Level(mbgs)

Figure 3.13




Groundwater Quality

Groundwater quality samples were collected from each on-site monitoring well on October 26, 2009 and were analyzed for metals and inorganics, petroleum hydrocarbons F1 to F4, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). The results of these analyses were compared to Ontario Regulation 153/04, Table 3 Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Non-Potable Groundwater Condition, Commercial/ Industrial/ Community Property Use under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE), March 9, 2004 for fine textured soil. No Table 3 exceedances were found from groundwater samples collected from any of the on-site monitoring wells. Elevated concentrations of sodium and chloride were found in samples collected from MW1, MW3, and MW7, which are indicative of impacts from road salt. MW1 and MW7 are both located near roadways where road salt application occurs. MW3 is located near a salt storage dome for the City of Toronto Works Department. Groundwater quality is further discussed in Section 3.1.4.

3.1.4 Contaminated Soils and Groundwater

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was completed at the site by AECOM on October 29, 2009 and identified several potential environmental concerns. The Phase 1 Report is available for review at the TTC Transit City Office, and on the project website5. The site is currently unoccupied and has been used for historical agricultural purposes and aggregate extract activities. Based on the Phase I ESA, there is evidence of potential or actual contamination associated with the following activities related to the site (see Figure 3.14).

A former aggregate gravel pit was located at the north end of the Property over a 1.1 hectare area;

A number of stockpiles of fill material of unknown chemical quality were found in a 0.2 hectare area on the northeast part of the Property along with broken asphalt and empty 205 L drums;

Based on the findings of the aerial photograph review, a former asphalt manufacturing facility was located on an adjacent property located to the east of the watercourse. The plant operated from the 1970s until approximately 2005. The plant included rail sidings and several underground storage tanks. The former asphalt plant operations on this adjacent site represent a potential off-site source of impacts along the eastern site boundary; and

Asphalt and tar residues likely from the operations at the neighbouring asphalt plant to the east were dumped over a 0.4 hectare area on the central portion of the site. Heavy oils and petroleum hydrocarbons from the dumped asphalt and tar on the Property are a potential source of soil and groundwater contamination.

A City of Toronto works yard was located contiguous to the southwest Property line at 8270 Sheppard Avenue East at the time of the site visit. Based on a review of historical records from the Ontario Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, an underground fuel tank is suspected to have been historically used at this site. Petroleum hydrocarbons from any tanks on this site represent a potential off-site source of contamination on the southwest section of the property.

Several EcoLog records indicated a potential environmental concern with respect to the Shell service station (gas station) located to the southwest of the site at 8301 Sheppard Avenue East. EcoLog ERIS Ontario Spills records report an underground leak from a fuel tank on the property resulting in confirmed groundwater and soil impacts. As the Shell service station is within 110 m of the site, there is the potential that the reported contamination may have migrated from 8301 Sheppard Avenue East to the site and presents a potential environmental concern.



Map Document: (N:\projects\0-aecom\111853\2010\Final\GISSpatial\MXDs\ReportMXDs\Sheppard\EnvironmentalProjectReport\111853Contamination_SoilSamplesEPR.mxd)06/10/2010 -- 10:42:04 AM

Former McAsphalt Site

Morningside Creek

Gas StationSheppard Avenue East

Thornmount Drive

Venture Drive

Water Tow

er Gate

BH22

GS-4

GS-3

GS-2

GS-1

TP-5TP-4

TP-3

TP-2

TP-1

MW-7

MW-6

MW-5

MW-4

MW-3

MW-2

MW-1

645000

645000

4852

000

4852

000


1:2,500

Potential Sources of Contamination and Soil

Sample LocationsJune 2010

Project 60118979


Project Site

ESA

Monitoring Location

Soil Grab Sample

Monitoring Well

Test Pit

GasStation

Site Features

Dumped Asphalt

Former Gravel Pit


Piled Material

Salt Dome

Works YardThis 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 partythat modifies this drawing without AECOM’s express written consent.


0 50 10025

m

Figure 3.14



A Phase II ESA was conducted at the site by AECOM and is available for review at the TTC Transit City Office, and on the project website6. For the Phase II ESA, the following site testing was initiated.

A total of Eight (8) boreholes (BH22, MW1, MW2, MW3, MW4, MW5, MW6 and MW7) were advanced at strategic locations throughout the site. The borehole locations were chosen to assess potential subsurface soil and groundwater impacts and to establish the site-specific geological and hydrogeological subsurface characteristics. Each of the boreholes, except BH22 was instrumented with a groundwater monitoring well upon completion and were sampled for groundwater chemistry;

A total of five (5) test pits (TP1, TP2, TP3, TP4, and TP5) were dug at specific locations that focused on the former aggregate gravel pit area, a large stock pile of unknown materials, and areas of broken or piled asphalt and tar residue;

A total of four (4) soil grab samples were also collected to test the surficial soils for herbicide and pesticide impacts from historical farming activities;

In accordance with Ontario Regulation 153/04 - Records of Site Condition, Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) (O.Reg. 153/04), the appropriate generic site Condition Standards (SCS) was determined to be the Table 3 Standards for Industrial/Commercial land use for fine textured soils, as provided in the supporting document “Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act,” dated March 9, 2004;

Representative soil samples were submitted for laboratory analysis based on the worse case results of the sample field vapour screening and visual/olfactory observations. The representative soil samples were submitted for: volatile organic compounds (VOCs), petroleum hydrocarbons (PHC) fractions F1 to F4, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), metals and metal hydrides, and inorganic parameters; and

Groundwater samples were collected from each of the on-site monitoring wells (MW1, MW2, MW3, MW4, MW5, MW6, and MW7) during the October 26, 2009 sampling event. A total of eight (8) groundwater samples were collected and submitted for the following laboratory analyses: volatile organic compounds, semi volatile organic compounds (sVOC), PHC fractions F1 to F4, PAHs, metals and metal hydrides, and inorganics.

Based on the results of the Phase II ESA soil and groundwater sampling and laboratory analytical programs, AECOM offers the following regarding the contaminated soils and groundwater.

No fill materials were encountered in test pits TP1 and TP2 that were dug in the former aggregate pit area. Native sandy silt till to silt till soils were encountered at surface and extended to the bottom of the test pits at approximately 2.5 to 2.9 m below ground surface.

The large stockpile near the centre of the site is comprised primarily of organic soils overlying clayey soils. The stockpile covers an area of approximately 1,700 m2 (0.4 acres) and is approximately 3.0 to 5.0 m in height.

Asphalt and tar debris fill materials were dumped over an area of approximately 7,300 m2 (1.8 acres) on the north central and east central portion of the site. The area of asphalt and tar debris has been increased relative the results of the Phase I ESA. The thickness and depth of the dumped materials is highly variable, but at the test pit and borehole locations, range in thickness between 0.1 m (TP3) and 0.2 m (MW5). These materials will need to be removed prior to Site development.

Black staining, indicative of hydrocarbons was not noted in any of the soil samples collected from the boreholes or test pits. Furthermore, odours were not noted in any of the soil samples collected from the boreholes or test pits completed at the site.





Low total organic vapours (TOV) concentration headspace measurements were recorded in the soil samples collected at the site, and they ranged from non-detect to 4.5 part per millions (ppm). Low hydrocarbon vapour concentration headspace measurements were recorded in the soil samples collected at the site, and they ranged from non-detect to 95 ppm.

No liquid petroleum hydrocarbons (LPH) were noted during the collection of soil and groundwater samples at the site.

All soil samples submitted for PHC F1 to F4, VOC, PAH, metal and metal hydrides, and inorganic

parameter analyses were detected below the laboratory method detection limits (MDLs) or were present below the Table 3 SCS criteria for fine textured soil.

Analytical results for soil samples submitted for phenoxyacid herbicide and organochlorine pesticide parameters were found to have concentrations below the laboratory MDLs.

All the groundwater samples collected were below Table 3 SCS criteria for all PHC F1 to F4, VOC, sVOC/phenolic, PAH and metal/inorganic parameters. There are currently no Table 3 SCS for PHC F1-F4 in groundwater. Hence, the PHC F1-F4 were compared with the more stringent Table 2 SCS for potable groundwater conditions, and showed concentrations less than laboratory MDLs of 100 µg/L and therefore less than Table 2 SCS.

The leachate concentration (VOCs, benzo(a)pyrene, PCBs and metals) of the analyzed soil sample was below the O.Reg. 558/00, Schedule 4 Leachate Criteria.

3.2 Social Environment

3.2.1 Land Use Environment

3.2.1.1 Toronto Official Plan

The Toronto Official Plan, as amended, was partially approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on July 6, 2006. It is intended to provide a broad policy framework for the development of the City for the next 25 to 30 years. Though portions of the Toronto Official Plan remain under appeal, the Toronto Official Plan is in-force as it pertains to the subject application. The Subject Site is identified on the Toronto Official Plan maps as follows:

“Employment District” on Map 2 (“Urban Structure”); Sheppard Avenue East being defined as having a right-of-way width of “36 metres” on Map 3 (“Right-of-

Way Widths Associated with Existing Major Streets”); “Natural Heritage System” on Map 9 (“Natural Heritage System”); and “Employment Area” and “Natural Heritage Area” on Map 22 (“Land Use Plan”).

Employment District and Area

The Subject Site is located within an Employment District on Map 2 of the Toronto Official Plan. Section 2.2.4 of the Toronto Official Plan provides policies pertaining to development within Employment Districts, as follows:

a) Employment Districts will be protected and promoted exclusively for economic activity in order to:

maintain and grow the City‟s tax base; provide a range of employment opportunities for Toronto residents that can be reached by

a range of employment opportunities for Toronto residents; provide a range of employment opportunities for Toronto residents that can be reached by

means other than the private automobile; and create and sustain well-paid, stable, safe, and fulfilling employment opportunities for all

Torontonians.



b) Transit use will be encouraged in Employment Districts through investing in improved levels of service, by encouraging new economic development to take place in a form and density that supports transit and by encouraging travel demand management measures; and

c) Measures will be introduced and standards applied on roads within Employment Districts that give priority to the movement of transit vehicles and trucks.

The Subject Site is primarily designated Employment Area on the Land Use Plan of the Toronto Official Plan. The non-policy, explanatory text in Section 4.6 of the Official Plan characterizes Employment Areas as “the hothouses where we grow our enterprises and jobs,” that uses locating in these areas require “flexibility [that] extends to land and buildings,” and that a “broad and inclusive approach to employment uses in Employment Areas is needed for the City‟s economic future.” Section 4.6.1 of the Toronto Official Plan notes that “Employment Areas are places of business and economic activity.” The Toronto Official Plan does not include further use-specific restrictions or conditions that are applicable to the proposed use of the subject lands (such as it does with “power centres” or places of worship). The Toronto Official Plan further provides additional policies related to Employment Areas. Section 4.6.6 of the Toronto Official Plan, titled “Development Criteria in Employment Areas”, permits new development in Employment Areas subject to a series of built form and design considerations principally intended to ensure new projects will “contribute to the creation of competitive, attractive, highly functional Employment Areas” by:

a) Supporting the economic function of the Employment Areas and the amenity of adjacent areas;

b) Avoiding excessive car and truck traffic on the road system within Employment Areas and adjacent areas;

c) Providing adequate parking and loading on-site;

d) Sharing driveways and parking areas wherever possible;

e) Mitigating the effects of noise, vibration, dust, odours or particulate matter that will be detrimental to other businesses or the amenity of neighbouring areas;

f) Providing landscaping on the front and any flanking yard and adjacent to any public parks and open space to create an attractive streetscape and screening parking, loading and service areas;

g) Treating the boundary between Employment Areas and residential lands with landscaping, fencing, or other measures to minimize nuisance impacts; and

h) Ensuring that outside storage and outside processing is:

Limited in extent, Generally located at the rear of the property, Well screened by fencing and landscaping where viewed from adjacent streets, highways,

parks and neighbouring land uses; and Not detrimental to neighbouring land uses in terms of dust, noise and odours.

Section 4.6.7 of the Toronto Official Plan further includes additional policies pertaining to outside storage or outside processing of goods and materials, where such uses are permitted by the Zoning By-law, and where they are the “primary use on a property in Employment Areas”. Specifically, outside storage and outside processing of goods and materials “will”:

Be well-screened by fencing and landscaping where viewed from adjacent streets, highways, parks and neighbouring land uses; and

Not be detrimental to neighbouring land uses in terms of dust, noise and odour.



Natural Heritage and Natural Areas

Map 9 of the Toronto Official Plan includes the Subject Site within a Natural Heritage Area. The Toronto Official Plan provides that “development is generally not permitted in the natural heritage system”. Development is not prohibited where the underlying land use designation permits development, as is the case with the Subject Site. In these instances, development will:

Recognize the natural heritage values and potential impact on the natural ecosystem as much as is reasonable in the context of other objectives for the area; and

Minimize the adverse impacts and when possible, restore and enhance the natural heritage system.

In addition, the Toronto Official Plan requires that all development in or near the natural heritage system be “evaluated to assess the development‟s impact on the natural heritage system and identify measures to mitigate negative impacts on and/or improve the natural heritage system.” A small portion of the site is designated Natural Area which pertains to the presence of the drainage watercourse along the southern and eastern areas of the Subject Site. The watercourse channels water north to the Rouge River Valley. Section 4.3 – Parks and Open Space Areas provides the following policy pertaining to Natural Areas:

a) The areas shown as Natural Areas on Maps 13-23 will be maintained primarily in a natural state, while allowing for:

Conservation projects, public transit, public works and utilities for which no reasonable alternatives are available, and that are designed to have only minimal adverse impacts on natural features and functions.

b) Provincially significant natural heritage features will be protected by:

Only permitted development in the following locations if it has been demonstrated, through a study, that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or the ecological functions for which the area is identified:

Lands adjacent to provincially significant wetlands or significant portions of the habitat of threatened or endangered species;

In or on lands adjacent to fish habitat; and

In or on lands adjacent to provincially significant woodlands, valleylands, wildlife habitat and areas of natural and scientific interest.

The Sheppard East LRV MSF is located adjacent to an Area of Natural or Scientific Interest (ANSI), which is one of the natural heritage features and areas identified in s. 2.1.4 of the Provincial Policy Statement as requiring protection from development. The Toronto Official Plan includes other restrictive policies pertaining to development within Natural Areas:

Development will be set back from the following locations by at least 10 m, or more if warranted by the severity of existing or potential natural hazards:

The top-of-bank of valleys, ravines and bluffs; Other locations where slope instability, erosion, flooding, or other physical conditions present a

significant risk to life or property; and Other locations near the shoreline which may be hazardous if developed because of flooding,

erosion or dynamic beach processes.



Site Specific Official Plan Policies

The Toronto Official Plan has carried forward a Site Specific Policy (135), which is applicable to the site. This site specific policy requires that development of the site must be compatible with the Toronto Zoo, and introduces the basis for the use of a holding provision in the zoning of the property. The holding provision may be lifted by a rezoning where issues pertaining to impacts on the Rouge River, visual impacts to the Toronto Zoo, and other potential impacts on the Toronto Zoo and adjoining development and land uses are addressed. The holding provisions are now proposed to be deleted. Official Plan Amendment

An Official Plan Amendment is required to provide for the Sheppard East LRV MSF. The Amendment sought would establish the basis for a permission to relocate the watercourse and associated Natural Area land use designation subject to the approval of the TRCA; provide for development within 10 m of the stable top of bank subject to the approval of the TRCA; and remove Site Specific Policy 135; and confirm that the required studies in this policy are required to be satisfied during Site Plan Approval.

3.2.1.2 Zoning

The site is located within the Rouge Employment District and is placed in the Industrial (“M”) and Open Space (“O”) zones by former City of Scarborough Employment District Zoning By-law Number 24982, as amended (“the By-law”). The M zone permits a range of industrial and industrial-support uses, including:

Day nurseries; Educational and training facility uses; Industrial uses; Offices, excluding medical and dental offices; Places of Worship; and Recreational Uses.

A supplementary regulation restricts all uses to be “conducted wholly within an enclosed building”. “Open storage” is not a permitted use in the M zone. Open Storage is a permitted use in the General Industrial (“MG”) and Special Industrial (“MS”) zones. The By-law defines the following relevant terms:

Industrial Use shall mean land, buildings or structures or parts thereof used for one or more of assembling, manufacturing, processing including computer and data processing, warehousing, recycling, research and development uses, and associated ancillary uses, excluding Municipally Prohibited Uses and Special;

Industrial Uses;

Open Storage shall mean the use of land for the storage of equipment, goods or materials unenclosed by walls and a ceiling. Open storage shall not include storage tanks accessory to the industrial operation, unless storage tanks are located in a street yard, or the land area covered by the storage tanks exceeds 10% of the gross floor area of all buildings on the lot; and

Structure shall mean anything that is erected, built or constructed of parts joined together.

The By-law includes two definitions for “Public Transportation Use” which are permitted in specific Employment Districts. There is no Public Transportation Use permitted within the Rouge Employment District, within which the Subject Site is located.



The proposed Sheppard East LRV MSF is not therefore a permitted use of the Subject Site under the By-law. A rezoning is required to amend the definition of the term “Public Transportation Use” to permit this use on the Subject Site. A Zoning By-law Amendment is further required to accommodate the “outdoor storage” of transit related uses, the removal of the holding provision, and to provide for appropriate performance standards. The O zone only permits “open space uses”. The “erection of structures and buildings is prohibited” in O zones.

3.2.2 Existing Community Features

3.2.2.1 Community Features

The existing community features adjacent to the study area are primarily business, retail, commercial and warehouse uses (west and south of the site); as well as residential development to the east of the site. The undeveloped lands immediately to the east of the site are owned by the Toronto Public and Catholic District School Boards for potential future schools. Sheppard Avenue East includes four lanes of traffic and sidewalks and cycling lanes on both sides. Several public transit stops are also located along the corridor. Nearly 70 community features exist within the study area. A summary of the key features is provided below and mapped on Figure 3.15:

Three individual detached residences (Features #12, 14, 18);

Fifty-two row houses/townhouses located along the Sheppard Avenue East right-of-way (#21, 21A, 21B, 23, 24, 38);

“Ecole Laure a Riese” Montessori School (44);

Higher Marks Educational Institute (tenant) (#25A);

Afzal Islamic Montessori (tenant) (#43A);

Two children‟s play areas (#7A and 22);

Rouge Valley Long-term Care Centre (#5);

Family Health Care and Pharmasave Pharmacy (#35);

Family Care Medical Clinic (#36C);

Visual Image Optical Care Centre (#36B);

Dental Office/Clinic (#36D);

MIT Dental Laboratorys (#43);

Jehovah‟s Witness Centre (#49);

Fire Station #22 & EMS Station #25 (#7);

Shiva-Shakti Cultural Sabha (located in detached residence) (#16);

OM Sakthi Mandram (Religious Centre) (#45C);

Morningside Christian Fellowship (#50);

Subdivision with semi- and fully detached residences (#51);

Potential school site (#52); and

Potential school site (#53). Some of these community features were also identified as sensitive receptors for the purposes of the noise and vibration assessments. These sensitive receptors are identified in Section 3.2.6.


Trumpeter Street

Millcar Drive

Rouge River Drive

Muskox Drive

Upper Rouge Trail

Antelope Drive

Meandering Trail

Bald E

agle Ave

Coyote Crescent

Jaguar Street

Red Fox Place

Trailview Terrace

Cheetah Crescent

Reindeer Drive

Bob

cat Terrace

Eco

park G

ate

Wolverine W

ay

Panda SquareChipm

unk Avenue

Savanna Drive

Mou

ntai

n Li

on T

rail

Meandering Trail

1

6

9

7

8

5

3

4

2

54

53

52

49

48

47

46

44

43

42

40 41

36 37

39

38

34

5033

32

31

25

26

51

3029

28

27 21

22

23

2019

1817

161514

131211

24

10

7A

3A3B

43B

44A

44B

44C

44D

44E

44F

26M

26L26K

26P26O

26N

26D

26E

26F

26G

26H

26I

26J

43A

26C

32A

31B

31C

31A

26A

26B25A 21B

21A

45A-C

35A-M

36A-G


Mo

rning

side A

venue

Conlins R

oad

401

Milner Avenue

Venture Drive

Dean P

ark Road

Auto Mall Drive

John

Tab

or T

rail

Thornmount Drive

Casebridge Court

Grand M

arshall Driv

e

Dali Crescent

Water Tow

er Gate

Wishford D

rive

Goya Crescent

Murison Boulevard

Bradworthy Court

Bushwood Court

Gaudi Road

Dali C

resc

ent

329000

329000

330000

330000

4851

000

4851

000

4852

000

4852

000

1:6,000

Legend

Community Features

Community Feature

Non-Community Feature

Abandoned Railway

Project Site

Map

Doc

umen

t: (N

:\pr

oje

cts\

0-a

eco

m\1

118

53\

201

0\F

inal

\GIS

Sp

atia

l\MX

Ds\

Re

port

MX

Ds\

Sh

eppa

rd\E

nvi

ron

men

talP

roje

ctR

epor

t\11

185

3Co

mm

un

ityF

eat

ure

_E

PR

.mxd

)06

/22

/201

0 -

- 9

:58:

01

AM

Community Features





0 100 20050

m

Figure 3.15



3.2.2.2 Other Uses (Non-Community Features)

In addition, several other uses were observed in the study area that were not classified as a “community feature”, but as other uses. These include:

Toronto Transportation Services Winter Maintenance Depot (Feature #1); Two gas stations (#2 and 32A); Toronto Zoo (#51); Twelve mixed commercial-office business parks/plazas (#3, 26, 26A, 26C-26F, 26G-26J, 29, 30, 32, 35,

41, 45); One water tower (#25); One Driving Academy (#35K); One Fitness Centre (#36A); Several restaurants and fast food stores (#31C, 35B, 35C, 35D, 35E, 35G, 35H, 37); Three Financial Companies/businesses (#36E-36G); Two grocery store (#34 and 35J); Four manufacturing/warehouses/distribution centres (#6, 8, 27, 28); Light industrial uses (9, 26L– 26P); Numerous businesses (#3A-3C, 13, 17, 19, 40, 45A, 45B, 31, 31A, 35L, 35M, 36, 46-48); Two open fields/vacant lots (#10, 11 and 15); New development: New Plaza/Retail Commercial uses (#31B); and Small forest/woodlot (#39).

3.2.2.3 Toronto Zoo

The Toronto Zoo‟s southern boundary is situated approximately 500 m north to northeast of the proposed Sheppard East LRV MSF at its closest point. The forested Rouge River valley separates the two. Feedback from Zoo staff indicated that there are three issues of concern:

Security; Noise Issues; and Visual Impact.

Security relates to fencing and whether the facility may increase the possibility of unauthorized access to the Zoo. If so more fortified fencing may be required. The African Savannah is the section that lies closest to the MSF (approximately 1.1 km from the MSF). African Elephants and Hippopotamus are the animals whose compounds would be nearest to the facility and therefore they have the greatest potential to experience sensitivity to noise. In addition, noise may also affect the experience of zoo visitors. The Serengeti Bush Camp is in the African Savannah, in the area closest to the facility (approximately 1.0 km from the MSF). Visitors are able to stay overnight in tents in a re-created African camp. A big part of the experience is to hear the sounds made by the nearby African animals in the night. If the facility produces a certain level of background noise, this may be an unwelcome detraction for the participants. The visual impact is also of concern for the experience of the visitor. The potential visual impact would depend on how much of the facility will be visible from the African Savannah.



3.2.3 Archaeology

The Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment determined that no archaeological sites have been registered within or immediately adjacent to the study area. However, three archaeological sites were found to be registered within a 1 km radius (Table 3.2).

Table 3.2 Registered Archaeological Sites Within 1 km Radius of the Study Area

Borden # Site Name Cultural Affiliation Site Type Researcher

AkGt-18 Little‟s Road Aboriginal Campsite W. Ross 1973

AkGt-19 Malvern Aboriginal Burial W. Ross

AkGt-56 Morningside Aboriginal Lithic Scatter D. R. Poulton 2001

The Stage 1 Archaeological Resource Assessment determined that the study area has potential for the identification of Aboriginal and Euro-Canadian archaeological sites. Therefore, a Stage 2 Property Assessment was recommended for the portions of the study area shown in green in Figure 3.16. Although systematic test pit survey was completed, no archaeological remains were encountered. Figure 3.16 illustrates these areas of archaeological potential and provides a summary of the archaeological findings for the subject site. The Stage 1 and Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment Reports are available for review at the TTC Transit City Office, and on the project website7.

3.2.4 Built Heritage

Review of the City‟s inventory confirmed that no previously identified cultural heritage resources are located in the study area. A review of nineteenth century mapping indicates that two structures were located in the study area at this time. A single structure was found in the north central portion of the property. The 1878 atlas showed that the eastern half of Lot 9 was under the ownership of J. Harrington. The western half of Lot 9 was under the ownership of George Scott. The field review confirmed that the subject study area does not contain any structures. A large portion of the study area is situated on lands that have been previously graded and are currently overgrown by weeds. The study area retains four cultural heritage landscape elements associated with nineteenth century settlement patterns, which include: a small tributary of the Morningside Creek, mature apple trees, a cluster of mature elm trees, and an older fence line. Overall, the study area‟s setting has been altered. Recent residential construction to the north and east, substantial engineering of the Rouge River tributary, industrial uses to the west, grading, and installation of concrete sidewalks and curb have reduced the extent to which these landscape features function together to create an associative cultural heritage landscape linked with nineteenth century land uses. Based on the results of the field review, the study area does not have above ground cultural heritage resources that warrant further investigation. Although a small tributary of the Morningside Creek, apple trees, a cluster of elm trees, and older fencing are present within the study area, these features have been altered to varying degrees and alone do not constitute a cultural heritage landscape that warrants further heritage evaluation and mitigation.



528 Bathurst St.

Toronto, Ontario

Canada, M5S 2P9

T 416-966-1069

F 416-966-9723

[email protected]/www.iAS±.to ASI PROJECT NO.: 09EA068_069DATE: August 25th, 2009

DRAWN BY: J.F.FILE: 09EA68_69_s1

LEGEND0 50 125 15025

Meters100

Study Area

Stage 2 test pit survey

No Potential: disturbed (Stage 1 archaeological assessment)

No Potential: low/wet (Stage 1 archaeological assessment)

No Potential: slope (Stage 1 archaeological assessment) Photo Location & DirectionNo Potential: sewer easement

Figure 3.16: Sheppard East Light Rail Vehicle Maintenance and Storage Facility Environmental Assessment - Results of the Stage 2 Property Assessment

X Location of disturbed test pit

N

X

X

X

X X

X

X X

Gravel Pathway

X

X

X

X

X



3.2.5 Air Quality

An Air Quality Assessment was undertaken for the subject site and surrounding area. The air quality inventory of existing conditions addressed both regional air quality, as monitored by the MOE, as well as individual local sources of air emissions that have the potential to impact air quality within 1,000 m of the study site. The Air Quality Assessment Report is available for review at the TTC Transit City Office, and on the project website7. Air quality data was assessed based on monitoring data from the MOE station that best represents the study area. The MOE currently operates a total of four instrumented air quality monitoring stations across the City of Toronto. The Toronto East station, located approximately 9 km from the subject site, is considered to be most representative of the site conditions since the other MOE stations are further away. A 1,000 m local air quality impact area was selected based on the methodology of the MOE D-6 Series Land Use Compatibility Guidelines. These guidelines define industrial classes based on their air quality impact potential and recommend potential impact influence areas. The recommended potential influence area for the industrial class with the most potential to impact air quality is 1,000 m. The minimum separation distance for these industries is 300 m. The methodology was used to assess the existing potential impact of the facilities in the area of the proposed site. The local 1,000 m air quality impact study area for the air quality inventory was surveyed for potential sources of dust, odour, fine particulate, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and other criteria air contaminants that have the potential to impact air quality.

3.2.5.1 Desk Top Review Findings

Historical air quality monitoring data for the two parameters that are most typically related to human health effects, namely fine particulate (PM2.5), and oxides of nitrogen (NOX reported as NO2), was assessed for the period from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2008. The air quality data for PM2.5 and NOX from the Toronto East station is summarized in Table 3.3 by providing the cumulative percent of the time that air quality meets Air Quality Indices (AQI) as defined by the MOE. The AQI values range from “Very Good” through “Good” to “Moderate”, “Poor” and “Very Poor”.

Table 3.3 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary

Year Cumulative Frequency PM2.5 Cumulative Frequency NO2

Very Good Good Moderate Very Good Good

East Toronto

2004 80% 93% 99.6% 98% 100.0%

2005 76% 90% 99.0% 97% 100.0%

2006 80% 94% 99.7% 99% 100.0%

2007 80% 93% 99.4% 99% 100.0%

2008 83% 96% 100.0% 99% 100.0%

Average 80% 93% 99.5% 98% 100.0%

For PM2.5 the AQI was “Very Good” at least 76% of the time; “Good” at least 90% of the time; and “Moderate” at least 99% of the time. The worst annual Index rating for PM2.5 recorded was “Poor” and occurred less than 0.5% of the time.



The AQI for NOX was “Very Good” at least 97% of the time and “Good” for 100% of the time. Based on the air quality monitoring information, the Air Quality within the study area is “Good” to “Very Good” at least 76% of the time, but is occasionally “Moderate” to “Poor”. Table 3.3 presents a summary of this information.

3.2.5.2 Local Impact Area Survey Findings

The air quality inventory of existing conditions addresses both regional air quality, as monitored by the MOE, as well as existing individual local sources of air emissions that have the potential to impact air quality within 1,000 m of the study site. The recommended potential influence area for the industrial class with the most potential to impact air quality is 1,000 m. The minimum separation distance for these industries is 300 m. Figure 3.17 illustrates the 300 m and 1,000 m air quality impact study area perimeter from the boundaries of the subject site. The local impact study area within 1,000 m of the study site consists of retail and commercial facilities to the south and a mix of small industrial and commercial land uses to the west. Residential and recreational (Toronto Zoo) land uses are located east and north. Facilities catalogued during the survey of the study area and could potentially influence the existing air quality are detailed below. Industries that could be classified as significant potential sources of air emissions were not identified within the 1,000 m study area. Coretec Inc., a manufacturer of printed circuit boards located 350 m to the west of the study side, has reported to the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) the disposal of copper and sulphuric acid wastes off-site; however, no releases to the air were reported. No air quality issues are identified for this facility. The Scarborough Transfer & Recovery Centre, located on Thornmount Drive, approximately 100 m west of the study site, is used for the consolidation and short term storage of materials collected as part of the Toronto recycling initiative, and has some potential for odour and dust. Approximately 300 m south of the study site is an area with automotive dealerships that have maintenance repair garages and auto-body shops. There is potential odour and VOC emissions from the paint spray booths, but no other air quality issues were identified for these study areas. In addition, there are various distribution and storage facilities in the industrial area adjacent to the west of the site. These facilities have significant truck traffic associated with them, which is a potential source of vehicle tailpipe emissions and dust. The Toronto Transportation Services Winter Maintenance Depot 8 is located adjacent to the southern half of the site. This facility has the potential for vehicle emissions and dust. Located 60 m to the east on Sheppard Avenue East is Fire Station #212. No air quality issues are identified for this facility. The remaining facilities in the area are considered to have no air quality issues associated with them. These include several electronic equipment manufacturers, several production equipment manufacturers, retail outlets, small manufacturers and office buildings. In summary, there are several facilities within 1,000 m of the proposed MSF site with some potential to emit air contaminants.

3.2.6 Noise and Vibration

The following assessment of existing noise and vibration was completed as part of the Noise and Vibration Assessment. The Noise and Vibration Technical Report is available for review at the TTC Transit City Office, and on the project website8.



Figure 3.17 Air Quality Impact Study Area Perimeter



A review of the study site and surrounding land uses was completed using a combination of on-site observations as well as aerial photography. The dominant source of noise and vibration was observed to be vehicular traffic from Sheppard Avenue. The following were determined to be the closest noise and vibration sensitive receptors to the proposed study area, as indicated in Figure 3.18.

Residences along Upper Rouge Trail (R1); Residences along Gennela Square (R2); The Rouge Valley Long Term Care Centre located on the southeast corner of Conlins Road and Sheppard

Avenue (R3); The proposed secondary school to the east of the study area (R4); The proposed elementary school to the east of the study area (R5); and The Bushcamp at the Toronto Zoo to the north of the site (R6).

Two ambient community sound monitors configured to measure energy averaged hourly equivalent sound levels were installed at locations M1 and M2 for nine days from October 6th until October 15th, 2009 (Figure 3.18). The location of monitor M1 was selected to represent a similar setback from Sheppard Avenue as the care centre facility receptor R3 at a distance of 32 m from the centre of the road. Similarly, the location of monitor M2 was selected to have a setback from Sheppard Avenue similar to the Upper Rouge Trail receptors R1 at a distance of approximately 370 m from the centre of the road. The two locations considered together provide an understanding of how Sheppard Avenue traffic noise propagates across existing terrain, and allows interpolation and extrapolation of traffic noise at different setbacks. Vibration measurements of vehicular traffic were performed on the sidewalk of Sheppard Avenue at the location V1 indicated on Figure 3.18. The measurement location was chosen adjacent to a rut in the road in order to ensure that worst-case vibration levels were recorded. Measurements were taken for a variety of trucks operating at a variety of speeds.

3.2.6.1 MOE Acoustical Class

The MOE defines a Class 1 area as an area with an acoustical environment typical of a major population centre, where the background noise is dominated by the urban hum. Due to the high levels of traffic on Sheppard Avenue, receptor R3 is considered to be in a Class 1 area. The MOE defines a Class 2 area as an area in which a low ambient sound level, normally occurring only between 23:00 and 07:00 hours in Class 1 areas, will typically be realized as early as 19:00 hours. Due to the setback distance from Sheppard Avenue, receptors R1, R2, R4, and R5 are considered to be in a Class 2 area. The MOE defines a Class 2 area as a rural area with an acoustical environment that is dominated by natural sounds having little or no road traffic such as the following: a small community with less than 1000 population; agricultural area; a rural recreational area such as a cottage or a resort area; or a wilderness area. The proposed secondary (R4) and elementary (R5) schools are currently dual zoned: as institutional and potential residential development should schools not be developed. There are no current designs or timelines for the development of either school. As such, these receptors will be considered daytime receptors only as the activity at schools is typically limited to this period. Should residential dwellings be erected at the locations of R4 and R5 in the future, the City of Toronto will likely require a noise study from the developer to ensure that sound level limits are met in accordance MOE D-Series Guideline D-6. The Bushcamp located at the Toronto Zoo is an area where patrons can camp overnight during the summer and experience a wilderness type environment. As such, it is considered to be a Class 3 receptor as defined by MOE.



Figure 3.18 Sensitive Receptors, Monitoring Locations, and Vibration Measurement Location

3.2.6.2 Sound Level Limits & Measurement Results

The MOE guidelines state that the hourly equivalent sound level (“LEQ”) limit at a receptor is the greater of the current ambient background sound level or the minimum sound level limit applicable to the receptor‟s acoustical class. The MOE minimum sound level limits for Class 1 and Class 2 given in MOE Publication NPC-205 and for Class 3 given in MOE Publication NPC-232 are shown in Table 3.4.



Table 3.4 MOE Minimum Sound Level Limits

Time Period Minimum Leq (dBA)

MOE Class 1 – Urban MOE Class 2 – Suburban MOE Class 3 – Rural

Daytime (7:00 am – 7:00 pm) 50 50 45

Evening (7:00 pm – 11:00 pm) 47 45 40

Night (11:00 pm – 7:00 am) 45 45 40

The background One Hour Equivalent Sound Level (LEQ), measured by noise monitors M1 and M2, is shown in Tables 3.5 and 3.6. Instantaneous sound levels can be much higher (for example, as a wave of traffic passes) and lower (for example, where there is a large gap in traffic), but these average out to the values recorded.

Table 3.5 Monitor Location M1, 32 m from Sheppard Avenue


Daytime (7:00 am – 7:00 pm) 67

Evening (7:00 pm – 11:00 pm) 69

Night (11:00 pm – 7:00 am) 61

Table 3.6 Monitor Location M2, 370 m from Sheppard Avenue


Daytime (7:00 am – 7:00 pm) 42

Evening (7:00 pm – 11:00 pm) 45

Night (11:00 pm – 7:00 am) 39

Sheppard Avenue noise, resulting from vehicular traffic, dominates the ambient sound levels at monitor location M1, whereas natural sounds dominate sound level measurements conducted at monitor location M2. The results indicate that receptor R3, which is close to Sheppard Avenue, can support higher sound level limits than the MOE minimum. The monitoring data from monitor location M2 applies to all other receptors which are further from Sheppard Avenue, and does not support higher sound level limits for these receptors. The resulting sound level limits for all receptors are presented in Table 3.7. The noise impact of the proposed TTC facility on these receptors is required to meet the applicable MOE sound level limits listed.

Table 3.7 Receptor Sound Level Limits

Time Period Sound Level Limit (dBA)

R1 & R2 R3 R4 & R5 R6

Daytime (7:00 am – 7:00 am) 50 67 50 45

Evening (7:00 pm – 11:00 pm) 45 69 n/a 40

Night (11:00 pm – 7:00 am) 45 61 n/a 40

3.2.6.3 Vibration Criteria

Vibration sources at the Sheppard East LRV MSF should comply with ISO 2631-2, Evaluation of human exposure to whole-body vibration – Part 2: Continuous and shock-induced vibration in buildings. This publication sets a maximum RMS velocity limit of 0.14 mm/s at frequencies between 10 and 100 Hz within residential buildings during night time. Typically, streetcar vibration does not produce vibration levels below 10 Hz. This applies to receptors R1, R2, R3, and if they are developed as residential housing or for institutional purposes, R4 and R5.



3.2.6.4 Vibration Measurements

Vibration measurements of vehicular traffic were performed on the sidewalk of Sheppard Avenue at the location V1 indicated on Figure 3.15. The measurement location was chosen adjacent to a rut in the road in order to ensure that worst-case vibration levels were recorded. Measurements were taken for a variety of trucks operating at a variety of speeds. Vibration measurements were performed on the sidewalk besides Sheppard Avenue to capture existing vibration levels resulting from traffic. There are no other existing vibration sources in the area affecting the identified sensitive receptors. Measured vibration levels resulting from Sheppard Avenue traffic ranged between 0.03 mm/s and 0.10 mm/s. These levels are below the threshold of human perception for vibration, which is 0.14 mm/s. Since these vibrations attenuate as they travel from the road to a receptor, existing vibration levels resulting from Sheppard Avenue traffic are considered insignificant. Vibration levels along minor roads is projected to be even lower due to the smaller volume of traffic, reduced velocity, and the limited number of heavier vehicles that use the road - such as trucks or buses.

3.3 Traffic and Transportation

This section summarizes the existing conditions identified as part of the Traffic Impact Assessment, available for review at the TTC Transit City Office, and on the project website9.

3.3.1 Roads

The existing roads in the vicinity of the subject site are described below. Sheppard Avenue East functions as an east/west arterial roadway with four lanes, which provide for two lanes of travel in each direction. The road has an urban cross-section, and a posted speed limit of 60 km/h. Watertower Gate/Grand Marshall Drive functions as a north/south collector roadway with two lanes, one for each direction of travel. The road has an urban cross-section, and a posted speed limit of 50 km/h. Conlins Road functions as a north/south collector roadway south of Sheppard Avenue, with two lanes, one for each direction of travel. The road has an urban cross-section, and a posted speed limit of 50 km/h. North of Sheppard Avenue is the unopened road allowance of Conlins Road, which currently provides access to a small parking lot within a City Park. The Sheppard Avenue intersections with Watertower Gate/Grand Marshall Drive and Conlins Road operate under traffic signal control. Exclusive left turn lanes are provided on all approaches of the Sheppard Avenue/Watertower Gate/Grand Marshall Drive intersection, and an exclusive right turn lane is provided on the Sheppard Avenue eastbound approach. The Sheppard Avenue/Conlins Road intersection has exclusive left turn lanes on the westbound and northbound approaches.

3.3.2 Traffic

The quality of intersection traffic operations is typically measured in terms of Level of Service (LOS). The roadway LOS is a quantitative measure of roadway congestion ranging from LOS A (least congested) to LOS F (most congested), resulting in operational failure with long delays and significant queues. Similar to LOS, the v/c ratio is calculated for the intersection as a whole, and for individual movements at an intersection. The v/c ratio provides a measure of traffic volume demand to the available capacity, A v/c ratio of 0.8, for example, indicates that an intersection is operating at 80% of its capacity.





To assess existing conditions during peak periods, a level of service analysis was undertaken for the key intersections within the Study Area using Synchro 7.0 Software, which implements the methods of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. The key parameters and assumptions used in the analysis of existing conditions included:

Existing signal timing plans;

Existing lane configurations;

A peak hour factor (PHF) of 1.0 with an analysis period of 60 minutes; and

Synchro defaults for all other input factors.

The analysis of existing conditions is shown in Table 3.8 below for the peak hours, which represent the one hour periods with the highest traffic demands. As shown in Section 4.3, better operations occur during the remaining off peak hours under existing conditions since they have lower traffic volumes.

Table 3.8 Existing Peak Hour Level of Service at Signalized Intersections

Intersection Approach/ Movement

AM (7:30 – 8:30) PM (4:30 – 5:30)

Delay LOS v/c Delay LOS v/c Sheppard Avenue/ Water Tower Gate-

Grand Marshall Drive

EB Left 52.9 D 0.73 7.8 A 0.07 Dual Thru 2.7 A 0.13 11.1 B 0.49 Right 2.4 A 0.04 7.6 A 0.05

WB Left 2.9 A 0.14 10.8 B 0.24 Thru-Thru/Right 8.8 A 0.81 8.7 A 0.24

NB Left 36.4 D 0.30 27.7 C 0.22 Thru/Right 35.6 D 0.23 28.9 C 0.35

SB Left 37.6 D 0.39 135.4 F 0.99 Thru/Right 37.7 D 0.41 27.0 C 0.15

Overall Intersection 10.6 B 0.77 26.0 C 0.64 Sheppard Avenue/

Conlins Road EB Thru-Thru/Right 3.1 A 0.15 5.1 A 0.49 WB Left 5.3 A 0.39 4.8 A 0.19

Dual Thru 7.4 A 0.71 3.4 A 0.17 NB Left 44.9 D 0.63 37.3 D 0.46 SB Right 35.6 D 0.02 35.4 D 0.24 Overall Intersection 8.5 A 0.70 8.2 A 0.48

The analysis of existing conditions indicates that a good level of service is provided in the Study Area. One traffic movement in the p.m. peak hour, the southbound left from Water Tower Gate to Sheppard Avenue, is shown to operate with long delays and near capacity. It is assumed that minor signal timing adjustments would improve that traffic movement if required.

3.3.3 Transit

The Study Area is currently served by TTC bus routes 85 (Sheppard East), 116 (Morningside), and 86A (Meadowvale). These routes provide bus service along Sheppard Avenue and Conlins Road, and also serve sections of Morningside Avenue and Meadowvale Avenue. In the future the transit service in the area will improve with the Sheppard LRT. The Sheppard LRT Environmental Assessment, approved in 2009, permits a LRT line in a dedicated right of way in the centre of Sheppard Avenue East. Along with the dedicated transit right of way, Sheppard Avenue will be designed with two travel lanes in each direction, plus bicycle lanes in each direction. The LRT is currently under construction and is expected to be complete by the end of 2013.



3.3.4 Pedestrian and Cycling Features

There are sidewalks on both sides of Sheppard Avenue and Conlins Road (south of Sheppard Avenue) within the Study Area. Watertower Gate/Grand Marshall Drive has a sidewalk on the east side of the road only. On-road bicycle lanes are currently delineated by pavement markings on both sides of Sheppard Avenue and Conlins Road. As indicated above, with the implementation of the Sheppard LRT, bike lanes will continue to be provided within the right of way.

3. Existing Conditions · MEFM1-2 FODM5 THD THD WOD THDM2 SA WOD FODM11/FOCM5 MAMM1-12 WOD WOD WOD...

Documents

Transcript of 3. Existing Conditions · MEFM1-2 FODM5 THD THD WOD THDM2 SA WOD FODM11/FOCM5 MAMM1-12 WOD WOD WOD...