HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater and Related Land Management Advisory Board Appendices 1989
wR. I
PROJECT FOR
FLOOD PROTECTION WORKS
16TH AVENUE, GERMAN MILLS CREEK
DON RIVER, TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
FEBRUARY 1989
~f<.~
- 1 -
l. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Project is to provide Regional flood protection to the
development along the German Mills Creek between 16th Avenue and Duncan Road in
the Town of Richmond Hill.
2. LOCATION
The site in question is located on a tributary of the East Don River known as
the German Mills Creek. The site is between Duncan Road on the South and 16th
Avenue on the North, Yonge Street on the West and Bayview Avenue on the East
(see Fi g. 1).
3. BACKGROUND
The protection against flooding of this area has a lengthy history of Authority
involvement beginning with the identification of this site as a Damage Centre in
the Authority's 1980 Watershed Plan. In the original Watershed Plan, this site
was identified as the number two (2) priority site in terms of requiring
remedial works. The Authority undertook a 'Preliminary Engineering Study' of
the site in 1983 which identified channelization and the replacement of both the
16th Avenue and Duncan Road culverts as the most feasible means of flood
protection. The main difficulty identified in the study was the capture of the
flood waters upstream of the site and the length of channelization required
downstream of the site. With a potential Special Policy Area and channelization
proposed both upstream and downstream of the site, the Authority decided to hold
off on constr~ction, but began the task of acquiring the properties required for
the channel works.
Since that time, the Authority has acquired virtually all of the required
property, the upstream lands have been developed and the watercourse channelled.
The downstream lands are also to be channelized in order to permit development
and the landowners downstream are prepared to construct the channel up to 16th
Avenue. The Duncan Road culverts have been removed by the Town and are not to
be replaced.
wR.3
- 2 -
4. DESCRIPTION OF WORKS
A cost sharing agreement has been adopted between the Region of York, the Town
of Richmond Hill, the Authority and the Developer regarding the construction of
the 16th Avenue culverts. The Region of York is proposing to rebuild 16th
Avenue in the near future and is prepared to fund the construction of a culvert
to 100 year design flow capacity. The Authority and the Town of Richmond Hill,
through this project, are proposing to pay for the upgrade of the culvert to
Regional Flow capacity. The downstream developer will upfront the Region's
costs in 1989 and recover them from the Region at a later date. Through this
scheme, Regional Flood Protection will be achieved throughout the entire area
along German Mills Creek.
5. COST ESTIMATES I FUNDING
As the Region of York has agreed to pay for the upgrade of the existing 16th
Avenue culvert to 100 year design flow capacity, the additional funding required
to upgrade the culvert to Regional capacity has been estimated at $150,000.
Therefore, the total breakdown of costs for this project is set out as follows
Ministry of Natural Resources $ 82,500
The Regional Municipality of York $ 67,500
Total $150,000
It is understood that the Region of York may wish to recover it's share from the
Town of Richmond Hill.
DRH/md
~R'lf
THB METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSBRVATION AUTHORITY
MAPS WITH LEGITIMATE SPILLS
Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board
Meeting 11/89
March 3, 1989
wt<. ~
~APS WITH LE6ITI"ATE SPILLS
---------------------------------
RIvER SYSTE~ IIAF'. :AERIAL P~OTOGRAPHS :SPILL lONE STATUS :ACT!ON/CO""ENT I
I
I I it 983) I I
I I I
I LINEI PHOTO is: I I
I I
: I :
---------------- ---------- ------------------ I ----------------- ------------------
ETOB!COKE CREEK I I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I ,
: 4 " 8 I L-4 43-45 :LE6ITI"ATE SPILL : OllIE/DUNDAS .'
I I
I I J : I
, I I I
: 2b & 28 I L -ll 10-12 iLE6ITI"ATE SPILL I I
I , I
I I , I I
I I I I I
"I"ICO CREEK I I I I I
I I , I ,
I 1 I L-3 13-14 :LE6ITI"ATE SPILL :0 C.ll I
I I I
I I I ,
I ~ , I
I : I I I
I I I I
HUIIBER RIVER , I I I I
I I I I
I 1 I L-3 17-111 :LE6IT!"ATE SPILL iL ONT I
I I I
I I I I I
I I I , I
DOH RIVER I I , I I
I I I I ,
, I I I :
I I I I
I 4 i L-5 lOS-lOb :LE6ITI"ATE SPILL :TRIB . 45. I
I I
I I I I I
1 I I I I
I 22 L-18 lOS-lOb :LE6ITIIIATE SPILL :WALIIER RO I
I I
J I ,
I I 1
I 114 L-7 29-31 ,LE6ITI"ATE SPILL :0 CliO ,
I I
I I I I
I , I I
: 19E , 20E L-17 51-53 iLE6ITI"ATE SPIll :0 C BIl I
I
I I I I
I I , ,
ROUSE RIVER I I I ,
I I I I
, b l-l1 b2-b3 :lE6ITI"ATE SPIll :CNR I
I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I ,
I I I ,
, , I I
I I I I
CARRUTHERS ClEEK , I I I
I I I I
8 I L-15 174-175 :lE6ITIIIATE SPIll :SAlE" RD. ,
I I
I I I I
I I I I
w f<. t:.
STOUFFVILLE RESERVOIR FEASIBILITY STUDY
MTRCA
MARCH 1989
wR.7
- i -
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The following is a summary of the main recommendations made
within this report:
( a) The Town develop the Stouffville Reservoir lands under
agreement with the Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority for passive recreation uses.
(b) The Town and the Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority continue to acquire all non-public
floodplain lands within the Town in accordance with
Authority's 1980 Watershed Plan Acquisition Program.
(c) The Town develop an interpretive trail system within the
Stouffville Reservoir and adjacent floodplain lands within
the Town for passive recreational uses to further conservation
education within the Region.
(d) The current agreement between the Town of Whitchurch-
Stouffville and the Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority indicating the Town as the agency
responsible for the management of Authority owned lands within
the Town be continued.
(e) Access to the reservoir (in the vicinity of Millard
Street) continue to be controlled by existing fencing.
Landscaping be designed and implemented to provide future
access control. Removal/relocation of fence be deferred until
this landscaping is complete. Access improved by considering
a parking facility to service the reservoir lands.
(f) The Town develop a forest management plan for the northern
forest stand. The Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority would be available to provide technical
advice for this plan.
(g) The Town develop and enhance recreational sport fisheries
and wildlife management opportunities through the use of local
community organizations.
wR.~
- ii -
TABLE OF 00Nl'Elm'i
PAGE
SUmnary of Recc:I'tm:n:lations i
Table of Contents ii
List of Figures iv
List of Tables v
List of Awen:lices vi
1. mm:>WCI'ICN 1
1.1 Description of study site 4
1.1.1 I.cx:ation arrl Size 4
1.1.2 Geolcqy 5
1.1.3 Soils 5
1.2 History of LarD Use arrl AaIuisi tion 5
1.2.1 stooffville Resermir ard Dam 6
1.2.2 stooffville Flood Clannel. 7
2. MElHXX)I.CX;Y 8
2.1 Terrestrial Habitat Inventory 8
2.2 Br:eedi.n} BiId census 8
2.3 MaDmal, ADPrlbian and Reptile Census 10
2.4 Fisheries 10
2.5 Special St:lI:li.es 13
2.5.1 Envi.raunentally Significant Areas
stOOy (&SA) 13
2.5.2 Wetlard Evaluation 14
3. RESaJRCE RESUIll'S 16
3.1 Field/Scrub Habitat 16
3.1.1 Vegetatim 16
3.1.2 Birds 16
3.1.3 MaDmals, JmPUbians ard Reptiles 16
3.2 Matm:e MiJced Forest 18
3.2.1 vegetatia1 18
3.2.2 Birds 18
3.2.3 IImmals, Jmp1ibians and Reptiles 18
3.3 Mature Cedar Forest 18
3.3.1 Vegetatioo 20
3.3.2 Birds 20
3.3.3 Ma1Dnals, Aqhibians ard Reptiles 20
I,U R., - iii -
PAGE
3.4 Mature oeciducA.1s Forest 20
3.4.1 Vegetation 20
3.4.2 Birds 22
3.4.3 Manmals, 1\IrP1ibians ani Reptiles 22
3.5 Reservoir ani SWanp 22
3.5.1 Vegetation 22
3.5.2 Birds 22
3.5.3 Mamals, 1\IrP1ibians ani Reptiles 22
3.6 Inmature Mixed Forest 25
3.6.1 Vegetation 25
3.6.2 Birds 25
3.6.3 Manma1.s, 1\IrP1ibians ani Reptiles 25
3.7 Park;Meadaw O::Imuni.ty 27
3.7.1 Vegetation 27
3.7.2 Bims 27
3.7.3 Manmals, Arltiill:>ians ani Reptiles 27
3.8 Fisheries 27
3.8.1 Resetvoir 27
3.8.2 St.a.lffville Creek 30
3.8.3 water Chem.ist:zy 33
3.9 Discussim 33
3.9.1 Veqet:atim 33
3.9.2 Bi.n:Js 35
3.9.3 MaDmals, AnPtibians ani Reptiles 35
3.9.4 Fisheries 35
3.10 EnviIonmenta11y Significant Areas Stu:iy 44
3.11 wetlard Evaluatim J 45
4.0 ~<H) 46
4.1 Rescmce Management 46
4.1.1 Vegetatial 46
4.1.2 Wildlife 47
4.1.3 F.lsberies 49
4.2 Recreaticn SO
4.2.1 Public O:x1sideratioos 50
5.0 cx:srs 54
1<ta'~ 56
APPENDlas 57
wR.te
- iv -
LIsrOFFIGURES
Page
1. (a) Location Map 2
1. (b) Key Map 3
2. Reservoir Area (Existin;J Corx:li.tion) Rear Pocket
3. Flood Olannel (Existin;J Con::lition) Rear Pocket
4. Rese1:voir Area (Vegetation) Rear Pocket
5. Flood Channel. (Vegetation) Rear Pocket
6. Reservoir Area (Wetlan:l & &SA) Rear Pocket
7. Reservoir Area (Recreation & Resource Rec.c:mneOOations) Rear Pocket
8. Flood Channel. (Recreation & Resource Rec.c:mneOOations) Rear Pocket
.
W R.II
- v -
LIsr OF TABlES
Paqe
1- Biq;:hysical InventoIY Classification 9
2. Ontario Breedin;J Bird Atlas Code 11
3. Wildlife Census - Field/Scrub 17
4. Wildlife Census - Mature Mixed Forest 19
5. Wildlife Census - Cedar Forest 21
6. Wildlife Census - Mature oecic:lua.1s Forest 23
7. Wildlife Census - ReseJ:voir am SWanp 24
8. Wildlife Census - Inunature Mixed Forest 26
9. Wildlife Census - Park;MeadcM 28
10. Elect.roshc.x:kin Results - Resel:voir 29
11. Elect.roshc.x:kin Results - stcuffville creek - AtxNe Reservoir 31
12. Elect.roshc.x:kin Results - stcuffville creek - Below Reservoir 32
13. Water Chemi..stzy Results 34
14. Habitat Areas 36
15. Bird Census Results 37
16. ManInals, Reptiles am AItPribians Census Results 39
17. SInall }ofa1l'lMl' Li. ve - Trawi.n:J Schedule 40
18. I.argelIDrt:h Bass - Year Class 41
- vi - wR.I2
LIsr OF APPmDICFS
Page
1- ESA Site Description 58
2. Wetlan::l Evaluation Record 59
...
(,.,) R, /3
S'lUJFFVIUE RESERVOIR FFASIBILI'lY S'lUDY
l. INl'RXlJCTICN
Upon request of the Town of Whitdlurdl-stcuffville (Hallam, 1987) to provide
infonnation an:i ~LJ::l'rlations on the I"eSCA.lI'Oe am recreational potential of the
sta.1ffville IBm an:i Reservoir lands (Figure la & lh), the Metrcpolitan 'Ibronto
an:i Region O:nsezvatioo Authority (MIRCA) agreed to \.D'Dertake a feasibility stlxiy
in 1988.
iarl.1e this study c::orx::entrated on a specific parcel of Authority owned lam, its
allows the MIRCA an q:p:>rtuni.ty to further their watershed oojectives in the
followi.n;J progranm:s an:i still maintain the flcxxi control oojective of the dam
an:i reservoir.
(a) Conse1'Vatioo I.an:l Manaqe1rent Procmun
- fisheries ~
- wildlife ~
- forest management
(b) Watershed Recreatioo Program
- recreatialal c:g;x>rbmities
- linear parle system
(e) I.an:l Acxluisitioo P10glaln
- ~itioo of oc:nservatioo an:i hazard lands
'Ibe pn:pcse of the stu:ly is as follows:
- To <:k)n~11t the exi.stirq resooroes of these lands (iId.1.Xlin;J fisheries,
wildlife am vegetation and any other significant resoorces).
- To provide rescmce management rEOAlaid'daticn; intent upal iDpravin;J the
habitat an:i health of the natural system.
- To provide passive recreational reu..lllendaticn; consistent with its current
use.
'Ibe stouffville Reservoir Feasibility Sb.dy (SRFS) examined two (2) tracts of
land within the Township of Whitdu1rch-stcuffville. '!he lands referred to are
c
?:;)
.
j
~
.
,
0"'-
0 I 4 ....
I . , .
0 . 10.........
S) .he m..ropoli..n .oran.. end region STOUFFVILLE RESERVOIR LOCATION MAP FIG. 1a
CC&QIDII ITV ClTIII"\V
STUDY AREA~
.........................................................
. .
. I
. I
· w I
. Z I
.31
· :I: g _1 - lJ I
. 0 06' ~ I
. L- Pa.D I
r-:: "0 ~""': /> ' I -/1
'< , ,~o ''<( , r
. ~ - ,.: 0 '" "- 'Pi <:> It I
· -r-~. ..:8" "
= RESERVOIR AREAIFlOOD CHANNEL . :. q, ~O ',' ~
. . SECTOR SECTOR 0;." " ,I ,-~~~
~. I" ~1: I
, . ~ ':I' '0 .; , .'
, "--
-- ~"'-
.
.
.
. . .
. .
. .
.. .
..L I
. tot
= M T R.C.A. PROPERTY BOUNDARy....... / _ . .
. oOb 6 I
. ..I- III .
a" I
.......................................*.................
o r
. -I _~ ~
1:10,000 _
~ ,...-_0;..._.....100.... STOUFFVILLE RESERVOIR KEY MAP FIG 1b
, con..,..,.tlOn authori1y FE AS I B I LIT Y ST U DY .
- 't -
tv R. J b
urrler a management agreenent with the Town. '1hese tracts beiIq:
- stroffville ReseJ:voir arxl Qml (Figure 2); ani
- stroffville Flood Olannel (Figure 3) .
'Dris stu:iy is based upon a number of recent MmCA' s reports arxl
i.nventories/sw:veys URiertaken in 1988. A list~ of these reports is as
follows:
- Environmentally Significant Areas st1.Xiy, 1982 ;
- stooffville Forest Wetlarxl Evaluatim, 1985; ani
- stooffville Forest arxl Reservoir Wildlife Management Plan (Draft), 1986.
1.1 Descriotion of St\rly site
1.1.1 Location am Size
'!he stroffville ReseJ:voir arxl [):un is located 0.5 )an north of the Village of
stooffville, ontario, in the Regional Mmicipality of York arxl the Tatmshi.p
of Whitd1urdl-st:a1ffville, c.cn:essim 9, between Lots 2 am 4. '!he 34.74 ha
tract is C7tJJlE!d by the Metrcp:>litan Toronto ani Regien Consel:vatim
Authority . '!he latitu:Je arxl lon:jitu:ie of the tract is awroximately 430
58.9 N am 790 15.0 W respectively. It can };)e located en map I'll.nTber 3CJV14
(Markham) of the National 'lqx)graIiric System of maps issued by the Canada
Maps Office, ottawa.
'1hi.s tract is l:n.11'decl by fannlard to the north ani west, by am tracks to
the east, am by uman deve1qJDents to the sa.tth am sart:heast. Aco?ss to
the tract may be gained by either en:! of Millard Sb:eet, \tohi.ch nms parallel
to ard awraximately 40 m sooth of the dam. Fast of the tract site Millard
street is a paved road wi.n:iin;J its way t:hrcu3h a new hoosin;J develcpnent
(GIeerplrk) eventually entin;J up at Highway 47 in stouffville. West of the
tract site Millard stl:eet is a gravel road mich tpnn; 11ates at caressien
Road 9.
'!he stroffville Flood Channel is located within the Village of stcuffville,
Ontario, in the Township of Whitc:hurd1-stouffville, O:n=essim 9, I.ot:s 34
arxl 35. '!he 2.2 ha tract is owned by the MIRCA. '!be latitu:ie am lorqitude
of the tract is awraximately 430 58 N arxl 790 15.0 W respectively. 'lhi.s
tract is boon:led by residential am cxmnercial develc.pnent am passive
recreatim iran all directions. Aocess to the tract can be reached iran the
followin;J ~ueets:
- Main SLLeet (Highway #47);
- oJ -
wR../7
- sanerville street;
- 8.Jrkholder street; ani
- Market street
ani is utilized by the residents of the area as a linear park system. In
addition, MIRCA awroved in 1980 extensive flood dlannel construction alon;J
this stretdl of the wa1:.ercalrse (stalffville Creek - trib.rt:ary of the West
Dlffin Creek.
1.1.2 Geoloov
'lbe SRFS is located in the York Till Plain CCI'Iplex at an elevation I<mJe
between 272 ani 283 nEres. 'lhe Till Plain is a glacial feature ~$Sin:J
characteristics similar to a grourrlltK)raine (i.e. areas of relatively little
relief to areas of irregular knolls ani hollows, ~ Watershed Plan,
1980). 'lbese FhYsi~c characteristics are true to the resezvoir ani
dam area itself, wdl is IOOStly very flat with a slight slope to a shallow
valley in the SCAIthem en:l (runnin;J east~ t:hrc:u::Jh the mature mixed
forest CXI'IUI.Uli.ty). 'lhe glacial dep:)sits in the 'lone Till Plain consist
mainly of silty sam till, with an un:ierlyin;J bedrock of shale.
1.1.3 Soils
'!he Great Soil groops fcuni in the SRFS include the Grey-Brown Podzolic am
Alluvial (~). 'lhe Grey-Brown Podzols originated fran calcareous
materials ani have the foll~ generalized profile: (1) the tc:p layer of
soil is generally 7 to 10 an thick ani is dark-qrayish brown to very dark
brnm in oolcm', mxlerate1y acid am 1OOderate1y hic#1 in organic matter; (2)
the mid-layer is yellowish-brown, pale brown or bramish~ in oolaJr,
slightly to mderately acid ani 1011 in organic matter. 'lhe thickness of
this layer varies CXXlSiderably in different soils; (3) the bottan layer is
M"yp,.. brown than the mid-layer am it contains Dm'e clay ani sesquiaxides
than artJ other layer in the profile. It is 11!C:11:l1111y slightly acid to neutral
in reactiat. 'lhis bottan layer rests upon the unaltered slightly weathered
calc.areaJS parent material (li>ffJlBn am Ridlards, 1955).
'lhe alluvial soils are in::100ed in a group of p:x>rly drained soils. '1hese
soils can be foond in low-lyin;J areas usually near river valleys. the
alluvial soils CXXlSist of recently dep:)sited material whidl has not been in
place lc:n} ernqh for definite soil layers to devel~.
1.2 Histm:y of I.ani Use ani Acauisitial
W{(.I<O
1.2.1 stroffville Reservoir am IEn
In ~ 1966, the MlRCA acquired this tract of Ian:! alon:] the
stooffville creek flocx3plain in order to construct a flood oontrol dam. The
primary ftmction of the dam is to alleviate flood prcblems in stooffville.
The MI'RCA' s original p,n:pose was for these larrls to be managed as a forest
an:! wildlife conservation area. 'Ihi.s walid involve the establishment of
habitat for wildlife an:! trails for hi..kiIg, cross-coontzy skiin;J am
S1'lC1If'Shoem;, . It was also prqx:sed that the area be used for fishinJ of
native species am cutdoor education.
In 1974, the Corporation of the Town of Whitchurdl-stooffville agreed to
umertake the operation, maintenance am developnent of the stouffville
Reservoir larrls for a wildlife sanctuaIy with limited passive recreational
use. '!he TcMl named the Whitchurdl-sta.1ffville Conservation Club (sa::) as
its agent to UI'Xiertake developnent of this site. '!he ~ retains control
of the dam an:! arrJ flood or erosion control associated with it.
'!he ltIrlt:.du1rd'l-stalffvi1le Conservaticn Club ~ a nuni:ler of tree am
shrub planti.n;r-; in 1974 arrl 1981. In 1980 they CXl'lStructed a fence to limit
1.D'lautOOrizecl vehicle aooess to the dam am erected a large sign identifyin;J
the area as the ihitdn.1rd1-sta.1ffville ReseJ:voir am Wildlife Sarx:t:uazy.
si..rw:Je this time the club has remained inactive due to a shortage of DDI'leY
arrl lr::M JDe!I1iJership. '!he club plans to l:lecn'M actively involved oooe again
after CX3lStzuctial near the site is OCIIpleted in awraximately two years
time (Wayne T AII"lE'rt, sa:, persooal n'Tm'InUcatioo).
'!he dam nwitv--= downstream flr::M by one-third durirg heavy runoff, reducin;J
the risk of noocJin:J. '!he drainage area of the dam is 6.99 square km. '!he
reservoir it creates ext:ems 548 m upstream, with an average depth of 1.2 to
1.5 m, a mxiDum surface area of 5.08 ha arrl a volume of 172,690 cubic m.
'!he gradient of the stCllffville creek is 7.57 m per lan, with a fall of 4.57
m at the reservoir.
'!he dam itself is a cxn:::rete sluiceway 29.4 m Ion:] an:! 3.6 to 6.7 m wide.
'!he earthfill eubankment of clayey silt till exterds east an:! west !ran the
sluiceway for 335 m in a gently cw:ved line. '!he resezvoir is drained by a
valve 30.5 an in diameter which is cpmed to draw cbm the reservoir in
NoveIdJer am closed again 41 March or April, deperdin;J en the sprin;J nmoff.
, -
WR.l~
'!he dam has been designed to require a minim..nn of mai.nt.en.:m::e am
supezvision: I'CRltine inspections are made every two lIX:mths, the valve is
greased wilen neoE'SSaIj', am the grass arourrl the dam maintained.
1.2.2 stalffville Flcxx:l C1annel
'!his dlannel. was designed to aco...lll.:Alate nD'H)ff di.sd1arges fran IlE!IIoI
suburban developnents prq>osed for the area. Berms were in::x>qx:>rated to
contain areas of flcxxl durirg 25 year to 100 year stems. '!he channel was
Wilt in 1980 in aocord.arx:e with designs prepared by a private erqineerin}
firm am oonstructed by the residential devel~. '!he strocture was then
turned aver to the Authority for management.
...
tA,),Q.2.0
2. MEIOOOOIO;Y
2.1 Terrestrial Habitat Inventol:}'
Detennination of the habitat types present on the reservoir ani adjacent larrls
involved delineation of the major vegetation zones follC1olled by vegetation
sa:r::plin;J within each zone. Air Iilotos, pxn:oflexes ani a previous description of
the site (MIRCA, 1981) were used to map o..tt the larger scale habitat types on a
1:2000 scale map (Figures 4 ani 5), with habitats classified acx:::orc:li.rq to the
Biqilysical Inventory Classification SCheme (Table 1). PreliminaIy inspections
of the site helped to OOI'e acx::mate1y locate lx:mrlaries aroon:i these habitats. A
planimeter was used to detennine the area of ead1 zone a'l the map.
within each distinct habitat type vegetation was sanpled alorq ramanly located
25 m transects, the I'l1ll'lber of transects in a habitat depen:lin;J on its size ani
shape. Transect sites were located on the Flood Plain Map by first drawin;J a
line across each habitat at its maxi:aa.nu east-\tJeSt width. A series of points, one
far ead1 transect in the habitat, was then plaoecl at regular intervals alax:1
these lines. Fam of these points was then centred in a mrth-scuth directioo
within the habitat; this marked the midpoint of a 25 m transect. Hc:::Iwever ,
because the field habitat in the stu:ly area is fragmented by Ptysical barriers
(forest, reseIVOir am creek), sin;Jle transects were placed in the three smaller
fields, with two transects in the larger fields. At the site, disti.rguishable
lardmarks, metre tape, am a CXIlpClSS were used to locate these transect midpoints
fran the map. All transects ran in a oorth-sooth di.recti.oo.
vegetatial sanplirq alaq the transects involved identifyinJ the species present
in these strata: cwerstorey (mature trees whose can:pies crossed the transect),
u:rrlerstorey (seedliD}!l, saplin;r-; ani shrob species crossinJ the transect), ani
grourd c:xwer ~ species within 0.5 m of the transect). Records of the
dcminant species am estimated percent CXJVerage for each stratum were also kept.
'!be habitat analysis methodology for the flood channel. lams utilized the same
t"!l"'~sificatial system b.1t due to its relative narror.rmess of the larrls, 00
transects were used. Instead, the entire lenfth of the dlannel. was walked ani
species present identified am habitat cxnmmi.ties mawed.
2.2 ~ Bird census
Birds ~ the vegetatioo habitats of the resez:voir ani dam larrls were
oensused between 23 JUne am 14 July, 1986 ani flood channel. lan::!s were censused
- ;1 -
wR.~J
'I7UllE 1 BIOmYSlCAL mYEN!ORY CIASSIFICATICN
a:tMJNITIES ~ NMURE
Forest (F) recidua.1s (d) Uplant (up
Conifera.ts (c) lowlant (ICM)
Mixed (m)
Field (rn) New
Old
Scrub (SC) New Unstable Slope (Us)
Old Field (fd)
Gravel Pit (pit)
Old
ManagedIMan-mad (M) Agriculture (agr) Crq> (crp)
Pasture (pas)
Fallow
On:han:l (Or)
Tree Line (tr)
Shrob Row (shr)
Grcx:med (gnn) Piarl.c Areas (pic)
Beach Area (lxh)
Road-side, ditdles (road)
Park,Imeadcw
Plantatioo (ptn) New
Old
NurseJ:y (nur)
ResideJre (res)
Wetlarrl (W) SWaDp (swp)
Marsh (mar)
Pcni (pd)
lake (lake)
- .!.v -
luft~2
AlJ;JUst 5, 1988. '!he p.lI'pOSe of the censuses was to gather a list of bird species
utiliz~ the available habitats ani to assess their breed.i.n;J status (observed,
p:ssible, prOOable or confirmed) in accx>rdance with the OBPA codes (see Table 2).
Exclusive species, that is those censused in one habitat type only durin:] this
st:u::iy, were also noted.
2.3 Manunal. ~ian ani Reptile Census
Shennan ani National live traps were used to census the small manunal.s of the
staJ.ffville tract. In ead'l habitat of the reservoir larris only traw~ was
carried cut for three days alon:J the transects, with the number of traps rooghly
prqx>rtional to the area of the habitat. 'Dle trap; were baited with peanut
I:utter, oatJneal. ani a few keInel.s of com; cotton balls were provided for
N:rl'I ; ~. Ead'l trap was checked twice daily, as early as IXSSible in the JOOrnin;J
am as late as possible in the aftenxxm.
Incidental sightin3s of anptibians, reptiles ani manmals, ani mamral signs were
also J:'e(X)rded on MIRCA wildlife inventozy sheets, alcn;J with the date am
location of sightin3s.
2.4 Fisheries
A qualitative semple of the fish l'Y'wmnruty was obtained iran within the
staJ.ffville ReserJoir ard the \g:er ani lower d1annel.. A smith Root SR-12
electrofi..shi.n} boat was deployed for collections within the reservoir ani a Smith
Root Type Seven baclcpack electroshocker was used in the dlannels. sanpl~
effort within the resezvoir was set at two thcusan:l (2000) shocJdn;J sec:x:njs per
semple nm. sanplin;J effort within the ur.per am lower dlannels was detetmined
by the catch rate am diversity of the catch. '!he lergt:h of every scmplirg nm
was adequate to ~}AALclte the different aquatic habitats present.
Total leD)th raI9!S (Da) am total biauass (q) were reoc.a:~ for each species
captured. Fish that were positively identified were released. unidentified
specimens were preselVed in 10% fonnalin for positive identification in the
laboratOJ:y . Retained specimens were sent to the Royal cntario K.1seum for
verificatioo ani curatiat.
Species o.'\-JSitioo, nmber of inlividuals, percent o.'l<sitioo, total bianass,
~oent bianass am size rarqe were detennined for the fish cx:mu.mity at each
semple locatioo within the sb.xly area. '!he fish carmmi.ty at each site was
~sed us~ the :rmex of Biotic Integrity (IBI) that was first develqJE!d by
- 11 -
WR.~3
TABlE 2 ONI'ARIO BREEDlN; BIRD ATI.J>S COlE
SID: I I':s OBSERVED
X Species c:i:lse.rved in breedin:;J season.
IQ3SIBlE BREEDlN;
SH Species c:i:lse.rved in breedin:;J seasoo in suitable nestin;J habitat.
SM Sin;Jle male(s) present, or breedi.n;J calls heard, in suitable nestin;J ~~~n.
IroBABIE BREEDING
P Pair dJserved in suitable nestin;J habitat in nesti.J'g seasal.
T Permanent territory presumed t.hro.1gh registration of territorial behaviCA.U"
(son;J, etc.) on at least two days, a week or JOOre apart, at the same place.
D Ca.u:t.shi.p am display, :irx::1\Xiin:1 interaction between a male an:i female or
two males, inc1lXlin:J ooortshi.p feed.in).
V Visitin] prcbable nest site.
A Agitated behaviCA.U" or anxiety calls of an adult.
B Brocxl patd1 em adult female or cloacal protuberarn:!s m adult male.
N Nest b1i.1c1i.n;J or excavaticm of nest lx>le.
~ BREEDING
ID Distractim display or injuxy feigI'1in}.
1<<1 Used nest or egg shells fCAJl'd. Use ally unique ani unmistakable nests or
shells.
FY ReoeuUy fl~ or downy yoorq. Use with cauti.a1 for yoorq starlin3s am
swal.lcMI, 1IIhich JIBy mave sane distance after fled:Jinl' while remaininJ
depemant upa1 parents for food.
AE Adults leavin;J or enterin:r nest sites in ciro.mst.aroes inticati.n:J occupied
nest (inc1lXlin:J high nests, nest holes, or nest boxes, the contents of which
caI'l1'tt be seen).
- 12 -
W~'~1f
FS Mul t can:yi.rg fecal sac or fcxxi to yt:Jlln;J.
NE Nest contai.nin;J e:RS. If the nest also contains a <:notbird egg record NE for
both the host am the COVJbird.
NY Nest with Youn;J seen or heard. If a YCJllI"x:J COVJbird is fam:! in a nest,
record NY for both the host am the <X:lWbird.
- J.j -
wR.~~
Karr (1981) am IOOdified for use in soothern Ontario by st:eedrran (1987). '!he IBI
uses the different attribrt:es of the fish CCI1'It1.U1i.ty to assign an IBI score which
relates to the overall health of the aquatic ecosystem of the site.
A Ministry of Natural Resources field rollection recoId am map were cx:rrpleted
for each inventory site am available at the MmCA office.
'!he water chemistry of the reservoir was investigated to detennine the overall
quality an:! its suitability to SUWOrt a sport fisheries. 'lhi.s investigation
ccnsisted of dissolved oxygen, t.en'perature an:! con:iuctivity measurements. Water
clarity was detennined usin:J a seochi disc. stream flOtl inp..rt: an:! reseJ:VOir
clisd1.cuge was detennined usiIg a ott IOCdel. C-31 flOtl meter.
Waster chemistry am fisheries rollections were rollected an:! documented as per
Dc:d:3e (1985).
2.5 SDecial studies
2.5.1 Envi..rannentall v sianificant Areas stu:iv (ESA)
In 1982, the ~ OCllpleted the Enviroranent:a1ly Significant Areas Stmy.
'lbe sbx1y designated 126 ESA IS i.rd\.W.n;J ESA '107 (St:a.lffville Forest)
within its jurisdicticn. To be designated an ESA, me or more of the seven
(7) criteria IIIJSt be satisfied. 'Ihese are as follows:
eriterim 1
'lbe area represents a di.stinctive an:! UI1J\s:n;tl lan:iform or feature
within the ~ regiCll, ontario or Canada.
eriterim 2
'!be ecological. funct:.i.a1 of the area oantrihttes significantly to the
healthy ma.intenanoe of a natural system beyald its l:x:unarles:
(a) the area sezves as a water storage area or high soU penneability
area, and/or,
(b) the area help; to maintain or link significant natural biological
systems, am;or,
(c) the area is essential for the healthy ocnt:.iJuJaticn of a
significant species arrl/or significant p::p.tl.ation or cxn::Eltration
of species.
... -.
WR.2~
Criterion 3
'!he habitats an:Jjor biological CXl1ITI.D'1i.ties are identified as
exceptional an:Vor of high quality within the MIRC'A region, Ontario or
Canada.
Criterion 4
'!he area contains an ecosystem whidl has limited representation in the
MIRCA region, Ontario or Canada an:Jjor is a sual.l remnant of a
partiaJlar habitat whidl has virtually r1i~red within the MIRCA
region.
Criterion 5
'!he area has an unusually high diversity of biological CCIl1I'I.D1i.ties
an:Vor species.
Criterioo 6
'l1le area provides natural habitat for inllgenaJS species that are rare
arxVor eniarqered regiooally (MIRCA), provin::i.al.ly ani nationally.
Criterim 7
'l1le area is sufficiently large to afford habitat for species whidl
reqrlre extensive blocks of suitable habitat.
For a fuller explanation;i.ntezpmtatioo of the study awroadl, methodology
or selectim criteria, oonsult the HmCA Envll.uAIC':Itlally Significant Areas
stuiy (MIRCA 1982).
2.5.2 wetlard Evaluaticn
In 1981 deYel~Jt of a quantitative system of wet:.laRi evaluaticn was begun
by the QJtario Ministty of Natural. Resan:oes am the canadian Wildlife
Sezvioe (CH;). '!his methodology was field tested extensively ani fo:tmed the
basis far revisims to the system. 'Ihe evaluaticn system is based 00 the
groopin;J of wetlard values a~ to biological, social, hydrological ani
special feature v .'l~. '!he special features V"II~ includes
~C:rrA1t of eniarqered am provincially significant animals ani plants,
am habitat far migratm:y birds. usin;J the evaluaticn method, wetlams are
ranked in Classes fraD 1 to 7. Classes 1 ani 2 are ocnsidered to be
pravircla11y significant; Class 3 wetlards are dete1:mined regionally
- J.~ -
/A)R. ~1
significant (OMNR, 1987).
si.1'n3 1983 wetlarxi evaluations were carried CAIt by the MNR, several
conservation authorities arxi the aqs utilizirg the Secorrl Edition of the
Evaluation System for Wetlanjs of Ontario (cum, 1984). 'Ihi.s document
should be consulted for a full explanation of the JJet:hcxSology.
...v
~R.~~
3. RESOORCE RESUI1ffi
3.1 Field/SCnlb Habitat
3.1.1 veaetation
'!be vegetation in this habitat is daninated by grasses am a variety of
wi1df1~ species. Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis) is the IOOSt
UAII\L)11, fCAlJ'Xi in aDm:Janoe al all transects. other species frequently
en:x:mrt:ered in::lme Oxeye daisy (Ouysantherrum leucanthenurn), Field Hawkweed
(Hieracium pratense), CuIIlIUl D3rrlelial (Taraxacum officinale), Wild carrot
(Daucus carota) ani wild strawberry (Fragaria virginiana). A total of 25
wi1df1~ species were recorded alorg the field transects.
'!be distr.iJ::ution of ~ species is limited to this habitat, Red-<>sier
I:bgwood (Cornus stolonifera) an:i inmature American Elm (Ulnus americana),
Eastern White Cedar ('lhuia oocidentalis), Willow (Salix sp.) an:i a..11l11.JI1
B.1ckthom (RhannJs cathartica) are present. Scrub habitats exist chiefly on
the west am mrth ed:Je of the tract, an:i are daninated by elm, dogwood,
Hawthom (Crataeaus sp.) an:i b.1ckthom.
3.1.2 Birds
'l\1lenty-foor (24) bird species (53% of the total I1UIliJer of species) were
recmded in the field an:i scrub (Table 3). '1he mst abm:Jant of these were:
American RdJin ('l\n'dus migratorius), &1rc.pean star1in;J (sturnus wlqaris) ,
American Goldfin:n (Carduelis tristas) an:i Eastem Kirgbird (Tvrannus).
Eighteen of the twenty-foor species identified were fCAlJ'Xi exclusively in
this habitat.
3.1.3 MaJIIlals. AlIridhians ani Reotiles
Four (4) species of 1IA1II'lAlg (44' of total) were identified in this
field/scrub habitat (Table 3). ltlite-tail.ed Deer lMxx>lleus virairti ;:!i1"JJS) ,
,
Eastem cot:t:aJtall lSVlvi1aaus floridanus) an:i Woodct1Uck 0fal:nKJta uaroc)
were sighted. Live trawirg ~c; was very poor in this habitat: two
captures of Eastern Chipll.Illk (Tamias striatus) in 90 trap days. Of the feur
species, cotta1tail was seen ally in this habitat.
One aq:hibian, American Toad (aIto americanus), an:i one reptile species,
Fastem Garter snake ('1ha110qhis sirtalis), was fam:i in this habitat (Table
3).
- 17 -
wR.. ;\~
TABlE 3 BIRD CENSUS BY HABITAT T'iPE: FIEID/SCRJB (FD old. SC fdl
~1"!::X.:.Llli OBSERVED 00. OF S~ % OF 'ItIrAL
*Red-tailed Hawk
*Killdeer
RiJ'g-billed Gull
*~ {):we
*Chimney SWift
*Eastem Ki1lJbird
Great-c:rested Flycatcher
*Barn SWalICM
American CrCM
American ROOin
*Gray Catbird
*Brc1Nn 'lhrasher 24 53%
Cedar Waxwinj
*D.1ropean starli.rg
*Yellow Wal:bler
*CUtKlal Ye11CMthroat
*Wilson's Warl:>ler
*Chi.wi.rg Sparrow
*Scn;J Sparrow
*Savannah Sparrow
*Eastern Meadowlark
o..wLlil Grackle
*Brown-headed OJwbird
*American Goldfi.rx:h
(* = Exclusive Species)
MAl+1AL C>>&JS: FIEID/SCRJB
~}o1X.Llli 'lUrAL LIVE 'mAP ('ApIDRE rorAL SIGHl'IK;S/SIGNS
Eastem a1iIDJl1k 2 -
Woodd1uc:k - 1
Fastem 0Jtta1tail - 1
1I1ite-tail.ed Deer - 1
HERP1'IIE CENSUS: FIEID/SCRJB
~~ 'lUrAL SIGHl']N;S/SIGNS
Garter Snake 1
American Toad 1
- .1.0 -
I,v R. ~()
3.2 Mature Mixed Forest
'!he forest occupies a danp, shallow valley. '!his an:1 the inmature mixed forest
CYrII'TI1nity are CX>1'lSidered an environmentally significant area within the MIRCA
(FSA 107) iJrportant in a water-holdin:;J capacity.
3.2.1 veoetation
Eastern Hemlock ('l's\xfa canadensis) ani SUgar Maple (Acer saccharum) are the
daninant overstorey species in this habitat. 1ob.mtain Maple (Acer
spicatum), YellCM Birch (Betula alleahaniensis), ~ (Tilia arnericana)
ani Black Ash (Fraxinus~) are also aburrlant. Q:werage in this stratum
is estiJnated at 70%.
'!he unierstorey is daninated by imnatures of these species as well as
Alternate-leaved ~ (O:>mus altemifolia) ani Cedar. Coverage averages
75%.
Groorxl oover c:xnsists mainly of ferns, bIt also inc1mes Wocxl strawben:y
(Fraaaria vesca), Water Pennywort (HYdrocotyle americana) ani Red TrillilDD
(Trillium erectum), ani is rcujlly 60% oarplete.
3.2.2 ~
Eleven (11) bird species (24% of the total) were foord within this mixed
forest (Table 4). 'Ihe JOOSt ~11l1A1 of these were Black~ Chickadee
(Parus atricapillus), American Rcbin, ani Blue Jay (CYarvx:itta cristata).
'1hese species were exclusive to this habitat: American Woodcock (Srolcpax
miml:), Eastern Wcxxi Peewee (0Jntc:pls virens), am ~ Grosbeak
(Rleucticus lmavicianus).
3.2.3 M::nIIM 1 A. ~ihians an:1 Repti.les
'lbree (3) 1IA1IIIIAl species were en:x:mrt:ered in this habitat (Table 4). One
l4hite-tailed Deer was 00sel:ved, five Deer Mice (Perc::mysc:us maniculatus) an:1
two Reel Squirrels (Tamiasciuros hudsonio.lS) were live-~ in 51 trap
days.
No heJ:ptiles were recorded in this mixed forest habitat.
3.3 Mature Cedar Forest
'Ihis habitat lies in a lCM, wet valley. '!he stooffvi1le creek flows sooth
wR. 3,
'l7\BIE 4 BIRD CENSUS: MA'IURE MIXED roREST (Fm !CM)
~H:X;ilS OBSERVED 00. OF Sm:-W:) % OF TOrAL
~fed Grouse
*American Woodcock
D::Jwny Woodpecker
*Eastem Wood Peewee
Blue Jay
American Crow 11 24.4%
Black-cawed Chickadee
American Robin
Northern Cardinal
*Rose-breasted Grosbeak
0:Ima1 Grackle
(* = Exclusive Species)
MAMMAL cmsus: MMURE MIXED FOREST
~M:XilS 'IOl'AL LIVE..IJRAP TOrAL SIGHl'IN:;S
CAPIURES SIGNS
Deer lb1se 5 -
Red Squirrel 2 -
~te-tailed Deer - 8 (tracks)
- ,u -
to R. ~~
1:hr'a.1gh the west side, into the northern tip of the reservoir.
3.3.1 veaetation
Eastern White Cedar is the sole daninant overst.orey species, with no others
eI'1CnD1tered oonsistently on the fan- transects. Coverage of the canopy
averaged 85%.
'Ihe umerstorey is very sparse (rt:01h1y 5%), partio.1larly away fran the
creek. Species present in this stratum inclu:le ltbite Ash (Fraxinus
americana), Hawthorn am Buckthorn.
Again, ferns daninate the groun:l caver in this habitat. Wood strawberry an:i
Water Horsetail (Eauisetum fluviatile) are also fairly CulI.llOn species.
GraJrd coverage was estinated at 50%.
3.3.2 Birds
'Ihe census inc1\XJed eleven bird species (24% of total) in the cedar forest
('rable 5). American Rcbins, Blue Jays, an:i Chi.~ were most abJrrlant.
'1hree species were fCAmi only in this habitat: (Hairy Woodpecker (Picoides
villosus), Wood 'lhn1sh (Hvlocichla nustelina), am ltUte-throated Sparrow
(Za.:>uichia ..lhioollis).
3.3.3 MatrInals. Anrilihians an:! ReDtiles
'lhe reoo:r:ds of m::mI'IRl~ in this habitat were seven (7) individuals of three
species (5 Deer Mice, 1 Eastem Grey Squirrel (SCimus carolinensis) an:i 1
Eastem Chipmmk) live-t.rawed in 42 days (Table 5).
One aq:hibian species, an American Toad was d:sezved in this habitat (Table
5) .
3.4 Mature Deciduoos Forest
'1his habitat is fam:l in flat, drier uplands; a very small creek nms
t:hrw3h its east side.
3.4.1 VEQetatiat
SUgar Maple an:i American Beech (Fagus grarrlifolia) daninate the overstorey
in this cliJDax forest CXIlI'lI.U'lity. other species in this stratum in::1u:le
Anerican Elm an:i Eastem Hemlock. 'lhe cancvt is very high, am oove.rage
i0R.'33
'I7\BIE 5 BIRD <::::mSUS: c::EDAR FOREST (Fc low)
S M:X.:.Lt.::i 00. OF SPEX:IES % OF 'It1mL
*American Wocxicock
I:brmy ~
*Hairy ~
~idonax sp.
Blue Jay
Black-cawed Olickadee 11 24.4%
American Crow
American Rcl:>in
Wood 'Ihn1sh
Northern Cardinal
~te-throated Sparrow
(* = Exclusive Species)
MM+JAL CENSUS: c::EDAR FORm!'
S~ 'lUI'AL LIVEJIRAP 'lUI'AL SIGHl'IlCS/
CAPIURES SIGNS
Deer ftbJse 5 -
Fastem allprunk 1 -
Gray Squirrel 1 -
HERPl'IIE C>>GJS: c::EDAR F<m'ST
SMX.Lt.::i 'lUI'AL SIGHl']N:;S/SIGNS
American Toad 1
--
lNR. ?J,+
averages 90%.
Imnatures of this species daninate the un:ierstorey, alon:J with White Ash,
with coverage estimated at 65%.
GrCAJn:l caver is sparse (20%), mainly oonsistin:J of ferns an:! a few other
scattered herbaceoos species.
3.4.2 Birds
Eight (8) bird species (18% of total) ~ cb;erved in this deciduous
habitat (Table 6). ROOins \tJere the IOOSt al::lurdant species. No species were
fourd exclusively to this habitat.
3.4.3 ManInals. Andribians an:! Reotiles
Ten (10) irdividuals of five different manmal species (55% of total) were
censused in this forest type (Table 6). White-tailed Deer \tJere seen al two
different oocasicns, an:! Ra<XXlOll (Procyon lotor) tracks \tJere also fourd .
Live-t:rawin:J produced five Deer Mice, 1 Eastem Gray Squirrel ard 1 Red
Squirrel in 42 trap days.
No reptiles or anpribians \tJere ctlserved in this habitat.
3.5 Reservoir am SWalrp
3.5.1 Veaetatia'1
Cattails (~ latifolia) c:x:o.Jpy the marshy ecqes of the water ~ while
paDweed (~.mn.1IJetal sp.) am nite1la floorish in the resezvoir. Riparian
vegetatia'1 alal;J the soothem edge of the oortheast comer of the reservoir
is daninated by Balsam Iq)lar (R:oJlus balsamifera), am also inc1mes
imIBture cedar, basswood ard Ibmtain Ash.
3.5.2 ~
'!he (10) species of birds (22% of total) ~ dJserved in associatiat with
the reservoir am marsh or swarrp habitats (Table 7). Red-win;Jec1 Blackbirds
(kle1aius P1oeniceus) am Bank SWallow (Rioaria rimria) \tJere very al::lurdant
species. Of the ten species, eight ~ fourd exclusively in this habitat. .
3.5.3 Malmals. lmdrlbians am Reptiles
Signs of Beaver (Castor canadensis) in the fom of felled trees ~ fourd
near the mrtheast comer of the reservoir at the EdJe of the imnature
- i:j -
WR.3S-
TAmE 6 BIRD CENSUS: MA'IURE DOCIIXXXJS FOREST lFd UD)
~M:J : I to~ OBSERVED NO. OF SMX.ill:i % OF 'IOl'AL
~fed Grouse
rn.my Woodpecker
Great-c:tested Flycatcher
Blue Jay 8 17.8%
American Crow
American ROOin
0:::mlDn Grackle
MAMMAL CENSUS: MA'IURE DOCIIXXXJS FOREST
SftJ: : I to:s 'IDI1\L LIVE-'IRAP 'lPmL SIGHl'IH;S/
CAPlURES SIGNS
Deer !bJse 5 -
Red Squirrel 1 -
Gray Squirrel 1 -
Jbx,oan 1 1 (tracks)
illite-tailed Deer - 2
- -
toR.3"
TABlE 7 BIRD CEN3US: RESERVOIR AND SW1\MP
~MX~ OBSERVED NO. OF S~~ % OF 'lUI'AL
*Great Blue Heron
*I.east Bittern
*Canada Goose
*Mallard D.1ck
Rin:J-billed Gull 10 22.2%
*Berrin;J Gull
*Spotted Sarx:1piper
*Bel ted Kin;Jfisher
*Bank swallow
Red-win;Jed Blackbird
(* = Exclusive Species)
MAMMAL CEN3US: ~.tJ<'JOIR AND ~
~MX~ 'rorAL LIVE-'IRAP '!OrAL SIGHl'INGS/
CAPIURES SIGNS
Beaver - Numerals
HERPl'II.E C>>GJS: ~.tJ<'JOIR AND SWNfi)
~~ 'rorAL SIGIfI'INGS/SIGNS
Green Frog Numerals
- is -
lVR.37
mixed forest ('fable 7). '!his was the only reseJ:VOir manmal censused on the
site.
Calls of Green Frogs (Rana clamitans) were heard frequently in the cattails
('fable 7).
3.6 Immature Mixed Forest
'1his is a low-lyi.rg, very wet habitat off the east ern of the reservoir, part of
ESA #107.
Small pockets of the vegetative CCI1IlI.1Jli.ty also exist al<nJ the d1anne1 lams to
the south alorg the St:a.lffville Creek.
3.6.1 Veaetation
'!his is essentially a Black Ash cedar swanp. Yellow Bi.rd1 ani American Elm
are also foom in this habitat. '1he canc:py is mt dense (J:'CU3hly 40%), ani
a very few tall trees exist here.
Black Ash ani Cedar, alQR1 with !bmtain Maple, daninate the lJl)jerstorey as
well. 'lhi.s stratum is very dense, with coverage of ~te1y 80%.
Ferns are the na;t al:urrlant gram:i cover species. others present in=lude
Water Pennywort, Wood strawbeny ani Bittersweet Nightshade (Solanum
dulcamara) . Gra.md coverage averaged 90% ala'X) the transects.
A1<nJ the dlamel. lams the JOOSt daninant species is ManitdJa Maple (ADer
nequOOo) . 'lhis l'nml1rrlty oc::aJpies small areas adjacent to the creek or
within the several parkettes in the Village of stcA1ffville.
3.6.2 .D.iJ.m
Ten (10) bUd species were fami in the imDature mbced forest (22% of total;
Table 8). Cedar ~ (Barbvci1la oedrorum), American cro,..s (CoIVUS
bradM:hvnd1os) am Blue Jays were na;t al:urrlant. No species were exclusive
to this habitat.
3.6.3 ManInals. Andrlbians am Reotiles
Five (5) mamnal species were censused in this ilmBture habitat. '1here were
tracks of White-tailed Deer am Raoooon, as well as Eq>lars felled by
Beavers. Live trawin;J for 30 trap days ~xm me Deer M:Juse am one
- ":;0 -
LOR.3~
'mBl.E 8 BIRD cmsuS: IMMA'IURE MIXED FOREST lFr inn) m low)
~M:I : I ..~ OBSERVED 00. OF SPOCIES % OF 'IDI'AL
~fed Grouse
Downy ~
Blue Jay
Black~I=PErl allckadee
American Crow 10 22.2%
American Rd:>in
4Cedar Waxwi.n;J
Northern Cardinal
Red-w:i.rged Blackbird
l'hTwnnn Grackle
MAMMAL CENSUS: IMMA'IURE MIXED FOREST
~~:I"~ 'lOrAL LIVE~ 'lOl'AL SIGHI'nQ)/
CAPlURES ~
Deer M:use 1 -
Gray Squirrel 1 -
Pacoocn - 1 (tracks)
trIrlte-tailed Deer - 1 (tracks)
HERP1'IIE CENSt5: DfofMURE MIXED ~1'
~M:X;~ '!OrAL SIGHl'INGS/SIGNS
American Toad 1
LA) It '3Cf
Eastern Gray Squirrel (Table 8).
An American Toad was the lone hel:ptile in this habitat (Table 8).
3.7 ParkIMea<:k:M Camlmity
'Ihis habitat is exclusive to the channel lan:ls within the 'l'c7.m of stooffville am
a small area imnedi.ately sa.rt:h of the dam at the stalffville ReseIvoir.
3.7.1 Vecretation
'll1e species in this cx:mm.mi.ty are primarily maintained am manicured within
the several parkettes alon:J the stooffville Creek. ~ am Festuca ~
(Grass sw.) daninate with an estimated coverage of 80%.
Areas alorg the :inmediate st:reaIrbank as well as those that are IXJt
maintained as open lawn 00t have been previOJSly nr:7tIled contain several. grass
species :i1d.u:li.n:] Rlleum oratense am Bratus inennis.
3.7.2 Birds
Eight (8) bim species (18% of total) \Were d:sezved in this cpen habitat
(Table 9). Rr::bins lrt1ere the na;t aOOn:1ant species. Of the eight (8)
species, a1ly me, Rock dave, was foun::l exclusively in this habitat.
3.7.3 Manrnals. 1md1ibians an::1 ReDtiles
FaIr (4) intividuals of fan" different mamnal species (44% of total) \Were
oensused in this lYM'ITInrlty type. An Eastern Gray ScJrl.rrel am Eastem
a1i.pm.mk lrt1ere seen, am Raoooa1 tracks \Were famd. Live-traR>in1 was not
urxIertaken in this habitat.
An Eastem Garter Snake an::1 a Green Frog \Were the a1ly heIptil.es d:lserved in
this habitat.
3.8 Fisheries
3.8.1 Reservoir
On A1.J1ust 10, 1988 a total of two thoosarxl (2000) seca~ of electrof~
effort was expelled to capture two hl.Jrrlred an::1 fifty-four (254) fish
represent.in:J four (4) species. '!he total bianass was 24,130 grams (Table
10).
I.arqeDn.tth bass CMicrooteros ~l~ides) \Were the JOOSt aOOn:1ant species
-..,
wR.q.o
TABIE 9 BIRD CENSUS: PARK/MFAIX.W w-MJNI'IY
~ftX,;~ OBSERVED NO. OF SPEX:IES % OF TOrAL
American Robin
~ starlin;J
Mo.Irn:irxJ Ik7ve 8 17.8%
Bel tad I<in;Jfisher
Ca:lm:>n Grackle
Halse Sparrow
American Crc1.t1
*Rock Ik7ve
MAMMAL CENSUS: PARK/MFAIX.W o::r-HJNI'lY
~~:I":S 'lUIM. SI~/SI~
Eastern Gray Squirrel 1
Eastern allpll.1l'lk 1
Racxx>on 1 (tracks)
Woodd1uck 1 (den)
HERPl'IIE cmsus: PARK/MFAIX.W ~
~~~ 'lUIM. SI~/SI~
Fast:em Garter Snake 1
Green Froq 1
&0 J
~ Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority wR.41
Resource Management Section
Electroshocking Results - Stouffville Reservoir
Species, Number (#), Percent Composition (%), Biomass (g) ,
Percent Biomass (%), and Size Range (T.L. in mm)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPECIES # % g % mm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catostomus commersoni (White Sucker) 35.0 13.8 15800.0 65.5 245-4
Ictalurus nebulosus (Brown Bullhead) 1.0 0.4 30.0 0.1 113 0
Lepomis gibbosus (Pumpkinseed) 105.0 41.3 3650.0 15.1 30-15'
Micropterus salmoides (Largemouth Bass) 113.0 44.5 4650.0 19.3 45-471
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL (# of species) 254.0 24130.0 (4 sp.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE: 10
- .JU -
loR.t+~
within the reservoir. A total of 113 in:tividual bass CCltprise 44.5% of the
total catch am 19.3% of the total bianass. One hurrlred five (105)
p.mpki.nseed (I.eDani.s qiJ::lbosus) cx.rrprise 41. 3% of the total catch an:} 15.1%
of the total biaoass. nrirty-five (35) white suckers (C'atost.atus
c:amersoni.) caIp)6E!d only 13.8% of the total catch I::ut accamte1 for aver
65% of the total bianass. A sin;Jle bra.m l:W.1head CIctalurus neb.tlosus)
accamted for the remain:ler of the catdl.
'!he catch per unit effort (CIUE) value for the eastern portion of the
reseJ:Voir was 7.68 fish per minute of electrofishinj effort. '!he weste.m
portion of the resezvoir had a CIUE of 7.56 fish per minute of
elect.roshockin] effort. '!he similarity of the CRJE values suggest even
distrihItion of fish t:.hra.1gha.lt the sarrpled portion of the reservoir.
'1he fish CCI'lIlIJl1i.ty sanpled fran the stalffville Reservoir scored a IBI value
of 30 points which equates to a good health ranJcin} of the waterlxx1y.
3.8.2 stalffville creek
(a) >>xNe Reservoir
on lu;JUst 24, 1988 a fisheries ilwentory was c::xnluctEd em a forty (40) meter
sectiem (Figure 2) of the staJffville creek. A total of 900 seocn:3s of
electroshcx::kin1 effort was expelled to capture four (4) inllvidual fish
representin;J 3 species which had a oari>ined bianass of 22 grams (Table 11).
'l\lo (2) white suc:kers carprised 50% of the sanple arrl 68.2% of the bianass.
A sin.Jle lazgem:uth bass acoc:a.mted for 25% of the catc:h am 22.7% of the
biaoass. A Jdlmy darter (Etheostana nicm.mt) aocamted for the rema.irxEr of
the catdl. 'Ihe auE of this statial was 0.26 fish per mimrt:e of
electl()fishi.n:J effort.
'!he fish lY'I'IIIIludty at this statial scored a imex of biotic integrity value
of 19 points. 'lhis value reflects a poor IBI stream health ranJcin}.
(b) Below ReseIvoir
on 1u]ust 24, 1988 a fifty (50) meter section (Figure 3) of stooffville
Creek below the resezvoir was saDpled. A total of 600 seoon:ls of
electrofi.shin;J effort was expelled to capture 28 iniividua1 fish
represent.ilq falI' (4) species which had a c:arbined bianass of 170 grams
(Table 12). Creek dJub (5eIootilus atranaculatus) were the JOOSt abJrrlant
- ~.L -
~ wR. '-t 3
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Resource Management Section
Electrofishing Results - Stouffville Creek Above Reservoir
Species, Number (#), Percent Composition (%) , Biomass (g) ,
Percent Biomass (%) , and Size Range (T. L. in mm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPECIES # % g % rom
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catostomus commersoni (White Sucker) 2.0 50.0 15.0 68.2 64.0
Micropterus sa1moides (Largemouth Bass) 1.0 25.0 5.0 22.7 50 0
Etheostoma nigrum (johnny darter) 1.0 25.0 2.0 9.1 50 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL (# of species) 4.0 (3) 22.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE: 11
- .J~ -
LQ~.LllJ. Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Resource Management section
Electrofishing Results - stouffville Creek Below Reservoir
Species, Number (#), Percent Composition (%), Biomass (g),
Percent Biomass (%), and Size Range (T.L. in mm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPECIES # % g % mm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catostomus commersoni (White Sucker) 8.0 28.6 103.0 60.6 61-186
Rhinichthys atratulus (blacknose dace) 1.0 3.6 2.0 1.2 44.0
Semotilus atromaculatus (creek chub) 18.0 64.3 60.0 35.3 35-112
Etheostoma nigrum (j ohnny darter) 1.0 3.6 5.0 2.9 36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL (# of species) 28.0 (4) 170.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE: 12
- 33 -
WR.lf"
fish at this location. Eighteen (18) creek chub ac:x:nmted for 64.3% of the
catch ani 35.3% of the bianass. Eight (8) white suckers CClTprised only
28.6% of the total catch but aoooonted for over 68% of the bianass.
Blackoose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus) an:l Jdmny darter were the remain:ier
of the catch. '!he CRJE of this section was 2.8 fish per minute of
electroshockin;J effort.
'!he fish cxmrami.ty at this location had a mI value of 25. '!his IBI value
equates to a gocxi health rankin:J for this section of stream.
3.8.3 Water Clemistry
Water d1emistry levels were recorded on August 5, 1988 fran the deepest
portion (7 ft.) of the reservoir located near the cutlet. Results are foon::i
in Table 13.
'!he dissolved oxygen content (D.O.) rarged fran 9.0 Dq/1 at the surface to
3.2 Dq/l at the bottan. '!he Ministry of Natural Resa1roes uses the 4.0 ng,/l
O. O. oc:ntent as the mi.ni.num ann.mt of oxygen required for the healthy
~ for JOOSt aquatic organisus (Ikd:Je 1985). The 4.0 ng,/l D.O.
level was recm'ded in the reserroir at 5.5 feet below the water surface.
MaxilII.1ID light penetration was recorded at 3.5 feet below the surface usirq a
secctd. disc. '!he air tenperature at time of the survey was 32.00 c.
SUrface water m.perature of the reservoir was 26.80 C, mid depth (3 ft.)
was 23.10 C ani the bottan (6 ft.) tenperature was recorded at 21.00 C.
O:n:hlcti.vity levels were consistent t:hra.1ghoot the water collDJDl at 320
lDIilcs/an.
stream di.sdlaIge of stooffville Creek was roeasured above ani below the
reservoir en J\me 28, 1988. st.cuffville Creek abaYe the reservoir had a
di.sc:barge of 0.03415 m3/sec am below the reservoir a di.sc:barge of 0.03651
ni3 /sec was reoolded.
3.9 OisaJSSion
'!be p.u:pose of this feasibility stu:iy of the stcuffville ReseIvoir am flood
cbannel lams was to dro1lnPnt the existirq resan:'CeS of these lards am to
provide rescm:oe management ani passive recreational reo.,.,-rnations to the Town
of Whitd1Urc:h-St:.o.fvil1e.
.
3.9.1 Veqetatien
- 34 - ,
lN~'lffp
TABlE 13 WATER 0ID0IIS'IRY RESlJIlrn
SAHPIE D1\TE: AUGUST 5, 1988 TIME: 1350 HRS
SAHPIE DEPIH (FT) D.O. (loGjL) 'In!P (OC) CONr.UCl'IVIT'i (lJMlI:SjO!) 'lm CM3jL)
1.0 9.0 26.8 320 216.4
2.0 9.0
3.0 9.0 23.1 320 216.4
4.0 9.0
5.0 4.8
6.0 3.6 21.0 320 216.4
7.0 3.2
SEX:X:HI DISC: 3.5 FEEl' BE:Iat1 SURFACE
.
~
-- LoR.lI-7
'!he biqilysical inventory of the lams revealed a variety of vegetation
CXI'l1l'lI.D1i.ties, ran;Ji.n1 fran meadcM/field habitats to mture deciduous forest.
Table 14 provides the area an:l percent total of the habitat types. In
general the vegetation CCI'l'IIl.mi.ties were foord to be in favcurable
corditions.
3.9.2 Birds
'!he b~ bird census irdicated a total of 46 species within the st1.xly
area (Table 15). Of these, nearly 20% were c:bserved to be ex>nfi.nned
breeders: how'ever, likely with the ack:titional field cbsetvation this
percentage cculd be in::reased. No significant species were ~luded in this
total.
3.9.3 ManInals. Reotiles an:l Andribians
Table 16 lists the species d:lserved within their wildlife group. No
significant species were c:bserved, b.Jt of interest as a habitat quality
in:ticator species, White-tailed Deer were c:bserved at a l'1Jl1t)er of ocx:asions.
In ackU.tiat to 1M1'II'MIl d::lServatiat, small 1M1'IWMl live-trat:P~ was
urx:Jertake.n. Table 17 provides the details of the traw~ program.
3.9.4 Fisheries
(a) Reservoir
'!he electrofi.shi.rq results irdicate a well balanced species cnl~ition an::l
distribIticn of fish within the reservoir. 'Dle reservoir has a well
develqm food chain based 00 the larqenruth bass beiJq the tcp predator.
'!he }'QD'l;J of the year p.mpkinseed an::l white sucker provide a excellent
forage base for the larqE!l101th bass pcp.1latioo. 'Dle similar catd1 per lDlit
effort msults fran the two semple lUllS in the reseJ.'VOir in:li.cate the fish
pt1"II1btiat ,*'11 b,ed the ent:.i1:e area am were not OCI~~ted in any
particular locaticm.
Year class stmcture for the (113) larqenruth bass scmpled was detennined by
a total len:Jth frequeJx.y c1i.st.rib.tti.oo based 00 50 DID inteJ:va1s. '1he results
in:ticate that yoon;J of the year bass were 100-150 DID in lergth: one year
plus fish were 200-250 BID lc:n:J; two years plus fish 1IIleZ'e 300-350 JIm lon:J:
am arrj fish CNer 350 BID was detennined to be three years old or greater.
Table 18 displays the I'll.D'I'ber of fish am percentage of the sanple for eacb
year class. SCIIle fish that were not exactly within a year class ran;Je were
--
w~.t+-~
TABlE 14
HABITAT AREAS (ha): 5'mJFFVILIE RESERVOIR ~IBILIT'i SIUDY
HABITAT TYPE ARFA (ha) , OF rorAL NO. OF ~
Field/Scrub 10.78 31.0 5
Mature Mixed Forest 6.60 18.0 5
Cedar Forest 5.70 16.4 4
Mature Deci~ Forest 5.08 14.3 4
Reservoir/Flooded Area 5.08 14.3 -
Inmature Mixed Forest 1.70 4.9 3
Pa.rk;Meadow 2.30 6.2 -
37.24
- .
w R. 4-9
TABIE 15
BREEDmG BIRD aNSUS: S'IOOFFVILIE RESERVOIR FFASIBILIT'i S'IUDY
::;~ BREEDrnG EVIDENCE
OBSERVED J:a:)SIBIE m:>BABIE ~
Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) X
Least Bittern (IxOOrvchus exilis) X
Canada Goose (Branta canadensis) X
Mallard (Anas plat:vIilvrx:ms) X
Red-tailed Hawk (art:.eo iamaicensis) X
Ruffed Groose (Bonasa \.1Il'bellus) X
Killdeer (Olaradrius vociferos) X
Spotted Sarrlpiper (Actitis macularia) X
American Woodcock (Scolooax minor) X
Rin:1-billed Gull (Iaros delawarensis) X
Herrin} Gull (I.arus aroentatus) X
Rock Dove (())lunba livia) X
!bnni.ng Dove (Zenaida macroura) X
Chimney SWift (Olaetura Del.aaica) X
Belted KiIgfisher (<:mvle alcvon) X
tnmy Woodpecker (Picoides robesoens) X
Hai.zy Woodpecker (Picoides villosus) X
Eastel:n Kin:]bird ('l'yranrAJs tvrannus) X
Great-crested Flycatd1er CMl/iardlus crinitus) X
Eastel:n WOOd Pewee (Ca1tcDJs virens) X
Bank SWallow (RiDaria r1p"ria) X
Binn SWallow (1Ii.nJrrlo rostica) X
Blue Jay (cyaoocitta cristata) X
American crow (())IVUS brad1vrhyrx:hos) X
Black~ arlckadee (Paros atricapi1lus) X
American Rcbin ('l\Jrdus migratorius) X
Wood 'lhrush (Hvlocichla DUStel.ina) X
Gray Catbird nmut:ella carolinensis) X
Bl:'Own 'Ihrasher (Taxcst:aIB 1Yfym) X
Cedar WaxwinJ (Bc:.IIbyci 11 a oedrorum) X
~ starlin] (St:u1nls wlqaris) X
Yellow waxbler (Den3roica Det:echia) X
O.,.,.~ Yellowthroat (Geathlvpis tridlas) X
Wilscn' s 1faJ:bler CWilsarl.a nlSi1la) X
Narthem CaJ:dina1 (cardina1is card.ina1is) X
Rose-breasted Grosbeak (lbeucticus lntyuicianus) X
~i~inJ Sparrow (SDize1la pa!;.c;erina) X
SCDj Sparrow (Me1OSDiza 1IP1odia) X
- jl:j -
1.0 R . So
~~ BREEDING E.VIDENCE
OBSERVED KSSIBIE ProIWnE ~
\rIllte-throated Sparrc10rI
lZonotrichia albicollisl X
Savannah Sparrc10rI
lPasserculus sarrlwichensis) X
Red-wirged blacl<bird (Agelaius Iiloenicius) X
Eastern Meadowlark (stumella ~) X
t'hmrYl Grackle (Mscalus ~scala) X
Brown-headed Colr.i:>ird at2lothnls ater) X
American Goldfi.rrl1 (Carduelis tristis) X
Halse Sparrow (Passer danesticus) X
Cbserve:i 4
Possible 25
Probable 8
0:Ilfi.nDed -2....
'!OrAL ~~ 46
- .j~ -
wR. $/
'l1\BI.E 16
~. REPI'II&S AND AMmIBIANS OF '!HE
S'lOOFFVIUE RESERVOIR FFASIBILIT'i S'lUDY
(a) MM+1AI.s
Deer lb1se (Peranvsa1s maniculatus)
Eastern arlpmmk (Tamias striatus)
Red Squirrel (Tamiasciuris hudsonialS)
Woodchuck (Mantd:a m:::>nax)
Beaver (Castor canadensis)
Eastern Cottontail (SvlvilaQUS floridanus)
Raccoon (Procvon lotor)
White-tailed Deer (exiocoileus virginianus)
(b) REPI'IlES
Eastern Garter Snake (~ sirtalis)
(c) AMFHIBIANS
American Toad (MQ americanus)
Green Frog ~ c1amitans)
- iiU -
Lo~'~~
TABlE 17
SMALL MAMMAL LIVE~ SOIEI:UIE
HABITAT TYPE TYPE AND 00. OF '!RAPS 00. Dt\YS 'IDTAL Dt\TES
'mAP (1986)
~ NATIOOAL Dt\YS
Field/Scrub 26 4 3 90 July 8, 9, 10
Mature Mixed Forest 14 3 3 51 July 2, 3, 7
Cedar Forest 11 3 3 42 June 25, 26,
July 2
Mature Decidua.1s Forest 11 3 3 42 June 26,
July 2, 3
:r.ature Mixed Forest 7 3 3 30 July 7, 8, 9
STOUFFVILLE RESERVOIR STUDY
YEAR CLASS STRUCTURE OF LARGEMOUTH BASS
SAMPLED FROM STOUFFVILLE RESERVOIR
NUMBER COLLECTED PERCENT OF SAMPLE
140 100%
88 62% _ NUMBER COLLECTED
120
~ % OF TOTAL SAMPLE 80%
100
80 60%
60 40%
40
20%
20
5 407% 4 325% 2 162%
0 0%
YOUNG OF YEAR 1 YEAR PLUS 2 YEARS PLUS 3 YEARS PLUS
YEAR CLASS ~
SAMPLED AUGUST,10.1988
2000 SECONDS ELECTROFISHING EFFORT A:>
.
TABLE: 18 \f,
OJ
- 42 -
LuR .54-
excluded.
'!he I1Drtality of yoorq of the year fish is extremely high as i.rxlicated by
the relatively low percentage of weaker year classes of fish greater than
one year old. High IlDrtality of the year fish is a \,AAlal&.Jll oocurrence but
this drastic decline i.rxlicates that there is a prdJlem with fish Slll'VivinJ
beyan the first year. '1hi.s m:>rtality is prctlably caused by the effects of
winter drawdown of the resel:VOir.
'!he presence of white suckers with a age class greater than one year is
---- likely due to the fact that they are m:>re tolerant of the winter drawown
ani low oxygen. '!he absence of small suckers results fran heavy predation
by the largenntth bass while y~ of the year p.mpkinseed are iIrportant as
forage for largennIth bass, they are not as preferred as white sucker ani
are therefore m:>re ab.mdant.
'- Consider~ the stress of winter dra~ on the reservoir the fish
CCIIIIlD'lity present emi.bits gocx:l grcM:h rates ani is healthy as i.rxlicated by
the IBI value of 30.
(b) Above Reservoir
stwffville creek above the reservoir has a very poor pcp.1latioo of fish,
even thcn;Jh the habitat ~ to be capable of ~ a larger fish
n"ftIII nU ty . '!he exb.ebdy lCM CRJE of 0.26 fish per minute effort is
~ .'.'LlIl for a wat.erccAlrse of this size and locatioo. '!he largemwth bass
ani white suckers ool1ected were all ycAllq of the year size class ani
prc:iJably originated fran the reservoir. '!he one Jdmny darter sanpled cx:uld
be CDlSidered a year ro.ni resident.
'!he cxniitial of the fish camt.mi.ty is reflected in the lCM IBI value of 19
ani pxr stream health rank.
In 1987, the Maple District of the Ministry of Natural Resa1rces sanp1ed
upstream fran this station (MNR 1987). '1hi.s i..nvent:my sanpled a healthier
fish CCIIIIlD'lity than was fo.m:l at the MIRCA statioo <bmstream.
'!he exact cause of this degraded fish CCIl1II.D1i.ty was mt awarent durinJ the
ooorse of this survey. A mre intensive investigatioo of this wat.ercaJrse
thrcu;JtnIt the ooorse of the year woold be required to detenni.ne if this is
- 't.,;) -
wR.~~
a seasonal or local oorxlition.
'n1e lack of fish in this section of the St.a.lffville Creek has little or no
inpact on the quality of the reservoir.
(c) Below Reservoir
stooffville Creek below the reservoir has a fish CYI'IWm1rrlty strocture that is
typical of a urban wat.erccAlrse. '!he sanple station was a section of flood
control channel that exterrls tlu:'cu:3h the Village of stooffville. Fifty
meters of this channel was fa.uxl to have a small p::pllation of tolerant fish
species i.n::luiin;J white sucker, creek dlUb and blacknose dace. One Jdmny
darter which is considered a intolerant species was oollected. 'Ihi.s section
of the stwffville Creek had an IBI value of 25 points whieb reflects a gocx:l
stream health rank.
(d) Water 01emi.stJ:y
'!he dissolved oxygen content of the resavoir was adequate for JOOSt aquatic
life fran the surface to a depth of 5.5 feet. Below this level the D.O.
CCI11:ent ..h.~ below the acceptable level for aquatic life of 4.0 Dg,/l.
Altheu3h the D.O. levels were depressed at this depth, there was still
erxu:Jh oxygen present to allCM this area to be utilized by aquatic life.
'Ihe D.O. levels recorded are excellent, CIalSiderin;J the hot weather
e1'XXlUI'Itered ciurin;J the sunmer of 1988.
'Ihe water t~rature of the reservoir displayed a gradual drc.p in
teDperature fran surface to the bottan. Distin::t thenna1 stratificatioo of
the resermir was oot present ani is prOOably due to ~ of the water by
win:i ani wave actim, ani the ~ of deep water.
Becx:hi disc readin:]s detennined that the max:i:aum light penetratial is 3.5
feet deep Wicatin1 good water clarity within the reservoir.
Con:lucti.vity levels t.hro.1ghoot the water ooltDTlll were 320 UIIbos/an. Fran
this oorrlucti.vity level a total dissolved solids ('Im) level of 216.4 ng was
calculated. 'Dlese two levels are considered normal ani indicate that the
reservoir is capable of gocx:l fish prcductioo.
stream di.sdlarge was taken fran above and belCM the resezvoir to determine
the origin an:i extent of streamflCM within the resavoir. Upstream iran the
......
w~.,b
reservoir a flow of 0.03415 m3jsec was recorded; downstream flCM was
~asured at 0.03651 m3jsecorxi. '!he downstream in::rease in flow was only
0.00236 m3jseoand. 'Ihi.s i.rxlicates that the majority of flCM into the
resezvoir originates fran stream flCM upstream fran the reservoir and not
fran gro..nxi water recharge.
OVerall the results of the water d1emi.stzy test i.rxlicate that the reservoir
has excellent ~ water quality capable of suwortinJ a healthy aquatic
ecosystem.
3.10 Envi.romnentall v Significant Areas study
'!he MIRCA' s mA study designated part of the Stalffville Reservoir lands as an
ESA (sta.lffville Forest - No. 107). Figure 6 i.rxlicates the bo.1rrlary of the area.
'n1e criteria fulfilled is as follows:
eriterial 2 (a)
'!be area is considered a high quality sooroe area within the MlRCA regial.
'!be flocded, swanpy nature of the area in:licates its signi.fi~ in a
water-holdin;J capacity (~ I provides a detailed descriptioo of the
ESA) .
within the mA Sbdy, management of the ESA is d;~lSsed ani c:xxx:lu:ies the
type am degree of management deperdin:J 00 whether protectioo or
preservatioo of the ESA is decided upat.
Protectioo is defined as safeguardi.n:j the natural features, fun::tions ani
biological prooesses of an &sA iran external, artificial ~.
rreservatia'l involves the artificial mai.ntenaooe of an ESA at a specific
point in its ~icmal history. '!he natural processes are interfered
with to retain a desired state. For exanple, it may be desirable to ensure
the retentim of provincially or nationally rare species tlu:'cu3h active
preservatioo practices, or to retain a particular state al the basis of
educational or scientific signifi~ (MIRCA, 1982).
'!be MmCA p.I'qX)OOd that all ESA' s be protected to the extent possible, Wile
those be preserved where site specific c::cntitians ani potential uses
warrant.
- 45 -
WR.S7
3.11 Wetlani Evaluation
'!he stouffville ReseJ:voir lams an:! associated wetlams were evaluated in
August, 1985 by the MmCA. ~ II provides a summa:ry of the evaluation
recx:>rd .
'!he wetlan:! is a s~le contiguous wetlani, ~roxi1nately 6.6 hectares in size.
Seventy-five percent (75%) is considered a marsh habitat, with the remainiIg 25%
a swanp habitat.
'!he marsh area is daninated by stonewort, pon:iweed an:! narrow-leaved cattails
while the swamp area's dani.nants are black ash, white cedar ani cattail.
'!he scorinJ for the wetlani evaluation is as follows:
Biological Catponent 130
Social Calponent 125
Hydrolcqical CcIrp:lnent 91
Special Features Carponent 67
413
'n1i..s score ranks the stouffville \1I'etlani as a Class 6.
l.u~. >~
4.0 ~oos
S~ 1974 the majority of these Authority owned larrls have been urrler a
management agreement with the Tc1.m of Whitchurch-stouffville resultin3" in the
operation, maintenaooe ani deve10pnent beinJ the responsibility of the Tc1.m. As
part of the Watershed Recreation Program, the MIRC'A enc::arrages the use of
Authority lams by other agen::ies for passive use. 'lherefore,
"It is recarmnerxied that the current agreement continue with the Tc1.m of
Whitchurch-stouffville for the management of these lams."
4.1 Resa.1rce Manaqement
4.1.1 Vecretation
(a) Forest Management Plan
'!he Feasibility study revealed that the vegetation canmunities are not
irxlicatin3" any major health problems. '!he preli.Jni..nazy age-class structure,
regeneration c:x:rrp:>nent and diversity of the forest st:arrls provide signs of a
fairly healthy forest ccmm.mity. liavever, due to its eventually "biological
islani" status as develcpnent occurs to the north of the area, IOOre pressure
will be bome by this area. Increased passive use by residents of the Town
requires a well-managed forest starrl to minimize potential hazards.
'Iherefore, this report ~lllut::!'rls:
"A c:x:mprehensive forest management plan be prepared for the forest
st.arrls within the SRFS."
'D1is management plan shcW.d carrentrate its objectives on minimizinJ hazards
adjacent to trails, water conservation, wildlife habitat inprovernent ani
iaprovin3" the forest health.
(b) Tree ani Shn1b Plantirg
In terms of increasin3" vegetation canmunities or species diversity, the
biqilysical inventory disclosed there was no real need; therefore, tree
aOO,Ior shrob plant.in;J is not recc:mnerrled for this pnpose. Plant:in1s for
wildlife habitat, wim erosion <m:Vor aesthetics will be rH!::n1SS€d later in
this report.
- 47 -
WR'~1
4.1.2 Wildlife
Wildlife management on the stouffville lards should be aimed at protectinJ
am enhaIx:inJ inportant wildlife habitat CCI'lp:>nents in order to maintain ani
p:lSSibly in::rease the diversity of species occupyinJ this site.
(a) Forest Habitats
Forest habitats on the Stouffville tract offer excellent wildlife habitat
since the nnst desirable woodlani habitat features are available at this
site. '!he major goal in the management of these areas must be their
protection, because of their small size am high quality. 'Iherefore, no
large scale habitat manitw.ation is recc.mnerned in this habitat type.
However, brush piles have proven to be sucx:essful CX'Il'p)l"leJ1ts of habitat am
wildlife management. In addition to proviciirg shelter ani protection for a
variety of birds ani manunals, they provide a natium for seed gennination ani
Yoon::1 plant growth (Schemnitz,1980).
It is recanmen:ied: "In areas where trail develcpnent woold cx:x:ur, any
material renvJVed shalid be retained for the creatioo of brush piles."
'D1e piles sha1ld be placed away fran the trails (awroximately 15-20 metres
minilIum) ani preferably in a my location. '!he piles shalid be placed
awraximately 100 metres apart, hC1.NeVer, the rnnnber ani location of the
piles will be limited to the ano.mt of available material.
'!he creatioo of bIUsh piles in the varicus vegetative carmmities will
irx::rease the variety of habitats available for birds ani manunals. Asa
result an in::rease in sane of the predatory species suc:n as foxes and
raptars nay occur.
(b) Field/Scrub Habitat
Field am scrub habitats are currently utilized by the largest variety of
bird ani ~J species. At present the extent of this habitat is sanev.>hat
limited, however, natural. succession in sane of the I1Dre cpen areas will
irx::rease the availability of this CC1'I1l'I'lDlity. An exanple of this Sl~sion
is visible in the open field to the north of the reservoir where Yoon:T
cedars have becane established.
It is recanmen:ied: "Plantin;Js should be incoIpOrated alorg the western am
- 48 -
toR. /'0
eastern bourrlaries to provide a winfureak in areas bordered by open fields
and a visual blffer in areas adjacent to ~idential develcprent" (Figure
7).
ConifercR.lS species intennixed with shrub species would enhance the potential
for wildlife as 'Nell as recreational activities.
Shrub planti.rgs shcW.d include a variety of species, to provide different
wildlife f<:xx3s ani stroctural diversity. At these forest edges, where
conifers daninate, planti..n3s cx:uld include small deciduoos trees such as
Russian Olive (Elaeoanus argustifolia), tall slu:ubs such as Cranberry
(Vibnnum) ani Honeysuckle (IDnicera), followed by smaller shrubs such as
Red-osier [k)gwood ani Elderberry (Sambucus). In areas where a IlDre
substantial barrier is required conifers such as spruce (Picea), pine
(Pinus) or cedar ('Ihuia) should be planted.
A rnnnber of biItl species whidl nest in natural cavities can benefit fran the
const.roctian of nest boxes. On these lands, several species not censused
might be attracted to the site by the presence of artificial nest
structures .
It is recx:mnemed: "'!he follCMin;J quantities ani type of biItl boxes be
placed on these lands" (Figure 7):
(i) Eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis): three or four nest boxes for
this species cx:uld be placed in the main field, siIre cpen fields with
scattered trees offer ideal habitat. '!hey shoold be spaced at 100 to
200 m intervals, ani placed an posts 2 to 3 meues above the gram:i.
(ii) HaJse Wren (Troalcdvtes aedon): these birds nest in deciduoos
shrol:bery alcn;J forest edges, so that exi.stin;J scrub habitats on these
lards offer good nestin;J sites. Four or five nest boxes shoold be
placed in the large scrub areas alon:J the creek, 1.5 m above the
grami.
(iii) 0:mIal flicker (Colaotes auratus): nest boxes for this edge-
associated species ca.1ld be placed anywhere these forest-field
interfaces oc:x:ur, particularly in the less distmbed fields north of
the reseIVOir, 4 m above the groon:l.
- 49 -
wR.bl
(iv) Screech ail (otus asio): like flickers, these are birds of edge
habitats, so that the same areas could be used to place nest boxes for
this species. Again 4 m above the grourrl is the ideal height.
Details on the construction of nest boxes for these species can be
fOl.U'rl in the MIRCA ConserJation Services Report "Nest Boxes for
Avifauna" (1984).
(c) Reservoir ani Swanu:>
While the stouffville Reservoir does not meet Dlcks Unlimited's q1tiInum
con:titions for waterfail protection, it pos&>SSeS features favourable to
these birds. As discussed, the northeast COOler of the reservoir could
support a small rn.nnber of breectin:J pairs with its cattail edges, shallow
waters ani al:Jt.m3ant loafinJ structure.
To inprove this possibility, its is :recanmerxled: "nest boxes for Wocxi ducks
(Abc soonsa) coul.d be placed on dead trees or posts in the hardwood swarcp".
'Ihese are placed 3 to 10 m above the water and predator guards 0.6 m in
diameter shcW.d be in:1uded. Again, disturbance in this region should be
kept to a minilIum.
4.1.3 Fisheries
(a) Reservoir
'!he stouffville Reservoir has a high quality self sustaini.rg pcp.tl.ation of
largema.tth bass. Management of the reservoir cx:uld provide inproved aD3'linJ
~tlmi.ties to the residents of Whitchurdl-stooffville and ~
regioo. To enhaooe the bass fishery,
"It is recxmnemed a sbxly cx:x::ur to investigate the potential recreational
ani winter water levels of the reservoir that woold enhan:::e the bass
habitat ani to investigate the 0llTent winter habitat."
'1hi.s sbxly DUSt be cognizant of the flood control ct>jective of the reservoir
and any possible in::rease c::tlimJes in water levels 11IJSt not jeopardize this
ct>j ecti ve.
'!he sbxly shcW.d l1l'Xlertake the followinJ:
- 50 -
LU (t. b:t
- Detennine if there are any adverse effects of winter drawdcMn on the
ecosystem of the reservoir. winter water d1emi.stry levels should be
detennined for dissolved oxygen content, t.eItperature, cx:>rrluctivity and
turbidity . winter fish habitat ani distribution within the resel:VOir should
also be investigated. winter water quality and lack of winter habitat is
believed to be the limitinJ factor for winter Slll'Vival of largexoouth. bass
and hence a poorer quality sport fishery.
- Investigate the maximum time the recreational water levels can be
maintained durinJ the course of the year. '1hi.s will allCM the greatest
annmt of habitat to be used by the resident fish pcpllation durin:} the
growin;J season.
- Investigate the maximum level for winter drawdcMn that maintains prq:ler
flood protection. '!his will increase the winter habitat ani provide higher
Slll'Vival rates for ~ of the year largexoouth. bass.
Management of the reservoir woold be expected to inprove the bass habitat
hcM:!ver it is difficult to det:ennine the actual. increase in fi..shi.n;J
<:g)Orbmities that \<<W.d result iran management ani it is also difficult to
det:ennine the actual fi.shiIq qportunities that cx:uld be sustain by the
bass pcpllation without destroyin:} the pop.1lation. Urrle.rtakin:J sunvner creel
census woold provide infonnation i.rxlicatin:} an;Jler sucx:ess ani whether the
bass pcp.1l.ation is decli.n.in;J. If a major decline did cxx:ur or if the Town
wanted to increase an;Jler SUOOE'SS a "p.rt: and take" bass fisheries cx:uld be
established by st:oc:k:in;J adult bass.
'1he stream ~~~~ above and belCM the resel:VOir revealed a poor quality
fish crmnInUty ani sarewhat decli.nin;J water quality for fisheries. '!he
exi.stin:.J lani uses adjacent to the waterccm:se (either agriculture arrl/or
urban develcpoent) woold make it very difficult to iDprove the stream
quality so as to SI.g)Ort a sustai.nin;J t.ra.rt: pop.1lation. Major stream
rehabilitation consistin:} of bank protection, instream caver ani streansic1e
planti.rgs woold be ~ to inp:rove the t.ra.rt: habitat.
4.2 RECm'ATICIUU.. REX:XHiENDi\TIOO
4.2.1 Public Considerations
with the identification of a fairly diverse wildlife cx:mnuni.ty ani a
- 5l -
wR.~3
largennrt:h bass fisheIy it is advisable to develq:> the Stouffville lams for
pJblic education arrl enjoyment, particularly oonsiderinJ its close
proxllnity to the Village of stalffville.
(a) Trail SVsteJn
A nore elaborate trail system is required if the area is to be utilized for
passive recreational activities (ie. hi.ki..rg, cross-c:amtry skii..rg, etc.).
It is rE:u..allll.erned: "'!he existi..rq trails should be linked to create a loop
system arourrl the resezvoir am wooded area to the mrth."
'Ihese trails should be planned so as to m.i.nimi.ze their i.Jnpact an wet or
swanpy areas, but should be developed so that the other vegetation
ccmramities mrth of the reservoir are included.
'!he proposed trail system would establish two loop trails that woold begin
ani ern at the I):nn or main point of acn!SS (Figure 7). '!he trails should be
marked separately ani identified as beinJ a specific lergth. In this way it
woold be possible for the users to plan their activities based on the lergth
of the trail or the time required to <:x:::IIplete the loop.
Points of interest, identificatioo of the vegetative CCIIIIlllli.ties or
significant plant species may be included as part of an Intel'preti.ve
P1. ogl.am. A sign irxlicati..rg the location of the trails, the Reserroir am
vegetatioo carmmities should be posted at the main acn!SS point ani
begirm:in::J of the trail system.
(b) Aooes.c;
It is reo.,.,R4Xied: AcoEoss to the resel:VOir prcperty sha1l.d occur only fran
Millard Drive" at this time. '!he gates on the eastern edge of the property
alc:n;J the CNR tracks shoold be locked ani posted as no acn!SS. In ack:li.tion
the \.AAl1llLt I fence between the reservoir lards ani the railroad lards is in
need of amual naintenance to prevent acn!SS alon:J this boorrlary.
'!he current facilities of the resel:VOir lards is lackinJ vehicle parki..rg
aaJi -.... &tial. To encx:mage recreational use by all residents of the 'I'c:Mn a
small parki.nJ facility is reoc:mrenjed to be develq:>ed and a~c;ed fran
Millard street, east of Stouffville Creek. Design of this facility ImJst
wR.~&f - 52 -
involved the Ml'RCA to ensure it meets all design criteria for parking lots
within flood vulnerable areas am does not interfere with the emergency
spillway of the dam.
To facilitate maintenance operation by the Town, lamscape plantings should
be designed to iIrprove the aesthetics of the dam area am to provide access
control to the lards. Any rerocwaljrelocation of the fence (adj acent to
Millard street) be deferred until the lamscapin;J can provide the access
control.
Plantings should be i.ncol:pOrated on the trail at the northeastern comer of
the property to discourage the use of this trail am subsequent access to
the railway tracks (Figure 7) .
(c) I..arx:l Acauisition
Public use of these lards is hirrlered travellin;J from the south (Village of
Stouffville) to the north (reservoir) as the Ml'RCA does not owned the
entire stretch of this watercourse. A small portion of privately owned
lam is located just north of the local library am south of Millard street
(Figure 8) which effectively restricts the use of the lam as a linear park
system.
It is rec:x:mnen:led: " 'lhif;; particular section of floodplain lam be
acquired for use as a passive park system."
At the very south of the Ml'RCA lam, (Figure 8) adjacent to the Sewage
Treatment Plant a well vegetated valley system exist. It was obvious during
field work this section of the valley is already used by the public for
various recreational activities.
It is recx::rnrnerx:l: " '1hi.s particular section of floodplain lam be acquired
for use as a passive park system."
Acquisition of these two (2) sections of valley meet Ml'RCA's objectives
within the Watershed RecreatiOnal, I..arx:l Acquisition am COnseJ:Vation I..arx:l
Management Progranunes am would increase the lani base for use by the public
in the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville. within the I..arx:l Acquisition Program
of the Ml'RCA purchases of available lam are comucted on a priority basis.
~ for these lards purchases may be available through Ml'RCA on a site
- 53 -
~R. bS'
by site decision. other means of lam acquisition could be through park
dedication an::vor land donation.
(d) Fishinq pier
To ilrprove bass fishirg opp:lrtunities within the Stouffville Reservoir
it is recamnerrled: " a fishirg pier be constnlcted am located as part of
the recarnmerrled trail system."
A suitable location for the pier is the abarrlon roadway (Figure 7) that
projects into the reservoir from the northwest corner. '!he roadway would
provide a firm fotlI'XBtion ani the adjacent water depth am fish habitat
would provide excellent fishirg. '!he pier should be designed to acconunodate
physically disabled ClDllers. In addition trails am a pier must be designed
to protect the existin;J shoreline vegetation.
To avoid overe>q)loitation of the reservoir's largerrouth bass population, it
is i.nportant to prcnote soun::l anglin;J practices within the reservoir. A
display booth would help to outline am infonn the public of the ecology of
the resel:VOir, ilrplemented management techniques, ani the pl::"CllOOtion of catch
am release ClDllin;J.
- ::>"1 -
LO~. ,~
5.0 Costs
'Ihe followllg costs are given to provide sane basis to set priorities for the
reu.....lllll::l'rlations ani to give sane direction as to the lead agerx:y for eadl
project.
~tions Coot ($) lead Mercy
Forest Management Plan study 2,000 MIRC'A
Forest Management Inplementation 30,000 MIRC'A
($10,000/year for 3 years)
Wildlife Management {Brush piles) N/C MIRCA
(Would occur dur~ forest management)
Wildlife Management (Bird boxes) 1,000 see
Wildlife Management (ShnJb plantirgs) 10,000 see
Trail Develcpnent (Reservoir) 10,000 W/S
Trail Develqment (Flood control) 10,000 W/S
ParJein] access 72,000 W/S
(Asplalt with CUIb stones - 55 cars)
~c; MaintenaJre 2,000 W/S
(Annual ~)
Fish Pier 7,000 see
Fisheries stlXiy (Winter draWam) 2,000 MIRCA
Fisheries stOOy (Winter habitat) 2,000 MIRC'A
I.azxi Acquisition ? W/S,MmCA
W/S - Town of Whitd1urd1-stouffville
see - stouffville O:mservation Club
- 55 -
wR'~7
'!he followinJ provides sane guidance as to where fundi..rg CU-XVor assistarx::e may be
available to un:iertake the recx:I'l1me1"rtions.
Forest Manaqerrent - 'Ihe MmCA has the expertise and tedmical means to
address the forest management plan study ani future management
inplementation, however Authority fundi..rg is not available. Alternate
source of ~ \1IOUld be required to ClCl1'plete this work.
I..arrl Acaui.sition - within the I..arrl Acquisition Program of the MmCA
purchases of available lani are corrlucted on a priority basis. F'Un::ti.n:1 for
these lams purchases may be available through MIRCA on a site by site
decision. other means of land acquisition <XlUld be through park dedication
CU-XVor lani donation prrsued by the Tc:Mn.
Parkim Access - '!he develcpnent of the a parkin] facility would be the
responsibility of the Tc:Mn. '!he Ml'RCA will be required to be involved with
the design of this facility to ensure it is cxmpatible with the flocxi
control ~tion of the dam.
Trail Developnent - '!he Ml'RCA does not have a program to assist with ~
for trail develc:pnent for recreational use. '!he Authority cx:uld provide
tedmical advise to the Town on trail design.
wildlife ManaeJement - '!he Mi.ni.stl:y of Natural ResaJroes (MNR) has developed
a program called' Carm..mi.ty wildlife Involvement Program' (CWIP). F\miirq
for material costs are available to CCIlUlI.D'li.ty groups to \.D"rlertake wildlife
management projects iD::ltdi.rq shrub plantin;Js ani bird box constnlction. To
qualify the camuni.ty group nust SUWly volunteer labc:AJr to oorrluct the
project ani sul::1ni.t an ~lication to the local district office (Maple).
Fisheries ManaQement - 'Ihe Mi.ni.stl:y of Natural ResaJroes has developed a
similar pl:~LCWl for fisheries called' Camrunity Fisheries Involvement
Pro91am' (CFIP). '!he same oon:titions ~ly for this program. Likely
fumable projects woold irxllme constructi.on of a fi.shin;J pier.
- 56 -
to~. [,i
REF'ERENCES
1. D:x:ige, D.S., G.S. Goodchild, J .C. Tilt and D.G. Waldriff. 1985. Manual of
instructions: Aquatic habitat inventory Slll'Veys. Procedure manual of the
Ministry of Natural Resources.
2. Hoffman, D.W., ani N.R. Richards. 1955. Soil Slll'Vey of York County. Ontario
Agricultural Colle:Je, GuelIil.
3. Farr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity usinJ fish cx:mounities.
Fisheries (Bethesda) 6(6):21-27.
4. Metropolitan Toronto ani Region ConseJ:va.tion Authority. 1980. Watershed
Plan. MI'RCA, Toronto.
5. Metropolitan Toronto ani Region ConseJ:va.tion Authority. 1982.
Environmentally Significant Areas stlxiy. MI'RCA, Toratto.
6. Metrcp:>litan Toronto am Region ConseJ:va.tion Authority. 1984. Nest boxes for
const:ruction (draft). MlRCA, Toronto.
7. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1984. An evaluation system for
wetlanis of Ontario sooth of the Precambrian Shield. MNR, Toronto.
8. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1987. Provin::ially ani regionally
significant wetlanis in sa.rt:hem Ontario. MNR, Torart:o.
9. Ontario Minisb:y of Natural Resa1rces. 1987. stream inventory sununary report
of Maple District, 1987. MNR, Maple.
10. Sdlemni.tz, S.D. (ed.). 1980. Wildlife management tedmiques manual. '!he
Wildlife Society, Wa.shi.n:3too, D. C.
11- st.eednan, R.J., 1987. O:Irparative analysis of stream degradation ani
rehabilitations in the Toronto area. Fh.D'lhesis. university of Torooto.
ENVIRONMENTAllY SIGNIFICANT AREAS STUDY
)Ih. m'hopo"'" 1o".Io..d ".i.. "'''NOli.. ,,,h,,.lY wR.~~
ESA N"o. 107
Stouffville Forest
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Stouffville Forest is located 0.5 kilometres north of Stouffville and west
of Highway 47, in the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville. This mature-mixed
forest is dominated by Eastern Hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) and Sugar Maple
(Acer saccharum). The area is low lying and wet, with boggy soils covered
by numerous rotting logs.
The land to the south of Stouffville Forest is cultivated farmland, while
the remainder of the site i8 surrounded by forests. Railway tracks pass
through the area, but rail activity is minimal. The site itself shows few
signa of human disturbance.
CRITERIA FULFILLED
Criterion 2(a)
The area is considered a high quality source area within the MTRCA region.
The flooded, swampy nature of the area indicates its significance in (a
water-holding capacity.
COMMENTS
Fresh tracks of White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) were observed
throughout the area.
. . (II ~\~ lL..'c:T\...fl)\'.1 .) C. '-- Q I '- \ O~ \ '" ,") - CLJi ~ C")
wR..70
#
~ERSHED' Duffin Creek
MAP NO.' 21
TRCA ESA NO.: 107
STOUFFVILLE MARSH
Includes the open water section of the "Stouffville Wildlife
Sanctuary Reservoir and Dam"; and the dead tree, followed by the
black ash/white cedar swamps extending off the extreme east end
of the marsh.
- black ash/white cedar swamp
- dead tree swamp
- open water
{
5~ou.<<'", "e. hr~~t (f.S. A.. 107
tM~'N ~#(.
)( p.f r'Y'tP No. .;l,
1 I't1~A(f.!,,, 101)
~R "
T. al.oIl\l,tet\
,
;.:.. ~
tJ
.
~",Ik
A,'",c.4r..( ""it.. s..
L....L ~It'. J>.-
-=
J tAl. Y
.(r~ ft,J 1 ~) r- ---
b'1
,
(
.
..'
- -~
Pf.M~ No. ~I
~R. 1'-' - 100 - t"~cA fSA rJtJ. 10.,
(
I
I
WETLAND DATA RECORD
(1) . WETLAND NAME AND/OR NUMBER 5+()\Aff J~ lle, to('e~-l E'SA 10'7
(H). ADMI~STRATIVE REGION ~~ol , AND DISTRICT ~tt,
OF ONTARIO MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES
(H1). CONSERVATION AUTHORITY JURISDICTION M,i.~.c.A.
If not within a designated Conservation Authority, check here ___
(iv). COUNTY OR REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY Yo r- K
(v). TOWNSHIP (J~c1~- Sto\.A.-WVl \lP~
.
(v1) . LOTS AND CONCESSIONS C or1L . Iz. LcJt3
(vH) . MAP AND AIR PHOTO REFERENCES I
(a) Longitude and Latitude ,+3' 58.'1 7qo 1<; ~
(b) U.T.M. Grid Reference Zone: I, -( ; Grid: ~
(c) National Topographic Series Scale and Map Number(s) & Name
Mo..r~ 30 M.~ , . S-o nro
J
(d) Air Photos
(1) Date photo taken
_n -- -- -. -
- - - (2) Scale of air photos
-.- -~
(3)- Flight and plate--n~bers
(viii) . WETLAND SIZE AND BOUNDARIES
(a) Single contiguous wetland area: ".b hectares
OR
(b) -Wetland Complex. comprised of individual wetlands as follows:
Wetland Ruaber (for Size of each wetland
. reference purposes) in the coaplex
Wetland Ro. 1 hectares
Wetland Ro. 2 .
Wetland Ro. 3 .
Wetland Ro. 4 . {
Wetland No. 5 .
Wetland No. 6 .
Total size of
wetland complex: .
.
~ .
,I:
fA((.73
- 101 -
I 1.0. BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT
1.l. ~RODUCTIVITY VALUES
1.1.1. Growing Degree-Days
Number of accumulated growing degree-days (check one)
<2800
2800 to 3200
.I 3200 to 3600
>3600
1.1. 2. Soils Estimated % of Area
- Clays, loams or silts (mineral) 50%
- Organic
- Undesignated S'O't:.
1.1. 3. Type of Wetland
(check one or more) Estimated % of Area
!og
Fen
~ Swamp ~~
Marsh (includes Open Water Marsh)
--
------
- - - ---...--- - --- .....- - - -
- - - - - -- -~ -._-- -
- -1-:i.-4~
Sits " " ~
-
(check one or aore) Estimated % of Area
. Isolated
.J Palustrine (permanent or intermittent /.fC;~
outflow)
" Riverine 5c) CZo
Riverine (at rivermouth)
Lacustrine (at rivermouth)
Lacustrine (on enclosed bay)
Lacustrine (exposed to lake)
t,0 'R .7'+ - 102 -
I
1.1.5. Nutrient Status of Surface Water
(a) Write conductivity bridge reading and calculate T.D.S. at 250C
as per tables in Appendix VIII.
Location Initial Specific Temperature Total Diss-
Sampl~ Conductance olved Solids
(i.e. inflow, (umhos/cm) (oC) (T.D.S.)
outflow, etc.) (mg/l)
3'75" ~K" ~nrrtrtJ..8 c1SO
8
8
8
Average T.D.S. 8 aSV
(b) Check appropriate category (from (a)>
Average T.D.S. (mg/l)
<100 /
100-500 ./
501-1500
>1500
NO READING
1.2. DIVERSITY VALUES
-
--. - - -- -
-
- - -_.
- -- ~ 1.2.1. Number of Wetland Types - ~.!. ~ '1. I ."
- - ---.- ..
(check one) --- - ---
One
X Two
1bree
Four
-
1.2.2. Vegetation Communities
(enter form and map code if available, or
enter dominant species if known. and appropriate code/symbol)
, a) One form
Code sto~~n~ 6 ~
{ -z. h
, '- s,.J,-rNi",d ~~ f" Cr1tp\J...c.
L - I
-
,
-
.
- 103 - ~R. 71'
I
I
b) Two forms
Code
~~ "11tlK rn w -A Hwt.J... (atta.t I <;. ttU\I.J..".m r-t
c) Three forms
Code
d) Four forms
Code .
or 52- Ma.r.k tJ~~ wldz ck- {5u..(1fW<.f'u~ f~~1
"" c:;t chn...J..- frus rd. J m< ~tt...1 rf.u,)>..w<JJ
-- - e) .,.tV9 l;., ~: , .- - ,- -
- , - -- - - -
- - ----
Code , -
--- -
f) Six or more forms
Code
,
~R.'7~ - 104 -
I
1.2.3. Diversit of Surroundin
Ch~k all appropriate
row crops
~ p..tur.
abandoned agricultural land
. "deciduous forest
coniferous forest
~ urban or cottage development
pits, quarries or mining waste disposal
open lake or deep river
~ fence rows with cover, or shelterbelt.
terraine undulating or hilly with ravines
i/ creek{s)
Enter Total .. 3
1. 2 .4 . proximity to Other Wetlands
(check first appropriate category)
i) Hydrologically connected by surface water to other
wetlands (different dominant type) or open wate! within
1.5 km.
ii) Hydrologically connected by surface water to other
wetlands (same dominant type) within 0.5 km. -
iii) Hydrologically connected by surface water to other
wetlands (different dominant type) ~r open vater_body -L
from 1.5 to 4 km away. - .. -- -.
- - -
--- i v) - Hydro logica 11y connec ted by--.urf8'C'e-ila tertcs- -()tner - .-.- -- -- -
wetlands (same dominant type) from 0.5 to 1.5 km away. -
v) Within 0.75 km of other wetlands (different dominant
type) or open water body, but not hydrologically
connected by surface water. -
vi) Within 1 km of other wetlan~s, but not hydrologically
connected by surface vater. -
vii) No wetland within 1.5 km. -
1.2.5. Interspersion
(check one) ~
Type 1
Type 2 f
Type 3
Type 4
- 105 - W f<. 77
I
1.2.6. ~en Water ~pes
check one
No open water _____
Type 1 _____
Type 2 _____
Ty pe 3
-----
Type 4 _____
Ty pe 5
Type 6 ~
Type 7
Type 8 ==
1.3. SIZE (Biolofical Component)
(refer to vlii)
~'lo hectares
2.0. SOCIAL COMPONENT
, I
2.1. RESOURCE PRODUCTS WITH CASH VALUE
2.1.1. Timber (lumber and firewood)
(1) 51 to 100% of wetland area has mature trees (>10 em
dbh, >25% cover)
(2) .i 10 to 50~of wetl~nd area has mature tr~~!._(u~bove)_ ._ _. _ _
_. (J) Wetland lias few, lmmature or no t;,ree__ ~ _ - '._
~ - - _~~~}l_t.'e _~~-_~~~Ul.tion: --.;Bf-'.A. -".Am.1.u.d~ - - _, -~ -______H__ _
2.1.2. Wild Rice
(1) ~ Present
(2) ~ Absent
Source of Information: _f}~ Q,411J..1~Wt-
2.1.3. Commercial Fish (Bait Fish and/or Coarse Fish)
(1) Fish harvested from the wetland (as per KNR)
(2) Abundant during at least part of the year
(3) Not abundant or only occasional
(4) J Habitat not suitable for fish
Source of Information: MrJ t. M~pll, ~
2.1.4. Bullfrogs f
(1) . Present
(2) ~ Absent
Source of Information: MrJ~ Mop.L...D;s.n-;d--
.
wR.79 - 106 -
i
2.1.5. Snapping Turtles
(1) Present
( 2) ~ Absent
Source of Information: MNR. M~+rid"
.
2.1.6. Furbearers
(check if present)
~ muskrat mink
raccoon other
../" beaver
Source of Information: ~+
MN~ t'\opt.- O;-s-rt';cf
2.2. RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
(check appropriate spaces)
, Type of Wetland Associated Use
Hunting Nature Fishing Canoeing/Boating
Appreciation
Intensity of Use or Study
High
Moderate I -
- .- v .
-- -- - -.
-- .=:-Low .
-- .- - -
---------- - -
None Known
Not Possible J J J
Source of ~I ~~sp, sr/AtN'~
Information eSt\ S-rUP'I '~
2.3. AESTHETICS
2.3.1. Lands~pe Distinctness
(1) v' Clearly distinct
,. ( 2) Indistinct
, (
- 107 - toR. 7~
I
2.3.2. Absence of Human Disturbances
2.3.2.1. Level of Disturbance
(1) Human disturbances absent or nearly so
( 2) / One or several singular or localized disturbances
(3) Moderate disturbance or localized water pollution
( 4) Impairment of natural quality intense in some areas
or severe localized water pollution
( 5) Extremely intense disturbance or water pollution
severe and widespread.
2.3.2.2. Types of Disturbances
roads
utility corridor
buildings
channelization
drainage
filling
water pollution C.N' ~Stu\.r:;/::QMj - ~CA(
.; other: ...yna /'1\1'1\. o--L- olev1'1\.. -I:i:,
2.4. EDUCATION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS
2.4.1. Educational Uses
(1) J Frequent - an average of 2 or more visits per year by
- - -- _____ __ ____ __ _one or more school group9, local clubs for - --
- tIle purpose of 1rtudying the animals, . ~ -..:1....4~
-
--- plants, environment, etc. . .
( 2) Infrequent - use by organized groups- (ane viSIt-or less - -- -
per
year or only casual visits)
(3) No known visits
List groups utilizing the wetland
Name of Group(s) Source of Information
~;tlol tvo.l\04c+;of"'l
2.4.2. Facilities and Programs
(check one)
(1) Staffed interpretation center with shelters, trails, i
literature
( 2) No interpretation center or staff, but a system of
self-guiding trails and observation points or brochures
available .
(3) I No facilities or programs .JL~
Aiel o..t fr~wJ:. ~ ~ U A. s~ cUsr.
R~I!>r()o"r tM<-~~
j Stouff'v ,11 e. W' Irl (,~ S
~~~tJMf~S fPlI/'(~ CoN~ in\ cA
l.0~.~O - 108 -
I
2.4.3. Research and Studies
(check one)
(1) One or more wetland-related scientific research papers
j published in a scientific journal;
( 2) One or more reports written outlining some aspect of the
. wetland's natural resources;
(3) No reports or papers.
List scientific papers, reports, etc.
I) MT~GA t:mJirOf\mp~1 5Ijt'\if;c.arrt: Afl'.~ 5-htJ.j l~g2..
2.5. PROXIMITY TO URBAN AREAS
(check one)
(1) vi In an urban or suburan area
( 2) <10 km from a population center greater than 10,000
( 3) 10 to 60 km from a population center greater than 10,000
( 4) Isolated or relatively remote
.
2.6. OWNERSHIP/ACCESSIBILITY
Estimate % of area and enter in the appropriate space(s)
ACCESSIBILITY OWNERSHIP
.. . ------ Publi.e , Public, .Pr4-vatey__ iriv8te -Private
unrestricted restricted .--, Club, ,--or -
open to
-- - - - - Private
-- -----...-..-..- activities activities public for !elosed
limited to and -
activities public posted
1) Easy at
most times by ~O '7 p ().O ~~
road/waterway
2) Easy only
at certain
times of
the year
J) Limited,
lIloderate effort
, required
4) Difficult* ,
* Requires extended effort due to distance from roads, navigable waterways
or isolated geographical position.
Source of information ~.J aA11l1Ltat~ '
/
- 109 - w~.q(
,
I
2.7. Size (Social Component)
~ hectares (refer to viii)
3.0. HYDROLOGICAL COMPONENT
3.l. EFFECT OF ADJOINING LARGE WATER BODY
(check one)
(1) Wetland located on the Ottawa, St. Lawrence, Niagara,
Detroit or St. Clair Rivers (Go to 3.3)
( 2) Wetland bordering on one of the Great Lakes
J (Go to 3.3)
( 3) Wetland not located as above (Go to 3.2)
If (1) or (2), omit Section 3.2, FLOW STABILIZATION. Continue with
Section 3.3, WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT. If (3), proceed to Section
3.2.
3.2. FLOW STABILIZATION (All wetlands except those bordering on the
Great Lakes or the 5 large rivers)
3.2.l. Detention Due to Surface Area
- -3..2..-1-, L 5i%9 of r~t~.8Rt ~asln-8bove Wetland Outflow - -
-. - ---- . - - . -- - - - -
- - (
- Catchm~~B:~1u Sl~c ~-""I'q. km ""'":-i '.-- - -.- ~
_..
3.2.1.2. Total Size of all Detention Areas (Lakes, Reservoirs and
Wetlands) Draining into the Wetland (sq. km)
Size
0.01
O,O}
QQL
Total 0.03 sq. laD
3.2.1.3. Size of Adjoining Lake (Lacustrine wetlands only) {
hectares
LUR.~;L - 110 -
I
3.2.1.4. Size of Adjoining River (Riverine wetlands only)
~not assessed)
3.2.1.5. Location and Size of Detention Areas (Lakes, Reservoirs and
Wetrands) within 30 km above and below the wetland
( NOTE : 1 sq. km - 100 ha)
(a) Detention areas above the wetland (within 30 km)
Name and/or Number Distance upstream She For
of Detention Area from wetland (in km) (hectares) Scoring
Use
-;)..
-;2
/~
- - - -
- --
-- (~) Detention areas below the wet~.nd (vit~in ~Q_km)_ . - - - -- - -
----
-
Name and/or Number Distance downstream Size For
of Detention Area from wetland (in km) (hectares) Scoring
Use
'R~v.DI'r~l5u''i7f iJ, ,,) ~,s- Jur..- /,0 A.4-- -)
L / If. S- ~ 0
csA erg -LJ~vJL ('prrl~ {NlflaA liluk.
.
- 111 - ~R.~3
I
3.2.1.6. Land Use along River or Stream Shoreline for 20 km Below the
Wetland
(Palustrine and all Riverine wetlands except those located
along the 5 large rivers).
(check one)
(1) Wetland outflow exits into a deep ravine
(2) A village, town or urban area is located along J
outflow within 20 km St'Du.FTVt IlL,
(3) Not as above, and actively farmed agricultural
land borders onto outflow, and
length of agricultural border · <1 km
(sum of shoreline 1-3
on both sides of 4-8
river within 20 km) >8
(4) Not as above, (eg. lands bordering outflow within
20 km are forested, or abandonned by agriculture,
or outflow enters another wetland or lake, etc.)
3.2.1.7. Size (H~drological Component)
(see ,li)
~ha
3.2.2. Flow Augmentation (Palustrine wet~ands only)
-. -'-
.
_~~e of Catc-hm~nt basin ~ sq. km (See~;2. 1-; 1) -
-- - -
- -Wet1..mt.Are.-....-. t- of Catchment Basin Size ~% _ - " ~- . -
(Note: convert wetland area to sq. km before ca culating %)
3.3. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT (All wetlands)
3.3.1. Short Term Removal of Nutrients from Surface Water
3.3.1.1. Site Type (see 1.1.4 and check dominant site)
Isolated
v' Palustrine (with permanent or intermittent outflow)
Riverine
Riverine (at rivermouth)
Lacustrine (at rivermouth)
Lacustrine (on enclosed bay)
Lacustrine (exposed to lake) (
wR. V,Lf - 112 -
I
3.3.1.2. Actual Wetland Area Dominated by Robust Emergent8 and
Submer ent8
(check one
<5
..J 5 - 50
. 51 - 100
101 - 250
251 - 500
501 - 1000
>1000 hec tares
3.3.1.3. Land Use in Catchment Basin
(check one)
(1) ~ Mainly agriculture and/or urban
(2) Roughly 40-60% agriculture; remainder forested
or abandoned agriculture
(3) Mainly forested and/or less than 40% agriculture
3.2.2. Long Term Nutrient Trap
(check one) .
(1) Wetland located on an active delta
(2) Wetland rivermouth but without obvious delta
(3) Wetland with organic soils occupying 50% or more
of the area
(4 ) t/ Wetland with organic soils occupying less than
50% of the area (i.e. mainly mineral or undesignated
soils) _ u >1
-
-. - - ---.~-- -- ._--~- - - - - -
---
- --- - - --
-
3.4. EROSION CONTROL
3.4.1. Erosion Buffer (Lacustrine and Riverine wetlands only)
NOTE: Assess for the dominant site type (see 3.3.1.1)
3.4.1.1. Riverine Wetlands (shore land and flood plain)
(check principal vegetation form)
(1) Tree8 or Shrubs
(2) V' Emergents
(3) Non-vegetated or nearly so
3.4 . 1. 2. Lacustrine Wetlands (with or without barrier beach)
(check principal vegetation form) (
(1) Trees or Shrubs
(2) Emergents
(3) Submergents and Floating
(4 ) Non-vegetated or nearly 80
- 113 - ~R.g&
r
I
3 4.1.3. Fetch (Lacustine wetlands or Riverine wetlands on
any of the 5 large rivers)
Maximum distance
(1) barrier beach present
(2 ) <2 km
(3) 2 to 8 km
(4) >8 km
3.4.2 Sheet Erosion (All except Lacustrine wetlands)
(check the appropriate space)
R FACTOR VALUE
Wetland Size
(ha) <50 50-75 75-100 >100
<2
2-5
6-10 v'
11-15
16-20
>20
---- - -- - -
- -- "" - - - - --
- -~
.
("
~R.~~ - 114 -
i
4.0. SPECIAL FEATURES COMPONENT
4 1. RARITY AND/OR SCARCITY
4 1 1 Indiviaual Wetlands
Name of Physiographic Unit: ~ OIlfOlr'O S{~
Unit Number q
4.1.2. Wetland Type Representation (minimum size 0.5 ha)
(check one or more)
~ Marsh
\/ Swamp
Fen
Bog
4 1 3. Individual Species
4.1.3 1. Breeding Habitat for an Endangered Animal or Plant Species
Name of Species Source of Information
(1)
(2)
___ '--.l-...J...2-.------Xraditional Migration 9r. F~eding Habitat fot:. ~ Endangered
Animal Species ---. --- - -=--~
---
- - -~ --.-:.._~ - - - -
Name of Species SOUrn o~ Iif[or-liiition -.
(1)
(2)
4.1.3 3.
Name of Species Source of Information
(1)
(2)
.
4.1.3.4. Provincially Significant Plant Species
,
I Name of Species Source of Information
(1) (
(2)
- 115 - lAR'~7
,
I
4 1.3.5. Regionally Significant Species
Name of rii.ciea Source of Information
---F-/r~.J.. 1)~fvJ.1I>>--
g~-L~~~ 1/
(3)
(4)
4.2. SIGNIFICANT FEATURES AND/OR FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT
4.2.1. Nesting of Colonial Waterbirds
lcheck one)
..rprobd.b~ - hLu-J. s,II'\j''''
(1) ./ Currently nesting. species name(s) ~JrS" (;JN1-\-
(2) Known to have nes ted wi th in pas t 5 year .
species name (s)
(3) Active feeding area
(4) None known
Source of Information ru-<.~ ~ o b~.-r-( ,.d,Hl"'-
4 2.2. Winter Cover for Wildl ife
(check only highest level of significance)
(1) Provincial signficance for Deer , Moose
(2) Regional significance for Deer . Moose
(3) Local significance for Deer . Moose
(4) & I ~ter cover :for other species '(list): -.- --- -
- --- -- "WI -
.----- -. -- - l -
-. - - - I -
- -~'--~;or winter cover
(5)
Source of Information: MrJlZ. M~..s+ricf-
4.2.3. Waterfowl Staging
(check only highest level of significance)
(1) National significance
(2) Provincial significance
(3) I Regional signficance
(4) ..J Local or no significance
Source of Information: M NfL M~f It- 0; s.... r, ""'"
4.2.4. Waterfowl Production
(check only highest level of sifiificance)
(1) Provincial signi icance
(2) Regional significance (
(3) I Local significance
(4) " Little or no significance
Source of Information: MN~ M~;s'h";(.+
WR.~~ - 116 -
4.2 5 Stopover Area
(1) High significance
(2) J No significance
Source of Information' MN~ ~1-Sf'(";C.J-
.
426 for Fish Spawning and Rearing
Regional significance
Present
Unknown
.j Not possible
Species and Source of Information. MNtl. Mopk
n j .s-iric.....
4.2.7. Unusual Geological or other Surficial Features
Feature Source of Information
(1)
(2)
4.3. ECOLOGICAL AGE
Type of Wetland Enter % of Area
Bog
Fen
V Swamp
--,/ Ha r s~. - - ~ -
--
.- -
- - - :- - ------
-- -
INVESTIGATORS
~~~~~,
AFFILIATION
~fbDoILt~ -rirunJb a.~J f, l~ ~oiJw.. /Juliet'!)
I
DATE
\ ~~ 3 f IJOtw:r- '/ / ,qf(
ESTIMAT D TIMi DEVOTED TO COMPLETING THE FIELD SURVEY IN "PERSON HO~S"
8')(~= Ib .
WEATHER CONDITIONS .
(i) at time of field work: -IuuwJ. ~ /. ~
11 summer cond1t1ons 1n general: ~
- 118 - to~. ~,
I
I
WETLAND EVALUATION RECORD
WETLAND NAME AND/OR NUMBER S-mLA.fF-/, lie. M{).r$~ (r=.SPt 107 )
1 0 BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT
1.1. PRODUCTIVITY VALUES
1.1.1. Growing Degree-Days -4-
1.1 2. So i 18
1.1 3. Type of Wetland ~
114 Site
1 1 5. Nutrient Status of Surface Water ~O
TOTAL for Productivity Values {,3
1 2. DIVERSITY VALUES
1.2.1 Number of Wetland Types b
1.2.2. Vegetation Communities (not to exceed 30) I!
1.2.3. Diversity of Surrounding Habitat 1
~ 2.~____ Proxi~i~y ~o_..Qt~~r Wetlands- - .l-, - .~s
, - - -- 1.2 5. Interspersion -- it, - -
:a;::..;. -.--=-=1 ~ -2 r6 . Open Water Types - - - ~ - - --- .- .g --
TOTAL for Diversity Values ~
1. 3. SIZE (Biological Component) ;21
TOTAL FOR BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT (not to exceed 250) 130
-
(
LoR. qo - 119 -
,
I 2.0 SOCIAL COMPONENT
2.1- RESOURCE PRODUCTS WITH CASH VALUE
2.1.1. Timber (lumber and firewood) 10
2.1. 2. Wild Rice 0
2 1.3. Commercial Fish (Bait Fish
and/or Coarse Fish) ()
2 1.4. Bu 11 frogs 0
2 1.5. Snapping Turtles X
2 1.6. Furbearers
TOTAL for Resource Products
with Cash Value (not to exceed 60) ;).~
2.2. RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES (not to exceed 70) ~O
2.3. AESTHETICS
2.3.1. Landscape Distinctness S-
2.3.2. Absence of Human Disturbances as"
TOTAL for Aesthetics :20
2.4. EDUCATION AND PUBLIC AWAREN,ESS
-- 2.lr.-l. . '0-:
--- -1!XI..,.G4.WIIBllf"
- - - - ~ "-
_. 2.4.~ "..;,; t~e~ :nd Programs - 0
_.
~ ~- - - - -
2.4.3. Researc an Studies .., , - '- ' :-..
-
TOTAL for Education and
Public Awareness 13
2.5. PROXIMITY TO URBAN AREAS ~O
2.6. OWNERSHIP/ACCESSIBILITY ~
2.7. SiZE (Social Component) ~
TOTAL FOR SOCIAL COMPONENT (not to exceed 250) '~5
(
- 120 - wR.ql
I
I
3.0. HYDROLOGICAL COMPONENT
3 1. EFFECT OF ADJOINING LARGE WATER BODY
.
3 2 FLOW STABILIZATION
321 Oetention Due to Surface Area
3 2 1 1. and
3 2 1 2. FIRST step (from table) S'O
3 2.1 3 SECOND step minus 0 -
3.2 1.5. THIRD step minus -% -
3 2.1 6. FOURTIi step minus () - .{minimum allowable -
3.2.1.7. FIFTH step plus " -
TOTAL for Detention Due to Surface Area L.~
322 Flow Augmentation (from table) ,~
TOTAL for Flow Stabilization /-'0
.
3 3 WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
3 3.1. Short Term Removal of Nutrients
from Surface Water
3.3 1 1. Si te Type --.!L
--""-:W'.__ __J~3.l,2._ Actual Wetland Area Dominated
by Robust Emergents and - ~ - ,
- _. .--.. .- ::::::;e - Submergents --~~ - -
3.3.1.3. Land Use in Ca tchmen t "Ba~1n- -,0- ---==.- - -~
TOTAL for Short Term Removal of Nutrients ...J1L
from Surface Water
3.3.2. Long Term Nutrient Trap ~
TOTAL for Water Quality Improvement ~O
3.4. EROSION CONTROL
3.4.1. Eros ion Bu ffer
3.4.1.1. Riverine wetlands 10
3.4.1.2. Lacustrine Wetlands C}
3.4.1.3. Fetch ()
(
TOTAL for Erosion Buffer -l!L
3.4.2. Sheet Erosion -L
(' TOTAL for Erosion Control --1L
TOTAL FOR HYDROLOGICAL COMPONENT (not to exceed 250) ~
l-O~.~2. - 121 -
,
I 4.0 SPECIAL FEATURES COMPONENT
4.1. RARITY AND/OR SCARCITY
4.1.1. Individual Wetlands ao
4.1. 2. Wetland Type Re~resentation 10
4.1. 3. Individual Species
4.1.3.1. Breeding Habitat for an
Endangered Animal or 0
Plant Species
4.1.3.2. Traditional Migration or
Feeding Habitat for an 0
Endangered Animal Species
4.1.3.3. Breeding or Feeding Habitat
for a Provincially Significant 0
Animal Species
4.1.3.4. Provincially Significant
Plant Species 0
4.1.3.5. Regionally Significant
Species ~O
TOTAL for Individual Species (not to exceed ao
250)
TOTAL FOR RARITY AND/OR SCARCITY (not to exceed 250) ~
4.2. SIGNIFICANT FEATURES AND/OR FISH
AND WILDLIFE HABITAT
-- -,...- 4-;:W .. ~ . - ' --'onia1 Waterbirds -l ~_.4-.
4."2"".2. Winter Cover for Wildlife -: ~ -, -, -..- ...
-- - -
- - -'-:-2.3-. W.~erfoVl ~~aging - - -=- - -- n~-=- .'- :.
4.2.4. Waterfowl Production 0
4.2.5. Migratory Passerine and/or Shorebird
Stopover Area 0
4.2.6. Significance for Fish Spawning
and Rearing ~
4.2.7. Unusual Geological or other
Surficial Features 0
TOTAL FOR SIGNIFICANT FEATURES AND/OR
FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT (not to exceed 250) .-tiL
4.3. ECOLOGICAL AGE I
I
TOTAL FOR SPECIAL FEATURES COMPONENT (not to exceed 250) ---':LL
- 122 - wR.q3
i SUMMARY OF EVALUATION RESULTS
FOR THE S~,I'~ Marsh (c5A rO"7 ~ WETLAND
name or number)
.
TOTAL FOR 1 0, BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT J3O..
-
TOTAL FOR 2.0, SOCIAL COMPONENT ,~S'
-
TOTAL FOR 3.0, HYDROLOGICAL COMPONENT ~
-
TOTAL FOR 4 0, SPECIAL FEATURES COMPONENT J1.
-
INVESTIGATORS
PA"- MoH~
l.J~NO~ K~~
..JO'YGE PA(...tt\E~
AFFILIATION
M.""f e., C-.A, LJe.J.fevJ. €:vo.lwa.+itJr'\ J qgs-
DATE --- -----
'II --.. -- ~ ---j .::
- - - - - - - "-
-- - ----- j
- ---- - - -
- - - -
(
P; MN> - -,..- --,
" ~n~t'~ I ~N ('~'1l1il A't') ~I r.lO'( (~!l~r~VA11!1'l · Ih, r~ ~ y f..b,~'
U~ '~Lf ~~JH'cir~ C~~cUI t mp. C.A IE SA \01
,k# tl:
;,/J ~ L. Ie.' I ft/.. ;:/
AREA ' 'J 9- /~ i DATE , ,4 L.:; 1 1'1 ?,,-
t/ Ii
I( t"-'\A. " / fv/-J.-l ))
OBSEIl.YER( S) lA' ~ TillE TO
)
~ ch "'''0. MI;'-,~2k
.-::L- (l"\OSS S;l
TYPHACEAE (CAT-TAIL FAMILYI POACEAF - Continued
Typha sp .; ~ 1- ~ grandts IMan,a Grass) ~ r
v lattfolta (Co"'"1Ion C.ttaI1IMI,-Z' 1St striata (Mcadow Grass)
- angustlfol1a (Marro..lund CatUfl)f..\ 11- -
~ Poa sp
- alsodts (Woodland Meadow-~ra\s) R
. SPAIl.GANIACEAE (BUR-REED FAMILY) - annua (Annual Clue9rass:
. Sparganlum sp COlllpruSl (Can~oa Blueqrass)
- amtrtcanu~ (Amertcan Bur-reed) ~ palustris (FOod-meadow Grass ).s~
- chlorocarpulII (Green Bur-reed) U - prate"s!s (K~ntucky alu~.rassl
- ~urycarpum (Broad-fruited Bur-retdl - trlY1alts (Rough Meadew-grass)
Dactylls
NAJADACEAE (NAIAD FA~ILYI - glocerata (Orchard Grass)
Pot~lDogeton sp Eragrostls
---\L- crispus (curly Pondo/ud) ~ I, M ~'f' hypnol des (Crecpln1 LoveGrass) R
- gramlneus (Pondweedl - poaeoides (Loye G-us) U
- natans (Floatlng-leeved Pondweed) - pectinacea (Love Grass) R
- pectlnatus (Narrow-leaved ~ondweed) Ph ragcUn
- pustllus (Pondweed) R - comlllu~is (Communal Reed) U
- vaglnatus (Sheathed Pondweed) Agropyron sp
zosteriformls IEel-~rass Pondwetd) U trachycaululII (Wheat Grassl *'
- -
Maju - repens (Meadow Wheat, Quack Grass)
flexl11s (Slender Nalad) U L?lhc
- Dultlflorum (Italian Rye Grass)
-
JUNCASINACEAE (AR~OW.GR~SS FA~ILYI - perenne (Pere~nial Rye Grass)
Triglochln Ho rdeuc
- maritima (Arrow-grass) R - jubatuc (Foxtail Barley)
Triticu.
ALISMATACEAE (WATER.PLAnTAIN FAMILY) - usthUD (lIhut)
Al h:1II Elyaus
- graaineum (Water-Plantain), P - cIRade", is (Canaoa Lyme Srass)
- plantago-aquatlca - ,1parius (Riparian Lyme Grass) U
Saglttarh sp - virglnicus (Virglnia Lyme Grass) R
~ lItHo11l (Broad-hued Arrowhead) M I - wiegandll (I/iegand's LYMe Grass) R
- cuneata (~Ipato) R Hystrf ..
rfgldl (Sesstle-frulttd Arrow-head) patull (Bottle B~ush Grlss)
- - Sphenopllo I 15
aUTO"ACEAE (FLOWERING RUSH FA~lLT) - f nterlledf a (Intermediate Sphenopholfsl U
ButolluS Avena
umbel11tus (Flowerfng Rusll) R - nthl (Oats)
- fatua (I/Ild Oats)
-
HTDlOCMARlTACEAE (FROG'S-81T FAMILY) Dlntholl1l
Anaehar15 - spfcltl (Poverty Grass) R
- canldellsls (lIater l/ee4) $porobolus
Ylll1sner1l - Isper tROUgh Dropseed) ~. P, R
allerfcan, (T,pe-grlss) l . cr1ptandrus (Dropseed) U
- - neglectus (Dropsee~)
-
POACElE (GRASS FAMILYl C,h"lg~ost15
BrolluS - can,densfs (81ut J~fnt)
- clll,tus (Frfllged IrOlle) Aallophf1l
- fner.fs (AwlIless 8ro.e) - brewflfgulatl (Marrl. Grass) R
- lltf.lu.fs (Halr1 I/ood Iro~e) U Agrost1s
- 1I011f. (Soft Bromel - ,lba (Red Top)
- seelllllus (Che,s Grlss) - hyellllfS (H,f~ G~ass)
- tectorulI (Downy 8~o~e) - perenlllns (~nland Cent) R
Schfuchnt - sClbra (H,frgrass)
purpu~ascens R ~ stolonHe~a (Creepfn') 8lnt) fill
-
Fes tuca - tenuis (Rhode Island Bent~~as)
elatl~~ (Medow Fescut) Ctnna
- longifolla (Cot~se fescue) R a~un:lfnHcl (I/Clod p.te<ig~ass: R
- - latffoll. (Oroad.le4ved Rr.e<i')rass) ~ ~
obtuSl (fesclle) ~
- rubrl (Red rt~rue) rhltu~
- puce t nellll pr4tenSe (Timothy)
-
dl suns (swce'.l)ranl U .\lopHurus
- lilycerll ac,ualls (Fn,tall) R
-
bore.lls (~m.ll Flo.tlng Mlnna-')',ssl l - prllensts (".~~dow FOltafl) R
- canA<ien\;S (A4ttles'4ke r,r~sS)
-
HETRorCLITAN TORO~'O AijU REGION COij:l~VATION AJTHO~'Tr
H~rbdC~OuS SpecIes CheCklIst .- Pag~ 2 lAJ(( .a,~
'OAC(A( - ContInued CYPERACEAE - Continue1
Huhlenbe"gi. Sci,.pus (Cont'dl
- glome,.,U (ilool G"Hsl R - mlc,.oea,.pus (R~ddy B~lrushl
- mexie.na (Wool Grassl -L rub,.otlnetus (Red-tinged S~d9~IM'
OryzopslS - torreyl (To,.rey's Rush)
racemosa (RIce G,.ass) R ~ valldus (GreH 8ul,.ush)MI
-
- asperlfolla (MountaIn Rice Grassl - ve,.ecundus (Shy Bulrush) N. P, R
Splrti n. Eriophorum
- peettn.t. (Cord-grassl R - spfssum (HHe's Tail) R
Ph,hr!s - tenellum (Cotton G,.ass) R
~ arundln.cu (Reed Canary G,.ass) M I - vfrgtntcum (:otton Grass) U
- canarfensls (Canary Grass) - vtrtdt-cartnatum (Green Keeled Cotton Grass) R
Leersia ~e I e r t a
~ oryzotdu (Cutgrass)M'JS ,'Y,s..J - vertfct11ata (Whor1ed Nut-,.ushl N, P, R
2t zania Carex sp
palustrfs (Wtld Rtce) R - amphtbola (Sedge) R
-
Dfgftlrh - aquatflls (Aquattc Sedgel R
- !schae.u. (Small Crab Grassl - arctata (Drooptng Wood Sedge)
P.ncfu. sp - aurea (Golde" Sedgel
- capfll.re (Wttch Grassl - blanda (WOOdland Sedge)
- flufle (PI fant PanIc Grass) R -L- bebbfi (Bebb's Seagel MI,S.J
- fmplfcatua (Pan.ie Grass) - brunnescens (Brownt sh Sedge) R
- latifolium (Broad-leaved Panfc Grass) R - canescens U
lfnearifolium (LInear-leaved PanIc Grass) R cephaloidea (Thinle.f Sedge) R
- -
vfrgatu. (Prairfe Panic Grass) R - communis (FI~rous Sedge)
- Echinoehlo. eomosa (Bristly Sedge) R
-
- crusgallf (Barnyard Grass) - eonvoluta (Rolled Up Sedgel
mfcrost.ehya (Barnyard Grass) erinfta (Long-haIred Sedge) U
- murfeata (Barnyard Grassl -=r crfstatelh (e"uted Sedgelfll/
-
wal teri P - diandra (Two Stamened Sedge) U
-
Setari. - disperma (Two-seeded Sedgel U
- flbert f (F.ber's Foxtail) U - deweyana (Dewey's ~edge)
- glauca (Foxtail, or Ptgeon-grass) - eburne. (Brtstle-le.ved Sedge) R
vfrdts (Green Foxtail) flava (Sedge) R ,
- - -
Cenehrus - g. rberi it
- longfspfnus (Sandbur) N - graefllf.a (Slender Sedge) R
Andropogo" - granularts (Meadow Sedge)
scoparius (Little Blue Ste.) R - gray f t R
-
gerardft (Blue Stem) - hfrtffolf. (Hafry-le.ved Sedge) R
- Sorghutrll. hftchcockian. (Hitchcock's Sedge) R
- nutans (Indfan Grass) R ::z hystrfefn. (Porcuptne Sedge)~'
- fnterior (Inl.nd Sedge) U
rPERACEAE (SEDGE FAMILY) - fntumescens (Bladder Sedge) U
Cyperus - lacustrfs (L.ke Sedge) U
- .ngel.."nif (Englemann's Nut-grass) N, U, C - laevtvaginat. (Smooth-sheathed Sedge) N. U
- esculentas (Yellow Nut-grass) U - lanuginosa (Woolly Sedg.l U
- fflfcul.fs (N.r,.ow Nut-gr.ss) N, R - lasfoca,.pa ur l.tffolfa (Slender Sedge) R
- fuscus (Dasky Umbrella Sedge) R - bl.nda (Loose-flowered Sedge) R
- f.rrygt"escens (Coarse Nut-grass) N, U - leptal.a (Delfc.te Sedge) U
rtyularts (Cyperus) - 1 fmoSl R
- sChwefnftzff (Nut-grass) R lupulina (Hoplite Sedge) U
-
- strtgosus (Straw Nut-gr.ss) molestl (Troublesome Sedge) U
- -
[hoch r.fs sp_ - paupercuh R
- acfcul.ris (Le.st Spfke-rush) - peckif (Sedge) N. R
- ellipttcl (Elltptic Spike-ruSh) R - peduncullta (Long-st.lked Sedge) U
- erythropod. (Spike-rush) - pensylyanic. (Pennsylvant. Sedge)
- tnter.edtl (Sptke-rush) R - plantagfnta (Plantafn-leaved Sedge)
- obtusa (Sptke-rush) R - platyphylla (Broad-lelved S~dge)
- oYlta (Oyofd Sptke-rush) - p,.aeg~acflts ('ery Slender Sedge)
~ palustrfs (CreepIng Sp1ke-rush)MI - projecta (Projecting Sedge) ~ (
- paucfflora Vir, fernaldft (LInk) R - pseudo-cyperus IC/perus-ltke Sedge)
Oul tChtu. - radiata (Radiate Sedge) N, p. R
- .rundfn.ceum (Three-way Sedge) R - retrorsa (RetrJ,.se Sedge)
Sc i rpus - rosea (Rose-like Sedge) U
- .cutus (Great BulrUSh) - rostrata (Be.ked Sedge) R
'.ertc.n.s (Chafr-m.ker's Rush SawgrlSS) N - scabrata (Rough Sedge) U
.JL atroytrens (Dark Green Bllll"USh)MI g. - sehweinttztt N. R
- cypert nus (Wool Grass) I - sparganiotdes (Bur-reed Sedgel C
- fluytlttlfs (Rt,.r Bulrush) R - sptclta (Prtckly Sedge) R
- sprengelf f (Sprengel's Sedge) R
(,U ~ .q ~ METROPOLITAN TORO~TO AND REGION CO~.(RVATIO~ AUTHO~ITY
Herbaceous Species Ch~ckll~t -- Page 3
YPERACEAE - Contf~ued LILIAr.EAE - Continued
C.rex sp (Cont'd) AlllUlll
- strlcta (Water Sedge) U - schoenoprasun (Chives)
- stlp.ta (Awl-fruited Sedge) - trfcoccu~ (WIld Leek)
- tenera (Slender Sedge) Hemeroc.lll s
- tenufflora R fu 1 va (Day LIly)
-
- trlchoc.rpa (Hairy-fruited Sedgel R, N, P - fl.va (Yellow Day Lily)
- trlspera. (Three-seeded Sedge) lil I um
tuckerunll (Tuct-erman's Sedge) R - c.nadense (Canada Lily)
~ vulc.r1. (Inflated Sedge) M 1 - mlchlganense (~lchlgan Lily) C
vi r1 duh R superbum (Turt's Cap Lily) C
---lIL -
vulplnoldea (Foxtail Sedge) S.a. - ' tlgrlnum (Tiger Lily)
Tullpa
RACEAE (ARUM FAMILY) - gesneriana (Yellow Tulip)
Aris.em. Erythronfum
- triphyllu. (Jack-In-the-Pulpit) - .lbldum (White Oog's-tooth-violet) Ii. R
Acarus - .merlc.num (Trout Lily)
- cal.mus (Sweatflag) Ornithogalual
SYlllplocarllus - umbellatum (Star of Bethlehem)
- foetldus (Skunk Cabbage) Musc.ri
Calh - botryoides (Grape Hyacinth)
- p.lustr;s (Water arum) Asparagus
- officinale (Asparagus)
EMNACEAE (DUCKWEED FAMILY) Clfntonf.
Spirodela - borealis (Corn-l11y) B
- polyrhlza (Large Duckweed) Smil.cfna
lelllna .... - r.cemosa (False Solomon's Seal)
-L.. .fnor (Duckweed)III.5"S~ - stell.ta (St.rry False Solomon's Seall
- trfsulca (St.r Duckwe~d) - trifolia (Three-leaved False Solomon's Se.l) B
1I01lfh Mafanthemu.
- colu.bfana (Wolffi.) N, C - canadense (Cuad. Hay Flower) B
- punct.ta (Dotted Wolffi.) N, C Streptopus .
- roseus (Rose Mandarin)
:O""ELINACEAE (SPIDERWORT FAMILY) PolY90natuIII
Co..e Ii na - bifloru. (Sololllon's Seal) N
- cOllllllunis (Asiatic D.yflower) - pubescens (Sololllon's Seal)
Tradescent la Conulh rh
- vfrgfnfan. (Spl~erwort) - lIIaJalfs (Llly-of-the-V.lley)
"edeola
PONTEDERIACEAE (PICKERELWEED FAMILY) - Ylrginl.n. (Indian Cucumber Root)
Ponte4eria Trill1uID sp.
- cordata (Pickerelweed) R - erectulD (Red Trillium)
- grandlflorulII (White TrilliUM)
JUNCACEtE (RUSH FAMILYI Sail IX
" Juncus sp. r'\1 - herb.c~a (Carrion flower)
- alplnus (Alpine Rush) - hisplda (Bristly Grun Brier!
artfculatus (Jointed Rush)
- baltfcu. (Baltic Rush) R AMARYLLIDACEAE (AMARYLLIS FAMilY)
- brlchyceph.lus (Short-headed Rush) R HYPollfs
-
- brtvfCald.tus (Short-tailed Rush) R - hfrsuta (Stiffly Hairy StargrlSs) P, R
bufonf.s (To.d Rush)
canade.sis (Canada Rush) tRIDACEAE (IRIS FAMILY)
- co.pressus (European Rush) S1syrfnchiua
- dudle,f (Dudle,'s Rush) - .0ntanuIII (Blae-e,ed Grass)
- .ffusus (Comlllon Rush) - angustffoliu. (Narrow-le.ved Blue-eyed Gr.ss) I
g.rardff (Black Grass) R Iris
- nodosus (lnotted Rush) ger.anica (Garden Irfs)
- -
tenuis (Slender Rush) U - pseudo.corus (Yellow Irfs)
- torre,f (Torrey's Rush) yesfcolor (Blue Flag) (
- -
Luzuh
acu.lnata (Tapered Woodrush) ORCHIDACEAE (ORCHIS FAMILY)
.ultiflora (ComlDon Woodrush) CypripediuGl
- ac.ule (Mocassln flower) R
-
llllACEAE (llLlY FAMILY) - calceolus var parvlfloru~ (Small Yellow
uyuhrh Lady' s-s 1 fpperl U
grandfflora (Bellwort) C - c.lceolus var pubescens (L.rge YellOW Lady's-
- l.ssl1ffolla (Wild O.ts or Oellwort) C sllpperl U
- regfnae (ShOWY Lady's-Sllpper)
-
[pfpactls
- . hell et-orlne (Hell cllorl ne)
~t "'l'PIIL l' \Pl TH~ll':rO ^~JU ~Ir, U L I , I ~ I , ,\11 I I 1,
~r~~,,'cf'.~ Chrlkl l~t - P.~ ~R.'t7
ORr.'!.~^r.U~ Cn"tfnu~d P~LYGON^((Ar - Conti"u,,~
Or.hl S QUl1l" {I.on t .11
- spccUbfl t s (Showy Orchf s) U - p~tt~ntta IPdtfencc Oock)
H.~enarl. - .ertlcllIHu~ (WJterdoCk)
- hyvcrbore. (~c~fy ~orthern Green Orchfsl Po I >' gonum
- obtusaU (Blunt-h.f Orchis) R - achoreUM (Striate Knotweedl R
- orblculata (Round-leaved Orchid) - a.lcularc (Common Knot9r~s~l
Pogonl. - cocci nculll (Swamp \/C!ed) U
Ophloglossoldes (Rose pogonlal R - convolvulus (Black Rtrdwo!C!~)
-
Calopogon - cus~ld.tum (Japanese Knotwe~l
- tuberosus (Gress Pink! R ere~tum ((rect Knotweedl
ArethuSl ~ hydroptper (Common SmartwC!cdlMI
- bulbosa (Swamp-pink! R - hydroplperoldes (Mild Water Pepper)
Spl ranthes - l'Plthlfollum (Duckl.lf Knotweed!
- casel lLadhs'-tressesl R - nat.ns (Water Smartweedl
- cernua (Nodding Lldy's-tressesl - orientale (Prince's Father!
hcera VIr hcera (Northern Shnder Ladlu'- - pensylvaniCUM (Plnkweed!
- tresses! R perslc.rll (Lady's ThuMb!
-
- lucida (Shining L.dles'.tressesl R - SClb~um (Green Smartweedl
- rOlllanzofflana (Hooded hdles' -tressesl R - scandens (raIse Buckwheatl
Goodyera Fagopyrum
- pubescens (Downy Rattlesnake-plantain) R, B - esculentu~ (Buckwheat!
Ustera Rheu.
- cordata (Heartleaf Twayblake) R - rhapontlc~~ (Rhubarb)
Corall orhi ZI
- .aculata (Spotted Coral-root! U CHENOPODIAC(AE (GOOSEFOOT FAMILY!
_. trlflda (Early Coral-root! U, B Cyclololla
Haluh - atrlpllclfollum (Winged Pigweed! N, U
brachypoda (White Adder's.mouth! R 1C0chh
- U paris scoparia (Summer Cypress)
-
- loeselll [Bog (Yello~l Twayblade] N ChenopodluIII
- .lbu. (La.b's Qu.rters!
MYRICACEAE (WAX-~YRTLE FAMILY) - c.pltatu. (Strawberry Blight)
Myri c. - gl.ucum (Oak-le.ved Goosefoot!
- asplenlfoll. (Sweet Fern) U - hybrldu. (Maple-leaved Goosefoot)
Atrlplu
CAINABINACEAE (HEMP FAMILY) - puuh (Spursca1e)
Cannabis (Hup) - p.tule 'fir patul. (Spearscale)
- s.tl.. [Marljuan.) - p.tul. 'fir h.st.ta [Spearscale)
HUlllulus [HOp) S.ho h
j.ponlcus (J.p.nese Hops) - t.li \'Ir tenulfoll. [Russl.n Thistle)
-
UITICACE~E [NETTLE fA~llY! AMARANTHACEAE (AMARANTH FAMILT)
Urtlc, Alllaranthus
- diolc. (Stinging Mettle! - .lbus (Tulllble Pigweed)
- gr.cl1ls (Slender Nettle! - gr.ecizans (Prostr.te Pigweed)
- urens [Burning Nettle) - powellll (Green Pigweed)
l.portea - retroflexus (Pigweed)
c.n.densis [Wood lettle) C
- 8~hllleri. NYCTAGINACEAE [FOUR-O'ClOCIC FAMilY)
- cylindric' [Bog Helllp. F.lse Mettl.) C Ollybaphus
- ,.riet.ria pensyl..nlc. (pellitory! R - nyct.glneus (UlIIbrell.-wort) R
SANTAlACEAE [SANDALWOOD FAMILY! AIIOACEAE
COIII.ndra Molhgo
u.bellata [B.st.rd To.dflall) - .ertlcl11.tl [C.rpet-weed)
-
LORANTHACEAE [MISTLETOE fAMILY) PORTULACACEAE (PURSLANE FAMILY!
Arceuthoblulll Po rtllleca
pUS111uIII (Owlrf Mistletoe) R - olerlcea (Co.lllon Purslane!
- Chfton 11
AtISTOlOr.HIACEAE (BIP.THWORT fAMILY) - c.rol1nl.na (Spring Beauty)
As.ru. - .Irglnlca [Southern }pring Beauty) C
Clnadense (1111 d Ginger)
- CARYOPHYLLACEAE lPnl1C FAMILY!
POlYGONACEAE rBUCKWHEAT FAMILY! Annaria
aulllell - serpylllfolla (Sandwortl
acetosella (Red SOfrel) Stellarl.
- crlspus (Curled Dock) aquatic. (Water Chickweed)
-
- lII.rltl111uS (Golden DoCk) R gr.mlne. (Lesser Stltchwortl
-
- obtuslfoltus (Bitter Dock! R 10n?lfol'a (Narrow-lc.vad Stltchwortl
-
- orblculatus [Great ll.terdOCkl lIIedl. (Comaon Chickweed)
-
- Holoste".
- .~bellatu. (Jagged Chickweed) R
~! 11'1' lllll ^~ II I,l,\ i () ,\)40 .." I. I '1t, I"',' I 1 I, ~4 1:llIllll
wR.~~ He r ~ 1C PCl!!.L'J~':C ~ 0:'. .~': ,.~~~ ~.2.P...2
t;ARYOPIHI '-ACEH - rontlnu~~ ~I'AvrR'~.~~U~~P..!.....!yqL Y 1
L~rastluln .).In'3u t "d"l t'
- aryense IFI~ld Chlckw~cdl - can~dp~SlS 1"IClodrootl
- tomentosu~ IKock~ry Cn'Ckwe~d' t;hc I' do~lulII
- yulgatuft tMous~-ear Chickweed) - maJus (C~landln~'
lyehnls I'ap.wtr
- .ID. IIWhlt~ C.mplon) - orl~nUle IUrlental Poppy)
- en.lcedonle. (~c.rlet LycnnlS) Ulcentr.
- coronarl. (Hulleln Plnkl - c.nadenS1S (Squirrel-corn)
SI I ene - cueu I "ria (Uutchman S ~re~chesl U
- cucuDalus (Bladder C.mplon)
- noctltlor. (Night-flowering Catchfly) BRASSICACEAE 1I'l'lSTARO FAMILY)
S.ponar1a tlerteroa
- 0111cln.l15 (Bounclng Betl - lnean. (Ho.ry Alyssum)
01antnus lODu larla
- armerl. (Oept10rd Pint) - marl tl'll' lSweet Alyssum)
b.rbatus (Sweet WI 111..., Alyssum
-
- alyssoldes (Yellow Alyssum)
CERATOPHYLLACEAE (HORNWORT FAMILY) Tnlaspl sp ll'enny. Cress)
Ce r. topny 11 UIII - aryense (Field penny Cress)
- demersum (Hornwort' K lepldll1.
- e'r.1pestre (Cow Cress I
NYMPHAEACEAE (WATER-LILLY FAMILY) - denSlflorll1ll (pepper Gr.ss)
Nuph.r - ruder.le (Pepper Gr.ss)
- ..rleg.tulI (Tellow W.ter LIly) - '11 rg1nlCum (pepper Cress)
NYlllpn.ea C.melln.
- odor.ta (~ragrant Water lily) - 1II1eroc.rpa n.lse~lu)
lIelumbo Nul1a
- 1 u tea (Te 11 ow Ne 1 umbo IN, I' - p.nlculata (tI.11 Must.rd)
Cat 11 e
RANUICULACEAE (CROWFOOT FAMILY' - edentula var laeustrls (Gre.t Lakes Sea
Ranuneulus Rocket) R
- arbortlvus (Kldneylear Buttercup) Rapnanus
- acrls (COlllmon Buttercup) - raphaftlstrulII (Wild Radish or Jolnted CharI,
bulbosus (Bulbous Buttercup) Irassl ca
-
- pensylvanleus (Br1stly Crowfoot) - call1pestrls (Field Mustard)
- reeurvatus (Kougn trowroot. - Juncu (Brown MusUrd)
- repens (Cr'eplng Buttercup) - kaber (Charlock)
sceteratus (CurSed Crowroot) truc.strUIII
- trlchophyllus (Whlte Water-crowfoot) R
- - galllculII (Dog Mustlrd' R
ThalletrulII Dlplotu1S
dloleulII IElrty Meadowrue) - .ura t 15 U
-
polyglmUIII (1111 MeldOwru,) - tenuHol1a (Will Rocket )
-
HepltlCI All1lr1a
leut110bl (Shlrp-Iobed HepltlCa) - ottlclnll1S (lilrllc MusUrd)
-
Anelllone 51 SYlllbrl UIII
canadensis (tlnldl Ane.one) - altlss1111UIII (lulllble-lIustlrd)
-
cyllndrlcl U - offlcfnlle (Hedge-Il\ustud I
-
qulnquefolll (WOOd Anemone) II Dueuralnll
-
- rlparla (lhflllbleweld) - sophia (Tlnsy Mustard)
- v1rglnl1nl (Till Ane.on'l Hesp.r1S
Anl.onella - .atronal1S (DI.. I Rocketl
- thllictrold.s IRae-ane.one) I. P, I Erysl.u.
Clellllt1l - chel rlnthol des (Wormseed Mastlrdl
- verticl111ris (I'urple Cle.atls) Rorlppl
- vlrglnlanl IVfrgfn I Bower) - 11 landl CI (Yellow Marsh Cressl
tlltha - hlandlCI '1ar hhpl dl (Y,"ow Cressl
~ pilulVls ("Irlh "erfgoU) U - palustrll (Ye 11 ow Cress)
copt1S - lylyutrll (Creeplng 'el low Cress)
groenlandlCI (Cank.r Root) I llasturtluIII
-
Aqul1egfl - oUlclnal. IWatercress)
Clnldensfs (Columbin.) Arlllorlcfl
- '1ulgarls IG.rden toluablne) rustfcana (Horseradl sh)
- - ('
Ac ta u Blrblrea
p.ChYPOdl (Whlte B.neberry) - YU Ig.rts (Wlnter Cress'
- rubr. (Red e.neDerr1) 8 Oentlr1a
- dlph,111 (Toothwort 1
Myosurus -
1II1nl.uS (Mousetlll' P - Iltlnl.ta (H.rrow loothwortl C
- C'PSell.
IERBElIDACEAE (BARBERR' FAMILYI - llurSI-pastorlS (Shepherd s Purs-'
1'0dOph,lluIII Orella
peltltulII IMaylpple) t - verna IWhltlow ~r.ss) R
- Jetterson1a Ar.D'dllp~1S
dlphylll ITw1nlearl II. " - tn.I,.nl lMouse-clr ~rcss) R
- t;'UlophyIIU.
th..tctroldes Iblue tonoshl
-
~t H'lP\'lI1.\~ TlIr.!1UTO I.NO Plul011 CJN,c~\'\T '/11 AUrl~^llY
lI~r~.,:cnu, ';'('~_< Check 11 q -- PJ'JP 6 IIJR .Q1
OqASS1C~CF~E - Continu~~ rAPCFM (rnll FAMILY!
C ~ r,'J,"' ne LUl'tnus
- penns,lvanlca IPenn,ylYJnta aittcr Cress! - perennls (wtld Lupine) N P, U, C
- bulbosa (Spring ~ress! N. R - polyphyllus (Gullcn Lupinel
- douglassll (Douglas' Bitter Cress! N, P, R TrlfollulO sp (Clovcr)
Arabls - agrarlu. (Yellow Clover)
- canadensis (Canada Slcklepod) N. P, R, C - dublum (Least lIop-cloyer)
- glabra (Tower Mustard) R. N - hybrtdu," (Alslke Cloyer!
- laeylgata (Smooth Rockcress! R, C - pratense (Red Cloyer!
- procumbens (Low Hop-Clover!
SARRACEN!ACEAE (PITCHER-PLANT FAMILY! - repens (White Clover)
S. rracen I a Melllotus
- purpurea (~itcher Plant! B - alba (White Sweet Clover!
- officinal!s (Yellow Sweet Cloyer!
. OROSERACEAE (SUNDEW FAMILY! Medlcago
Orosera - lupullna (Black Medick!
rotundlfolla (Round-leaved Sundew! B - satin (Alfalfa!
- Lo tu s
CRASSULACEAE (ORPINE FAMILY! - cornlculatus (BI rd' s Foot Trefoil!
SedulII sp iStonecrop! Amorpha
aCre (Mossy Stonecrop) - frutlcosa (False Indigo Bush) N
- spurlu. (Stonecrop) Astragalus
-
telephlum (Live-forever) - canadensis (Canadian Milk-vetch) R
- Coronllla
SAXIFRAGAC~AE (SAXIFRAGE FAMILY) - varll (Crown Vetch)
Penthoru. Oesmodlull
- sedoldes (Ditch Stonecrop) - canadenu (Showy Tick-trefoll!
Sa xlfraga - glutlnosulll (Pointed-leaved Tick-trefoil!
- vlrglnlensls (Early Saxifrage) R Lespedeu
TI uella - capltat. (Rounded-headed Bush-clover! R. C
- cordlfolla (Foall-flower) Vitia
- Mltella cracca (Cow Vetch)
-
- dlphylh (Coohort) Lathyrus
- nuda (Naked Miterwort) B - latlfollus (Everlasting Pea)
Phl1adelphus - oChrohucus (Vetchllng) R
- coronarlus (Moct Orange) - palustris (Marsh Pea Vetchllng)
- grandiflorus (Large-flowered Mock Orange) - venosus (Veiny Pea) N. R
- Inodorus (Odorless Mock Orange) Ap10s
pubeseens (Hairy Moct Orange) R a.ericana (Ground-nut)
- -
Hydrangu AIIphiurpa
- arborescens (Wild Hydrangea) - bracteata (Hog P,anut)
Laburnu.
ROSACEAE (R~SE FAMILY) - anagyroidu (Goldenehain Laburnum)
Fragull sp ( Strawberry)
vesca (Wood Strawberry) LINACEAE (FLAX FAMILY)
- virginlana (Common Strawberry) Lf nu.
- Walclsteinla perenne (Wild Flax)
fragarioides (Barren Strawb~rry) B -
- potentllh OXALIDACEAE (WOOD-SORREL FAMILY)
anserina (Silverweed) Oulh
- argentea (Silvery Cinquefoil) cornic.lata (Creeping Lady's-sorrel) R
- -
- fruticosa (Shrubby Cinquefoil) B - europae. (Yellow Sorrel)
norvegie. (Rough Cinquefoil) - eont.n. (Wood Sorrel) B
- palustris (Marsh Cinquefoil) U strict. (Yellow Wood Sorrel)
- p.radoll' (Bushy Clnqulfoll) p. R -
- recta (Rough-fruIted CInquefoil) GERANIACEAE (GERANIUM FAMILY)
- si.plell (Old-fIeld Cinqulfoll) Gerlniu.
- Ff H pendula ..cul.tu. (Wild Geranlu.) C
-
hellapetala (Dropwort) - robertianu. (Herb Robert)
- ul.aria (Qulen-of-the-Meadow)
- Geue sp (nens) POLYGALACEAE (MlllWORT FAMILY)
ahppieull var strictum (Yellow Avens) Pol.1g.1I
- eanldense (Whitl Aveni) paucffolfa (.lowerlng Wintergreen)
-
- laelniatu," (Cut-leave1 Avens) p. R polyga.. (Raeemed Mllkwort) R
-
- rlvale (Water AWlns) ~ leneg. (Sen~c. Snakeroot) R
- vlrginlanu. (Rough Avtns) -, R -
- Agri.onia (Cockllbur) EUPHORP.IACEAE (SPURGE F~MILY)
grYPoslpall (A1rf.ony) ~calypll.
- pubescens (AVlllony\ !l. p. R rho.bofdea (Three-seeded ~crcury\
~ ltriat. (Agrl.~ny\ N. P -
-
-
'\f 1 kO;'l'L II '.rj I~ I rJ T U .\ t n W Ie! r H r fit. I 1("1 " 1 'I ,"llll !~ I r
Hl'rf".l I'OU ~L~....!~I'~~:.2..:!~''2
~~ . 100
E ?~0~nl^(rAf . Contlnu~~ OtlAr.n Mf Af ([~! N I Nr.. PR I ~~0~f ""'l!:!..l
Eu~horbia llll I n~ium
- cyparlsslas (Cypr~ss.spurgel - anguH t rol f um Iff r....~cd I
- dentata (Toothed ~~urge) - clltalum (t1orthern Willow-herb)
- glyptosper~a (Engraved-seed Spurge) - coloratum (Purple ~il1o...h~rb)
- helloscopla (Sun-s~urge) hlrsutulll (Hairy IIi I lo..-herbl
- platyphyl1a (Broad-leaved Spurgel ~ leptophyl1um (t1arrow W111o..-herbl '1 2
- polygontfol1a (Suslde S~urgel R paniflorum (Wll10w-herblltS..t.
- serpyll1fol1a (Th)~e-leaved Spurge) - strictum (Downy wlllow-herbl
- suplna (Milk purslanel Denothera
- verllllculata (Halry.ste~med Spurge I - b1ennh (Evening Primrose
- parvlflora (Evening Prlmrosel
BALSAMI~ACEAE (TDUCH-~E-NOT fAMILY - pl10sella (Sundrops) N, P, R
Impatiens sp (Jewelweed) * Clrcaea
~ capensls (Jewelweedl MI, ~ - alplna (Dwarf Enchanter's ~lghtsha~cl
- glandullfera (Gland-bearing Touch.Me-~otl U - quadrlsulcata (Enchanter's Nlghtshadel
- pal11da (Pale Touch-~e-Notl C
HALORAGACEAE (WATER-MILFOIL FAMILYl
. "ALYACEAE (MALLOW FAMILYl Myrlophyll um
Maha sp - spicatum (Eurasian Water Milfoll I
- 1lI0schata (Musk "al10wl - vertlclllatum (Whorled Water-mlltoill
- neglecta (Common ~allowl
- rotundlfolla (Round-leaved Mallowl ARALIACEAE (GINSENG FAMILYl
Al tllaea Ara lta
- rosea (Hollyhockl - hlsplda (Bristly Sarsaparl11al
Abutl10n - nudlcaulls (Wild Sarsaparl11al
- theophrasti (Velvet Leafl - racelllosa (Spikenardl
Hibiscus trtonulll (Flower-of-an-hourl R Panu
- qulnquefolla (Glnsengl N. p. U. C
GUTTIFEP.AE (ST. JOHN'S WORT FAMILYl -
Hyperlcull APIACEAE (PARSLEY FAMILYl
kalmianu. (Shrubby St John's 'Jortl Hydrocotyle
- .ajus (Larger Canada St John's Wortl R a.erlclnl (Wlter pennywort!
- -
perforatulll (Co..on St John's Wortl San'lcula
- prolfffcull (Mlrsh St John's wortl N. P, R greglrfa (Black Snakeroot) R
- -
punctatull (Spotted St John's wortl marfllndfca (Sanicle! 8
- -
pyrlmid.tum (Great St John's Wort! U Anthriscus
- .irginicu. (Mlrsh St John's Wort! R sylvestris (Woodllnd Chervil!
- R
- Osaorhha
CISTACEAE (ROCKROSE FAMILYI - ch1toni (Sweet clce11! B
Hellanthemu. Zhla
blcknellll (Frostwud! N, p. R - aurea (Golden Alexanders!
- canldense (Clnadlan Frostweed! R C i cutl
- ../ .aculata (Wlter He.'ock!~1
Lech..
inter.edil (Inter.edlate Pfneweedl R -=::z bulblfera (Water He.lock! u~1
- Cr1ptotunh
YIOLACEAE (YIOLET FAMiLY! - canldensis (Honewortl
Yiola sp. (Violet! Tltllfdh
- adunca (Hooked-spur Violet! - fnteg.rri.a (Yellow Pimpernel! U
- c.nadensis (Canada Yioletl Aegopodfu.
- conspersa (Early Blue Yiolet! - podagraria (Goutweed!
cuculllta (Blue ~Irsh Violetl Sfua
- fillbriltula (Northern Downy VIolet! R sua.. (Wlter Parsnip)
- -
incognita (Large-lelved Ylo1etl Beruh
- pallens (Whit. Yiolet! R pusilla (Water ParsnIp!
- -
- pubescens (00wn1 Yellow Violet! C Angeli ca
- pens,l.anica (S.ooth 'ellow Yfolet) - Itropurpurel (Angelfca)
papilionaceae (Co.mon Blue Yl01et) Pastinaca
- rostrata (Long-spurred Violet! R satiua (Wild Parsnfp!
- selktrkii (Great Spurred Violet! - H.ncleu.
- septentrionalts (Northern Blue Violet! .I.i.u. (Cow Parsnfp)
-
- sororfa (Wooll, 81ue Ylolet! Daucus
- tricolor (G~rden pansy) carota (Wfld Carrot, Oueen Anne's lie
- -
lTTHRACEAE (LOOSESTRIFE FJMIL" PRIMULACEAE (PRIMROSE FAM1LY!(
Cecocton ~ Lysluchla
vertlcl1latus (w.ter-wlllow) R cl1latl (Frlngcd Loosestrlfel$;L
- L,thru. nummularla (Moneywort!
-
sallClril (Purple Loosestrife! - punctata (G.rd~n Loosestrlfel
- Qu.drl fol I a (Whorled Loo~estrlfcl q
-
[LAEAr,N~r.EAE (OLEASTER FAMILYl - terrestrls (Swdmp Candle)
EI aeagnus thryslflora (Tufted LooSestrir~1 e
-
ullbel1ata
-
I'll I Wl'l'Ulll ~~ IIII' ~IU ^N:l ,I .1"N I Il\LIIV.\III1N ^ t! Il~ I r 1
Hpr~JC~_"C 1 r\ C hrclll st -- I' ,. 2'~~ ~R. It>1
,
PRIMUl4CE4F - Contlnur~ v(RIl.rN^C(~!.!f ~t ^N FAMILYl
lrlrnUl1\ VeroenJ
borellls (Star-flo~erl B V hHUtl (Illur VrrYJlnl MI
-
4naglllts - strIct. (HOary Vervalnl
- Irvensls (Sclrlet Pl~~ernel) - urtlClIol,. (White VervalnJ N
GENTIA.ACEAE (GEUTIAN FAMllYI lAM/ACEAE (MINT rA'1IlY J
Gentlanl AJ u gl
- Indre~sl1 (ClOUd (;entllnl - reptans (!lugle)
- crlnlta (Fringed Gentlan) R Teucrlu.
Menyanthes - Clnade"Se (Wood Sage) U
- trifollatl (Marsh Buckbean) U Scute 11 ula sp (Skullclp'
--.JL epl1001lfolla (COllllllon ~kUIICap)f'11
APOCTNACEAE (DOGBANE FAMILY) - laterH lorl (Mld.dog Skullclp)
'1ncl AgasUc~e
- ~lnor (Common Perl~lnllel - ToenlC.lu~ 181ue (;lan HYSlOp)
ApocynulI NepeU
- .androslellltollulI ISpreadlng uogolnel - caUr11 (Catnlp I
- cannlbtnu~ (IndIan He~p) Glecllo..
- lIedlulI (Interlleclllte uogoanel - lIeder.cea IG111-Uver-tlle-(;rouncl)
- s1blricuII IInd1an Hellp) R Prune III
- vulgaris (Hell-all )
ASClEPIADACEAE {MILKWEED FAMIlYl Physoste~i I
Ascleplas sp (Mllkweecll - virglnl.na IFalse Uragonhead) U
exaltata (Poke Ml1k~eedl N. U. C leonu rus
-
- incarnaU (Swamp Mi Ilweedl - cardlac. (Comllon Mother~ortJ
- purpurascens (Purple Flo~erlng Hlltweedl GaleopslS
- syrlaca ICommon ~11kweed' - tetrahtt (Hemp Nettle)
- tuberosa (Butterfly-weed I R Stacllys
'1 neetoxi CUll - hispida (Rough Hedge Nettle)
- ~ediu. (81acksw'llow-wor~I - pal u strts IWounl1 Wort) U
- tenu1tol1a (Hedge-nettle'
CONVOlUlACEAE (CONVOLVULUS FAMilY) Monarda
IpolloU - d1dy.a (8ee-balll' .. C
- hederacea (Engltlh Ivy) - ftstuloSl (Wlld BergUlot'
purpurep. (Horn1ng Glory) Hedeo.a
-
Convolvulus - pu I eg1 01 des (A~er1can Pennyroyal) R
- Irvens1s (F1eld B1ndweed) Saturejl
- sep1u. (Hedge B1ndweedJ -- 1C1nos (Snory)
- sp1thl.aeus (B1ndweed) U - yu 19l r1 s (8 as 11 )
Cuscutt Pycntntl..u.
- gronov1i (COII..on OOdd.rl - v1rg111anu. (V1rg1ni. Mount.ln Mlnt) C
lycopus
POlEMONIACf.AE (POLEMONIUM FAHIlY) - ..erlclnus (Wlt.r Horehound)
Phlox europleus (Europeln water Korehound)
divlr1clta (Blue Phloll C V un1florus (Bugleweed)"'"S.t.
- plnlcullta (Glrd.n Phloal Mentha
-
. Sp1Cltl (Spelr.lnt)
-
"'OROPHTllACEAE (WATERLEAF FAMILY) urt1clll1U IMint)
Hydrophyll u. ./ IrYens1s (W11d AlIericln MlntlM"s~
- Clnldense (Clnldl Vlterleaf) N, C - gent111s (Europeln Mlntl
- y1rg1n1lnu. (V1rgln11 Vaterle.fl C - p1p.r1tl (Pepper.lntl
Co 111 nsollta
BORAGIIACEAE (80RAGE FAMILY) - clnadels1s (R1ch~eed) N. U, C
- Hellotrop1u. sp. IHe110trop.'
Syllphyt.. SOLANACEAE (NIGITSHAOE FAMILY)
off1c1111e (Co..on CoarreYI ~ Solanu.
- dulcl.lrl (B1tter Nightshlde)54
[C h I u.
- yulglre (Y1per s BuglOSS) - n1gr.. (Bilek NIghtshadel
l1tllosper.u. PllySllts sp. (Ground Cherry)
Iryense (Corn GrollW.ll) - heter.ph}' III (C IIIIIIY Ground Cherry I
- offIcInal. (Gro~ell) subgll~rltl (SlIootll Ground Cherry)
- - ('
Cynoglossu.
offlclnale (Kound'S Tonguel SCROPKUlARIACEAE (FIGWORT FAMIlYI
- Myosotls ,po (~or2et-Me'Not' VerDasc..
~ lIxa (SIIII' ler Forget.~e-NOtlMI/5~ - lyChllt,t1l (Whlte Mulletnl
scorploldes (True Forget-He-Not) - thlpS.S (COlllmon "ullelnl
- sylut1C1 (Forget-He-Hot') It nlrta
-
lappull - vu 'girts IButter-and-lggll
- echln.tl ISt1ckse,dl
"aekelll
- cl'tltll (Nodd1ng StlctseedJ R, C
-- vtrginl,nl (Stl~tse'dl C
LO~,'O'" ML1~l1rOl:l~~ rr~ :111 If) ^~~ RI I P ~ (I"j I. ~ V ^ 1 I "'j II'" 1111 f
H('rh"r.C'.'Iu~ pH t ~ \ r h,' < k I I H -- \" ~ .2
.
SCR~~~llAR1^C[^[ . Continued VAl:[RI/lNM:(Af (V~l[R /IN r_M1L'1
Ch.'en\'rr~t nulll V.ler-! .n~
- mlnu~ (ow.rf SnApdrlg~n) - 0((;ctn411, (GJrden.h~llotroPQ)
Scrophul aria
- lanceohta (Flgw.ort) DIP~,\CACEAE (TEASEL F AMIl YI
- marlllndlcl (Carpenter'~ S~uare) R, C Dlpsacu,
Chelone laciniatu, (Teasel)
gllbrl (Turtlehead! - ~ylvestris (Teasel)
- -
Penstemon sp (BeHd-tongue)
- digitalis (Foxglove Beard-tongue) U CUCURBITACEAE (GOURD FAMILY)
- hlrsutus (Hairy Burd-tongue) U Slcyos
Hlllulus angulltus (Bur Cucum~er)
-
- rlngens (Monkey-flower) Echl nocystls
L1ndernll - lobata (Wild Cucumber)
- dubla (False Pimpernel! U
Digitalis CAMPANUlACEAE (BLUEBELL FAMILY)
- lanata (Foxglove! Campanuh
Veronl ca - aparlnoldes (Bedstraw Bellflower) R
,merlClna (American Brooklime) - rapunculoldes (Creeping Bellflower)
-..--- anagallls-aquatlca (Water Speedwell) rotundl fol I a (Ha rebel I)
- -
- longlfolla (long-leaved Speedwell) - ullglnosa (Marsh Bellflower! R
- offlclnalls (Common Speedwell) lobelf a
- serpylllfolla (ThYllle-leav~d Speedwell) - cardinalh (Cardinal Flower) R
- Aureohria Inflata (Indian Tobacco)
-
- pedlcularla (False Foxglove! N. p. R - tahll (Kalm's lobelia) R
Gerardia - s1philit1ca (Great lobelia) C
- purpurea (large Purple Agallnls) R
- tenulfolla (Slender-leaved Gerardla) U ASTERACEAE (ASTER FAMILY)
He hmpy rum Eupatorium ~
- linear, (Cow-wheat) R, B ../ macuhtu. (Spotted Joe-pye-weed)1-\I,S.2..
Pedleuhrh ~ perfolfatum (Boneut) ~1,>S4
- canedensls (Wood Betony) C - purpureu. (Sweet Joe-pye-weed)
- rugo~um (White Snakeroot)
BIGIONIACEAE (BIGNONIA FAHllY) Lfatrh
Calalpa - cyllndracea (Cylindric Blazing-star! R
- speclosa (Catawber Tree) - splcata (Splt.d Prairie Blazing Star) N. P,
- blgnonloldes (Collmon Catalpa) Grindl11l
- squarrosa (Gu. Weed! U
OROIA.CHACEAE (BROOM-RAPE FAHllY! Solidago sp (Goldenrod)
EpHagus - 11tlsslma (Tall Goldenrod!
- ,Irglnlanl (Beech Orops) - cllsla (Blue-ste..ed Goldenrod)
- clnadensls (Canida Goldenrod)
LENTtBULARIACEAE (BlADDERWPRT FAMILY) - 'lexleaulls (Zlg-zag Goldenrod)
Utrlcuhria sp - glgantea (Large Goldenrod)
- vulgaris (Bladderwort) - gralllnlfolla (Lance-leaved Goldenrod!
---- minor (Smlller Bladderwort! R - Juncea (Early Goldenrod!
- nellorllls (F1eld Goldenrod!
'HRTMACEAE (lOPSEED FAMILY) - pltula (Rough-lea,ed Goldenrod! N
PhrYIII - .1lglnosl (Swallp Goldenrod! R
- leptostlchyl (lopseed) Aster
- Izureus (Sty-blue Aster! C
PLAITAGINACEAE (PLANTAIN FAMILY) - brachYlctls (Short-rayed Aster)
Phnugo - cordlfollus (Heart-leaved Aster!
- lanclolltl (Englfsh 'lantaln) - erlcofd.s (Helth Aster!
- ilaJor (Co..on Pllntaln) - llterlflorus (Calico Aster)
- psylllu. (Whorlld Plantlln) - llur.ntlanus (Gulf of St lawrence "ster)
- rugellfl (Pale 'llntlln) - llwrlllnu, (lowrie's Aster) N. C
- no,ae-lng111. (New England Aster)
RUltACEAE (MADDER FAMILY) , pilosus 'IIr dellotus (Spray Aster! N, '. ~
: "" _ Gall UII 't ,..i of; .11"" "" -
-=z. pflosus vir prlnglef R
- apar1ne (Cleavers) punfnus (Purple-stel'lllled Aster)~"S~
- asprellua (Rou~h Bedstraw) - slgfttlfollus (Arrow-le,.ed Aster) R. C
- boreale (North,rn Be~straw) - slllplex (hll White Aster)
clrcaezans (White Wild licorice) U - trldescantl (Tradeseant's Aster) R
- lanceolatua (Wild Licorice) R x allethystlnus (Amethyst Aster)
-
- .ollugo (Wild .adder! Erlgeron
:z: pi lustre (Marsh Bedstrawl U~',s.l - annus (Daisy Fleabane)
tl"etorl~. (Bedstraw) R - canadensis (Horsewp.cdl
- trlfloru. IFragrant '-edstraw) phlladelphlcus (Coooon Fleabane!
- -
- verua (Yellow Bedstraw) - pulehp.llus (RobIn's Plantain) C. R
Mitehelll strlgo,uS IRou1h Fleabane)
rIpens (partridge-berry) -
-
-
:~11R(lI'OLllA' TLIlO'lTO ^~U ~I r.: 1!1 r.!l~sr~IATII!l ^ tlf, I' i r y wR./o3
!!!.!:~_~( i r ~ __C ~", !' ~.:..:...!.;! 'l.!.. _1_
,
ASTlRI:EM . Continul'd A~TfQACf^l . Cn1';nul'~
An t~nlld ri d Cdrrlllu',
- pl.nt'9fnl'0111 (Pl.ntdln.lelwed Ew~r'dstlng) - nutdlls l~oddinq Thistle)
- ntglectl (Field Pussy toes) C f rs I UlD
Anl~hllts - Irw~nse (Cdn.d. Thistle)
- ...r9Irltacel (P~lrly Everlasting) B - dlscolc' (~ftld Thlstl,,)
GnaphallulII - .utlcu~ (Swa~p Thistle)
- obtuslfolfulII (Sweet (wtrllstlng) - vulgdrt (Bull Thistle)
- ulfgfnosulII (Cow Cudweed) Onopordun
- ,fscosulII (Clammy EvtrlJstfng) - Icanthl~m (Scotch Thlstlt)
Inu1l Centaurel
- h~l~nfulII (El~clmpan~) - jac~1 (Srown Knapwetd
Alllbros fa - mlculosa (Spotttd Knlpwe~d)
- triffda (Great Rlgw~ed) - nfgra (~napweed) R
- Irtelllfsfffolfa (Common Ragwe~d) lapsana
hnth fulll communis (Com~on Hlpplewort) U
strullllrfulII (Cockl~bur) - Cfchorfua
- chfnense (Coctl~bur) fntybus (Chfcory)
- -
Sflphfulll !Crf gh
- p~rfol!atum (Cup-plant) N, R. C - ,irgfnlca (Owlrf Dlndellon) N. P
Helfopsh Trlgopogln sp (Goat's Beard)
- hellanthofdes (Ox-eye) - dubfus (Goat's Beard)
Rudbeck ia - porrlfolfus (Sllsify)
- hlrta (Blick-eyed Susln) - prat~nsis (Y~llow GOlt'S Jeard)
- laclniltl (Cutlea' Con~flow~r) Tarlxacum sp (Dlndellon)
- trlloba (Three-lobed Coneflower) R - offlclna1e (Common Dand~lfon)
Helhnthus Sonchus
- Innus (Collllllon Sunflower) - arvensfs (Field Sow Thistle)
- decapetalus (Ten-petalled Sun'lower) U - asper (Spfny Sow Thistle)
- df'lricatus (Woodland Sunflower) C - olerlc~us (Co~lIlon Sow Thfstle)
- gfganteus (Glint Wild Sunflower) R - ul f ghosus (MarSh Sow Thistle)
- lletlflorus (Sunflower) R lactucI
- strulllosus (PIle-lea'ed Sunflower) U - blennls (lettuce) U
- tuberosus (Jerusalelll Artfchoke) U - clnadensfs {Wfld lettuce)
Coreopsis . hfrsutl (Hafry lettuce)
-
- grlndl f1 ora - serrfoll (Prfckly ~ettuce)
B I dens Creph
-L Ctrnua (Stlck-tfght)"',sa - capflhrfs (S.ooth Hlwk's-beard)
-::::z coronatl (Tick seed-sunflower) N, P, C - tectorua (Hlwk's Belrd)
frondosa (beggar-tlcks)~,~ Prenanthes sp (Whl tt lettuce)
- trlpart1 tl val' cOlllosa (Beggar-tfck) - Ilba (White L~ttuce)
COSIIIOS - Ilt1ssi.a (Tall Whfte Lettuce)
- blplnnatus (COSIIIOS) Hhrlchlll
Gal hsoga - lurantllculII (Orlnce Hawkweed)
- cllllta (&a11nsoga) - clnadense (Clnldfan Hawkweed) R
- par,lflorl (Galfnsogl) - florentlnulD (King Dnil)
Glillardia - plnfculatulII (Plnlcled Hawkweed) N. P
- pulchella (Blanket Flower) - pratense (!Cf~g De,'I)
Ach111ea - sClbru. (Rough Hawkweed) R
- 1II111efolluIII (Yarrow)
Anthelllls -
- cotula (Maywud)
- ar,ensfs (Corn-chllllOlllll.) -
"atrfclria
- IIIltrfcarlofdes (Pfnelpple-weed) -
Chryunthelllu.
- '.ucantheuIII (O.-.ye Daisy) -
parthenlUIII (Fe,er'ew)
. TI nacetuIII Status: . - .Itlonally rlre
- ,ulgare (Tansy) p - Pro'fnc1l11y r&re
Art,eals" R - Regionally rlre (MTRlA)
- blennfs (Wormwood) U - Unco~mon fn the MTRCA region
- clmpestrfs spp cludata (Wormwood) R
ludoYlclanl (Western Sage) Range: C - Carolinian specfes. chlract~rfstfc of tll
- Tuss 11&go Decl1uous Forest Region; spec f es genera 1
flrfara (ColtSfoot) foun1 to the south
- Senec to B - Rore41 specfes, eharecteristfc of t"~ Grl
IUreus (Golden r.roundsel) U laku - St Lawrtnce Forest Region spec:
- .tscosus (Sticky Groundsel) gener.lly found to the north
- ,ulgarlS (CO.1II0ft Groundsel)
-
Arctlu. AlIund.nce: Do..ln.n~..:
lappa (tr~at Burdock) A - Abunlt.nt I - Ffr,t dO~fnant
- mInuS ('.II..On Burdoc~) 2 - ~~eond dOQinJnt
- M - ModerUe
U - Unco_""n J - Thfrd dO~fnlnt
ME1KOPJLITAN TOHUNTO ANO KEGIUH C04~ERVATION ^OlHU~lTT
IoR.JOt} Fern and ~~rn-al 11e~ Ch~ckll~t
AREA <;.. ~.... f \ \J , II ~ y'v\CI." <, I.. }"" ,l 10 ~ DATE '2 J ' 1- .b.~<<,,-.L 1 9 i.::....::.-
. ((eL. ,
oj :) II
OBSERVER( S) h'.:-~e~. P Me de TIME TO
EQUISETACEAE (KC~SETAIL FAMILY) POLYPODIACEAE - Continued
Equisetu_ ~p Dennstaedtla
V arvense (Field Horsetail)~ punctllObull (Hay-scented Fern) R
--v:r fluviatile (Swup Horsetail)"" Athyrlum
- hyemale (Rough Horsetail) - tilll-telllna (Lady Fern)
- hyelule var pseudOhyemale (Rough Horsetail) R filll-femlnl var !llchaulii (Lady Fern) R
- hyelllle var Interlledium (Smooth Scouring-rush) pycnocarpon (Narrow-leaved SpleenwortJ R
- . luvigatum (Smooth Horsetail) thelypterioldes (Silvery Spleenwort J
- I nel soni (Nelson 5 Horsetail I R Asplenium
- palustre (M~rsh Horsetail) platyneuron (Ebony Spleenwort) N, R
prate"se (Meadow Horsetail) \loOdwardU
-
- scirpoides (O~arf Scouring-rush) B virginica (Yirginia Chain Fern) R
- SylVlticulll (\10012 Horsetail) B Adiantum
- variegatum (Variegated Horsetlil) - pedatum (Maidenhair tern)
Pterid1um
lYCOPODIACEAE (CLUB-MOSS FAMILY) - aquillnu. (BraCken tern)
LycopOdium sp. PolYPOdluD
- annoti~ulll (Bristly Club-moSS) R vUlgare (Common POIYPOdy) R
- clavltum (Common Club-1I0SS) R .Gymnoca rpi um
- lucidllull (Shining Club-mossJ~ - dryopteris (Oak Fern)
obsc.rull (Ground Pine) B Matteuccia
-
struthiopteriS (Ostrich tern)
O'HIOGlOSSACEAE (ADDER'S TONGUE FAMilY) TalUS
Botryclltull sp - canadensis (Yew)
- dissectulI var dissectu. (Cut-Ielved ~rape-tern) R cuspidatum (Japanese Shrub Yew)
- dissectulI Vir Obliquulll (Cut-leaved Grape-fern) R l'helypteris
- .ultifidum (leltllery Grlpe-ternl U noveboracensis (New York Fern) R
- 'irgiBilnUII (Rattlesnlke Fern) - pllustris (MeadOW Fern)
pllegopteris (Long seecll Fern) U, B
OSMUNDACEAE (FLOWERING FERN FAMilY'
OSllundl Sl).
- cinnlllollea (Cinna.on Fern) -
- claytoniana (Interrupted Fern) R -
regalis (Royal Fern) ,
-
Status:
'OLYPODIACEAE (FERN FAMILYI . - Nationally rare
Cystopteris P - Pro,lncially rare
- bulbifera (Bulblet Fernl R - Regionally rare IM\RCAI
- fragflfs (Brittle Fern) U - UncoDllon In tile MTRCA region
-L Onoclel ~ Ringe:
Itnsnf 1 f s (SenslU,e Fern)' I.S;l C - Carolinian specfes. characteristfc ot the
DrlOpter1 s Deciduous Forest Region; speCies generally
cltntoniana (ClInton'S Woodfern) found to tile south
-
crtstata (Crested Woodtern) B - Boreal species, characteristIc of the Great
-
lakes - St Lawrence Forest Region; specIes
- f1111-.as (Male Fern) R generally found to the north. (
gold1anl (Goldie's Fernl U Abundance:
-
Intermedia IGra, Evergreen WooGtern, A - ADunGlnt
-
- .argfeallS (Margina' SlIleld fernl " - Moderate
sp1nllosa ISp1nulose ~oOGternl U - Unconllllon
-
'oIYStfChIUIII Dominance:
~ acrostlchOldes ItllrfstllllS fern I 1 . First dominant
Z - Second dO~lnlnt
J - third dominant
/'\1 I ~1l~IJl II AN I 'N ~ I!I II J Hli.ltJH LtJH~II~~ I ..1'1 "U Iltlll( I , wR./o~
I r~" ~na ~n"lJn I npcl 11 ~ t
- -
AlllA C;~,' LL 1-+" .11 '" Mo..l'"sJ- ,f' S A \0 i DAi~ ~ I jkLJ · 7- ~'-""'c...~ 1 , ;.
-'..l
Q
UU:'lll"HN(S, "'I~';-Rl! P AC>>l~ r IIll 10
-L b~o-.t tr"<i!e-;. 'Slit
!'IUCOE (PINE FAMILY! CORYLACEAE - Continued
AllieS Ostrya
- llalsillea (B.lsHI Fir' ~ - vlrglnlina (lIop Hornlleall)
T su gl Clrplnus
---L eanldensls (Eastern Huloet)S, - carOllnllna lBlue-lleech Itron~OOd)J C
Pleel ~ etu II
- allies (Norv.y Spruce' =:2: lutea lYellov ~Irchl ~
. - gllue. (White Spruce I H pap)'rlfera (lihlte UlrCh)SI
- urlina IBlaek Sprueel U. B - pendul. (European WeepIng ~Irchl
- pungens 1~lue ~pruce) - popullfOll. (Gr.a)' Ulren,
L. rJ Jl Alnus
- decIdua Ilurope.n L.rch) - glutlnoSl (Ulaet Alder)
- I.rlclna ITamar.ekl B - rugOSI ISpeekled Alder) H
!'lnus
ll.nksla"a IJact Pinel ~ FAGACEAE ( BEE C H F AM I L T)
-
- eontorta (Lodgepole Ylnel ~.gus
- Dontana (Mugno Pinel - grandlfOlla (American Beeehl
- nlgrl IAustrall.n Bllct Ylnel Castanea
- reslnosa IAed ~lnel A - dentata IChestnutl N. p. R
- strollus IWhlte ~lnel Quercus sp
- sylvestrls (Scotch Plne' - Illla IWhlte Oakl C
-L Ihujl ~ - llleolor I:'wlmp White Oak' N. P, A
oeel denU 11s (ElStern White Cedar) B MI, S I) So<. - Dleroelrpl (Bur Oakl U
Junnlperus - rUllrl (Red Olkl
- eom.un1s '(Common Junl~er) B - velutlnl IBllek Oatl N. C
- vlrglnllnl IRed Cedarl R. C
ULMACEAE IELM FAMILY)
SALICACEAE (WILLOV FAMILl' UIIIUS
511 Ix sp -L allerlelnl IAmerleln ElD)S.L
- 1111I IlIhlte 1I1110w) - glJllrl (Vyeft El.)
48ygdllOUts (Peach-leaved Vl I low) ....--- PUDIII lDvlrt (Slllerlan) EIIIJ
~ IIIDylonlel (WeepIng Wlllovl~1 - rUllrl (SlIppery E 1111
- btllblan. ILong-llUktd III I lov)
- elnertl (Grly Wlllovl MORACEAE (MULBERRY FAMILY)
dlseolor (Llrge ~ussy III I lOW) IIorus
- frlgflls (Cr:et Rlllo_) ruDr. (Red MulllerrYI N, p. C
- -
- hlllltl1s (511111 Yussy ~111ow' - .Ibl (lIhlte Mulberryl
fnterlor (S.ndll.r III Ilow)
- nfgr. (Il.ek VIlIOv) IERBERIDACEAE (BARBERRY FAMILY)
- pedf ce Il.r1s It BerberIs
-
petfollrts (Slender 1I1110v' U - thunbergfl (Jlp.ne,e B.r~erry,
::::z rfgfd. (StHf (Rlg1d) 111 I 10WIS1. - ,ulg.rfS (lurope.n BarberrYl
- serf..f.. (Autulln WIllOW)
!'opulus MEMISPERMACEAE (II00NSEED FAMILY)
- .1bl (Wftlte popl.r) MenfsperllulI
~ b.I...fter. (B.IsIII P,pl.r, B~I - c.n'dense (MoonSeed) C
- xe.n.denSfS (Clrollnl YOpllr)
deltofdes (Cottonvoodl t LAURACEAE (LAUREL FAMILY)
- gr.ldfdentlt. (Llrge-toOtned Aspen) SUSltrU
- nlgr. (II.ct popl.r) .Ibfd.. (WhIt. Slss.tr.s) M. U. C
- -
- tre'Dlolde. (Ir,lIblln, Aspen) I
SAXIFRAGACEAE (SAXIFRAGE FAHILYl
JUGLAIOACEAE (WALNUT FAMILll -L Rlbes sp. (Currlnt)
Juglans IlIerte.nuII (WIld Black c~rr.nt'SIJSwL
- elnerel (Butternutl C - eynosllltl (Prlet Iy lioose err)')
- nlgr. (Bl.et Wllnutl -. p. C - grossullrl. (G.rden Goose~erryl
t aryl - hlrtellulI I~rlstly Curr.ntJ U
- cordltorDls (Bttternu~ Hletory) C - "('ustre ISvu" CurrantJ ~, U
- OVlt. ISh'9~.rt Hletory) U, t - nlgrulI lbl.ct ~urre~tJ
- oder.tu. 18utt.lo ~urr.ntl
CORYLACEAE CHAZEL FAMILY) - ru~ruII ("orthern Ren turrlntl
Cor)'lus . - ,.tlvu. (~Jrdpn Re4 Curr.ntl
..er1eu. (AmerICan "uelnut) R - trlste D4d ~urrant) II
- cornut. lle.ked H.zel~ut)
-
~R . 1-0 b :,111 q~I'~L I T A'I 1 t)1:f1~ I! AliI! Rl ,.lflN C. 'I I ~ I I' II .\ " (I r (
~p~tl Shrub Ch('ckl1st .. f_~'l~
HAMAMEL1D~C[AE (~ITC" HAZEL F^~lLYl FAOArFAE - Cont1nu"d
H''''III~ 1 is ROblnta ~V (Locustl
- vi rglnl~n. (.1 tch-h~zel1 ~ - ps('utlo-JCJcl. (RIJck locust)
Car.gJn.
PLUANI.Cf'E (Pl~H[-TR[E FA~ILY) - arbor~sc~ns (Slb~rlan PeJ-shrub)
PI Hanus
occidentalis (Sycalllor~) N, C RUT Ar.EAf (RUE FA!HlY)
-
Xantholy1um
ROSACEAE (ROSE FAMILY) - amcrlc.nulll (Prickly Ash)
Spiraea sp .
- alba (Me.dowsw~et) SIMARUBACEAE (QUASSI^ FAM!LY)
- latifolia (Sroad-leaved Meadowsweet) Ailanthus
- trilobata (Meadowsweet) - altisslma (Tree-of-Heaven)
- unhouuel (Meadowsweet)
Sorb.rfa ANACARDIACEAE (CASHEW FAMILY)
- sorblfoli. (Fals~ Spiraea) Rhus
Py ru s - radic.ns (Poison Ivy)
- COlllmunis (Pear) - typhtna (Staghorn Sumac)
coronaria (Wild Crabapple) C
- lIalus ("'pple) "'QUIFOLIACEAE (HOllY FAMilY)
lIelanocarpa (Black Chokeberry) R 11 ex
-
Sorbus americana (American Mountain-ash) - verticlllata (Black Alder. Wlnterberry)
- Sorbus aucuparia (Mountain Asn ) Nemopanthus
Al!lelanchier - lIucronata (Mountain-holly) U
- alnlfolia yar compacta (Alder-leaf Juneb~rry) R
- arborea (Downy SerYlceberry) CELASTRACE"'E (STAFF-TREE F"'~ILY)
- hUlI\l115 (Low Juneberry) Euonyaus
- laevis (Smooth Juneberry) - alatus (Winged Spindle-tree)
- sanguinea (~oundleaf Jun~berry) - atropurpureus (Burning 8ush) N. p. R. C
- spicaU ~ar spicata (Juneberry) - europaeus (European Spindle-tree)
- spicaU ur stolonl f~ra ~Juneberry) R - obovatus (Running Strawber~y 8ush)
Cratugus sp (Hawthorn) Celastrus
-L. coccinea (Hawthorn)A11 - scandens (Clillbing Bittersweet) C
- crusgalli (Cockspur Hawthorn)
- .onogyna (Single-seeded Hawthorn) ST"'PHYLE"'CE"'E (BL...DDERNUT F...MILY)
- succulenta (Hawthorn) - SUphylea
Rubus sp (8ralllb le) trifolla (8laddernut) C
- ,"egheniensis (Comllon 81ackb~rry)
- 1daeus (European raspberry) "'CER"'CE"'E (M"'PLE FAMILY)
fl.gellaris (Dewberry) R "'cer
- occidental is (81.ck Raspberry) g1nnala (....ur Mapla)
- -
- ordor.tus (Purple-flowering Raspberry) C - negundo (Manitoba Mapl~)
- pubescens (Dwarf Raspberry) - nigru. (BlaCk Maple) C
- strigosus (Colllllon ~ed Raspberry) a - platanoldes (Norw.y Maple)
Ros. scendens sp (Rose) - rubru. (Red Maple)
- bland. (Smooth Wild Rose) -V seccharinulI (Silver Maple) C
- canina (Dog-rose) saccharum (Sugar Maple)~1
- carolina (Carolina Rose) - splcatu. (Mountain Maple) B
.ult1flori (Multiflora)
- rubrifolia (European Rose) HIPPOC...ST...N...CE...E (aUCKEYE F...MllY)
-
'runus ...esculus
- a,iu. (Sweet. Cherry) - hippocastanu. (Horse Chestnut)
- nana (Flowering alllond)
- nigra (Wild Plu.) RHAMM"'CE...E (8UCKTHORN FAMilY)
pensyl"n1ca (Pine Cherry) a Rha.nus
- ,erottn, (al,ck Cherry) C ,lnifolia (Alder-leaved BUCkthorn) B. R
- -
- tollentO.. - catharttca (Collllllon Buckthorn)
- w1rgtntan, (Choke Cherry) a - fraRgula (Alder 8uckthorn)
Chaenollel IS Ceanothus
- Japontca (Japanese Qutnce) - a.ericanus (Mew Jersey T~.) U. C
Arontl
prunlfolta (purple Chokeberry) U YIT...CE...E (VINE FAMilY)
- Parthenoci ssus ('
FA8...CEAE (8EAN FAMILY) - tnnrta (F.1se-grape) C
Gledl tsll - Quinquefolla {Virgtnla Creeper)
aQuatlca '(\later locust) Vitts
- trtacanthoS (Honey locust) M. p. C rip.rfa (Riverbank Gr.pe)
-
- Cladrasth
lutea (Yellow \lood) Tlll...CE...t (LIMOEN FAMilY)
- T11la
/ a.erlcan~ (~.erlcan RasswoOdl52,S'
'II I ~11I'!Illl ^" 11l~"rIIU ^~U III.:,IIIN l'lIj\ VI Illlll '.II I'nl~ I ,
Tret' and ~hrull CheCkl'st_:.:2.!~ WI<.I07
lHY'IElAE~CEAt (M(ZEREUH FA~ILYI CAPR I F(,L I ACEAE (_~'IET ,C'lE f ~HIl T I
1Ilrc. 1I, e rv, I I a
p"ustrU ILeathHwood) U - 10nICl'r. INorthern aush Honepuckle) U
-
Lonlcera
ELAEAr.NACEAE (OLE^STER FAHILY) - canadpnS1S 1~ly HoneysuCkle) B
EI.e.gnus - dlOlca (Wild Honpysuck1e1
'lIguHI tolll (RuSSian Ullve/ - hI rsuta (Ha Ify Honeysuckle / R, B
-
co.~utata (51 Iverllerryl R - fnvolucrata (four-Itned HoneysuCkle)
-
Shep!lerdll - morrowl (Horro. Honeysuckle)
c,Jl.densl s Illuttalo11erryl R - tartarlca (lart.rl.n HoneysuCkle)
-
- Yl110$l INorthern HoneysuCk Ie)
CORNACEAE (D.:'511000 FAHILY) - xylosteu. IE.ropean HoneysuCkle)
1:0 rllus 5ymphorlcarpos
.1 Urnlfolla IAlternate-leaYed uogwOOd) - alllus I SnOwlltrry) U
-
- ._O"lUIII I Red WIllow) R, C - occldentalls (Vol tllerry I R
c'l\IdensU (BunChllerry) II Llnnaea
-
- florlda (FlowerIng DogwOOd) N. p. R - bore.lls (Twintlower) B
- racelllosa (PanlCled uogwOOdJ K. I: I rl OSUUIII
r. gosa IRound-leaYed UogWOOd) - aurantlacul1l ur pertollatum Ivtld I:otfeel
~ stolonl ter. IMed-olser UogwoOdl II ~I Vlrllurnuftl sp I Y1 rllu rnum)
- acerltOllulI (Maple leat Vlrburnuml C
ERICACEAE (HEATH FAHIL Y) - alnltollu. (Holllllellushl R
Ledu. - cassl nOl des (Witherod) R
groenlandlcuftl ILabrador leal U, II - lantana (Waytirlng-treel
-
AnClrollleCla - I entago (Nanny-llerryl
- g"ucophyll. 11I09 KOSlllliryl H - OPUlus I Gue I der- rose)
Ch..aedaphne -V- ratlnesqulan~M \uowny "'rrow-~~odl
- c.'ycullta ILeatherlutJ u trllobulI IHI~h-lluSh Cranllerryl BMI
t.p1ga.. Sallbucus sp I E I de rberry I
repens IMayflower or Ground laurel I R ~ canadensIs ICOl:lIDOn E1derberryl SIJ 1'1'\,
-
6.u I theri. - pubens IRed Uderberry)
- ~1spldula ICreeplng Snowberryl U. B
- procumbens IWlntergreen) B
,a71uss.cla -
- O.ccata Illlact HuckleDerry) R
la'." -
- pOlltOlla 1I109 lallrel I U
UCClnlue -
- ..gustifollue (LOW Sweet Illuellerry) U
cory.bosllll IHlghbusll Bllleberry) R Status: I - lationally rare
- ILarge Cranberry) P - PrOYlnClally rare
- _croc a rpon
- .,.rt 11101 des IVelYet-lelf Blueberry) R - Regionally rare IMTRCA)
- o~coccos ISII.II Cranberry U - Unco..on In the MTRCA regIon
- ,.IIUII. Ip.le Blueberry) N. p. U
CII1.apllil1 Range:
- u.oe".ta IPlpslssewa) R. 8 C - C.rollnl.n specIes, characterIstic ot the Oec 1 duou s
Mooeses Forest RegIon; speCies generally found to the south
..Hlor. lOne-flowered PyrOIa) U, B II - Borul specIes, ch.ract.rlstlc ot the Great Lakes -
-
'1 ro 11 St. LawrenCe Forest Region; species generally fOllnd
- ."rHol,. IPlnk or Wlllte pyrolil U. II to the north
- el11pt1ca IShlnlut) I
- secunda lOne-sIded PyrOI.1 R. B Abllndance: A - AbllnClant
,,'rens I Py ro I.) R, 8 M - MOderate
-
"oaotrop. U - UncolI.on
- ~1Poplthys tPlne-s.p) U, I
..1tlora Ilndlan Pipe) II 00.1 nence: 1 - First dOlllnant
-
Z - Seco.d dOlllnant
OL[ACEAE (OLIYE FAHILYI 3 - TlllrCl C10.1nant
Fraalnus
..erlcana IWhlte AShl
::z .'gra till act ASh~~*JSI ..
,ennsy I yanl ca (P.ed Ash)
- pennsylya"'Ca yar SlIlllntegerrl.a \~ree~ Ash)
-
- qga~r.ngulat. 16111e Ash' N. p. C
51 r1 ngl
- .ellrenSls var Japonlca IJapanese LIlac Tree)
- ..glgarl, 1I:08110n LIlac)
Forsythia
- slIspensa Itorsytllla)
l1,ustruII
- ..'gare IPrlYetJ
MlI Hlll'll11 r .," TlIHI!Il !'J ~'tU HI t..I')1l ~l)~l I ~ ( III ~~ 1\ \ t r I' J I( I I Y
~~.IO~ tllrd Chcckl"t
AREA C"")+<' ,l ~ \ ,j, II~ ~\ G\ r<:.~, ,0" ~':,A DAll .ILt~~ ~ t '~'1V.J 19 \;".1...-
~...!-_.
It! ~ 'l, '/ /1
DBSEAVER(S) / AlI.vi t) TIllE 10
/ .
~~!..~ ~ ~ !.. co - ACClPSTK10AE - Contlnuec
LOON FAMILY (GAVIIOAE) __ __ __ __ Northern HJrr,er (Circus cyaneus) A
---- Arctic Loon (Gavi. arctlca) __ __ __ __ Shar~ed-shlnn~d Hawk (^cCl~tter strtatus)
---- Common Loon (G immer) __ __ __ __ Cooper's Hawk (A coo;>erl;) P, A
---- Red.trhoated Loon (G su1lata) __ __ __ __ Northern G~s~awk (A ~en t, II s) R
__ __ __ __ Aed-shouldered Hawk (8utee 11neatus) P, A
GRE8E FAMILY (POOICIPEOIDAE) __ __ __ __ 8road-wlnged Hawk (8 pIa ypterus) R
Horned Grebe (Poo;ceps aurltus) __ __ __ __ Red-tailed Hawk (8 JJma"ensls)
== == == :: Red-necked Grebe (P Grlse~en.) __ __ __ __ Rougn-legged Hawk (8 lag~~us)
__ __ __ __ Pied-billed Grebe (Podilymb~S podlceps) R __ __ __ __ Golden Ea~le (Aquila chry;aetos)
PELICAN FAMILY (PELECANIDAE) FALCON FA~ILY (FALCONIDAE~
__ __ __ __ Americ.n White Pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) __ __ __ __ American Kestrel' (Falco s"arverlus)
__ __ __ __ Merlin (F col umbarl us)
CORMORANT FAMILY (PHALACROCDRACIDAE) __ __ __ __ Peregrine Falcon (F peri~rtnus)
__ __ __ __ Double-crested Cormor.~t (Phalacrocorax auritus)
PARTRIDGE. PHEASA~TS. GRO;SE, PTARMIGA~S,
HURON, EGRET AND 81TTERN FAMILY (ARDEIDAE) TURKEY AND CUAIL FAM!LY ( HASiANICAE)
~ __ __ ~ Great 81ue Heron (Ardea herodias) R __ __ __ __ Gr.y P.rtridge (Perdix pe-eil)
American 8ittern (80t.urus lentlginosus) R __ __ __ __ Ring-necked Pheasant (Phaiianus calchlcus)
-- -- -- -- Cattle Egret (8ubulcus IbiS) __ __ __ __ Spruce Grouse (Dendragapus canadensis)
-- -- -- -- Green-backed Heron (8utorldes strlatus) __ __ __ __ Willow Ptarmigan (Lagopus lag~pus)
-- -- -- -- Great Egret (Cas=erodius albus) __ __ __ __ ~uffled Grouse (80nasa um,ellus)
:: == == == Least 81ttern (lxobrychuS exllis) R __ __ __ __ Greatar Prairie-Chicken (Tympanuchus rupic
---- Black-crowned Night Heron (Nycticorax __ __ __ __ Sharp-tailed Grouse (T pnaslariel1 us)
nyctlcoru) R __ __ __ __ Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavJ)
__ __ __ __ Northern 80bwhite (Colinus vlrgjnianus)
WHISTLING-DUClS. SWANS. GEESE AND DUCl FAMILY
(ANATlDAE) RAIL. GALLINULE A~D COOT FAMILY (RALLIDAE~
__ __ __ __ Tundr. Swan (Gygnus colulllbianus) ---- Yellow R.il (Coturalcops noveboracensis)
__ __ __ __ Mute Sw.n (C. olor) - __ __ __ __ King Rail (Rallus elegans)
__ __ __ __ Snow 600se (Chen caerulescens) __ __ __ __ Virginia Rlil (Rallus limlcola)
Brant (Br.nta bernicl.) __ __ __ __ Sora (Porzana c.rolln.)
Z :: == 161 C.nad. Goose (B c.n.densh)~_~ __ __ __ __ Co..on Moorhen (Gallinula chloropus) R
__ __ __ __ Woad Duck (Aix spans.) R __ __ __ __ ~erlcan Coot (Fulllca a~erlc.na) R
Green-winged Te.l (Anas crecca)
-- -- -- -- Americ.n 81.ck Duek (A. rubrlpes) CRANE FAMILY (GRUIDAE)
~ == == ~ Millard (A platyrhynchos) __ __ __ __ Sandhill Crane (Grus c.na~ensls)
Northern Pi ntlll (A .cutl)
-- -- -- -- Blue-winged Te.l (A. discors) R PLOVER FAMILY (CHARADRIICAE)
== == :: == "orthern Shovellr (A. clypeat.) __ __ __ __ Lesser Golden Plover (Pl~/ialls do~lnlca)
Gadw.ll (A St reper.) __ __ __ __ Se.lp.l.ate~ Plover (Charldrlus semipalma
:: :: :: :: ~eric.n Wigeon (~. ..eric.n.) I __ __ __ __ Piping Plover (C. melodus)
Canvasb.ck (Aythya vallsinerle) __ __ __ __ Killdeer (C vocl ferus)
-- -- -- -- Redheld (A. a.eriClnl) R
-- -- -- -- 11ng-nected Duct (A. colllrls) AVOCET FAMILY (RECURVIROSTRIAOAE)
:: :: :: = Greater SCIUP (A. .arl1.) ---- Aalerlc.n Avocet
Lesser Scaup (A. .fflnls)
:::::: == Co..Oft Elder (Sa.eterla .alllssl.l) SANDPIPER, CURLEW, GODWIT. TURNSTONE. SNI
__ __ __ __ ling Elder (5. spectlbills) DOWITCHER. WOODCOCK AnD ~HAL~ROPE FAMILY
OldsqulW (Cl.ngull ~ye.llls) (SCOLOPACIDAE)
-- -- -- -- Surf Seater (Mellnltt. per,piclllatl) __ __ __ __ Lesser Yellawlegs (Trlngl flavlpes)
== == == = Whitt-winged ScoUr (II fuse.) __ __ __ __ Solitary Slndplper (Actl'ls m.cularia)
__ __ __ __ Coamon Goldeney. (Iucephal. clangul.) __ __ __ __ Upland Sandpiper (B.rtra~l. longlcauda) R
Bufflehead (Buctphala albeal.) Whl.brel (Nuaenlus phlleopuS)
-- -- -- -- Hooded Me'g.nser (Laphad1tes cucullatus) R == == :: :: Hudsonlan Godwit (Llaosa hlenastlca)
-- -- -- -- Coamon Merg.~ser (Mergus aer~.nser) __ __ __ __ Marbled GodwIt (L. fedo"
-- -- -- -- Re~.breasted Merganser (M serra tor) __ __ __ __ sulpalmated Sand:llp'H (.alldrlS pu~llla)
:: == :: == Rud~, Duck (Ol1~ra J.aaicensls) __ __ __ __ Least Sandpiper (Ca1ldri! minutlll.)
__ __ __ __ Pectoral S~ndpiper (C l'I~lanotoS)
vULTURE FAMILY rCATHARTIDAEl Ounlln (C al plna)
Turke, Y~lture (Cathartes .ura) :::: :: == Stilt SandpIper (C hi.a-toP'ls)
---- __ __ __ __ Short-blllo!d Dowitcher ( Ilnn~~romus 9ri;e
OSPREYS, KITES, EAGLE, HARRIERS A"O HAWl __ __ __ __ Co=aon SniPe (Gal Iln~~~ -Jll i~a90)
FAMILY -LACCIPSTRIDAE) a.erican Woodcnc~ (Scolo.ax ~Inor)
OS~rey (Pandron hallaetuS) -- -- -- -- Wilson's Ph.ldrl)pe (Ph41<ropu\ triColor)
-- -- -- -- Bald [Igle (Hall.ectuS leucocPoph.lus) :: == == :: Red-neCked ~h~larope (P 10b.luS)
----
11[T~U~uLlTAN !UKllllrU .\:I!I ~L(;l'JN CU:I.L~'1 TI'ltl ~ 1 'I ~ I r y
~--L!!.,,-c k II s t . I'J~lO..1 fA)R .101
L!1!...~ L r 0 !... C il T K Y AN!; I J A[ Con tin u ,..t
JAEGER5, GUllS 'NO TE~N fAMilY (lAR\OAE) __ __ __ __ Alder flycdt_her (E allhlrllln)
---- Pardsltlc J.eger (Sterlorarlus pardsltlcus) __ __ __ __ Willow F1YCdtchcr (E t rd t 11 t 1 )
---- lit tIe Gu 11 (lHUl IIlnutus) __ __ __ __ le.st flycdtch~r (E min,.,us)
Bon.parte's Gull (l ~nl1'del phI') __ __ __ __ Eastern Pho~~c (S.yornlS phoebe)
== == == == Ring-billed Gull (L del,wHensl s) __ __ __ __ Great Crested flyc.tcher (Hyt~rchus C,lnlt,
__ __ __ __ Herring Gull ( l argentatus) __ __ __ __ E.stern Klnyblrd (Tyrannus tyr.nnus)
---- C.'lforni. Gull (L calHornlcus)
R (utrallmltal) LARK fAMILY (ALAU01OAE)
---- Gre.t Bl.ck-b.c'ed Gull ( L Marus) R __ __ __ __ Horned l.rk (Eremopnlla .1pestrlS)
Caspian Tern (Sterna caspla) P, R
== == == == Common Tern (5 hirundo) R SWALLOW FAMILY (HIRUNOI"IOAE)
__ __ __ __ Arctic rern (5 paradtsaea) __ __ __ __ Purple ~.rtln (progne sub is)
Foster's Tern (5 forsterl) __ __ __ __ Tree Sw.llow (Tachyclneta blcolor)
= == == == Black hrn (Chlldonln nIger) R __ __ __ __ Northern Rough-ltl1nged Swallow (stelgidoptel
serripennl
AU~ AND ~URRE FAMILY (ALCIDAE) __ __ __ __ Bank Sw.llow (Rlparla rlparla)
__ __ __ __ Black Guillemot (Cepphus gr111e) __ __ __ __ Cliff Swallow (Hlrundo pyrrhonota)
__ __ __ __ Barn Swallow (Hlrundo rustlca)
PIGEON AND DOVE FAMILY (COlUMBIDAE)
Rock Dove (Colu:'lba livla) JAY, NUTCRACKER, MAGPIE AND CROW FAMilY
iZ'= = S6 Mourning Dove (Zenaida IUcroura) (CORVIDAE)
~ __ __ __ Gray Jay (Perlsoreus canadensis)
CUCKOO AND ANIS FAMILY (CUCULIDAE) __ t!i. ~Blue J.y (Cyanocltta crlstHa)
---- BliCk-bIlled Cuckoo (~OCCY1US erythropthalmus) __ __ __ __ Black-billed Magpie (Pica pica)
---- Te 11 ow-bill ed Cuc koo (C amerlcanus) __ __ __ __ Amerlc.n Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos)
__ __ __ __ Common Raven (Corvus cor.x)
BARN OWL fAMILY (TYTONIDAE)
__ __ __ __ Common B.rn Owl (Tyto ilba) CHICKADEE AND TITMICE FAMILY (PARIDAE)
__ __ __ __ Bl.ck-capped Chickadee (parus .trlcap,llus
TYPICAL Owt FA"llY (STRIGIDAE) __ __ __ __ Boreal ~hlckadee (P hundsonlcus)
---- Eastern Screech.Owl (Otus aslo) R __ __ __ __ Tufted Titmouse (P blcolor)
---- North.rn Hawk-Owl (Surnla uluh)
---- Ba rr.d Owl (Strlx varia) NUTHATCH FAMILY (SITTIDAE)
Great Gray Owl (S nebulou) __ __ __ __ Red-breasted Nuthatch (Sltta canadensis) R
-- -- -- -- long-eared Owl (Asia atus) . __ __ __ __ White-breasted Nuthatch (S carolln!"s;s)
-- -- -- -- Short-eared Owl (A. fla.meus) R
== = = = Borul Owl (Aesol1us funereus) CREEPER FAMILY (CERTHIIDAE)
__ __ __ __ Northern S.w-whet Owl (A. .c.dlcus) __ __ __ __ Brown Creeper (Certhla amerlcana)
GOATSUCKER FAMILY (CAPRIMUlGIDAE) WREN FAMILY (TROGlDDYIIDAE)
__ __ __ __ Co..on Nlghth'WI tChordelles .Inor) ---- Carolln. IIren (Thryotnorus ludOflcl.nus) R
Chuck-wl11's-wldow (Caprilllulgus carollne"sls) ---- Bewick's Wren (Thryolllares bewlckll!
:::::: :: IIhlp-poor-wlll (C voctferus) __ __ __ __ House Wren (TroglOdytes .edon)
__ __ __ __ Winter Wren (T. troglOdytes)
SIIIFT FAMILY (APODIDAE) it -- -- -- Sedge Wren (CIstothorus platensls) R
__ __ __ __ Chl.nlY Swift (Ch.etura pIl.glc.) __ __ Jl1J Marsh IIr.n (C. p.lustrls) R
HUMMING!IRD FAMILY (TROCHIlIDAE) KINGLETS, GNATCATCHERS, WHEATERS, BLUEBIRD
__ __ __ __ Ruby-thro.ted Hummingbird (ArchllochuS colubrls) SOLITAIRES AND THRUSH FAMILY (MUSCICAPIDAE
__ __ __ __ Rufous Hu..lngbird (Sel.sphorus rufus) __ __ __ __ Golden-crowned Kinglet (Regulus s.tr.apa)
__ __ __ __ Ruby-crowned Kinglet (R Cl1endula )
KINGFISHER FAMILY (AlCEDINIDAE) __ __ __ __ Blue-gr.y Gnatcatcher (Pol!optila caerule.
"- __ ~ ~Be1ted Kingfisher (Ceryll alcyon) __ __ __ __ Eastern Bluebird (Slalla sl.lls)
__ __ __ __ Yeery (C.tharus fuscescens)
WDDDPECIER FAMilY (P1CIDAE) __ __ __ __ Gr.y-chleked Thrush (C mlnlmus)
Red-headed Woodplcker (M.l.nerpls erythroceph.lus) __ __ __ __ Sw.lnson's Thrush (C. ustulatus)
-- -- -- -- Red-bellied Woodpecker (N. c.rolinus) __ __ __ __ Henllt Thrush (C. gutt.tus)
:: == = = Yellow-bellied S.psucker (Sphyr.plcus ..rius) __ __ __ __ Woodthrush (Hyloclchl. mustell"a)
Down1 Woodpeck!r (PicoidlS pubescens) __ __ __ __ Aalric.n Robin (Turdus mlgratorlus)
-- -- -- -- Hairy Woodpecker (P. .Illosus)
-- -- -- -- Three-toed 1I00~pecker (P trld.ctylus) CATBIRD, MOCKINGBIKD A"D THRASHEK FAMILY
-- -- -- -- Bl'ck-backed ~?odpec.er (P .rtlcus) (HIMIDAE) (
-;1= = t1I Northern Fllc~~r (Colaptes auratus) __ __ __ __ Gr.y Catblr1 (Oumetell. carol '~eftsl')
__ __ __ __ PIleated Woodptcker (Dryocupus plleatus) __ __ __ __ Northern Hockln~btrd (Mlmus pulyglottoS) q
__ __ __ __ Brown Thrasher (Toxostom. rufum)
TYRANT flYCATCHER FAMILY (TRYA""IDAE)
~__ __ __ Ollve-sH~d F~Jcatch~r (Contopus borealis) PIPIT F^MllY (HOTACILlID^f.)
__ __ ~ E.stern Wnod P~ewee (C vlrens) __ __ __ __ Wat", Pipet (Antn." SPln.lett.)
Yellow.bellled Flyca~cher (Empldon.l fl.vlventrls)
=::: = ACldl.n FlYCHrher (E. otresenns) II (ex~r.llmltal)
~~U..:'!~'l~~
t,V(<./lO
· 0 PO P CO 0 PO P CO - EHlI(WIZIOA( 'Contlnue,j -
J - - - WAxWING f.'HILY (OOHIlYCllllOAU = = = = Sw~.p Spdrrow iH geOr~lanJ)
~ -!\1 SZCedH W....ln':/ (BoUlbyc!lla ~arrulus) _ _ _ _ Whlte-tllrodted >1'Hrllw (lllnotrichla
Jlblc"lll~) W
SIlRIKE FAMILY (LANIIOH) _ _ _ _ Whlte.crowned Spdrrow (Z. le'l,,,pllrys)
Log,:/erholad Shrike (Lanius ludovlclJnu\) R Oark-eyed Junc" (Junco hye"alis)
- - - - = = = = Lapland Lon9sp~r (Cal'arlus IJ~ponlcus)
STARLING FAHILY (STURNIOAE) _._ _ _ S~ltll's Lon,:/spur (C plctus)
_ _ _ _Juropean Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) ~ Bobolink (Ooll..honyx oryzlvorus)
~ _ _ l!l Red-wInged 51.,tbtrd (A,:/eIJlus phoenlceul
VIREO FAMILY (VIROENIOAE) _ _ _ _ Eastern Headowlan (Sturnell. lagn.)
White-eyed Vireo (Vireo grlseus) Western Meadowlark (S neglecta) R
- - - - Solitary Vireo (V solltarlus) - - - - Rusty BlackblN (Euphagus ..arollnus)
- - - - Yello..-throated Vireo (V flavlfrons) R - - - - Brewer's Blackbird (E cyanocephalus)
- - - - Warbling Vlreo (V gllvus) - - - - COIII",on Grackle (Qulscalus quiseula)
= = = = Phlladelph14 Vireo (V phlladelphlcus) = = = = Bro..n-headed Co..blrd (Holothrus iter)
_ _ _ _ Red-eyed Vireo (V ohaceus) _ _ _ _ Orchard Oriole (Icterus spurlus)
_ _ _ _ Northern Oriole (I galbula)
WOOD WARBLERS, TANAGERS, GROSBEAKS, BUNTI~GS,
SPARROWS. LONGSPURS, BLACKBIRDS, MEADOWLARKS FINCH FAMILY (FRINGILLIOAE)
AND ORIOLE FAMILv (EHBERIZIOAE) _ _ _ _ Plne Grosbut (Pinlcula enuclutor)
Blue-..lnged Warbler (Ver~ivora pinus) Purple Finch (Carpodacus purpureus)
- - - - Golden-..lnged Warbler (V chrysoptera) - - - - House Finch (C ~exlcanus)
- - - - Tennesses Warbler (V peregrina) - - - - Red Crossblll (Loxi! curvlrostra)
- - - - Orange-cro..ned Warbler (V celata) - - - - White-winged Cr~ssblll (L leucoptera)
- - - - Nashville Warbler (V ruflcapllla) - - - - COllll:lon Redpoll (CHdue~1s t1alll:::ea)
- - - - Northern Parula (Parula .merlcana) ~ - - - Pine Slstln (C pinus) R
= = = = Yello.. Warbler (Oendroica peteChia' ~ =~ .sJ.,AlIerlcan Goldfinch (C trhtls)
Black-throated Green Warbler (0 vlrens) E'enlng Grosbelk (Coccothraustas vespertl
- - - - Blackburnlan Warbler (0 fusea) - - --
= = = = Plne Warbler (0 pinus) WEAVER FINCH FAHILY (PASSERIDAE)
Black-throated Blue Warbler (0 caeruleslens) R House Sparro.. (Passer domestlc'lls)
- - - - Prarle ~arbler (0 dlscolor) - - - --
- - - - Pal. Warbler (0 palmarulII)
....... - - - B.y-brusted Warbler (0. castanu) ONTARIO BREEDING BIRD ATLAS COO!S
= = = = Blackpol1 Warbler (0 str14ta) Specles Observed (Enter code In column heeded .0.)
_ _ _ _ Cerulean Warbler (0 cerulea) R X Specles observed In breedlng SNson
Bl.ck-and-Whlte Warbler (Mnlotllta ,.rla) .
- - - - Allerl can Redstart (SetoPhaga rut I cllla I Possible Breedlng (Enter code In col umn headed .~)
- - - - Prothonotary Warbler (Protonotarla cltru) SH SQecles observed In breedl~g season In suitable nesting
- - - - hibltat
_ _ _ _ Ovenblr4 (Selurus aurocap\1lus) SM Slngle ;"Ie(s) present, or breeding calls heard, ln sultabl
_ _ _ _ Northern Waterthrush (S nouboracensis) nesting habitat In breeding season
_ _ _ _ Loul s 14na Waterthrush (S motae \1'14) Probable Breedlng (Enter code In colUlll/l headed .p.)
Mourning Warbler ,Oporornls philadelphia)
- - - - . P Pllr observed In suitable nesting habitat ln nestlng seasOI
_ _ _ _ COlllmon Ye,lowthroat (Geothylypsls trlchas) T Penaanent territory presumed through reglstratlon OJf terrl1
_ _ _ _ Hooded Warbler (Wlhonla cltrlna) bellavlour (song, etc ) on at least t..o days, a weet or lIIOrl
Wllson's Warbler (II pusllh) apart at the sanoe place.
- - - - Canada Warbler (II canadensls) 0 Courtship or display. Including Interaction between a ule
- - - - Y II b t d Ch t (I t 1 I ) I female or two lIIales. Including courtship feeding
_ _ _ _ e 0..- reas e a c er . v rens V ViSiting probable nest site
_ _ Scarlet Tan.gar (Plranga olhacea) A Agitated behaviour or anxiety calls of an adult
L l[ ~ Northern CudlR1l. (Cardlnalls cardlnallsl B Brood patch on adult ftlllale or cloacal llrotuberance 0:'1 Illu'
- Rose-brusted 6rosbeak (Pheucttcus ludovlc14nus) 1I.la (for blrds examined In the hand)
- - - - Black-headed Grosbeak (P ulanocephalus) N Nest-bul1dlng or excavation of nest hole
- - - - Indigo Bunttftg (passertna cyanea) Confll'l11ed Breedlng (Enter code In co1u"," headed .CO.)
- - - - Dickcissel (Spln aaerlcan.) DO Dlstractlon display or Injury feIgning.
- - -- Rufous-slded Towhee (Plpllo erythrophthal.us) NU Used nest or egg sllells fo~nd (occupied or laid ..Ithln the
- - - - AlI,riC1n Tree. Sparrow (Splnlla arboreal period of tile survey) Use only unique and Uft::lIsUkable III
- - - - or shells.
_ _ _ _ Chipping Sparrow (Splnlla passerina) FY Recently f1ed~ed young (nldlculous specles) or downy 1Oul:g
Clay-colored Sparrow (S. p.llid.) a (nldHugeous spertes). Use ..Ith caution for young starlin!
- - - - Fhld Sparrow (S pusllla) and swallovs, ""Ich IIOYe sOlie ~Istance after fledging ""ill
- - - - l'eIIIainlng dependa,t upon parents for food.
_ _ _ _ Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes grllllneus) AE Adults leaving or enterIng nest sites In c1rcur:lstances
_ _ _ _ Lark Sparrow (Chandestes grllllllacus) Indlcatlng occupied nest (Including high nests, nest holes,
Savannah Sparro.. (Passerculus sandwichensls) nest boxes, the contents of whiCh cannot ~e s~en)
- - - - Grasshopper Sparro.. (Anl",odralllus SI'I4nnarUIll) R FS Adult carrying hecal sac or f~o.J to youn~ B'! careful wll
- - - - , this, esp~cl.lly when on t~~ e1~e M a bl~ck, since sOllIe 01
_ _ _ _ Henslow s Sparro", (A henslowll) T, II collect fnOd . 1~n9 dlstanc~ fro. ~1Ie nen Also, note thl
LeConte's Sparrow (A lecontell) difference betwe~n this an~ CIl'lrlShIP feeding (Ill
- - - - Sharp-tailed Sp.rro.. (A raudacut'JS) liE !lest contalnln~ eg9s !r t~ "en Ilso contal,~ a co..blrd
- - - - Fox Sparrow (panerell a "laca I rP.cord HE for bOth the host dnd the cowbi r.2
-,. - - - NY Nest wi th YOU"9 seen or II~Jrd If a youn? co..) I rd is fout\(
~ _ _ t!J1 Song Sparrow (Melosplza lIIelodla) a nest. record NY for bOth the host dnd tne cl)~bird
. Lincoln's Sparrow (H llncol"li)
- - - - Status T _ Provl,clally '.hr~dtened
- P . Provincially 'Jre
II - Re'jtonally rare (~TilCA)
~ET~OPOLITA" TOMONTO AND ~EGIO" CONSEMYATION AuTHORITy
Mammll Checklist ~R. )"
'" WIl1HAft: j:f1W-1 ./.%, Iv f , , "1 tll...'}'l""'"
AREA OA TE 3/ h) c 1 9 .-ll=.-
' J 0/
/
OBSE~YEll(S) 1k:~,i/ #1>> ~I /JfJu TIME TO
II I
NEw WO~LO OPOSSOMS (OIOELPHIOAE) ~AT. MICE AND YOLE FAMILY (MURIDAE)
- Opossoms (Oldelphls vlr9lnilnl) ~ - Meadow Vole (Microtus pennsylvlnlcus)
- House MOus. (Mus musculus)
SHREW FAMILY (SORICYOAE) - Muse r It (Ondltrl zibethicus)
- Short-tilled Shrew (Blartnl brevlClUdl) - White-footed Mous. (Peromyscus leucopus)
- PIg_y Shrew ("icrosore. hoyt) U - Deer Moun (P mlntcul Hus)
- M.sked Shrew (Sore. cinereus) - NorwlY ~It (~lttuS norveyicus)
- SeOky Shrew (S 'ullleus) U - Southern Bog Lemming (Syn.ptOIllYs cooper I ) U
- Wlter Shrew (S pll~stris)
JUMPING MICE ANO JE~BOAS FAMILY (DIPODIDAE)
MOLE FAMILY (TALPIOAE) - WOOdland Jumping Mouse ( ~apaeoupus inSign,s) U
- St.r-nose Mole (Candylur. cristata) - Meldow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonlus) U
- H.iry-tailed Mole (Parascalops breweri) U
NEw WO~LD PORCUPINE FAMILY (EREIHIZONTIDAE)
SMOOTH-FACED BAT FAMILY (VESPERTILIONIDAE) - PorcupIne (Erethlzon dorsatun) U
- Big Brown Bit (Epteslcus fuscus)
- Si her-h. Ired Bit (Luloryct.rh nocthlgans) U DOG FAMILY (CANIDAE)
- hd Bit (Laslurus borellis) U - Coyote (Clnts lltrans) U
- HOlrY Bit (L ctnereus) U - Red Fo. (Vulpes vulpes)
1C.,n's Bit (Myoth keenli) U Grey Fo. (Urocyon cinereolrgent.us) U. P
- -
- S..ll-footed Bit (M lelbll) U
- Llttl. Brown Bit (M luci fugus) BEAR FAMILY (URSIDAE)
- E.stern Plpistr.lle (Plpistr.llus subflouus) U - BliCk Belr (Ursus l.erlClnus) R
RABBIT AND HARE FAMILY (LEPORIDAE) RACOON FAMILY (PROCYONIDAE) -I ("It. ,1:.0 }f'J.5
SnowShoe Hlr. (L.pus Imerlcanus) V Rlcoon (Procyon lotor)
-
- European Hire (L .uropltus) U
- Elst.rn Cottontlll (Sylvlllgus florld.nus) WE,ASH FAMILY (MUSTELlDAE)
- Rlv.r Ott.r (Lontr. c.n.d.nsls) U
SQUIRREL FAMILY (SCIURIDAE) - Strlp.d Skunk (M.phltls mephitis)
- Northern Fl,lng Squlrr.l (Gl.uco.,s slbrlnus) - Er.ln. (Must.l. ,r.lne.)
- Southern Fl,lng SquIrrel (G. ,olans) - Long-t.tl.d We'lel ( M. fr&nlt. )
- Groundhog (M.r.ot. .0n'l) - MInk eM. ,Ison)
- Gre, Squl rr.l (Sclurul c.rolln.nsls)
- [.stern Chlp.unk (To.l.s strl.tul) DEER FAMILY (CERVIDAE)
- Rid Squlrr.l (Ta.lasclurUI hudlonlcus) - Whlt.-t.ll.d D.er (OdOCOII.us"lrglnl.nus) U
BEAVER FAMILY (CASTORIDAE) -
-L le.,er (C.ltor c.nad.nsls) U J11 -
-
.llll!! . - N.tlon.ll, R.re P - Provlncl.ll, R.r. II - Reglon.ll, R.r. U - Reglon.ll, Un(o..on
t,U R . .,,?.
METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
A~phibian and Reptile Checklist
AREA Ja/ #~,~tZ 1k~ ~ji Jo7- DATE .ilLf q 71 rI(,.~t.,,;j/ 19
,/ -
:/
OBSERVER{S) ~'5 4y\; I . /aj ;J~/v TillE TO
I
SALAMANDER ORDER (CAUDATA) LIZARD, SNAKE AND AMPHISBAENIAN ORDER (SQUAMATA)
- Jefferson Salamander (Ambystoma jeffersonianum) R Lizard Suborder (Lacertllla)
- Blue-spotted Sala.ander (A laterale) - Flve-lined Skink (Eumeces fasciatus) Un
- Spotted Salamander (A maculatum) U
- Silvery Salamander (A. platineum) R Snake Suborder (Serpentes)
- Tre.blay's Salamander (A. tremplayi) Un - Northern Ringneck Snake {Diadophis punctatu
- Four-toed Salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum) Un edwardsli) U
- MudpuPPY (Necturus maculosus) U - Eastern Hognose Snake (Heterodon platyrhino
- Eastern Newt (Notophthalmus vlrldescens) U - Milk Snake (Lampropeltls triangulum) Un
- Redback Sala~ander (Plethodon clnereus) - Northern Water Snake (Nerodia sipldon) U
- SMooth Green Snake (Opheodrys vernalis)
TOAD AND FROG ORDER (ANURA) - Northern Brown Snake {Storeria dekayl dekay
- A.erlcan Toad (Bufo a~erlcanus) - Redbelly Snake (S. occipitomaculata) U
- Spring Peeper (Hyla crucifer) - Northern Rlbbon Snake (Thaanophis sauritus
- Gray Treefrog (H. versicolor) septentrianalls) R
- Striped Chorus Frog (Pseudacrls triserlata) - Co..on 6irter Snake (T. Sirtalis)
- Bullforg (Rana catesbeiana) U
- Green Frog (R chaHans)
- Pickerel Frog (R. palustris) R -
- Northern Leopard Frog (R. plplens) -
- Mink Frog (R. septentrionalls) R -
- Wood Frog tl. sylwatlcl)
TURTLE OlDER (TESTUDINES)
- Snepplng Turtle (Chelydrl serpentine)
Midland Pllnted Turtle (Chryse.ys plcte .erglnatl) Status:
-
- Wood Turtl. (Cle..ys lnsculpte) I I - leglonelly Rar. (MTRCA)
Blendlng's Turtle (Emydoidla blandlngtl) R U - Unco.on
-
Mlp Turtl. (Grlpte.ys geographtce) I Un - Unknown
- f
- Stinkpot (Sternotherus odoratus) R
W~.1I3
'l'IIB MB'!'ROPOLI'!'AR '!'OROR'!'O AND REGION CORSBRVA'!'IOR AO'l'BORIn
ISSOBS BXPBC'!'BD '!'O BB DEAL'!' WI'!'B
BY '!'BB
WA'I'BR AND RBLA'!'BD LA1Q) MARAGBllBR'!' ADVISORY BOARD
IN 1989
Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board
Meeting 11/89
March 3, 1989
LIST OF ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD - 1989 W~,1/4
GENERAL
1 Proposed 1989 Project Files
2 1989 Preliminary Budget
3. Master Plan for Acquisition
WATERFRONT
1 1988 Development Activities
2 Etobicoke Motel Strip - Redevelopment Proposals
3 East Point Park - Environmental Assessment
4 Frenchman's Bay Master Plan
5 Bluffers Park Marina Official Opening
6 Colonel Samuel Smith Park - Marina Development
7 Former Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital
- MGS/Humber College Development Proposals
8 Marie Curtis Park/Canada Post Property
EROSION CONTROL
1. Sfte reports - detaf1s and cost estimates for all erosion control
activities for 1989
- K f ngsbury
- Gui1dwood Parkway
- Fa11fngbrook
- Ffshlefgh
- South Marine Drive
- Sylvan Avenue
- Greyabbey Traf 1
- Dufferin Street
- Carllle1 Court
- Eastern Beaches
- Crescentwood
- Sunnypofnt Ravfne
- Cachet Parkway
- Shorelfne Management Studfes
2 Inventory and Prforization of Erosfon Control Sftes for 1990
/2
w(< .IIb - 2 -
WATER MANAGEMENT
1- Clarification of Spill Zone Policy
2 1989 Floodplain Mapping Program
3 Dixie/Dundas Flood Protection Works
4 Keating Channel Dredging
5 Master Drainage Plan Approval Process
6 SPA (Special Policy Area) designations - various locations
7 Flood Warning System Improvements
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
1 Stouffville Reservoir Feasibility Study
2 Rouge Watershed Strategy
3. 1988 Sam Smith Annual Report
4 Rural Beaches Implementation Plan
5 City of Toronto - Nursery Proposal
6 Development Guidelines - Headwaters Strategy
7 Wetland Pol1 cy
8 Don River Project
9 Draft Metro Remedial Action Plan
10. Nursery Business Plan
11 Authority Land Management Plan
12. Duffins Creek Watershed Strategy - Proposal
13 1990 Preliminary 8udget
14. S.C.O.U.R. Report
15 MNR - Fi sheries Project
16. T~y ThQlPson Park - Interim Management
17. Tom.y ThQlPson Park - Gull Control Report
18. MNR - Forest Agreement
19. 1988 Keating Channel Report - Draft
20. C.N.S.S. Fisheries Project
February 21. 1989
BED/md
wf< lib
PROPOSAL FOR THE RENEWAL OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT FOR
GLASSCO PARK BETWEEN THE HTRCA
AND THE ONTARIO HERITAGE FOUNDATION
wR "7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Location and Description 1
3.0 History 2
4.0 Current Land Use 3
5.0 The Greenspace Plan for the Greater Toronto Region 4
6.0 Nursery Development Proposal for Glassco Park 5
6.1 Contract Growing of Native Plant Material 5
6.2 Nursery Expansion and Relocation 6
6.3 Proposed Nursery Site Location .6
6.4 Site Suitability 6
7.0 Proposal for Lease Renewal 7
Appendix
Environmentally Significant Areas 8
wR", ~
- 1 -
PROPOSAL FOR THE RENEWAL OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT FOR
GLASSCO PARK BETWEEN THE MTRCA AND
THE ONTARIO HERITAGE FOUNDATION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Authority has been concerned for some time with the decline of the
existing urban forest on ravine lands, and the need to re-establish forest
cover in valleylands which were formerly in agricultural use, but which now
form major portions of municipal parks systems. These forests stabilize
soils, provide wildlife habitat, and prOVide excellent passive recreation and
conservation education opportunities for urban residents. They also have a
direct, positive impact on water quality and aquatic habitat.
Recently, an opportunity has arisen to increase the Authority's effectiveness
in this area through expansion of the Authority's cooperative programming with
tbe regions and municipalities. Faced with the decline of existing natural
areas, the municipalities are anxious to enter into an agreement under which
the Authority would grow native trees for use in the revitalization and
expansion of the urban forest.
Part of Glassco Park has been identified as the preferred site for the
establishment of a tree nursery.
2.0 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
Glassco Park is composed of Part of Lots 21, 22, 23 and 24, Concession VII,
Town of Vaughan (formerly Vaughan Township). It is situated north of Major
Mackenzie Drive and east of Islington Avenue, to the east of Kleinburg. It
forms the northern portion of the Boyd Complex, a series of contiguous
properties on the Humber River. comprising 842 hectares. Glassco Park
constitutes 186 hectares of the Boyd Complex.
WR."~
- 2 -
The western half of Glassco Park consists primarily of valley lands along the
East Humber River. The property is bordered on its eastern boundary by the
Cold Creek valley. Access to the property is gained from the south by several
laneways along Major Mackenzie Drive, and from the north by Kipling Avenue.
Adjacent land uses are residential, agricultural, the McMichael Collection,
and the Bindertwine Park.
There are three Environmentally Significant Areas in Glassco Park (see
appendix) :
No. 30 McFayden Forest
No. 31 Sprengel's Area
No. 32 Glassco
These areas are primarily diverse, high quality woodlots containing some
Carolinian species, and a number of regionally or provincially rare species.
3.0 HISTORY
On September 17, 1968, J. Grant Glassco conveyed Glassco Park to the Crown in
perpetuity, provided that the lands be maintained and developed in the same
manner, to the same standard" and for the same general purposes as the lands
of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. The agreement
stipulated that the lands would be assigned to the Ontario Heritage
Foundation, and that J. Grant Glassco and Willa Glassco would reserve a righ~
to the lands during the lives of each of them. I
In July, 1969, a further agreement was reached between the Authority and the
Ontario Heritage Foundation, and Willa Glassco. Under the agreement. Willa
Glassco relinquished all rights to the property, and the Authority leased the
property from the Foundation for a period of 25 years. The Authority agreed
to manage the lands as identified in the original agreement between J. Grant
Glassco and the Crown.
Provided that the Authority has complied with the terms of agreement, there is
wR ~~
- 3 -
a provision for the extension of the lease for a further 25 year period. The
renewal date is September 17, 1993.
4.0 CURRENT LAND USE
About 118 hectares (63%) of Glassco Park is currently used for agricultural
purposes. The balance of the property, primarily on valley slopes and
floodplain areas, consists of woodlots, plantations, and meadow, roughly
equivalent in area to the Environmentally Significant Areas.
There are four major use areas on the lands south of Major Mackenzie Drive:
(i) Boyd Conservation Area is a day use recreation area entered from
Islington Avenue. south of Rutherford Road. Facili~ies provided for the
public include:
- picnic areas;
- group camping;
- tobogganing and cross country skiing;
- trails for hiking and conservation education.
(ii) Boyd Field Centre was opened in 1969. accommodates 40 students and four
teachers. and is accessed from Islington Avenue. north of Rutherford
Road. The Field Centre offers opportunities for general conservation
education. specific studies of the site's natural and heritage
resources. and a special archaeological field school in July and August.
(iii) Kortright Centre for Conservation was opened in 1979 and is located west
of Pine Valley Drive. between Major Mackenzie Drive and Rutherford Road.
The main purpose of the Centre is conservation education. focusing on
water. wildlife/fish. forest. energy and land themes.
(iv) The Conservation Authority's Nursery is located on 2S hectares of land.
east of Islington Avenue. north of Rutherford Road. The nursery
w R . ,")
- 4 -
produces a variety of species and sizes of trees and shrubs for planting
on Authority, private and municipal lands. Approximately 35,000 shrubs,
15,000 bare root trees, and 1,000 caliper trees are produced annually,
and planted to achieve Conservation Land Management Program objectives
of:
- water management;
- soil conservation;
- water quality improvement;
_ protection of fisheries and reduction of sediment in streams;
- contribute to the expansion of the region's fishery and the
management of wildlife.
Plant materials are also provided for erosion control and waterfront
parks development.
S.O THE GREENS PACE PLAN FOR THE GREATER TORONTO REGION
The Greenspace Plan (October 1988) has been developed by the Authority to
focus its vision and its objectives; to balance urban growth with the
preservation of greenspace. The key resource elements in the plan include:
- Oak Ridges Moraine
- Watershed Management
- Waterfront
- Public Use of Conservation Authority Lands
- Archaeological Resources
- Conservation Education
The Public Use of Conservation Lands component was developed to ensure that
public use would be carefully managed in parts of selected aresa. An
extensive, two year public participation program was conducted during the
preparation of draft plans for several areas, including the Boyd Complex.
Upon completion, the draft plans were submitted to the public and special
interest groups, and their comments and ideas were incorporated into the plans
L~R n.~
- 5 -
wherever possible.
For the Boyd area, proposed outdoor recreation facilities include the re-
establishment of outdoor swimming, a recreation/education centre, a
conservation day camp, relocation of group camping, activity farm, equestrian
centre and/or operating farm, heritage resource interpretive area, upgraded
resource interpretive centre, a par 3 golf course or outdoor amphitheatre,
nursery expansion, and a Conservation Education Centre.
The facilities proposed for Glassco Park are the nursery, equestrian/farm
centre, conservation day camp, and an outdoor amphitheatre or par 3 golf
course, and the Conservation Education Centre.
6.0 NURSERY DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL FOR THE GLASSCO PROPERTY
6.1 Contract Growing of Native Plant Material
The Authority is currently negotiating an agreement with the City of
Toronto for the contract growing of native trees. A number of factors
have contributed to the City's interest in such an arrangement:
(i) Pressures from urbanization have reduced the lands available to
them on which they could maintain their own nursery.
(ii) Whereas exotic, ornamental species are readily available from
commercial growers, native species are not.
(iii) The species diversity in the urban forest is declining.
Traditional native species such as oaks, beeches, basswoods,
ironwoods and walnuts are declining rapidly.
In addition to street trees, ravine areas which constitute a large
portion of the urban forest are in need of a major replanting. In order
to maintain the integrity of these natural areas, it is imperative that
only native materials be utilized. The City estimates that 4 hectares
will be required to meet its needs.
wR ~3
- 6 -
Other municipalities such as Markham and Brampton, agencies and public
groups have expressed similar concerns, and an interest in participation
in a contract growing agreement. Such planting programs are supportive
of the objectives of the Conservation Land Management Program of the
Watershed Plan.
6.2 Nursery Expansion and Relocation
The lands suitable for nursery stock growing at the present Authority
Nursery location at Islington Avenue and Rutherford Road are currently
being used to capacity. Expansion to accommodate contract growing for
municipalities or increases in other programs may require the
development of a new site.
6.3 Proposed Nursery Site Location
The lands proposed as suitable for development of a nursery in Glassco
Park are located on tablelands between the East Humber River and Cold
Creek (see Figure 1>, and comprise 51 hectares.
6.4 Site Suitability
These lands are currently under cultivation and will require a minimum
level of effort for development. Water for irrigation is readily
available from the East Humber River, access is good from Kipling
Avenue, and the site is close to major roads including Major Mackenzie
Drive, Highway 7, Highway 401 and Highway 27.
Use of the site for nursery purposes is consistent with the terms of the
lease agreement between the Authority and the Foundation, will have no
negative impacts on the adjacent ESA's, and has potential as a
WR.12'-f
- 7 -
conservation education resource.
7.0 PROPOSAL FOR LEASE RENEWAL
The establishment of a tree nursery. and the growth of trees to a size
suitable for establishment in urban areas requires a period of many years.
The City of Toronto has expressed a desire to enter into a ten year agreement.
The other developments proposed in the Greenspace Plan also require a multi-
year development and operation periods in order to make them feasible.
Whereas the current agreement between the Authority and the Foundation expires
on September 17. 1993. and the Authority wishes to develop the property in a
manner consistent with the terms of the agreement. but over a period of time
that extends past September 17. 1993,
This report will be presented to the Water and Related Land Management
Advisory Bdard Meeting of the Authority and the Full Authority Meeting for
approval. Subject to the approval of the Full Authority. the HTRCA would be
requesting that the Ontario Heritage Foundation renew the current agreement in
1989 for a period of 25 years.
-
ENVIRONMENTALL Y SIGNIFICANT AREAS STUDY
tuR. ':l~ t.,
Vthe metropolitan toronto and region conservation authooty
ESA No. 30
McFayden Forest
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The McFayden Forest is located on the east valley wall of Cold Creek, north
of Major Mackenzie Drive and west of Pine Valley Drive, in the Town of
Vaughan.
The southern portion of this extensive mature-mixed forest is situated on a
northwest-facing slope. The forest to the north has both east-facing and
south-facing aspects. The valley wall is high and steep at its transition
from the flood plain, and grades into a gentle slope toward the tableland.
Two tributaries flow through the north and central portion of the community
in a southvest and northwesterly direction. The diverse, closed overstorey
is dominated by Sugar Maple (~ saccharum) and Eastern Hemlock (Tsuga
canadensis).
CRITERIA FULFILLED
Criterion 3
The extensive mature Sugar Maple and Eastern Hemlock forest is considered
high quality. A contributing factor to this high quality is the presence of
3 species in the overstorey which have Carolinian affinitiesz White Oak
w~.,~~
(Ouercus alba), Black Cherry (prunua serotina) and Shagbark Hickory (Carya
~), as well .. a Carolinian associated species Hop Hornbeam (Ostrya
virginiana) . An extensive, .ature forest, containing aature Carolinian
8pecies in the overstorey i8 seldom encountered in the region.
Criterion 5
The large .ature forests at thi8 site have an unusually high diversity of
overstorey species. In addition, the nuaerous aspects create a variety of
80i1 aoisture and .icro-climatic conditions resulting in a highly variable
ground cover component.
Criterion ,
The McFayden Forest contains regionally rare Hitchcock's Sedge (f!!!!
hitchcocklana) .
COMMENTS
Shagbark Hickory (Carya ~) a regionally uncommon 8pecies, occurs within
The McFayden Forest is bounded by cultivated farmland and --
the area.
pa.tureland. Fencing separates these areas from the forest which 8. 8
result remains relatively undisturbed.
-
ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS STUDY
lAR 1 ~7 )thl metropolitan toronto and region conservation author.ty
ESA No. 30
D
<\J
.
m E.S.A. SITE
0 500 1000
....... ....... , ....... ...... .
METRES
ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS STUDY
)the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authoFlty ().d<. 1:2 g
ESA No 31
Sprengell s Area
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The Sprengels's Area is located north of Major Mackenzie Drive and west of
Pine Valley Drive on the Cold Creek branch of the Humber River, in the Town
of Vaughan. The area contains a colony of regionally rare Sprengel's Sedge
(~ sprengelii).
The steep, high, east-facing valley wall is covered by an immature Sugar
Maple (~saccharum) forest which extends onto the tableland.
The overstorey is semi-open and dominated by Sugar Maple. The understorey
is dominated by Sugar Maple and Choke Cherry (prunus virginiana), and the
ground cover i. dominated by herbaceous species.
A thick leaf litter component is present throughout the area. The sol1s are
generally mesic, becoming wetter on the lower slopes. Young maples are
concentrated on the lower slopes, particularly the south-facing slopes.
Disturbance to the area consists of a trail which runs through the forested
tableland. The surrounding tableland is cultivated. Adjacent forest
.
communities on the valley wall and flood plain are grazed by cattle. As
yet, disturbance to the area is ainimal.
lA)~.\~~
CRITERIA FULFILLED
crt terion 3
The Sprengel's Area is considered of high quality since it contains an
iamature forest which i. ..tensive and undisturbed except for a trail
running through the western edge of the community. Regeneration of the
do.lnant canopy specie. (Sugar Maple) i. evident In the understorey. Sugar
Maple seedlings also fora part of the ground cover component. '!'he forest
la, therefore, self-.aintaining.
All 3 strata in the community are diverse. This is related to the changing
topography of the area caused by the presence of steep gullies on the valley
vall. The overstorey contains 9 species, including Black Cherry (prunus
serotlna), a Carolinian species. Tb~ understorey contains 12 species, of
which 2 are Boreal species. Choke Cherry and Mountain Maple (~ spicatum).
and 2 are Carolinian species. Black Walnut (Juglans nigra) and Blue Beech
(Carpinus caroliniana). Most of these species are found at low densities.
Criterion 6
Sprengel's Area is the only known site for Sprengel's Sedge (f!!!!
sprengelii) within the MTRCA region.
~be provincially rare Redside Dace (elinosto.us elongatus) is also found
bere.
COMMENTS
~e area .ay also be considered to have a high diversity of species pending
further inventory. Sixty-two species were fou~ to occur in the ground
cover In 1981.
"
\.
ENVIRONMENTAllY SIGNIFICANT AREAS STUDY
) ... me',opoI;". ,o<""'o.nd...... "",,,..ol... 'U'hO<;ty wi< . , 30
ESA No. 31
~
.
_E S.A. SITE
0 ~OO 1000
.........___ -"'II
METRES
~ R. '3' ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS STUDY
)the metropolItan 10ronlO and region conserva1ton aulhorlly
ESA No 32
~~:" ~1~:l '~~~a" "\~~'!.~~ .,fiy:...e: tl..nt/:Y-"~.11t>'Il
~ ..,;. _~~~~" akJ5~6.;!.~:-<Qi~-~~~
\ ..' _:..:....- !.. ~.. '''J"il./~".",,~
,~t....':.:1{;.f'~~'~ i.:.U \,'1 ~,)!jOn~J;:-.b ,~(~ ...>~!:l,~i
~ q.."d' ~~ I~ qnn ._j .J1\~~ "'l~:ii~~~~
.. - ~y ",' - . .... . .
_ \ .... H Ill. '..: t"::'J"..,'
.. ~. ~ ~.; ..... ..... .
... 4 ~...."
Glassco
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The Glassco area 1s located immedi,tely north of Major Mackenzie Drive, east
of Islington Avenue, in the Town of Vaughan. The river aeanders across a
broad flood plain at this point. The valley walls are steep and high in
most places. The surround ing land use is cul tivated far.land and
residential housing.
Mature forests of Sugar Maple (~ saccharum), Eastern Hemlock (Tsuga
canadensis) and Black Cherry (prunus serotina); and aature-mixed forests of
Eastern Hemlock and Sugar Maple are found on both east and west-facing
valley walle.
The majority of the flood plain is wet and forested with mature Sugar Maple
and Manitoba Maple (~ Negundo). Immature riparian forests of Sugar
Maple, Manitoba Maple and Willow (!!!!! sp.) are also found on the flood
plain.
The swamp communities are dominated by Eastern White Cedar (Thuja
occidentalis); and Black Ash (Fraxinus nigra) and White Ash (Fraxinue
americana).
Drier open areas support scrub communities dominated by American Ela (~
americana) and Manitoba Maple (~Negundo).
CRITERIA FULFILLED W R .13z...
Criterion J
The plant communities have been identified as high quality. Much of the
valley valls are forested with .ature-mixed Sugar Maple/Eastern Hemlock and
.ature Eastern Hemlock. Regeneration seems to be towards Sugar Maple. A
s..ll (orest on the west-facing valley wall is dominated by the Carolinian
species Black Cherry (prunus serotina). It is unusual to find Black Cherry
as a do.inant canopy species.
Criterion 5
The combination of mature deciduous and mature-mixed forests, iMmature
deciduous forests, scrubs and swamps results in a great diversitJ of
associated plant and animal species. Particularly on the valley walls,
changes in aspect are associated vith quite drastic changes in community
types and species composition. The aature-mixed Sugar Maple/Eastern Hemlock
forest in particular contained 48 resident bird species.
Criterion 6
The area provides a habitat for the regionally rare Thinleaf Sedge (~
cephaloidea).
COMMEIftS
!be regionally uncomaon Lake Sedge (~ lacustris) vas found in the
Glassco area. White-taUed Deer (OdocoUeus virginianus) vere observed on
both the east and vest sides of the river, on the forested valley vall and
on the scrub flood plain respectively.
~R. '3.3 ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS STUDY
.... .........;... 1O<on.o.nd ,..;0. "",,,...,,.ion .u.....;ty
ESA No. 32
27
.
_ E 5 A. SITE
~ _ ~O_ -10pO
METRES
wf? ';3
.
CONSERVATION NURSERY
ri
I
GLA SCO PARK
EQUESTRIAN CENTRE
I
KORTRIGHT CENTRE
FOR CONSERVATION
RECREATlON/EDUCA TION
CENTRE
BOYD FIELD CENTRE
PICNIC AREA
PICNIC AREA
PAR THREE GOLF COURSE
OR AMPHITHEATRE DAY CAMP
,WIM LAKE/WATER PLAY AREA
, ADVENTURE PLAY AREA
LEGEND
eDlSnNG ACTMTY
e PROPOSED ACTMTT
ee1"RAlL
* NEW ENTRANCE
"'- Boyd Concept Plan
wt?, J 3S"'
A COMPREHENSIVE BASIN MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
FOR THE ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED
HAY 17. 1989
.
-
LvR. I!. I,
- i -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Table of Contents (i)
List of Figures (iv)
List of Tables (v)
List of Appendices (vi)
The Rouge River Vision 1
1. Preface 2
.
2. Introduction 5
2.1 The Watershed 5
2.2 The Context of the Rouge Management Strategy 6
3. Rouge River Urban Drainage Study 8
3.1 Background 8
3.2 The Study 9
3.3 Comment 11
4. Rouge River Vision 12
4.1 The Vision 12
5. The Management Strategy 13
5.1 Purpose and Aims ... 13
6. Public Heal th 17
6.1 Specific Vision Statement 17
6.2 Technical Guidelines 17
6.3 Recommended Policies 18
6.4 Implementation 19
loR.13'1
- ii -
PAGE
7. Public Safety 25
7.1 Specific Vision Statement 25
7.2 Flood Control 25
7.2.1 Technical Guidelines 25
7.2.2 Flood Control - Prevention 25
7.2.2.1 Recommended Policies 25
7.2.2.2 Operational Criteria 25
7.2.2.3 Implementation 28
7.2.3 Flood Control - Protection 29
7.2.3.1 Recommended Policies 29
7.2.3.2 Operational Criteria 32
7.2.3.3 Implementation 33
7.3 Erosion Control 36
7.3.1 Technical Guidelines 36
7.3.2 Erosion Control - Prevention 36
7.3.2.1 Recommended Policies 36
7.3.2.2 Operational Criteria 36
7.3.2.3 Implementation 42
7.3.3 Erosion Control - Protection 44
7.3.3.1 Recommended Policies 44
7.3.3.2 Operational Criteria 44
7.3.3.3 Implementation 44
8. Fisheries 46
8.1 Specific Vision Statement 46
8.2 Technical Guidelines r 46
8.3 Recommended Policies 45
8.3.1 Groundwater 46
8.3.2 Target Species 46
8.3.3 Toxins 48
8.3.4 Chemical Spills 48
8.3.5 Fisheries Health 49
8.3.6 Riparian Habitat 49
8.3.7 Soil Erosion and Transportation 49
8.4 Implementation 49
9. Riparian Habitat 54
9.1 Specific Vision Statement 54
9.2 Technical Guidelines 54
9.3 Recommended Policies 54
9.4 Implementation 55
1,O,Q.I38
- Hi -
PAGE
10. Terrestrial Habitat 56
10.1 Specific Vision Statement 56
10.2 Technical Guidelines 56
10.3 Recommended Policies 56
10.4 Implementation 57.
11. Aesthetics 59
11.1 Specific Vision Statement 59
11.2 Technical Guidelines 59
11.3 Recommended Policies 60
11.4 Implementation 60
12. The Rouge River Basin Management Strategy 61
13. Glossary 64
14. References 67
IA)~.I~'
- iv -
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
1. Ecological Course of Action 15
.
2. Stable Defined Valley - Development Limit 38
3. Unstable, Defined Valley - Development Limit 39
4. Ill-Defined Valley - Development Limit 40
5. Fish Target Species Report - Rear Cover
6. Important Flora/Fauna Areas Report - Rear Cover
LUR. '1#-0
- v -
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
1. Watercourse Impact Zones 26
2. Summary of Runoff Control Requirements 31
2. Habitat Suitability Index Standards 47
I,UR. Ilfl
- vi -
LIST OF APPENDICES
PAGE
1. Stakeholders' Committee Al
2. Technical Committee A2
3. Rouge River Urban Drainage Study Conclusions A4
4. Fish Consumption Guidelines A45
5. Drinking water Objectives A46
6. Provincial Water Quality Objectives A48
LOR. 'q.~
- I -
A COMPREHENSIVE BASIN MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
FOR THE ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED
THE ROUGE RIVER VISION .
0 Recognize that the Rouge River watershed is a component of the larger
Great Lakes ecosystem and that watershed management must also benefit
the Great Lakes.
0 Ensure that one can take pride in the mere existence of the Rouge River
-- its system of interconnected waterways and valleys; its source and
its lacustrine marsh; a healthy watershed within the most heavily
populated metropolitan area in Canada.
0 Balance the mutual benefits of sustained economic growth and
development. and ecological health and quality. within the Rouge River
watershed.
0 Maintain and enhance the quality of life opportunities provided through
public ownership and collective management of the valley system.
",,~.1't3
- 2 -
l. PREFACE
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA, the
Authority) is a provincial-municipal partnership established in 1957 under the
Conservation Authorities Act to manage the renewable natural resources of the
nine watersheds of the Metropolitan Toronto and surrounding area.
The Authority carries out watershed management programs to:
0 maintain and improve the quality of the region's lands and waters;
0 contribute to public safety from flooding and erosion;
0 provide for the acquisition of conservation and hazard lands;
0 enhance the quality and variety of life in the community by using
its lands for inter-regional outdoor recreation, heritage
preservation and conservation education.
In September, 1988, the Authority published Greenspace For the Greater Metro
Region, outlining the strategies it intends to, follow to carry out these aims.
One of these is A Strategy for Watershed Management, which includes the
following pertinent objectives:
1. To develop long term management plans for each of the nine
watershed within the Authority's jurisdiction that:
0 recognize the headwaters, rivers and Lake Ontario as
. distinct but inseparable planning units in ecosystem
planning;
0 resolve existing economic and political constraints to
existing watershed management through cooperative planning
by all agencies;
LoR. , 11-1
- 3 -
0 balance ecological health and quality with economic growth
and development; and
0 manage our investments of yesterday and plan for our
investments and needs of tomorrow.
2. To develop and implement an interim plan of action that will
respond to today's water and related land management problems.
3. To monitor, assess, and update on an ongoing basis, the
effectiveness of the watershed planning, management, and
implementation efforts initiated under the waterthed strategy.
A Comprehensive Basin Management Strategy for the Rouge River Watershed (CBMS,
the Management Strategy) is the first application of the MTRCA's watershed
management strategy to a particular watershed, that of the Rouge River in the
east central part of the Region. This report summarizes the conclusions of
the Rouge River Urban Drainage Study, and sets out the Management Strategy
itself in the form of policies, technical guidelines and implementation
actions that provincial agencies, municipalities, and all bodies with special
interests in the planning of the watershed are able to endorse and implement.
Cooperation from those municipalities, provincial ministries, public agencies
and non-governmental bodies having an interest in the watershed was essential
in preparing the CBMS. These agencies and groups are listed below; a more
detailed membership of the Stakeholders' Committee is found within Appendix 1.
- Ministry of Environment
- Ministry of Natural Resources
- Ministry of Agriculture and Food .
- Ministry of Government Services
- City of Scarborough
- Town of Richmond Hill
~R.I,+5
- 4 -
- Town of Markham
- Town of Pickering
- Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville
_ Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto
_ Municipality of York Region
- Urban Development Institute
_ Conservation Council of Ontario
- Save the Rouge Valley System
- Toronto Field Naturalists
- Sierra Club of Ontario
This same Iroup has been actively involved with the Rouge River Urban Drainage
Study, approving the Terms of Reference for the study and commenting on the
Phase I and II reports of the study.
The Authority was also assisted by a group of experts in hydrology, fisheries,
land use planning, erosion processes, and urban drainage planning and design
(Appendix 2).
,
wR. I~"
- 5 -
2. INTRODUCTION
2 .1 The Watershed
The Rouge River watershed includes the north-eastern sector of
Metropolitan Toronto (City of Scarborough), most of the south-eastern
quadrant of the Regional Municipality of York (towns of Markham,
Whitchurch-Stouffville and Richmond Hill), and a small portion in the
west of the Regional Municipality of Durham (Town of Pickering),
comprising altogether 320 square kilometres. The principal streams,
apart from the Rouge River itself, are Berczy, Bruce and Little Rouge
Creeks. All rise in the Oak Ridges Moraine and join to form the
boundary between Metropolitan Toronto and Durham before flowing into
Lake Ontario.
The watershed consists of four physiographic zones:
0 HEADWATERS : high gradient first and second order streams
originating on the Oak Ridges Moraine. Existing land uses are
predominantly agriculture, conservation lands and estate
residential.
0 HIDREACHES : low gradient second and third order streams flowing
across a relatively flat clay plain. Existing land uses are
predominantly agriculture and rapidly expanding urbanization.
0 LOWER REACHES: moderate gradient fourth and fifth order streams
flowing through deeply incised forested valleys. Existing land
uses are predominantly conservation lands and urban development.
0 DELTA HARSH: low gradient fifth order stream flowing through
extensive cattail marsh outletting on the shore of Lake Ontario.
Existing land uses are predominantly conservation lands and urban
development.
wR. '&fa"
- 6 -
Historically, development of the watershed has brought about major
changes in the land use characteristics of the basin and the physical
and hydraulic characteristics of the watercourse, as a result of
agriculture, urban development, forestry harvesting and flood control.
Land uses tended to be superimposed upon each other, in the same fashion
as urban development is now superimposed on agricultural lands.
Urbanization tends to be greatest adjacent to the lake and least in the
headwaters, such that some headwater streams still remain relatively
undisturbed by human settlement.
The pressures of urban and population growth on the Rouge watershed have
not as yet been as intense as on the watersheds of, for example, the Don
River. Nonetheless, with the continuing rapid growth of the Region's
population, growth pressures within the watershed will continue to
intensify. Planning studies have established and evaluated existing
land use and committed land use within the watershed and provided future
land use scenarios. These planning studies estimated urbanization would
amount to apprOXimately 34% and 41%, respectively, for medium and high
growth scenarios and are limited to a planning horizon of 30 years. The
recommendations of this strategy are based on a number of assumptions
which must remain valid; otherwise the strategy, may require rethinking.
2.2 The Context of the Rouge Management Strategy
Watershed management strategies call for watershed management plans to
"recognize the headwaters, rivers and Lake Ontario as distinct but
inseparable planning units in ecosystem planning". In other words,
while the Rouge watershed is a part of a larger ecosystem, it is also an
ecosystem itself, in which the natural elements - water, land, wildlife,
fish, vegetation - constantly interact not only with each other, but
also with human activities and the man-made environment. No single
aspect of the watershed can be considered in isolation; each affects and
is affected by the others in a continuing, complex, dynamic process.
Recognition of this fact is the essential basis of the watershed
fA) R. JiJ E
- 7 -
management strategy.
Recognition of the watershed as an ecosystem is also the key to
achieving the watershed management strategy's objective of "balanC<ing)
ecological health and quality with economic growth and development".
This objective is virtually synonymous with "(environmentally)
sustainable (economic) development", the central theme of two recent
landmark reports: Our Common Future, the report of the (Brundtland)
World Commission on Environment and Development, and the report of
Canada's National Task Force on Environment and Economy.
Both of these studies, the one global and the other national, reached
the same conclusion: that the successful marriage of economic growth
with environmental health is the indispensable condition of the future
welfare and even the survival of human society. With the state of "the
environment" a subject of rapidly growing public concern in Canada and
world-wide, the sustainable development idea has attracted widespread
and enthusiastic support. The report of the National Task Force has
been endorsed by Canada's First Ministers, and in accordance with its
recommendations both the Ontario and federal governments have recently
established Environment-Economy Round Tables to promote the translation
of the concept of sustainable development into reality.
A Comprehensive Basin Management Strategy for the Rouge River Watershed,
as one of the first major products of the Authority's watershed
management strategy, is therefore extraordinarily timely. In converting
the general concept of sustainable development into a comprehensive set
of specific, workable, integrated policies and programs, it can be a
practical demonstration of the path which must be followed by Ontario,
Canada and the world.
LV~. ,q.."
- 8 -
.
3 . THE ROUGE RIVER URBAN DRAINAGE STUDY
3.1 Background
During the 1970's development pressures in the Rouge watershed increased
rapidly. reflected in changes in both municipal planning policies and
land use. This created a need for new watershed management programs and
techniques. During the same period, important technological advances
were made in the field of urban drainage and stormwater management,
tending to outstrip progress in policy development, administration and
implementation.
The responsibilities of HTRCA and participating agencies with respect to
urban drainage planning began to raise a number of questions regarding
the success and cost-effectiveness of the techniques then being employed
for flood control, erosion control, and addressing urban drainage
impacts. Questions also arose with regard to the implementation of
environmental safeguards and water quality objectives. Furthermore, it
became clear that there was a need to clarify the roles of the various
agencies with water management related responsibilities.
Other factors coming into play during the 1980's included:
0 growing public concern over the impacts of urbanization on the
streams and valley;
0 the Ontario Ministry of the Environment's project (Toronto Area
Watershed Management Strategy Study - TAWHS) to develop a
pollution control strategy for urbanized portions of the Mimico,
Humber and Don watershed (west of the Rouge watershed), involving
recognition of the need for a comprehensive watershed based
approach to pollution control;
~R. ISo
- 9 -
0 concern over water quality in Metro, expressed in the formation of
the Metro Toronto Water Pollution Committee;
0 new technical studies and official guidelines for urban drainage
design and stormwater management; and
0 new provincial funding for urban drainage projects.
This combination of factors led to two important actions by the MTRCA:
adoption of an overall Strategy for Watershed Management, and, in 1986,
initiation of the Rouge River Urban Drainage Study (RRUDS, the Study).
3.2 The Study
The broad aim of the RRUDS was to provide a common forum and information
sharing network for the various agencies involved in the management of
the watershed; to prOVide a common basis for decision making in the form
of a comprehensive data base, reliable predictive models, and effective
mitigative management techniques; and to lay the foundation for
coordinated planning, implementation and monitoring in the future.
The specific objectives of the Study were to evaluate existing watershed
management practices relating to urban drainage, and to develop and
evaluate new practices where warranted, including examination of
implementation, cost, and legal considerations. Public participation
was a required feature of the Study.
The study used state of the art modelling and assessment techniques and
employed experts from the fields of hydrology, erosion processes, water
quality and aquatic ecology to complete a series of technical studies
describing existing basin characteristics, predicting future changes and
examining the effectiveness of current and stormwater practices. The
Phase I technical studies have been completed by Marshall, Macklin,
~R.)"
- 10 -
Monaghan Ltd., Beak Consultants Ltd. and Walker, Wright, Young and
Associates Ltd. and consisted of seven (7) volumes:
0 Volume 1: Executive Summary
0 Volume 2: Subwatershed Hydrologic Modelling
0 Volume 3: Subwatershed Water Quality Modelling
0 Volume 4: Subwatershed Runoff Control Study
0 Volume 5: Subwatershed Erosion Control Study
0 Volume 6: Watershed Water Quality Assessment
0 Volume 7: Watershed Environmental Studies
Draft Phase II technical studies have been completed by Marshall,
Macklin, Monaghan Ltd. and Beak Consultants Ltd. and consisted of five
(5) volumes:
0 Volume 1: Completion of Subwatershed Studies
(channelization and erosion control studies)
0 Volume 2: Watershed Wide Studies (hydrology, runoff
control, channelization and erosion control
studies)
0 Volume 3: Flood Control Study - Upper Rouge Study
0 Volume 4: Water Quality Study - Phase II
0 Volume 5: Environmental Studies Phase II
At the completion of the draft Phase II technical reports, the HTRCA
assembled a Technical Committee comprised of recognized experts in a
number of fields. In addition, the Stakeholders Committee comprising
those municipalities, provincial agencies and public groups with a
mandate and/or an interest in the Rouge Watershed was utilized. Both of
these groups assisted the HTRCA in:
wR. IS,
- 11 -
0 reviewing and qualifying the conclusions of the Rouge River Urban
Drainage Study;
0 producing a Vision which described in human terms the essential
natural features of the Rouge Watershed;
0 establishing a number of goals regarding the future use of the
Rouge watershed; and
0 developing a comprehensive watershed management strategy outlining
immediate actions and future requirements.
The conclusions of the Rouge River Urban Drainage Study have been
summarized in Appendix 3. These conclusions form the basis on which the
Vision and recommended watershed policies were developed.
3.3 Comment
The Rouge River Urban Drainage Study had three innovative features of
particular significance.
First, while initiated by the City of Scarborough and spearheaded by the
HTRCA, it was to a large extent a "joint venture" with the active
participation of all the principal public agencies with responsibilities
relating to Rouge River watershed management.
The second feature was public participation in the Study through
membership of public interest groups in the Stakeholders' Committee
which monitored it and reviewed its findings.
The third and perhaps most important feature was that the Study embraced
the entire watershed as a single physical and ecological unit, a
significant departure from the technically and geographically limited
approach previously employed.
LUR. J5:a
- 12 -
4. THE ROUGE RIVER VISION
4.1 The Vision
Out of the process of collaboration, discussions and debate among the
various participants in the Rouge River Urban Drainage Study emerged a
"Vision" of the Rouge watershed. The Vision consists of a set of
statements defining shared goals for watershed planning and management,
goals which are appropriately ambitious but not unrealistic.
Collectively, their purpose is to restore and protect the chemical,
physical and biological integrity of the Rouge River watershed as a
multi-use resource which base provides the setting and foundation for
social development and economic investment.
There are four general vision statements:
0 Recognize that the Rouge River watershed is a component of the
larger Great Lakes ecosystem and that watershed management must
also benefit the Gr~at Lakes.
0 Ensure that one can take pride in the mere existence of the Rouge
River - its system of interconnected waterway and valleys; its
source and its lacustrine marsh; a healthy watershed within the
most heavily populated metropolitan area in Canada.
0 Balance the mutual benefits of sustained economic growth and
development, and ecological health and quality, within the Rouge
River watershed.
0 Maintain and enhance the quality of life opportunities provided
through public ownership and collective management of the valley
system.
.
INR. J~,+
- 13 -
5. THE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
5.1 Purpose and Aims
The general Vision statements which emerged from the Urban Drainage
Study became the basis of a Comprehensive Basin Management Strategy for
the Rouge River watershed, which also was in accordance with the
Authority's overall watershed management strategy:
0 recognizes the watershed (headwaters, rivers) and Lake Ontario as
distinct but inseparable planning units through ecosystem
planning;
0 attempts to resolve existing economic and political constraints
through cooperative planning by stakeholders;
0 balance the benefits of ecological health and quality, and
economic growth and development;
0 manages the watershed community's investments of yesterday and
plans for the investments and needs of tomorrow.
In addition to these aims, the following criteria were established by
the Authority for the management plan:
0 it must establish ambitious yet realistic goals based on ecosystem
planning;
0 it must be autonomous in that any land uses or land practices must
be judged against the overriding goal of protection of the plan;
0 it must demonstrate to all stakeholders their role and function in
the plan and the importance of implementing the plan as a team;
'^' R. 156'
- 14 -
0 it must be a living plan that determines and initiates
implementable measures immediately but also provides flexibility
for more innovative measures in the future;
0 it must be a living plan that can be continually reviewed and
revised to ensure that the Vision will be achieved; and
0 it must chart a new course for the Rouge watershed away from
degradation, towards conservation, enhancement, rehabilitation and
restoration. This direction of actions (conservation,
enhancement,...) will bring the watershed closer to its original
state and away from existing conditions, and still provide
opportunities of economic growth and development (Figure 1).
A further working objective was to prepare the management strategy in
such a way that as far as possible its structure and provisions could
readily be adapted to other watersheds.
The Rouge River Watershed Management Strategy takes the form of a set of
specific Vision statements, technical guidelines, a set of recommended
policies and a set of implementation actions under the headings, in
order of priority, of public health, public safety, fisheries, riparian
habitat, terrestrial habitat, and aesthetics. For the public safety
section a set of operational criteria is also provided which assist in
carrying out the policies.
The technical guidelines are the standards which must be met to fulfil
the Vision. These standards are based on existing federal/provincial
objectives or guidelines, or Authority objectives. Where standards are
not in existence, this document (through discussions with appropriate
agencies or leading experts) has suggested appropriate criteria.
- 15 -
ROUGE RIVER BASIN .v.1ot
MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
~ ~ ECOLOGICAL COURSE OF ACTION
Initial, wild state APRIL 1N1 FIG. 1
Preservation barrier
-
I
Rehabilitat ion
Resto rat ion Enhancement
Conservation
(wise use)
~
Recent trends
Palliation
Degradation
* Francie, G.'" .. ... 1'71
tc)R. r 57
- 16 -
The recommended watershed policies are provided to direct immediate and
future management actions for the watershed. These policies and the
implementation section will establish the actions required to meet the
technical guidelines and fulfil the Vision for the Rouge River
watershed.
The implementation section is divided into immediate and future actions
required for the Rouge River Basin Management Strategy to be
. successfully implemented. The management actions are further
categorized according to lead agency the strategy is recommending would
be responsible for implementation. Contributory agencies and a time
frame to initiate the actions are also indicated. These agencies'
involvement will include input to the action and may include funding,
technical advice and/or in-field implementation.
~R. IS-~
- 17 -
6. PUBLIC HEALTH
6.1 Specific Vision Statement
0 Swim in the Rouge River without becoming infected by disease or
soiled by waste films on the water surface.
0 Eat fish from resident Rouge River populations knowing they are
uncontaminated by dangerous chemicals.
.
0 Drink from groundwater supplies within the watershed that are free
of harmful viruses, protozoa and poison.
6.2 Technical Guidelines
(a) Swimming
Dry - 100 F.C./IOO mls
- Turbidity <50
- guideline to be assessed within the watercourse
Frequent Rain Event
- up to and including the 3 month rain event
- 100 F.C./100 mls E.M.C. (Event Mean Concentration)
- guideline to be assessed at urban/rural drainage
outlets to the watercourse, and any existing
swimming areas
Infrequent Rain Event
- meet standard of 100 F.C./100 mls 48 hours after
rain event
- guideline to be assessed at urban/rural drainage
outlets to the watercourse, and any existing
swimming areas
(b) Fishing
Fish tissue meet consumption guidelines (Appendix 4).
~R. Jsq
- 18 -
(c) Drinking Water
Quality - Follow drinking water guidelines (Appendix 5)
Quantity - Guidelines need to be developed
6.3 Recommended Policies
(a) Swimming
,
(1) The Ministry of the Environment's Provincial Water Quality
Objectives (PWQO) for Swimming and Bathing Use of Water
(Appendix 6) should be met throughout the river system
during periods of no runoff (dry weather).
(ii) The Ministry of the Environment's PWQO Standards shall be
met at established swimming areas during frequent summer
precipitation events (up to and including the 3 month design
storm) .
(iii) The Ministry of the Environment's PWQO standards shall be
met at established swimming areas within 48 hours1 following
infrequent summer precipitation.
(b) Drinking Water
(i) The Ministry of the Environment's Drinking Water Objectives
shall be met for existing municipal and private drinking
uses for groundwater (Appendix 5).
1 48 hours is considered a reasonable period to allow
.
passage of contaminated flows and settling of sediments.
LU~I~O
- 19 -
(ii) The existing groundwater drinking supplies for municipal and
private uses shall be maintained wherever possible; given
that other uses such as for stream baseflow should not be
compromised.
(c) Toxins
(i) The levels of metals, pesticides, and other organic
chemicals in tissues of resident Rouge River fish
shall not result in human consumption restrictions or cause
increased exposure to transmittable disease, parasites
and/or viruses (Appendix 4).
(d) Chemical Spills
(i) The occurrence and discharge to drainage systems of all
spills shall be minimized.
6.4 Implementation
(i) Immediate Action
(a) The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Action
i) Ensure all new developments develop and implement erosion
and sediment controls and expand HTRCA and municipal
enforcement programs to ensure that erosion and sediment
control plans are properly implemented, maintained and
removed.
Controls would include:
o off-line temporary settling ponds; and
~~. ,~,
- 20 -
o infiltration trenches and galleys.
Contributory Agencies: Regional and Local Municipalities
MNR
MOE
Time: Initiate within 1 year and thereafter, ongoing.
Action
ii) A pilot project shall be established investigating the
design criteria, guidelines and effectiveness of water
quality ponds (wet) and other control measures. This
project would be a joint aventure of a number of agencies.
The project results will assist in the design of control
measures effective in improving water quality.
Contributory Agencies: MOE
HNR
Local Municipalities
Urban Development Institute
Tt.e: Initiate within 1 year and ongoing for 2 to 3 years.
(b) Ministries of the Environment/Agriculture and Food
Action
i) Eliminate and/or control bacteria sources from livestock
access to watercourses and manure storage. The extension of
existing provincial programs targeted and cooperating under
the "Rouge River Farm Remedial Program" will be required.
These programs include:
- Rural Beaches Farm remedial Plans (Clean Up Rural Beaches
- CURB)
IAJ~. 'b~
- 21 -
- Ontario Soil Conservation and Environmental Protection
Program II (OSCEPAP)
- Land Stewardship Program
This recommended Remedial Program should concentrate its
efforts on watercourse fencing (access control), stream
plantings, farm remedial plans and improved manure storage.
Contributory Agencies: MTRCA
Time: Initiate within 1 year
(c) Local/Regional Municipality (Works and By-Law Enforcement
Departments)
Action
1) Eliminate and/or control bacteria sources with existing
municipal programs:
- By-Law Enforcement
- existing plumbing
- existing sewer use
- pet litter control
- street sweeping
- catch basin cleaning
Time: Continue in 1989 and thereafter, ongoing.
Action
ii) Control spills through spill action programs, including:
(a) Simultaneous arrival time of municipal work (or
appropriate department), fire department and Ministry
of the Environment (Spill Management Team - where
required at the spill location).
v->R. ,"3
- 22 -
(b) Changes in spill control practices (if required):
0 education;
0 protocol for handling different types of spills;
0 use of sorbants; and
0 collection of spillage/sorbants and treatment.
(c) Installation of API type, oil-water separators upon
catchbasin draining the areas of petrochemical
industry.
(d) Inspection of industries to ensure that floor drains
receiving spillage of pollutants from normal practices
are either connected to the sanitary sewer system or
lead to a water treatment system before discharge.
(d) Design industrial/commercial developments with wet
pond (equipped with skimmers/separators) to function
as the final control measures for spills.
Contributory Agencies: MOE
Time: Continue in 1989 and thereafter, ongoing.
(ii) Future Action
(a) Ministry of the Environment
Action
i) Additional studies are required to aid the development of
policies and to address deficiencies in the present
modelling and monitoring data base. These studies include:
(a) groundwater quality and quantity in the watershed;
wA. '~C4-
- 23 -
(b) monitoring data deficiencies:
0 assessment of synthetic organic chemicals (SOC's)
in the Rouge River System;
0 measurement of sediment contaminant
concentrations;
0 measurement of fish contaminant levels;
0 evaluation of any transmittable diseases in the
present fishery;
0 leachate quality from waste management sites; and
0 toxicity monitoring.
Contributory Agencies: HTRCA
HNR
MOH
Tille: Initiate in 1990 for 2 to 3 years.
(b) Local/Regional Municipality
Action
i) Establish a public education and awareness program to
outline the benefits of "good housekeeping" practices such
as:
o poop and scoop;
o litter control;
o household hazardous waste program.
~R.1~~
- 24 -
Contributory Agencies: MOE
Special Interest Groups
Time: Initiate in 1990.
wR.1 bb
- 25 -
7.0 PUBLIC SAFETY
7.1 Specific Vision Statement
0 Eliminate or minimize the threat to life and property from
flooding and erosion within the Rouge River watershed.
7.2 Flood Control
7.2.1 Technical Guidelines
The flood standard for regulatory purposes within the Rouge River
watershed is the Regional Flood (Hurricane Hazel, 1954) or the 100
year flood, whichever is greater, pursuant to the Provincial Flood
Plain Planning Policy Statement (October, 1988).
7.2.2 Flood Control - Prevention
7.2.2.1 Recommended Policies
The prevention of new flood susceptible development is
achieved through the administration of Ontario Regulation
293/86 (as defined within the Conservation Authorities Act)
the plan input and review process. In this regard. existing
policies and operational criteria have been successfully
implemented and generally have widespread support and
acceptance.
The creation of new flood susceptible sites within the Rouge
River watershed shall be minimized through a program of
development control and acquisition.
7.2.2.2 Operational Criteria
i) All Levell, 2 and 3 streams (Table 1) that drain in
LUR. lIP 7
- 26 -
TABLE 1
WATERCOURSE IMPACT ZONES
S!REAM LEVEL FLOOD/EROSION CONTROL FISHERIES STREAM
(Impact Zones) ORDER
Level 1 -intermittent flows -supports downstream N/A
(micro system) -generally pipes, swales fisheries habitat
and ditches -water quality
-temperature
-turbidity
-dissolved oxygen
Level 2 -define low-flow -Level 2A Brook - 1
{tributary channel Trout (Moraine and) - 2
system) -continuous flow Moraine Influenced
Watercourses)
-Level 2B Bass -3
Level 3 -drain in excess of -Level 3A Bass - 4
(river system) 5,000 ha -Level 3B Rainbow
-principle watercourse Trout
Level 4 -lower portion of river -Bass, Pike
influenced by Lake (Lacustrine Marsh)
Ontario
fAJR. "9
- 27 -
excess of 130 ha shall have an "Open Space - Hazard
Land" designation in all local and regional municipal
Official Plans.
ii) A one-zone approach to floodplain management shall
continue to be implemented. Local and regional
municipalities shall incorporate appropriate
statements and designations concerning flood hazard
areas in Official Plans and secondary plans (or their
equivalent), and restrict development in such flood
hazard areas through the enactment of restricted area
by-laws (zoning) and/or development control by-laws,
and identify flood hazard lands as lands intended for
public acquisition.
iii) Limited compatible uses shall continue to be permitted
in the floodplain pursuant to HTRCA floodplain
planning policies for Undeveloped Floodplains (1980)
and Parking Lot Policy (1985).
iv) In areas where existing development is subject to
flooding, all development/redevelopment applications
shall be reviewed based on the Authority's current
floodplain planning pOlicies for Undeveloped
Floodplains (1980), and Flood Susceptible Sites Policy
(1987), and the Provincial Floodplain Planning Policy
Statement (1988) and supporting guideline documents.
v) Channelization to facilitate new development shall
only be considered:
- in the context of a master drainage plan;
- in ill-defined floodplains;
- where there are no other prohibitive resource-
. related concerns;
wR.,~q
- 28 -
- utilizing natural channel design.
vi) Traditional channel design shall be permitted within
existing development areas only, if there is no other
flood control option.
7.2.2.3 Implementation
(1) Immediate Actions
(a) The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority
Action
i) Extend floodline mapping to the 130 ha drainage limit
for all Level 1 and/or Level 2 streams and identify
any additional flood susceptible sites; also extend
fill line mapping for regulation purposes.
Time: Initiate within 1 year
(b) Local/Regional Municipalities
Action
i) Ensure appropriate "Open Space - Hazard Land"
designations and policy statements are contained in
local and regional municipal Official Plans and
secondary plans.
Time: Initiate within 1 year
IIVR. '10
- 29 -
(i1> Future Actions
(b) The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority
Action
i) Accelerate acquisition programs for public ownership
of hazard lands.
ii) Expand MTRCA and municipal enforcement programs to
ensure compliance with development control and fill
regulations, both during and after construction.
Contributory Agencies: Local/Regional Municipality
Time: Initiate within 1 year and then ongoing.
iii) Establish a public education program to increase
public awareness of floodplain management and flood
and erosion control objectives.
Contributory Agencies: Local/Regional Municipalities
HNR
7.2.3 Flood Control - Protection
7.2.3.1 Recommended Policies
In the past, the protection of existing flood susceptible
development has been addressed through a combination of
runoff control (stormwater management techniques,
implemented through the plan input and review process) and
remedial works.
WR. J 7'
- 30 -
One of the objectives of the Rouge Study was to evaluate the
MTRCA's current policy for runoff control as it relates to
flood control on the Rouge River for both technical
effectiveness and cost effectiveness.
The Study results demonstrate that a "blanket" policy of
runoff control for flood control purposes is not effective
on a watershed basis.
The effectiveness of runoff control can be discussed in
terms of stream levels. Flood control policies regarding
runoff control shall be stream level specific (Table 2).
i) Level 1 Streams (L-l)
Urbanization causes large percentage increases in flows in
L-l streams, however, the magnitude of the flows is still
small.
The hydrologic impacts on L-l streams become significant
only in terms of the potential cumulative impacts on L-2 and
L-3 streams.
Therefore: Flood Control requirements for Level 1 streams
shall be assessed based on the downstreaa flood hazard.
ii) Level 2 Streams (L-2)
This is the first level where the cumulative effects of land
use changes are felt.
The most significant increases in flows from changing land
use are felt on L-2 streams.
t,.) R. 17:t
- 31 -
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF RUNOFF CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
STREAM FLOOD CONTROL POLICIES OPERATIONAL CRITERIA
LEVEL
1 - runoff control fdr F.C.
purposes not required
within L-1 streams
- runoff control may be - MOP to be prepared
required for receiving
L-2 streams, depending - OR -
on downstream flood hazard
- SWHP to be prepared with
contribution to MOP
_ runoff control not required - SWHP to be prepared, plus
for receiving L-3 streams contribution to downstream
(L-3) remedial works and/or
acquisition
2 - runoff control may be - MOP to be prepared
required within L-2
streams
- runoff control not - contribution to downstream
required for receiving remedial works and/or
L-3 streams acquisition
3 - runoff control not - SWHP to be prepared, plus
required within L-3 contribution to downstream
streams remedial works and/or
acquisition
~R.I'3
- 32 -
The Rouge Study results demonstrate that runoff control
streams can be an effective flood control technique within
L-2 streams if it is designed on a subwatershed basis.
Therefore: Flood Control requirements for Level 2 streams
shall be assessed based on the downstream flood hazard.
iii) Level 3 Streams (L-3)
In L-3 streams, the percentage increases in flow are
reduced. The cumulative effects of upstream land use
changes are increasingly "dampeened out" as total upstream
drainage area increases.
The Rouge Study results demonstrate that upstream runoff
control is not effective in controlling flood levels in L-3
streams.
Large on-line centralized storage facilities (flood control
dams) may be effective in controlling flood levels in L-3
streams. Dams for flood control may be reviewed and
considered along with other remedial works options.
Therefore: Flood Control requirements for Level 3 streams
shall be assessed based on the downstre~ flood hazard.
7.2.3.2 Operational Criteria
i) Level 1 Streams
(a) Level 1 Draining to Level 2
Master Drainage Plan shall be prepared prior to development
or stormwater management plan shall be prepare with
contribution to preparation of Master Drainage Plan.
/"oR. J 7~
- 33 -
MTRCA and municipality to determine appropriate plan based
on timeframe/implementation plan for Master Drainage Plan.
(b) Level 1 Draining to Level 3
Stormwater Management Plan to be prepare prior to
development, plus contribution to downstream works and/or
acquisition.
ii) Level 2 Streams
.
Master Drainage Plans shall be prepare prior to development,
plus contribution to downstream works and/or acquisition.
iii) Level 3 Streams
Stormwater Management Plans shall be prepared prior to
development, plus contribution to downstream works and/or
acquisition.
7.2.3.3 Implementation
(i) Immediate Action
(a) The Metropolitan Toronto and Region conservation
Authority
Actions
i) Delineate Master Drainage Plan areas on a 1:10000 map
base and incorporate them into municipal planning
documents.
ii) Establish a timeframe/implementation plan for master
Drainage Plan preparation for Level 2 watercourses.
i,Vt2..17&
- 34 -
iii) Establish a development levy to fund flood control
works and acquisition program for flood susceptible
sites on Level 3 streams to be implemented in lieu of
upstream runoff control.
iv) Develop a program of remedial works and acquisition
for the flood susceptible section of Unionville. The
remedial works component of the program shall be
administered by the MTRCA through its Flood Control
Program. The acqujsition component of the program
shall be administered jointly by the MTRCA and the
municipality.
v) Develop and acquisition plan for flood susceptible
sites on Level 3 streams. This plan should include:
- priority for acquisition
- ownership/responsibility
- estimated costs
- implementation strategy
- administration
Contributory Agencies: Local/Regional Municipalities
Time: Initiated within 1 year
Action
(vi) Prepare generic terms of reference for Master Drainage
Plan studies to ensure consistency with the Rouge
Study methodology and results including the
preparation of guidelines for:
~. "b
- 35 -
- flood control
- erosion control
- water quality
- riparian habitat
- terrestrial habitat
- fisheries
- aesthetics
- natural channel design
The flood control component of Master Drainage Plans
include a detailed assessment of all flood susceptible
sites both within the L-2 streams under study and
downstream of those streams, including the potential
impacts of development. Specific plans for remedial
works and/or acquisition shall be developed that
include cost-benefit analyses and cost/cost sharing.
These terms of reference shall also apply to
stormwater management plans where there are no master
drainage plans.
Contributory Agencies: HNR
HOE
vii) Establish a hydrologic model maintenance program that
includes: staff training, model adjustment and
updating.
Time: Initiate within 1 year
~R.. J77
- 36 -
7.3 Erosion Control
7.3.1 Technical Guidelines
Development adjacent to rivers/valleys is to be safe during their
life which the Authority assumes to be 100 years which is a
function of long term stable slopes and/or erosion sites.
7.3.2 Erosion Control - Prevention
7.3.2.1 Recommended Policies
Prevent the creation of new erosion prone development and
minimize the negative impacts associate with new development
through the enforcement of the Authority's regulations
(293/86), the adoption of appropriate development controls
under the planning Act, and participation in the municipal
plan input and review process.
7.3.2.2 Operational Criteria
(i) Erosion studi~s shall be undertaken as part of the
Master Drainage Plan/Stormwater Management Plan
process on Level 1 and 2 watercourses to determine the
most effective means of control.
(ii) Development limits (rear property line) for new
development tributary to watercourses draining more
than the 130 ha shall be determined as follows:
. (a) Stable Defined Valley
A minimum of 10 metres back from the top of bank
(Figure 2).
wR. 178
- 37 -
(b) Unstable. Defined Valley
A minimum of 10 metres back from a projected
2H:1V slope or stable slope as determined
through a geotechnical study; whichever is
greater (Figure 3).
(c) Ill-Defined Valley
A minimum of 10 metres back from the Regional
Storm Floodline (Figure 4).
New development can be grouped into four major
categories, as described in the following:
1) new multi-lot or large lot development;
. structures proposed for previously undeveloped
areas (large-scale)
2) major redevelopment or infilling;
. development which is at a large enough scale
where, generally, conformity with surrounding
areas is not necessarily critical
3) infilling, replacement, major additions;
. infilling - development on previously
undeveloped lots, generally bounded by
existing development on adjacent sides;
. replacement - existing structure remove and
new structure erected.
. major additions/alterations - construction is
equal to or exceeds 50% of the market value or
floor area of the existing structure or work.
~
't)
.
-
--J
-.c
Stable defined valley
Rear Property
LIne
""'I Top of Bank
/
1_ 10 m
I
~
I
/
Low Flow
Development Limit A minimum of 10 metres
back from the top of bank
-
Figure 2
----
Unstable, defined valley
Rear Propert y
Line
" Top of Bank
i _10 m _ /
Projected 2H 1V
Slope
--
Low Flow
Development Limit A minimum of 10 metres back from
a projected 2H 1V slope or stable slopes as determined
through a geotechnical studYi whichever is greater
E:
Figure 3 ?b
-
0()
~
~
~
.
-
.
-
111- defined valley
Rear Property Regionally Storm
Line Floodline
"I /
-10 m -
I
0
~
I /"
Low Flow
Development Limit A minimum of 10 metres back from
the Regional Storm Floodline.
Figure 4
~R.)~JL
~ - 41 -
4) minor additions/alterations;
. construction that is less than 50% of the
market value or floor area of the existing
structure or work.
Development limits shall be applied to new development
categories 1) and 2).
It is recognized that there may be restrictions to
applying the new development limits to the infilling,
replacement, major additions (3) and minor
additions/alterations 4) categories within new
development. It would be permissible to allow these
to proceed subject to the following:
- that the placement of fill, and the accessory
buildings including pools not be allowed beyond
the defined crest of valley slopes;
- it must be demonstrated by a qualified engineer
that the structure(s) shall be safe for its
assumed life and that the development will not
have any negative impacts on the adjacent valley
slopes.
NOTE: The development limits establish the rear
property line and thus, the municipalities would
still require a primary building setback from this
point.
The development limit shall be in public ownership
as an environmental buffer zone. The town of
Oakville has developed an effective program of
this type and could be contacted for
implementation measures.
I,A)R.' 53
- 42 -
,
In sites where significant flora and/or fauna
communities and/or species habitats extend beyond
the 10 metres distance or where the existing
vegetation is important for slope stability, the
development limit shall be increased in distance
to include the entire community. Examples of
significant communities and/or habitats are:
- The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority's Environmentally Significant Areas;
- Ministry of Natural Resources Provincially
and/or Regionally Significant Wetlands;
- Ministry of Natural Resources Areas of Natural
and/or Scientific Interest.
(iii> Stormwater management facilities shall be designed,
constructed and maintained to minimize public safety
risks.
7.3.2.3 Implementation .
( i) Immediate Action
(a) The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority
Action
i) Delineate Master Drainage Plan areas on a 1:10000 map
base and incorporate them into municipal planning
documents.
ii) Prepare generic terms of reference for Master Drainage
Plans Studies to ensure consistency with the Rouge
w~. Ir~
- 43 -
River Drainage Study methodology and results including
tRe preparation of guidelines for:
o Flood Control
o Erosion Control
o Water Quality
o Riparian Habitat
o Terrestrial Habitat
o Fisheries
o Aesthetics
o Natural Channel Design
iii) Expand HTRCA and municipal enforcement programs to
ensure compliance with development control and fill
regulations, both during and after construction.
iv) Extend floodline mapping and fill lines (development
limits) to the 130 ha limit.
v) Prepare a Development Limit Policy for implementation
through the plan input and review process.
vi) Inventory and monitor existing storage facilities to
calibrate erosion models and to determine their
effectiveness in controlling erosion.
Contributory Agencies: Local Municipality
Time: Initiate in 1990
,
wR. Jf$'
- 44 -
7.3.3 Erosion Control - Protection
7.3.3.1 Recommended Policies
Existing development, land, and terrestrial resources shall
be protected through the implementation of a remedial works
and acquisition program.
7.3.3.2 Operational Criteria
(1) A program of acquisition and erosion protective works
shall be undertaken on Level 3 watercourses and Level
2 watercourses where NDP are not implemented. Works
shall be carried out by the Authority as an extension
to its existing Erosion Control Program. Works are to
be carried out on a priority basis as funding permits.
(ii) Runoff controls and protective works shall also
provide benefits to fisheries and riparian and
terrestrial habitats where feasible.
7.3.3.3 Implementation
(i) Immediate Action
(a) The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority
Action
i) Amend Authority's Watershed Plan Erosion operation
criteria for the protection component to read all
Level l, 2 and 3 watercourses that drain in excess of
130 ha.
ii) Establish a development levy to fund flood and erosion
protection works and acquisition, and
lA)R. ,S~
- 45 -
riparian habitat management on Level 3 watercourses in
lieu of runoff control where required.
Contributory Agencies: Local Municipality
Time: Initiate within 1 year
IIJR. Iii 1
- 46 -
8.0 FISHERIES
8.1 Specific Vision Statement
0 Enjoy the beauty of natural aquatic habitats and riverbeds that are
uncontaminated by abnormal algal growth and unsoiled by industrial
and domestic wastes.
0 Angle in the Rouge River with some expectations of encountering
various preferred species of fish.
8.2 Technical Guidelines
(a) Meet Provincial Water Quality Objectives (Appendix 6).
(b) Use Habitat Suitability Index and target species to meet physical
habitat conditions (Table 3).
(c) Follow guidelines on Erosion and Sediment Control for Urban
Construction Sites.
8.3 Recommended Policies
8.3.1 Groundwater
(i) The existing groundwater quantity should be maintained for
baseflow in the Rouge River.
(ii) The existing groundwater quality should be maintained.
8.3.2 Target Species
(i) The aquatic habitats of the Rouge River shall be managed for
designated target species (Figure 5).
- 47 -
TABLE 3
HSI STANDARDS
DESCRIPTION RAINBOW TROUT SHALL MOUTH BASS BROOK TROUT
TEMPERATURE
Mid SlImmel noon maximum 24De 3aDe
Minimum during growing season laDe 11 - 1600
Spawning season 10DC 11 - 26DC 4.5 - 10DC
Fry optimum 12.4 - 15.4DC
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
MINIMUM S mg /1 4 mg/l optimum> 7 mg/l at < lSDC
Minimum for egg incubation 8 mg/ I optimum> 9 mg/l at > ISDC
TDS
Range for optimal growth 150 - 400 mg/l < 20 ppm
TURBIDITY
Maximum monthly average < 50 JTU optimum a - 3 JTU
Event maximum 250 JTU
STREAM SHADING
% shade (between 1000 - 1400 hrs.) 40 - 7S%
~
~
.
-
~
W~.J9'
- 48 -
Stream Level Target Species
1 Downstream Fish Community
2a Brook Trout
2b Bass
3a Bass
3b Rainbow Trout
4 Bass, Pike
Level 1 watercourses (intermittent stream) are important for
downstream water quality and quantity and generally not for fish
habitat within the Levell watercourse. Master Drainage Plans
and/or stormwater management plans must ensure that the water
quality and quantity is maintained and supportive of downstream
.
fish communities.
For those Levell watercourses with important fish habitat,
riparian and/or terrestrial habitat, the Master Drainage Plan
and/or stormwater management plan shall ensure these habitats are
maintained.
8.3.3 Toxins
(1) The levels of ammonia trace metals, pesticides, and other
organic compounds in water and aquatic sediments should be
non toxic to fish and shall not bioaccumulate to levels in
fish that are toxic to fish eating organisms.
8.3.4 Chemical Spills
(1) The occurrence and discharge to drainage systems of all
spillS shall be minimized.
wR.lqo
- 49 -
8.3.5 Fisheries Health
(i) The incidence of fish diseases, parasites and viruses in
resident fish populations should be controlled to levels
acceptable to the fishery.
8.3.6 Riparian Habitat
(1) Riparian habitats shall be managed to provide aquatic
habitat benefits such as temperature regulation, cover and
provision of food sources and organic matter.
8.3.7 Soil Erosion and Sediment Transportation
(1) Overland soil erosion and sediment transport shall be
controlled at sources such as construction sites, industrial
and agricultural lands, and residential areas.
8.4 Implementation
(i) Immediate Action
Action
(a) Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
i) Establish the Riparian Habitat Management Program that would
prepare or undertake the following:
0 Guidelines for riparian habitat management;
0 Streambank plantings (priority may be given to salmonid
watercourses) that meet riparian habitat technical
guidelines;
0 Streambank stabilization;
Lv~. 'ii ,
- so -
0 Promote public education and encourage public interest
groups to "Adopt-A-Stream".
The cooperation of the following existing programs or
funding for these programs would be required:
0 Ministry of Natural Resources Angling License Funds
(those funds identified for stream rehabilitation);
0 Community Fisheries Involvement Program;
0 Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's
Sediment Control Program;
0 Municipal Valley Management and Naturalization Programs.
This riparian habitat management program could be expanded
to include instream fisheries rehabilitation and
environmental buffer management (tableland).
Contributory Agencies: Ministry of Natural Resources
Local Municipality
Interest Groups
Time: Initiate within 1 year
Action
ii) Define habitat suitability index (HSI) criteria for target
species in each community zone to more clearly express
physical habitat needs in engineering design and planning
terms .
~e. 1't-2
- 51 -
Contributory Agencies: Ministry of Natural Resources
Time: Initiate within 1 year
Action
iii) Require all Master Drainage Plans for urbanizing areas to
address implementation of control measures which will:
0 provide control of overland soil erosion and transport
during runoff;
0 minimize the period of time that objectives for ammonia,
metals and organic compounds are exceeded in runoff;
0 incorporate methods of preventing spills from reaching
watercourses;
0 regulate the water temperature in the watercourses.
Contributory Agencies: Local Municipality
Time: Initiate within 1 year
Ac tion
iv) Use opportunities provided by remedial works for flood and
erosion control to rehabilitate physical habitats for target
fish communities where feasible.
Time: 1989 and ongoing
(b) Ministry of Natural Resources
Action
i) Prepare a fisheries management plan for the Rouge River
which will:
W~.1"3
- 52 -
0 Develop generic terms of reference to assess fish habitat
management needs on a sub-catchment basis for fish
community zones for use in land use planning and master
drainage planning studies.
0 Establish the current status of fish habitats and
communities within each fisheries stream level through an
extensive inventory program measuring appropriate HSI
criteria and index of biotic integrity (IBI) metrics.
0 Establish the habitat management requirement on a sub-
catchment basis for all watercourses.
0 Investigate the accessibility of existing and potential
public access locations.
0 Develop an information and education program to promote
fishing opportunities.
Contributory Agencies: MTRCA
Regional and Local Municipalities
Time: Initiate and undertake within 12 months
Action
ii) Monitor the incidence of disease, parasites and viruses in
resident fish.
Contributory Agencies: MTRCA
MOE
Time: Initiate within 1 year
WR. "4-
- 53 -
( ii) Future Action
.
(a) Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Action
i) Establish a public education and awareness program to
outline to landowners the benefits of implementing proper
measures for controlling overland soil erosion and
transport.
Contributory Agencies: Local Municipality
OHAF
Time: Initiate in 1990.
(b) Ministry of the Environment
Action
i) Monitor contaminant levels in fish tissue from young-of-the-
year Rouge River fish and in aquatic sediments as early
indicators of the presence of potentially bioaccumulative
chemicals and location of potential sources.
Contributory Agencies: MNR
HTRCA
Time: Initiate in 1990 and review results every 2 to 3
years.
~R.\,,5"
- 54 -
9. RIPARIAN HABITAT
9.1 Specific Vision Statement
0 Enjoy with pleasure a healthy riverine/valley environment, watching
birds, mammals and fish in their natural environment.
9.2 Technical Guidelines
(i) Riparian habitat shall consist of indigenous plant species, be
comprise of at least 50% woody species, and be a minimum of 10 m
on each side of the watercourse or twice the low flow channel
width, whichever is greater.
9.3 Recommended Policies
(i) A continuous functionally supportive riparian habitat zone shall
be established along watercourses to:
0 prOVide food, cover and organic matter for aquatic
organisms ;
0 regulate stream temperature;
0 stabilize stream banks;
0 control overland flows and sediment transport; and
0 provide food, cover, shelter, nesting sites, migration
corridors for terrestrial organisms.
(ii) Existing riparian habitat shall be protected and/or where
possible, re-established.
wR. ,q/'
- ss -
9.4 Implementation
(i) Immediate Action
(a) The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Action
i) Refer to 8.4 (1)(a) (i) - Riparian Habitat Management
Program.
(ii) Future Action
(a) The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Action
ii) Establish a public education and awareness program to
outline the importance of healthy riparian habitats in
providing passive recreation, maintaining important
(functional) wildlife communities and minimizing overland
soil erosion and transport to watercourses.
Contributory Agencies: HNR
Local Municipality
Tille: Initiate within 1 year
IN'R.1'J7
- 56 -
10.0 TERRESTRIAL HABITAT
10.1 Specific Vision Statement
0 Enjoy terrestrial habitats that support sustaining populations of
wildlife and waterfowl.
10.2 Technical Guidelines
(1) The following is a list of known important terrestrial habitats:
_ The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's
Environmentally Significant Areas (ESA);
-
- Carolinian Canada sites;
- Ministry of Natural Resources:
0 Evaluated Wetlands (Class 1-7)
0 Areas of Natural and/or scientific Interest (ANSI).
10.3 Recommended Policies
Important flora and fauna areas such as HNR's evaluated wetlands,
KTRCA's Environmentally Significant Areas (ESA), Carolinian Canada sites
and Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI - HNR) shall be
protected (Figure 6).
w~. rqi
- 57 -
10.4 Implementation
(i) Immediate Action
(a) Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Action
i) Expand land acquisition programs to place lands containing
important floral and faunal features into public ownership
and/or management agreement:
o MTRCA Land Acquisition Program
o MTRCA Greenspace Plan
o Carolinian Canada
Contributory Agencies: HNR
Carolinian Canada
Time: Initiate in 1990.
Action
ii> Establish a public education and awareness program to
outline the importance of healthy terrestrial habitats in
providing passive recreation, maintaining important
(functional) wildlife communities and enhancing groundwater
quantity and quality.
Contributory Agencies: HNR
Carolinian Canada
Interest Groups
(b) Local Municipality
Action
i) Accelerate existing programs of designating important floral
and faunal features as environmental protection areas
through the municipal planning process.
W~.lq'l
- 58 -
Contributory Agencies: HNR
HTRCA
Carolinian Canada
Time: Initiate within 1 year
(ii ) Future Action
(a) Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Action
i) Establish a private lands stewardship program to
rehabilitate terrestrial habitats on rural and urbanizing
lands.
Contributory Agencies: HNR
Interest Groups
Time: Initiate in 1990.
.
~R.2DO
- 59 -
11.0 AESTHETICS
11.1 Specific Vision Statement
0 Delight in the enjoyment of clear stream waters (in the seasons when
waters should normally be clear) that have no unpleasant odour,
abnormal algal growth, or industrial and domestic wastes.
11.2 Technical Guidelines
(1) The water should be sufficiently clear that a Secchi disc is
visible at a minimum of 1.2 m.
(ii) The turbidity of water should not be increased more than 5.0 NTU
(nephelometric turbidity units) over natural turbidity when this
is low (<SO NTU).
(iii) Oil or petrochemicals should not be present in concentrations
that:
- can be detected as a visible film, sheen or discoloration on
the surface;
- can be detected by odour; or
- can form deposits on shorelines and bottom deposits that are
detectable by sight and odour.
(iv) All waters should be free from:
- materials that will settle to form objectionable deposits;
- floating debris, oil, scum and other matter;
- substances producing objectionable colour, odour, taste or
turbidity; and
- substances and conditions or combinations thereof in
concentrations which produce undesirable aquatic life.
LA-'R.2.01
- 60 -
(v) Phosphorus levels should not exceed concentrations of 0.03 mg/l
for dry periods and the exceedance of existing guidelines be
minimized for wet periods.
11.3 Recommended Policies
(1) The Ministry of the Environment's PWQG for phosphorus shall be met
during periods of no runoff.
(ii) The frequency and length of time that phosphorus objectives are
exceeded during periods of runoff shall be minimized.
(iii) The guidelines for clarity, turbidity, aesthetics and oil and
grease (Canadian Water Quality Guidelines, 1987) should be met.
11.4 Implementation
(1) Immediate Action
(a) Local Municipality
Action
i) Eliminate and/or control dry weather phosphorus sources such
as illegal waste discharges to storm sewers, faulty septic
systems.
Tille : Initiate in 1990.
Action
ii) Spill Management - Refer to 6.4(i)(d) (ii).
WR.202-
- 61 -
12.0 THE ROUGE RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT STRATEGY: A LONG STEP FORWARD - BUT NOT
THE FINAL STEP?
The preparation of the Rouge River Basin Management Strategy is a significant
event in the evolution of the policies and programs of The Metropolitan
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.
Less than a decade ago, the Authority's approach to stormwater and urban
drainage management and erosion control essentially consisted of carrying out
individual, localized remedial works. A series of events in the 1980's
(described in S.3.1) led the Authority to question both the adequacy and the
cost-effectiveness of this piecemeal approach, and to recognize the need to
address each watershed as a functional unit rather than as a collection of
isolated water management problems.
This perception had two further important implications.
First, it led to recognition of the watershed as an ecosystem whose diverse
components. natural and man-made, were all interrelated. This in turn meant
that planning for water management in effect entailed planning for the
ecosystem.
Second, watershed planning could not be made the sole responsibility of a
single agency, even one with as broad a mandate as a conservation authority,
because it inevitably involved matters that were the responsibility of other
agencies. It had to become a cooperative endeavour with the full
participation of the municipal governments and provincial ministries that held
these responsibilities. Moreover, because of the interests of watershed
residents and of other non-governmental groups in different aspects of
watershed planning, provision for the participation of the public as well was
essential.
.
The first concrete expression of this new thinking was the Rouge River Urban
Drainage Study, initiated in 1986. For the first time MTRCA chose to
IIJ~. 203
- 62 -
examine a specific issue, the management of urban drainage, throughout an
entire watershed, in relation to other water management issues, in an
ecosystem context, in cooperation with other public agencies, and with the
participation of citizen groups.
Another manifestation of the new thinking was the Authority's 1988 Strategy
for Watershed Management, which not only set out these principles explicitly
as the framework for future watershed planning, but recognized that each
watershed in the Metro Toronto Region not only is itself an ecosystem but also
falls into place as part of a larger ecosystem.
Perhaps even more significantly, the Strategy also stressed the need to
maintain a balance between economic and ecological health, carrying in
somewhat different words the identical message brought to Canada the previous
year by the Brundtland Report on Environment and Development and that of the
National Task Force on Environment and Economy.
This is the sequence of events that led to the Rouge River Watershed
Management Strategy. The plan is not a product of theory or ideology but the
outcome of a process of learning from very practical experience, a process
which led inexorably to the conclusion that planning for water management has
to be both comprehensive and cooperative.
The outstanding question raised, in fact, by this learning process is: is even
comprehensive water management planning enough? Expressed a little
differently, is it appropriate or practical to separate planning for water
management from land and environmental planning in general?
The intention here is clearly not to suggest that the MTRCA, or any other
agency, should take over as a sort of supreme land and water planning
authority for the Metro Region. It is not even intended to suggest that such
a function should, or could, be exercised collectively by several different
agencies.
WR.:2DI1
- 63 -
However, the MTRCA'S experience over the past decade, culminating in ~ts 1988
Greenspace for the Greater Metro Region report and in the Rouge River
.atershed Management Strategy, points very clearly to the need for a broad,
cooperativelY developed. land/water/environmental policy framework for the
Region. within which each pubic agency could exercise its own responsibilities
with regard to. for example, municipal land use planning, transportation
planning, and environmental assessment. The needs is emphasized by the
Ontario government's appointment of an Environment-Economy Round Table with a
mandate to develop a provincial sustainable development strategy, a strategy,
in the words of the MTRCA's own watershed management strategy, to "balance
ecological health and quality with economic growth and development". A
land/water/environment policy for The Metropolitan Toronto Region could make a
vital contribution to a provincial sustainable development strategy, and would
in turn be reinforced by the strategy.
The Rouge River Basin Management Strategy is a long step forward in
environmental planning in the Metropolitan Toronto Region. but it should not
be the last.
~R. :lO~
- 64 -
13 .0 GLOSSARY
base flow: stream discharge from groundwater runoff.
basin: in hydrology, the area drained by a river.
channe 1 : a natural stream that conveys water; a ditch of channel
excavated for the flow of water.
cold water a fresh water, mixed fish population, including some
fishery: salmonids.
conservation: "wise use" or "multi purpose use" or "the greatest good for the
greatest number for the longest possible time".
ecosystem: an essentially natural complex of interlinking entities and
. processes which operate within some part of physical space.
enhancement: in an extreme form is a culture in which the ecosystem is
brought under close human control, as close as necessary to
effect the relevant human purposes.
erosion: wearing away of land surface by running water, wind, ice or
other geological agents. Detachment and movement of soil or
rock fragments by water, wind, ice or gravity.
fauna: the animals living within a given area or environment during a
stated period.
fill : any material deposited by an agent for as to fill or partly fill
a channel, valley, or other depression.
flood: an overflow or inundation that comes from a river or body of
water and causes or threatens to damage.
CAJR.:lol-
- 65 -
flood event: an occurrence based upon the measurement or calculation of the
volume of runoff or peak flow that results from any given
rainfall or snow melt.
100 year flood: the flood that based on historical data, occurs on the
average once in 100 years. It is based on peak flows as
opposed to rainfall amounts.
flood peak: the highest value of the stage or discharge attained by a flood.
floodplain: nearly level land situated on either side of a channel which is
subject to overflow flooding.
floral: the aggregate of plants growing in and usually peculiar to a
particular region or period.
groundwater: subsurface water in the zone of saturation.
headwater: the source of a stream; the water upstream from a structure or
point on a stream.
hydrology: the science dealing with the waters of the earth or what happens
to the rain once it falls on the ground.
impervious/impermeable soil: a soil through which water, air or roots cannot
penetrate.
intermittent streams: a stream or portion of a stream that flows in direct
response to precipitation and is dry for a large part of the
year.
LUf<. ;lo7
- 66 -
marsh: a periodically wet or continually flooded area where the surface
is not deeply submerged; covered dominantly with sedges,
cattails, rushes, or other hydrophytic plants.
me raine : an accumulation of glacial drift and vegetation, generally of
rock, gravels, and sands, built within a glaciated region,
chiefly by the direct action of glacial ice.
restoration: attempts to recover some of the features of the initial wild
state currently perceived as particularly desirable.
stream order: A classification system that numbers the tributaries of a river
beginning with headwater tributaries and increasing the order
number as lower order tributaries join the mainstream.
warm water fishery: a fresh water, mixed fish population, with no salmonids.
.
lA)R .~og
- 67 -
14.0 REFERENCE
Canadian Council of Resources and Environmental Ministers - Task Force on
Water Quality Guidelines. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines. March 1987.
Eagles, F.J.. T.J. Beechey (The identification subcommittee of Carolinian
Canada) . Critical Unprotected Natural Areas in the Carolinian Life Zone
of Canada. November 1985.
Edwards, E.A.. G. Gebhart and O.E. Maughan. Habitat Suitability Information:
Smallmouth Bass. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-
82/10.36. 1983.
Francis, George R. et a1. Rehabilitating Great Lakes Ecosystem. Great Lakes
Fishery Commission, Technical Report No. 37. December 1979.
Hanna, R. Ministry of Natural Resources. Life Science Areas of Natural and
Scientific Interest in Site District 7-4. 1984.
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Environmentally
Significant Areas Study. 1982.
Ministry of the Environment and Ministry of Natural Resources Guide to Eating
Ontario Sport Fish. 1988.
Ministry of the Environment. Spills Response Program. 1988.
Ministry of the Environment. Water Management Goals, Policies. Objectives and
Implementation Procedures of the Ministry of the Environment. November
1978, Revised May 1984.
Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of the Environment. Municipal Affairs
and Transportation and Communications, Association of Conservation
Authorities of Ontario. Municipal Engineers Association. Urban
Development Institute. Ontario. Urban Drainage Design Guidelines.
February 1987.
Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of the Environment. Municipal Affairs
and Transportation and Communications, Association of Conservation
Authorities of Ontario, Municipal Engineers Association, Urban
Development Institute, Ontario. Guidelines on Erosion and Sediment
Control for Urban Construction Sites. May 1987.
Ministry of Natural Resources - Ontario Urban drainage Implementation
Committee. Guidelines on Erosion and Sediment Control for Urban
Construction Sites. May 1987.
lv~.;Zoq
- 68 -
Ministry of Natural Resources. Wetlands Evaluation.
Raleigh, R.F. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Brook Trout. U.S. Dept.
Int., Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-82/10.24. 1982.
Raleigh, R.F., T. Hickman, R.C. Solomon and P.C. Nelson. Habitat Suitability
Information: Rainbow Trout. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish and Wildlife Service
FWS/OBS-82/10.60. 1984.
Steedman, R.J. Comparative Analysis of Stream Degradation and Rehabilitation
in the Toronto Area. University of Toronto, 1987.
(,yR. &210
APPENDIX
OF
A COMPREHENSIVE BASIN
DRAFT
MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR THE ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED
l,(jR · :l , J
- Al -
APPENDIX 1
STAKEHOLDERS COMMITTEE
STAKEHOLDER NAME BRANCH/DISTRICT/DEPARTMENT
MOE Hr. Dale Henry Water Resources Branch
Mr. Jonathan PINg Water Resources Branch
Mr. Gary Bowen Water Resources Branch
Mr. John Antoszek Water Resources Branch
Mr. John Kinkead Water Resources Branch
Mr. Zdenek Novak Water Resources Branch
MNR Mr. Glen Price Central Region
Mr. Mike Wynia Central Region
Mr. Peter White Central Region
Mr. Ron DesJardine Central Region
Mr. Tim Rance Maple District
Mr. Les Pataky Maple District
Ms. Lorrie Pella Maple District
Mr. Chris Tschirhart Maple District
Ms. Pearl McKeen Policy & Program Development Section
MGS Mr. Ken Elliott Realty Group
OHM Mr. Sam Singer Water Management
CITY OF Mr. Mike Price Works Department
SCARBOROUGH Mr. Gary McGee Works Department
Mr. John Tran Works Department
Mr. John Minor Works Department
Mr. Harius Ois Works Department
TOWN OF Mr. Steve Boland Engineering Department
RICHMOND HILL
TOWN OF Mr. Eric Erne ry Planning Departmen
MARKHAM Ms. Margaret Buchinger Planning Department
Mr. Tim Lambe Planning Department
Mr. Derek Mack-Mumford Planning Department
Mr. Alan Brown Engineering Department
Mr. Tony Masongsong Engineering Department
Mr. D. Keliar Director of Planning
TOWN OF Mr. Steve Vokes Public Works Department
PICKERING
tUR. af:l
- A2 -
APPENDIX 1 (cont'd. ....)
STAKEHOLDERS COMMITTEE
STAKEHOLDER NAME BRANCH/DISTRICT/DEPARTMENT
MUNICIPALITY OF Mr. Frank Kershaw Parks & Property Department
METROPOLITAN Mr. Han Kwan Parks & Property Department
TORONTO
REGIONAL
MUNICIPALITY Barbara Jeffrey Planning Department
OF YORK Mr. George Todd Engineering Department
TOWN OF Mr. Bill Clarke Giffels Associates
WHITCHURCH-
STOUFFVILLE
STAKEHOLDERS NAME
Sierra Club of Ontario Mr. Ray Blower
Urban Development Institute Hr. Lloyd Chemiak
National Water Research Institute Mr. Andy Fraser
Save the Rouge Valley System Ms. Cathy Gregorio
Conservation Council of Ontario Mr. Glenn Harrington
Save the Rouge Valley System Mrs. Lois James
Toronto Field Naturalists Mrs. Helen Juhola
Sierra Club of Ontario Ms. Donna Karandjas
Save the Rouge Valley System Mr. Stephen Marshall
Save the Rouge Valley System Ms. Patricia Paley
Save the Rouge Valley System Mr. Jim Robb
Conservation Council of Ontario Ms. Ellen Schwartzel
Save the Rouge Valley System Ms. Donna Shaw
University of Guelph Mr. Mike White
.
.
wR.~13
- A3 -
APPENDIX 2
TECHNICAL COMHITTEE*
CONSULTANTS MTRCA STAFF
NAME EXPERTISE NAME EXPERTISE
Rob Bishop Hydrology Alyson Deans Policy &
Marshall Macklin Urban Drainage Policy Planning Planning
Monaghan Ltd. Coordinator
Mac Cosburn Urban Drainage Ron Dewell Erosion
Cosburn Patterson Coordinator, Water
Wardman Ltd. Resources Projects
Trevor Dickenson Erosion Christine Doody- Urban
University of Guelph Rural Drainage Hamilton, Coordinator, Drainage
Water Management
Studies
Ivan Lorant Erosion Dave Dyce, Manager Resource
M.M. Dillon Ltd. Hydrology Resource Management Management
Section
Nancy Mather Urban Drainage Renee Jarrett, Manager Plan Review
Cosburn Patterson Plan Review Section
Wardman Ltd.
Karl Schiefer Fisheries Brian Hindley Fisheries
Beak Consultants Ltd. Coordinator Water
Environmental Projects Quality
Bill Snodgrass Water Quality Richard Hubbard Fisheries
Beak Consultants Ltd. Environmental Water
Projects Biologist Quality
Paul Wisner Hydrology Peter Wigham Terrestrial
University of Ottawa Urban Drainage Resource Management
Technician
Peter Walker Land Use
Walker Wright Young Planning
& Associates Ltd.
*The technical Committee members also attended the Stakeholders meetings.
wR.2'LI-
- A( i) -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Table of Contents A(i)
List of Figures A( ii)
List of Tables Miii)
1. Introduction A4
1.1 Flood Control AS
1.1.1 Introduction A5
1.1.2 Modelling Overview A6
1.1.3 Interpretation of Modelling Results A8
1.1.4 Runoff Control Effectiveness All
1.1.5 Channelization A12
1.1.6 Recommended Strategy A13
1.2 Erosion Control A16
1.2.1 Introduction A16
1.2.2 Statement of Conclusions A16
1.2.3 Implications/Trends A18
1.2.4 Recommended Strategy A19
1.3 Fisheries A21
1.3.1 Introduction A21
1.3.2 Summary of Rouge Study Conclusions A21
1.3.3 Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Modelling Results A23
1.3.4 Aquatic Habitat Issues and Concerns A25
1.3.5 Recommended Strategy A26
1.4 Water Quality A27
1.4.1 Introduction A27
1.4.2 Statement of Conclusions A28
1.4.3 Implications/Trends A32
1.4.4 Recommended Strategy A33
1.5 Terrestrial Habitats A38
1.5.1 Introduction A38
1.5.2 Impact Assessment A41
1.5.3 Historic Airphoto Analysis A42
1.5.4 Hydrologic Modelling A44
1.5.5 Conclusion A44
1.5.6 Recommended Strategy A46
toR.R'~
- A(ii) -
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
l. Water Level Impacts Appendix - Rear Cover
2. Stream Levels Appendix - Rear Cover
3. Flood Susceptible Sites Appendix - Rear Cover
Lt)R. ;l,~
- A(1iU -
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
l. Biophysical Zone A39
2. Stream Flows A4S
.
wR.~,'?
- A4 -
1. INTRODUCTION
The Rouge River Urban Drainage Study was initiated in 1986 as a prototype
watershed study aimed at assessing and mitigating the water basin impacts of
future urban growth on flooding, erosion, water quality and environmental
resources in the Rouge River and its tributaries.
The study used state of the art modelling and assessment techniques and
employed experts from the field of hydrology, erosion processes, water quality
and aquatic ecology to complete a series of technical studies describing
existing basin characteristics, predicting future changes and examining the
effectiveness of current and stOrIDWater practices. The Phase I technical
studies have been completed by Marshall, Macklin, Monaghan Ltd. and Beak
Consultants Ltd. and consisted of seven (7) volumes:
o Volume 1: Executive Summary
o Volume 2: Subwatershed HydrologiC Modelling
o Volume 3: Subwatershed Water Quality Modelling
o Volume 4: Subwatershed Runoff Control Study
o Volume 5: Subwatershed Erosion Control Study
o Volume 6: Watershed Water Quality Assessment
o Volume 7: Watershed Environmental Studies
Draft Phase II technical studies have been completed by Marshall, Macklin,
Monaghan L td. and Beak Consultants Ltd. and consisted of five (5) volumes:
o Volume l: Completion of Subwatershed Studies (channelization and
erosion control studies)
o Volume 2: Watershed Wide Studies (hydrology, runoff control,
channelization and erosion control studies)
o Volume 3: Flood Control Study - Upper Rouge Study
o Volume 4: Water Quality Study - Phase II
--~ - ~ ~ -- --- ---- -
- -- -- ~ --- -
~{? ~,~
- A5 -
o Volume 5: Environmental Studies Phase II
At the completion of the draft Phase II technical reports, the Metropolitan
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (HTRCA) assembled a Technical
Committee comprised of recognized experts in a number of fields. In addition,
a stakeholders committee comprising those municipalities, provincial agencies
and public groups with a mandate and/or interest in the Rouge Watershed was
formed. Both of these groups assisted the HTRCA in:
o reviewing and qualifying the conclusions of the Rouge River Urban
Drainage Study;
o producing a Vision which described in human terms the essential
natural features of the Rouge Watershed;
o establishing a number of goals regarding the future use of th, Rouge
watershed; and
o developing a watershed management strategy outlining immediate
actions and future requirements.
The conclusions of the Rouge River Urban Drainage Study have been summarized
in the following sections. These conclusions form the basis on which the
Vision and recommended watershed policies were developed.
1.1 FJood Control
1.1.1 Introduction
It is the HTRCA's mandate as a watershed manager to minimize the threat
to life and property as a result of flooding. To fulfil this mandate,
the Authority has identified and inventoried numerous flood susceptible
sites on the Rouge River, and has developed and implemented a flood
control policy for its entire jurisdiction.
WR..2'~
- A6 -
One of the objectives of the Rouge River Urban Drainage Study was to
evaluate the HTRCA's current policy for runoff control as it relates to
flood control on the Rouge River for both technical effectiveness and
cost effectiveness.
1.1.2 Modelling Overview
(a) The objective of this study was to determine the sensitivity of
the Rouge River watershed hydrology to increasing urbanization
and to predict the nature of potential impacts.
(b) The QUALHYHO model was used to predict different types of flows
in order to assess the sensitivity. These flows may be
categorized as follows:
i) unusual or rare flows (eg. 100 year flood, Regional
flood) ;
ii) frequent flows (eg. 2 year flood);
iii) average or low flows.
(c) The indicators of hydrologic impacts are:
- water levels
- flow velocity
- flow duration
- water quality
Flow data is used to interpret these indicators. The most
significant indicator for flood control purposes is water level.
(d) The Regional flood and/or "rare" events are used as indicators
for flood control purposes. This is generally accepted
--
LUR.2%O
- A7 -
engineering practice and in conformity with the provincial
Floodplain Planning Policy Statement and Guidelines.
(e) Changes in flow can result in changes in water levels. These
changes may be measurable. The accuracy of the measured changes
is limited by:
- tolerance limits of the model
- accuracy of the data
- accuracy of measurements
- accuracy of mapping
Given the above limitations:
i) a change in water level of 5 cm can be considered
"insignificant";
ii) a change in water level of 6 cm - 15 cm can be considered
"minor";
iii) a change in water level of 16 cm - 40 cm can be considered
"cautionary", requiring further investigation;
iv) a change in water level exceeding 40 cm can be considered
"significant" (this amount is in excess of accepted
engineering practice for construction/design of
incorporating a "freeboard" or "safety factor" above the
design water level - usually of 35 cm).
(f) Large changes in flow can result in smaller or small changes in
water level.
(g) In the case of an ill-defined, or relatively flat floodplain, a
change in water level can result in a change in the floodplain
W~.:2~ ,
- A8 -
limits (i.e., the topwidth of the floodplain). In the case of a
well defined valley, changes in water level may result in only
very small changes in topwidth.
1.1.3 Interpretation of Modelling Results
(a) General
i) The modelling approach was reasonable and followed
generally accepted engineering practices.
The model is acceptable as a "planning level" study.
ii) The model confirmed that the Rouge River watershed is a
complex drainage basin and that a computer modelling
exercise was essential to evaluate hydrologic responses
and the effects of land use changes on complex non-
homogenous basins.
iii) Scientific research demonstrates that several models can
show similar hydrologic trends (i.e., the results of this
study were not model specific). The Rouge study results
confirmed this.
iv) The model is sensitive to the following:
(a) data;
(b) calibration and verification;
(c) changes in land use.
(b) Trends
i) The model demonstrated that a change in land use without
runoff control can result in a change in flows. The
extent of the change in flows is dependent upon:
w~ ~~~
- A9 -
(a) type of land use change;
(b) percentage of land use change;
(c) distribution within the watershed of land use change.
ii) The Rouge River watershed may be considered in terms of
three impact zones:
(a) Level 1 (micro-system)
These watercourses generally are pipes, swales and
ditches, and are characterized by intermittent flows.
(b) Level 2 (tributary system)
These watercourses can be 1st, 2nd or 3rd order
streams and are characterized by a defined low-flow
channel and continuous flow.
(c) Level 3 (river system)
These watercourses are generally 4th order streams and
up, generally drain in excess of 5,000 ha and are
considered the principal watercourses in a watershed.
iii) The model showed that the hydrologic impacts of
changing land uses are different from different stream
levels and different return period events. The
impacts can be summarized as follows for the range of
urbanization considered (Figure A-l):
(a) Level 1
In a rural condition, flows are negligible.
Urbanization causes large percentage increases in
flows; however, the magnitude of the flow is still
small, and changes in water level can be considered
wR.~~3
- AI0 -
insignificant since these watercourses typically are
incorporated into the storm sewer system design.
The hydrologic impacts on Level 1 watercourses become
significant only in terms of the potential cumulative
impacts on Level 2 and 3 streams. This is true for
both frequent and rare events.
(b) Level 2
This is the first level where the cumulative effects
of land use changes are felt.
The most significant increases in flows from changing
land use are felt on Level 2 streams.
Under the high growth scenario, there is a
"cautionary" and potentially "significant" increase in
water levels on Level 2 tributaries immediately
downstream of uncontrolled development for both 2 year
and 100 year flows.
Under Regional flow conditions, there is a "minor"
increase in water levels at some points and no
increase at others.
(c) Level 3
At this stream level changes in the ratio of flow
increases is smaller. The cumulative effects of
upstream land use changes are increasingly dampened
out as drainage area increases.
Under the high growth scenario, there is a "minor" or
"insignificant" increase in water levels on the main
tributaries of the Rouge and Little Rouge Rivers for
both 2 year and 100 year flows.
f.A.)~. ~:1 ~
- All -
Under Regional low conditions, there is generally no
increase in water levels. Only at one of the flow
points examined was there a "minor" increase in water
level.
1.1.4 Runoff Control Effectiveness
The effectiveness of runoff control can also be discussed in terms of
stream levels (Figure A-2).
( a) Level 1
The study showed that runoff controls can effectively control
all peak flows for Level 1 streams to pre-development levels.
(b) Level 2
The study showed that runoff control implemented on Level 1
streams does not ensure that control will be achieved on
downstream Level 2 streams due to changes in the timing of
flows.
For 2 year and lOO year flows, peak flows were mostly between 5%
and 30% higher than existing flows.
The Rouge Study results showed that runoff control for Level 2
streams can be effective if it is designed on subwatershed
basis.
(c) Level 3
The study showed that upstream runoff control is not effective
in controlling 2 year and 100 year flows in Level 3 streams.
The generally accepted practice of designing upstream runoff
control facilities to achieve a zero increase in downstream peak
flows is not effective for Level 3 streams.
wR.~:lS
- A12 -
Other runoff control alternatives were examined, including over-
control on some tributaries. Within the range of cost-effective
solutions examined, the study showed that selective upstream
over-control is not effective in controlling 2 year and 100 year
peak flows on Level 3 streams.
The study results indicated that large on-line facilities may be
required to effectively control downstream flows in Level 3
streams. In other words, for Level 3 streams, runoff control is
achieved through centralized storage which can be equated with
flood control. Dams for flood control may be reviewed and
considered along with other remedial works options.
Flood control for Level 3 streams is not effective for
controlling flows in Levels 1 and 2 streams. In other words,
centralized facilities to control flows in Level 3 streams does
not eliminate the need for upstream control.
1.1.5 Channelization
(a) The study demonstrated that extensive channelization utilizing a
traditional trapezoidal design can increase peak flows for all
storms due to reduced travel times in both Level 2 and Level 3
streams.
The increase in Regional flood levels for Level 3 streams under
high growth scenario and full channelization is "cautionary" and
potentiallY "significant".
Under the high growth scenario with partial channelization,
increases in water levels are "insignificant".
(b) The study showed that extensive channelization utilizing a
traditional trapezoidal design can reduce the effectiveness of
~~. ~;t"
- Al3 -
runoff control facilities if reduced travel times are not
incorporated into the design.
1.1.6 Recommended Strategy
(a) The study has demonstrated that a "blanket" policy of runoff
control for flood control purposes is not effective on a
watershed basis.
i) Based on the study results, runoff control should no
longer be implemented upstream of the Unionville Damage
Centres solely for flood control purposes.
ii) Instead, a program of remedial works and acquisition
should be developed for the Unionville Damage Centres.
(b) In addition to the Unionville Damage Centres, there are 31 other
known flood susceptible sites on Level 2 and 3 streams within
the Rouge River watershed. These are shown on the attached
Figure A-3.
i) These sites should be prioritized in terms of potential
flood damages.
ii) Flood Susceptible Sites on Level 2 Streams
Master Drainage Plans should be prepared for all Level 2
streams prior to any new development occurring, to assess
the need and various options for runoff control.
One component of the Master Drainage Plan should be a
detailed assessment of all existing flood susceptible
sites and the potential impacts of development. SpecifiC
plans for works and/or acquisition should be developed
that would include cost-benefit analyses and cost/cost-
sharing.
~R.:)~ 7
- A14 -
iii) Flood Susceptible Sites on Level 3 Streams
The study showed that upstream runoff control is not
effective in controlling flows in Level 3 streams. There
is, therefore, no justification for requiring upstream
runoff control to protect flood susceptible sites on Level
3 streams.
Instead, an acquisition plan should be developed for flood
susceptible sites on Level 3 streams. This plan would
include:
- priority for acquisition;
- estimated costs;
- mechanisms to levy upstream developers;
- implementation of strategy;
- funding administration.
As a watershed manager, the MTRCA is the logical agency to
develop and implement this plan with the cooperation of
its member municipalities.
In addition, a mechanism should be developed whereby the
HTRCA may collect and administer funds for remedial works
on Level 3 streams in lieu of upstream runoff control.
(c) Terms of reference should be prepared for master drainage plans
within the Rouge River watershed to ensure consistency in
approach and compatibility with the Rouge Study methodology and
results.
(d) i) Traditional channel design should be discouraged because
of the cumulative hydrologic impacts demonstrated by this
study. Traditional channel design may be permitted in
cases where there is a flood control benefit associated
with it.
wR. :l~i
A1S -
ii) Alternative channel designs should be investigated to
determine if the hydrologic impacts of channelization can
be mitigated. Based on this analysis, guidelines for
channelization may be prepared.
iii) Channelization should be strongly discouraged where there
is:
- a well defined valley;
- a terrestrial resource concern;
- a fishery resource concern.
Master drainage plan studies for Level 2 streams may
uncover additional reaches where this criteria may apply.
Channel improvements may still be considered on a site-by-
site basis.
iv) Channelization will only be considered in the context of a
master drainage plan where the hydrologic impacts of
channelization can be mitigated, and other planning,
environmental or related concerns can be addressed.
(e) A hydrologic "model maintenance" program should be developed
that includes:
- staff training;
- monitoring/data collection;
- model adjustment/refinement;
- model updating.
The HTRCA should be "custodian" of the Rouge River hydrology
model.
WR.~:2~
- A16 -
1.2 EROSION CONTROL
1.2.1 Introduction
It is the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's
mandate as a watershed manager to minimize the hazard to life and
property from channel or valley wall erosion. To fulfil this mandate,
the Authority has identified and inventoried numerous erosion sites on
the Rouge River and implemented both a protection program through
remedial works, and a preventative program through the implementation of
Authority regulations and through commenting as part of the plan input
and review process including a Stormwater management Program.
The two main objectives of the erosion component of the Rouge River
Urban Drainage Study was to assess the impact of urbanization of river
erosion and to evaluate the effectiveness of the HTRCA's current
Stormwater Management Program in preventing erosion.
1.2.2 Statement of Conclusions
The purpose of the erosion control component of the study was to
"determine the effects of urbanization on stream and channel erosion and
the effectiveness of storIDWater management ponds to control erosion in
downstream watercourses".
.
(a) General Overview
i) Erosion is a natural phenomenon.
ii) Urban hydrologic changes can aggravate or accelerate
channel erosion, however, the rate of erosion varies
dependent on; geomorphologic characteristics, soil types,
% urbanize~, distance from urbanization.
-..
WR.~30
- A17 -
iii) Urbanization has less effect on the unusual or rare flows
(eg. 100 year/Regional Floods) than on the frequent flows
(eg. 2 year flood). It may not be practical from a
technical and cost effectiveness perspective to control
the unusual or rare flows for erosion control.
iv) A large number of erosion sites exist in the Lower Rouge
(below Steeles Avenue). Currently, they are not
significant in relation to hazard of public or private
structures. The gradient and soils through this reach of
the Rouge combine to create a high potential for erosion.
v) Under existing land use, there is a low potential for
erosion in the remainder of the Rouge watershed.
vi) A theoretical method of controlling channel erosion is to
attempt to obtain true zero increase in runoff rather than
only a zero increase in peak flow. However, such an
approach is much more difficult if not impossible to
achieve.
vii) Based on the study results, runoff control practised on
Level 1 and 2 streams, are not effective in controlling
flows on Level 3 streams and, therefore, cannot be
effective in controlling an increase in erosion potential.
(b) Modelling Overview
The purpose of the erosion model was to test the storage
effectiveness vs. uncontrolled runoff as it relates to erosion.
The erosion modelling indicated the following:
i) Erosion is a site specific phenomenon and is a very
complex problem dependent on various geomorphic
wR.:as,
- A18 -
characteristics, various flow characteristics and soils
and therefore, a blanket stormwater management policy is
not effective;
ii) Peak flow increases mayor may not accelerate erosion;
iii) Duration and volume of flow runoff is as important as peak
flow in increasing erosion potential and that existing
stormwater management practices appear to be ineffective
in reducing the erosion potential when runoff is
controlled to predevelopment levels;
iv) Limitations of the model and the lack of historical data
meant that the modelling could indicate erosion potential
but was unable to predict the extent of the erosion or
determine the most effective design of storage facilities
for erosion control.
v) The model has provided direction for future research;
vi) The Authority's Stormwater Management Policy for erosion
control was a step in the right direction, however, it may
not always be effective in prOViding erosion control
benefits.
1.2.3 Implications/Trends
(a) The study recognized a weakness in the technical ability of the
erosion model to accurately predict the effects of flow changes
on erosion. Therefore, the confidence level regarding the
effectiveness of runoff control in minimizing erosion increases
is low.
I,UR · R 3.2-
- A19 -
(b) Runoff control on Level 1 and 2 streams does not appear to be
effective in controlling flows on Level 3 streams and,
therefore, we must assume that it will not be effective in
preventing erosion. If upstream preventative work is not
effective, then the Authority should consider alternative
solutions to deal with the potential problem.
(c) Regardless of urbanization, unusual or rare events will cause
significant erosion damages throughout the watershed. It is not
cost effective to provide erosion protection for these events.
1.2.4 Recommended Strategy
(a) The study has demonstrated that the current blanket stormwater
management policy for erosion control may not be effective on a
watershed basis and should be discontinued.
(b) Master Drainage Planning should include an erosion study which
would identify Level 1 and 2 streams where detention facilities
would be effective, and Level land 2 streams where protective
works should be implemented. A provision should be made to
install protective works on Level 1 and 2 streams where
detention facilities prove ineffective.
A policy of local control should be retained in an attempt to
protect Level 1 and 2 streams of high quality from high erosion
potential resulting from major increases in flow projected in
some areas of development.
Protective works, on Level land 2 streams not identified as
high quality, should be implemented in lieu of stormwater
management. An opportunity for enhancement/rehabilitation of
Level 1 and 2 streams which are under stress is possible through
this process.
tuR.:t33
- A20 -
(c) In addition to the Authority's existing remedial works program,
a mechanism should be developed within the watershed whereby the
MTRCA can collect and administer funds for preventative
protective works on Level 3 streams in lieu of upstream runoff
control. A monitoring program on Level 3 streams should be
implemented to assess the impacts of increased flows and to
determine when and where protective works should be carried out.
(d) Guidelines for design of the most efficient detention facility
should be prepared based on existing technology and provision
for updating the design should be made as the technology and
calibration data improve.
(e) A monitoring program should be established to determine the
effectiveness of storage facilities and a program for collecting
the required calibration data for use in complex erosion models
should be initiated and maintained.
(f) The Authority's practice of preventing development within
erosion prone areas should be continued and a review carried out
to determine if the existing setback gUidelines are adequate.
(g) Design of all preventative remedial works should be cognizant of
the flood control, fisheries and water quality objectives and
their design criteria incorporated into erosion works where
appropriate.
~~.~5~
- A21 -
1.3 FISHERIES
1.3.1 Introduction
The Rouge River supports fish populations which are recognized as having
substantial present and future biological and recreational value. A
Rouge River watershed plan must address the aquatic habitat problems and
needs related to the fish communities being protected and managed. This
is particularly critical as the pace and nature of urbanization have a
dramatic effect on future land uses which, in turn, have a direct effect
on physical, chemical and biOlogical conditions in the Rouge River.
With this broad objective in mind, the Rouge Study undertook the
following:
(a) to document the current conditions of fish populations and their
habitats throughout the watershed;
(b) to identify indicator or target fish species for each fish
community type to facilitate habitat management;
(c) to apply Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) models for these target
fish species to the Rouge River;
(d) using HSI models, assess the nature and degree of aquatic
habitat change which could be expected with several urban
development scenarios in the Rouge watershed; and
(e) to establish an analytical framework and set of habitat criteria
for future protection, management and enhancement of fish
communities in the Rouge River.
1.3.2 Summary of Rouge Study Conclusions
The following provides a general summary of the conclusions of the
fisheries component of the Rouge Study.
CJ:)R. RS~
- A22 -
(a) Existing Conditions
i) The Rouge watershed can be broken into four physiographic
zones that largely dictate the types of aquatic habitats
and fish communities present:
0 HEADWATERS : high gradient first and second order
streams originating on the Oak Ridges Moraine.
Existing land uses are predominantly agriculture, and
estate residential.
0 HIDREACHES: low gradient second and third order
streams flowing across a relatively flat clay plain.
Existing land uses are predominantly agriculture and
rapidly expanding urbanization.
0 LOWER REACHES: moderate gradient third order streams
flowing through deeply incised forested valleys.
Existing land uses are predominantly Authority lands
and urban development.
0 DELTA HARSH: low gradient fourth order stream flowing
through extensive cattail marsh on shore of Lake
Ontario. Existing land uses are predominantly
Authority lands and urban development.
ii) Each zone has a characteristic fish community or guild
typified by an indicator species, as follows:
0 HEADWATERS brook trout (resident coldwater
community)
0 MIDREACHES smal1mouth bass (resident warmwater
community); rainbow trout (Little Rouge)
WR. 23"
- A23 -
0 LOWER REACHES: rainbow trout (resident
warmwater/migratory coldwater community)
0 DELTA HARSH: northern pike, largemouth bass
(coolwater/warmwater community)
Hi) Extensive aquatic habitat surveys and fish collections
carried out on much of the Rouge River over the past ten
years provide a good database on this resource feature.
Generally, aquatic habitats remain in relatively good
condition in most sections of the river, with the above
fish communities and indicator species being well
represented in their respective preferred habitats.
1.3.3 Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Modelling Results
(a) The appropriate HSI model for three of the indicator species was
applied to the respective zones of the Rouge River to determine
existing suitability of habitat conditions and potential impacts
of future urban development scenarios.
(b) The headwaters currently have a poor to moderate HSI value
(0.29) for brook trout limited primarily by the scarcity of
adul t habitat. This results in populations of small fish.
Higher suitability habitats for brook trout are few and
scattered, with many headwater stream habitats degraded by
agricultural and residential development land uses. ABa
result, only remnants of a coldwater resident brook trout
community remain on the Rouge River. Habitat factors sensitive
to urbanization include baseflow, canopy cover, water
temperatures and maintenance of a natural channel configuration.
(c) The midreaches have a high HSI value (0.78) for smallmouth bass.
Habitat suitability is optimum in the more lacustrine habitats
w R.~a7
- A24 - .
provided by ponds and reservoirs, such as the Milne Reservoir at
Markham. It is anticipated that the development scenarios being
considered could have a marginal effect on HSI values for bass.
Onstream ponds could increase HSI by providing new lacustrine
habitats, while increased sediment loading, higher suspended
solids concentrations or increased fluctuations in water levels
tend to lower HSI.
(d) Two HSI models were used to describe habitat suitability for
rainbow trout in the lower reaches - one limited to seasonal
migration on adult fish from Lake Ontario and the other for a
natural, self-sustaining population in the river.
(e) The HSI for adult trout migration is high (0.88), confirming the
suitability of the lower Rouge River for seasonal migration runs
of not only rainbow trout, but also brown trout and chinook and
coho salmon from Lake Ontario. These populations are sustained
by annual stocking of hatchery-reared juvenile fish. Important
habitat features for adult migration are not expected to be
impacted by the urban development scenarios being examined.
(f) The HSI for a self-sustaining rainbow trout population in the
lower Rouge River is 0.00, indicating several habitat
limitations. A sensitivity analysis of the HSI model indicated
that maximum summer water temperatures are excessive to support
juvenile rainbow trout. A 2 to 4 degree Celsius reduction in
maximum water temperatures results in an HSI value of 0.72 (good
suitability), indicating that all other habitat criteria remain
well suited for rainbow trout. Since Milne Reservoir is the
controlling influence on water temperature entering the lower
reaches of the main Rouge, it is expected that the development
scenarios above Milne Reservoir will have little influence on
HSI values for self-sustaining rainbow trout below the
reservoir. There is some evidence that restoration of riparian
~~~s
. - A25 -
vegetation and canopy shading of the lower river would achieve
the desired decrease in maximum water temperatures and a
substantial increase in HSI values. Other habitat variables
which could be sensitive to future upriver urban development
include baseflows, turbidity, sedimentation and channel scouring
or bank erosion.
1.3.4 Aquatic Habitat Issues and Concerns
(a) There is concern that, at or beyond the predicted level of
future development, physical habitats (i.e., channel morphology)
in the lower reaches will deteriorate as a result of channel
scouring and bank erosion. It is quite plausible that such
physical habitat effects will exert a more substantial negative
effect on fish populations than water quality effects of
nutrients, trace metals and organics. This appears to have been
a major factor in fish community losses in the Don River and
Highland Creek as these watersheds were urbanized.
(b) Aquatic habitats in the Rouge watershed have, in large measure
been buffered from development impacts because of physiography,
topography and the historical pattern of development (i.e.,
mouth to headwaters). The Rouge has been only slightly
influenced by sewage treatment facilities and combined sewer
overflows which have caused major aquatic habitat degradation in
other watercourses.
(c) Urbanization imposes other environmental risks which are
difficult to quantify or predict. For instance, the incidence
of accidental spills on roadways, at service stations or at
industrial sites increases markedly with urbanization. As well,
use of herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers and other chemical
agents also imposes cumulative water quality stresses on
receiving streams. Needless to say, a toxic material entering
tuR.23'f
- A26 -
.
the river destroys habitat suitability for sensitive fish
species regardless of the condition of other habitat criteria.
1.3.5 Recommended Strategy
(a) To effectively protect aquatic resources of the Rouge River and
achieve fisheries management objectives, a comprehensive and
integrated land use management plan for the total watershed is
required.
(b) The land use plan must examine the limits of watershed
urbanization beyond which it loses its capacity to function as a
stream ecosystem and becomes little more than a network of urban
drainage channels.
(c) The HSI approach to determining acceptable habitat criteria for
a target fish species should be applied on individual
tributaries or specific river reaches which could be affected by
a proposed development. In the Rouge Study, HSI's for the
target species were applied to the average conditions found in
large subsections of the watershed.
(d) Key habitat parameters and the resident fish community should be
monitored on a regular basis to ensure that the fisheries
objectives are being achieved. This will also provide useful
data to refine and better adapt the HSI model as a useful
watershed management tool in a Rouge River application.
J,.j R. :lIfeD
- A27 -
1.4 Water Quality
1.4.1 Introduction
In fulfilling its role as the watershed management agency, MTRCA
is developing an integrated watershed management plan for the
Rouge River watershed. As a part of this mandate, it is necessary
to protect the quality of the water for purposes of public health,
contact and non-contact recreation, protection of aquatic biota
and aesthetics. As well, the effects of contaminant discharges
upon the Lake Ontario ecosystem must be controlled.
To fulfil this mandate, the HTRCA with the assistance of the
Ministry of the Environment (MOE) commissioned a study to examine
present trends of water quality and to evaluate the need and
effectiveness of water quality controls needed in rural and urban
areas.
Water quality improvement could be achieved through:
(a) Implementation of water quality controls in agricultural
and urbanizing areas including the elimination of impacts
of construction impacts;
(b) protection and extension of riparian vegetation which is
fundamental to establishing good chemical and physical
water quality for fish and other ecosystem values; and
(c) prevention of erosion, spills in new developments.
(a) Objectives
The purpose of the water quality component of the study was to
assess the impact of urbanization upon the water quality of the
Rouge River and to relate these impacts on fisheries and other
CA:>R. ~,+J
- A28 -
end uses within the context of an Ecosystem Based Plan for water
management.
The specific objectives of the water quality study were
i) Assess historical water quality data in the Rouge River
with a view to determining the effects of agriculture and
the impacts of urbanization with respect to various
quality related objectives and their exceedance.
ii) Evaluate water quality impacts upon fisheries habitat and
scale to different levels of urbanization.
iii) Evaluate the generic truism that storIDWater runoff from
urban areas leads to degradation of stream quality
(regular runoff, spills) and evaluate whether there is a
need for water quality control in the Rouge River system.
iv) Examine control options (Best Management Practices:
Structural, Non-Structural Methods) and their impact upon
water quality.
v) Evaluate potential conflicts between the implementation
of water quality control and other policies (including
fisheries objectives; water quality control).
vi) Develop and evaluate new watershed management practices
where warranted.
1.4.2 Statement of Conclusions
(a) General Study Findings
i) Prior to human settlement the Rouge River contained vast
stands of forest. The Spongy soils of these forests took
~R. 2".2.
- A29 -
up nutrients from the rainwater and soils and released
other elements into the river. The soils released
infiltrating rainwater over several hours to several days
after a rainfall. Forest fires, hurricanes and other
acts of nature historically caused periodic releases of
nutrients and erosion of banks.
ii) Historically, development of the watershed has wrought
major changes in the land use characteristics of the
basin and the physical and hydraulic characteristics of
the watercourse as a result of agriculture, urban
development, tree harvesting and flood control. Land
uses tended to be superimposed upon each other (in the
same fashion as urban development is now superimposed on
agricultural lands).
iii) The present water quality of the Rouge River is
influenced by agricultural and other rural land uses
(68%), small forest tracts (4%) and urban land uses
(18%) . The forested areas are primarily located in the
headwaters and along valley lands in the lower watershed.
iv) Present monitoring data indicates that the river system:
a) is non-turbid, except in the middle reaches and after
rainfall ;
b) is eutrophic;
c) has adequate oxygen resources;
d) has moderate levels of bacterial counts;
e) is probably non-toxic (based upon levels of metals),
and
f) has a temperature regime conducive to a warm water
fishery. Temperatures are conducive to cold water
fisheries year round in the upper reaches which are
still forested and in the other reaches during spring
and fall.
0
lU~. 2"1- a
- A30 -
v) Many microcontaminants, such as Synthetic Organic
Chemicals (SOC's), are not easily monitored or modelled
because they are undetectable or rarely detectable in
surface waters, although they typically exist in any
watercourse impacted by urban development and
agricultural land use.
vi) The present water quality of the Rouge River requires
improvement in order to meet provincial water quality
objectives.
(b) Overview Based Upon Modelling and Other Predictive Tools
A number of models were used to assess the impact of
urbanization upon water quality in the Rouge River watershed and
evaluate the potential success of various remedial measures in
minimizing these impacts. These conclusions are based upon the
modelling results, monitoring data on the Rouge River watershed,
and comparison of the Rouge River watershed with that of
watersheds dominated by urbanization or agriculture.
i) Urbanization will have an impact upon the following water
quality parameters:
0 turbidity and suspended solids (including the effects
of construction, bank erosion, and stormwater runoff);
0 bacteria (eg. fecal coliforms);
0 metals (eg. copper, lead, zinc); and
0 parameters which characterize aesthetics (eg. colour).
w~ ~~~
- A31 -
ii) The frequency of spills from transportation and fixed
sources increases in urban versus non-urban areas. In
addition, increased human use of riparian habitats and
wetlands in urban areas may impair their biological
functions.
iii) Urban construction activities represent a substantial
source of sediment and associated contaminant loading to
watercourses.
iv) Structural measures and non-structural control options
will improve the quality of stormwater runoff discharged
from urban areas. Many of the most effective measures
for controlling the above noted impacts (see i) are not
being implemented in new urban areas.
v) The degree of urbanization is expected to allow dissolved
oxygen to remain adequate for the stated fisheries
objectives.
vi) The temperature of stormwater runoff will have a minimal
impact upon the temperature of receiving waters, which is
strongly influenced mainly by meteorological factors and
canopy cover.
vii) Urbanization mayor may not have a substantial impact
upon water quality parameters such as BOD.
viii) The impact of urbanization upon synthetic organic
chemicals (SOC's) resulting from herbicide/pesticide
application needs to be more clearly documented.
i
!
WR. -If'
- A32 -
1.4.3 Implications/Trends
(a) The study found that it was difficult to differentiate water
quality impacts of rural and urban land uses in the Rouge River
for conventional parameters such as suspended solids, total
phosphorus, and nitrate by analysis of historical monitoring
data or by using modelling studies. This is due to the inherent
temporal variation of water quality parameters, a limited data
base, and the small portion of the watershed which is predicted
to urbanize.
It was not possible within the space of this study to predict
impacts from construction activities and spills or to determine
whether urbanization causes a seasonal loading of water quality
parameters.
Stormwater runoff will contain a number of contaminants
resulting from rainfall, overland soil erosion and urban
activities (spills, construction). The need for water quality
control must be based upon the expected water quality of
stormwater.
(b) Temporary sediment controls on construction sites can mitigate
overland sediment transport to watercourses, however, to be
effective, enforcement of the controls must occur.
(c) Historical water quality control such as inspection programs to
maintain sewer separation has been successful in improving water
quality in the river for such parameters as BOD.
(d) In urban areas structural control measures such as wet ponds,
filtration basins are currently the most effective means of
approaching the degree of water quality improvements sufficient
to sustain public health, recreation and aquatic ecosystem
objectives.
,
I
!
~R. ~q."
- A33 -
1.4.4 Recommended Strategy
(a) Develop watershed based policies for urban stormwater management
to improve the quality of stormwater.
(b) Master Drainage Plans should include the following objectives
(where they are applicable):
0 Flood Control
0 Erosion Control
0 Fisheries
0 Water Quality
0 Terrestrial Habitat
0 Riparian Habitat
I
(c) A comprehensive program to mitigate water quality impacts from
! rural land use practices and to rehabilitate riparian habitats
on rural lands should be developed and implemented. The program
would include measures such as:
0 Best Management Practices to reduce soil erosion; nutrient,
herbicide and pesticide leaching bacterial releases, and
other problems from farming operations;
0 elimination of livestock access to the watercourse;
0 streambank erosion control.
d) The following control measures and policies should be
implemented on a watershed basis in urbanizing areas to achieve
a substantial improvement of urban stormwater quality discharged
to the receiving water.
0 control structures which promote infiltration of stormwater
(eg. infiltrations galleys, infiltration trenches, soakway
pits) ;
tAR. ~q.. 7
- A34 -
0 multi-use wet ponds and extended wet ponds which provide
runoff control, warm water fish habitat, waterfowl habitat,
recreation and aesthetics.
(e) The following municipal and/or conservation programs should be
implemented on a watershed wide basis to provide improvements in
quality of urban s~ormwater
0 Urban maintenance measures (catchbasin, poop and scoop
programs, street sweeping, leaf collection).
0 Municipal programs (Enforcement of municipal by-laws).
...
0 Vegetative best management practices (filter strips, grassed
swales, riparian vegetated strips, revegetation of denuded
areas) .
-
(f) There is a need to control spills. This can be accomplished
through programs and structural designs, including:
0 the largest impact related to flushing of spills by fire
departments can be mitigated by enhancing cooperative
programs between the Ministry of the Environment and fire
departments. Such programs should include:
ii) education of fire department and others regarding the
handling of toxic materials;
i) simultaneous arrival times of environmental and fire
departments at the spill location. This would ensure
that both the fire department and the Ministry of the
Environment - Spills Management Team are
simultaneously informed of the spill to provide a more
coordinated attack can occur.
W~.:llf9
- A3S -
ii) changes in practice
o protocol for handling different types of spills;
o collection of spillage/sorbants and treatment.
0 installation of API type, oil-water separators upon
catchbasins draining industrial areas where petrochemicals
are used; ~
0 inspection of industries to ensure that floor drains
receiving spillage of pollutants from normal practices are
either connected to the sanitary sewer system or lead to a
water treatment system before discharge. This could include
the Ministry of the Environment's Model Sewer Use By-Law,. I'
(g) All construction in newly developing areas should have temporary
setting ponds which minimize suspended solids discharge, Tht::ie
ponds must be inspected to ensure that they function properly.
(h) Existing provincial/municipal programs for preventing the
discharge of combined sewer overflows, and STP discharges should
be continued. If any new STP's are constructed in the future,
suitable technology should be employed to aid the attainment of
Provincial Water Quality Objectives in the Rouge River Basin.
(1) Mechanisms need to be established for ensuring implementation of
these strategies and for auditing their performance on an
ongoing basis.
(j) Additional studies (outside the scope of the Rouge drainage
Study) are required to aid the development of site specifiC
policies and to address deficiencies in the present modelling
and monitoring data base. These studies include:
wR. ;}4-Cf
- A36 -
0 groundwater quality in the watershed. The present
quantitative models for the most part describe the
general occurrence and flow of water in aquifers; whereas
what is needed to mitigate any groundwater impacts from
urbanization is precise quantitative models of
contamination occurrence and transport;
0 evaluating best management practices. Specific studies
are required to:
0 validate performance predictions with monitoring data;
0 assess conflicts associated with other Best Management
Practices; and
0 develop criteria for regulatory authorities to use in
their assessment of proposed water quality management
practices.
0 monitoring data deficiencies:
0 assessment of Synthetic Organic Chemicals (SOC's) in
the Rouge River system;
0 measurement of instream sediment contaminant
concentrations;
0 measurement of fish contaminant levels;
0 evaluation of any transmittable diseases in the
present fishery;
0 leachate quality from existing landfills; and
0 toxicity monitoring.
~R.~GO
- A37 -
(k) Design of all mitigative and remedial works for flood and
erosion control should be cognizant of the fisheries,
terrestrial and water quality objectives and their design
criteria should be incorporated where appropriate.
(1) Guidelines for design of the most effective water quality
colntrol facility(ies) (i.e., passive wet ponds, infiltration
trenches) should be prepared based on existing technology.
These guidelines should be updated as new technology and data is
learned.
t.A:) R. .2&1
- A38 -
1.5 Terrestrial Habitat
1.5.1 Introduction
One of the objectives of the Rouge River Watershed Urban Drainage
Study was to review all available data on terrestrial resources in
the valleys of the Rouge drainage basin.
The results of this review are summarized below into four
biophysical zones and their corresponding land uses and
environmental sensitivities (see Table 1).
Also reviewed and updated were environmentally significant areas
criteria based on more current classifications.
A second objective was to develop a framework for the terrestrial
impact assessment of hydrologic-related changes predicted for
alternative planning scenarios.
There exist five areas that are potentially most sensitive to
hydrologic changes: Lower Rouge Marshes, Meander Scar on Rouge
River between Kingston Rd. and Twyn Rivers Dr., Morningside
Tributary/Rouge River Confluence, Tabors Meadow on the Little
Rouge River, Unionville Marsh on Bruces Creek just above its
junction with Rouge River.
The five sites selected as indicator areas were sensitive to
hydrological-related changes resulting from urban drainage
management alternatives (water quantity/quality, seasonal changes
in flow, flooding, erosion).
Selection of the criteria include the following:
wR.~S:z.
- A39 -
BIOPHYSICAL ZONES
Biophysical
Designation Terrestrial
(Chapman and Environment Aquatic
Zone Putnam, 1984) Zone Habitat Zone Characteristics
1 Kame Moraine Oak Ridges Headwater Rolling upland
Moraine Tributaries rural estate,
natural
2 Till Plain Open field, Middle Reaches Flat: rural,
minimal forested agricul tural
valley
3 Sand Plain Rouge Forest Lower Reaches Flat with deeply
(below Lake incised valleys;
Iroquois urban uplands,
shoreline) natural valleys
4 Clay Plain Rouge Marsh Delta Marsh Flat marsh,
natural with
encroaching urban
iN(l.;lS3
- A40 -
(a) Rare Species Protection
Rare species used in sensitive areas are generally plants.
Plants are stationary, thus are more vulnerable to
hydrologic related impacts than wildlife, i.e., Lower Rouge
Marsh.
(b) Habitat Protection
Determination of the portion of the critical habitat with
potential impact is found by airphotos and map analysis,
supplemented by field reconnaissance. Possible impacts may
be changes in river course, flooding, changes in erosion or
water chemistry.
(c) Erosion/Deposition Zone
Many sensitive riparian habitats are affected by either
lessening of the erosion/deposition (allowing succession to
replace the plant types found) or increased erosion and
sediment movement (eliminating the habitat or moving it
downstream) .
(d) Valley System - Land Use/Recreational Values
Potential impacts of urban drainage alternatives on the
valley system as a whole were examined for how they impacted
aesthetics, wildlife corridors, recreational and other
resources uses. Areas where hydrologic related changes
might either detract from or enhance existing uses were
ranked according to the significance of the impacts on this
use.
WR. ~q,
- A41 -
1.5.2 Impact Assessment
(a) Lower Rouge Marshes
The Lower Rouge Marsh is sensitive to water level changes; due
to the restrictions these changes impose on macrophyte growth
and survival. The habitat is also sensitive to nutrient loading
which could stimulate plant growth thus closing in the marsh,
affecting its habitat potential. Marsh vegetation could also be
impacted if sediment loads in the river increase significantly
resulting in deposition in the quiescent marsh areas to the
extent that vegetation is smothered. This area is a habitat for
rare aquatic species. An extended period of time increase in
water level may affect this area.
/
(b) Meander Scar
This erosion sensitive area would be impacted by increased
erosion. Increased flows and/or velocity would accelerate
erosion at the scar and downstream.
(c) Morningside-Rouge Confluence
This deeply incised valley has several erosion features and
diverse ecological values. The Morningside-Rouge confluence is
an important wildlife corridor. Currently the area is highly
developed and provides a measure of the impact of urbanization.
(d) Tabor's Meadow
This meadow is a floodplain and, therefore, would be affected by
any hydrologic related changes. Assessment must consider off-
road vehicle scars, tree planting impacts and impacts from the
Beare Road Landfill. Erosion scars both upstream and in the
Twyn Rivers Road area downstream are also sensitive features.
..
GUR.2DEr
- A42 -
Erosion deposition in this wet-meadow, riparian area maintains
its early succession stages. Decreased erosion will result in
establishment of vegetation from later succession stages.
Increased erosion would either smother the vegetation or, if
flows are greater, result in the sediment bed load being
deposited further downstream and the wet-meadow gradually
eroding away without being replaced.
(e) Unionville Marsh
Macrophytes are sensitive to water level or flow changes.
However, with a downstream control dam and the current level of
development in the area, impact potential is lessened. This
does raise the potential for increased sediment deposition and
nutrient loading which could either increase the density of
macrophytes or smother them.
1.5.3 Historic Airphoto Analysis
Historical data consists of aerial photographs taken in 1954 and 1978
which gives an excellent overview of the impacts of urbanization.
(a) Rouge Marsh
Changes since 1954 are dramatic. Urban development has replaced
the fields, leaving the marsh surface drainage area mostly
impervious, resulting in larger and shorter duration spring or
storm flows which lessen base flow during dry periods. Water
level is influenced more by Lake Ontario levels. A second
significant change is the disappearance of development in the
valley and marsh.
wR. ~sb
- A43 -
(b) Whitby Formation Erosion Scars
Between 1954 and 1978 this area underwent significant and
dramatic changes. Within the valley complex, the vegetative
cover has increased significantly. River morphology has
significantly changed from 1954 through 1978. The river in 1978
appears to follow a deeper, narrower channel. Erosion scars are
greater and the river straightened. Urbanization has filled in
areas to the south of the river. The Little Rouge Forest to the
northeast has increased significantly in forest cover since
1954.
(c) Morningside-Rouge Confluence
Significant industrial development to the south and the Metro
Zoo to the north of this area has occurred. Increases in
surficial runoff since 1954 are indications of the river
becoming straighter, narrower and deeper.
(d) Tabor's Horsetail Meadows
The meadow is affected by a number of major developments: Beare
Road Landfill site and railway right-of-way. Vehicles
travelling on the right-of-way have ford~d the river, resulting
in significant bank erosion. Increasing runoff flow has
resulted in a narrower, deeper, faster flowing river section
which has increased upstream erosion scars and straightened the
river.
(e) Unionville Marsh
There existed two changes apparent by 1978: one, urbanizational
change is significant and two, probable increase in
sedimentation and nutrient loading has shown signs of infilling
of the marsh area by cattails and vegetation.
W~~~
- A44 -
1.5.4 Hydrological Modelling Summary
(a) Velocity changes are negligible in marsh sites, however, the
river sections with steeper gradient and greater erosion
potential are 0.1 to 0.2 cm/s (Table 2). Increase in velocity
was found to increase erosion potential.
(b) River volume increases are minimal at the marsh sites, but are
predicted to increase in the faster flow reaches. This may
also increase erosion.
(c) Significant velocity changes between the existing or committed
development scenario and high density scenario existed at the
Morningside Confluence and Tabors Meadow. High development
could result in increased erosion.
1.5.5 Conclusions
(a) While changes will occur in riparian habitat, past changes are
not measurable and, therefore, difficult to predict.
(b) The amount of terrestrial cover does not appear to have changed
significantly since 1954.
(c) The Rouge Marsh has not been affected by increased flows of the
watershed, but is influenced by the water levels of Lake
Ontario.
(d) Steeper gradient in lower reaches all show signs of increased
river flows resulting in more significant erosion scars,
deeper, narrower and straighter river channels and reduction of
meanders.
TABLE 2 ~
~
EXISTING, HISTORICAL AND PREDICTED FLOWS AT TEST SITES. .
PREDICTIONS ARE AT 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL )J
(e.g., 95% of flows will be less than this number) :}
Hurricane Hazel High Development Medium Development
Hydrological Volume Velocity Volume Velocity Volume Velocity
Test Site Study Reference (m3/s) (cm/s) (m3/s) (cm/s) (m3/s) (cm/s)
A. Rouge Marsh 26.1 257.8 2.2 17.0 0.5 15.0 0.5
B. Erosion Scar 15.1 167.9 3.3 8.5 1.0 8.5 1.0
C. Morningside-Rouge l4.0 l6.8 1.9 3.0 1.2 3.0 1.2
D. Tabor's Meadow 25.0 87.5 2.2 6.5 0.9 5.0 0.8
E. Unionville Marsh 10.1 52.2 0.9 4.0 0.5 4.0 0.5
I
>
~
V1
Committed Development Existing Development I
Volume Velocity Volume Velocity
Test Site (m3/s) (cm/s) (m3/s) (cm/s)
A. Rouge Marsh l5.0 0.5 l5.0 0.5
B. Erosion Scar 8.5 1.0 7.0 0.9
C. Morningside-Rouge 2.0 1.0 1.4 1.0
D. Tabor's Meadow 4.5 0.7 4.5 0.7
E. Unionville Marsh 4.0 0.5 4.5 0.5
W~R~
- A46 -
(e) Unionville Marsh shows signs of increased sedimentation and
nutrient loading since 1954. These are a result of long-term
agricultural land use rather than urban surface drainage.
1.5.6 Recommended Strategy
(a) A monitoring program of significant terrestrial habitats be
established. This program would utilize existing data and
document the accuracy of the hydrological predictions and
measure the effects on these habitats.
(b) Accelerate existing naturalization program to establish a
riparian habitat zone along all watercourses.
\
(c) Establish public education awareness and private lands
stewardship programs to protect, enhance and manage terrestrial
and riparian habitats.
(d) Establish a land acquisition program to protect lands
containing important floral and faunal features.
- A4/ -
WR. :l~O
APPENDIX 4
FEDERAL GUIDELINES
FISH CONSUMPTION LEVELS
Women (Child Bearing) Adults NOT Consumed
Children Under 15 Years
MERCURY < O. 5 ppm o . 5 - 1. 5 ppm > 1.5 ppm
PCB < 2.0 ppm > 2.0 ppm -----
HI REX < O. 1 ppm > 0.1 ppm -----
DDT < 5.0 ppm > 5.0 ppm -----
DIOXIN < 20.0 ppt > 20.0 ppt -----
I
. The consumption guidelines developed for use by Ontario's Anglers are
based on Federal guidelines supplemented by consumption recommendations
prepared by the World Health Organization. - From "Guide to Eating
Ontario Sport Fish, 1988".
wR. ~, I
- A48 -
APPENDIX 5
MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT
DRINKING WATER OBJECTIVES
MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE CONCENTRATIONS
PARAMETERS RELATE TO HEALTH
PARAMETER,!: CONCENTRATION (mg/L)
Arsenic 0.05
Barium 1.0
Boron 5.0
Cadmium 0.005
Chromium 0.05
Cyanide (Free) 0.2
Fluoride 2.4
Lead 0.05
Mercury 0.001
Nitrate (as N)** 10.0
Ritrite (as N) 1.0
I: Unless otherwise stated the limits for each substance refer to the sum
of all forms present.
.. Where both nitrate and nitrite are present, the total nitrate plus
nitrite-nitrogen should not exceed 10 mg/L.
,
w R. ~':2
- A49 -
APPENDIX 5 (cont'd.)
MAXIMUM DESIRABLE CONCENTRATIONS
PARAMETERS RELATED TO AESTHETIC QUALITY
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION*
Chloride 250
Colour 5 (TCU)**
Copper 1.0
Iron 0.3
Manganese 0.05
Methane 3 L/cu. m
Odour Inoffensive
Organic Nitrogen*** 0.15
Phenols 0.002
Sulphate 500
Sulphide Inoffensive
Taste Inoffensive
Temperature l5DC
Total dissolved Solids 500
Total Organic Carbon 5.0
Zinc 5.0
I: Unless otherwise indicated, the maximum desirable concentrations are
expressed in mgjL
** True Colour Units
*** Total kjeldahl nitrogen minus ammonia nitrogen.
Summary Table of Drinking Water Objectives from Water Management Goals,
Procedures, Objectives and IMplementation Procedures of the Ministry of
the Environment, 1984.
w~. :t'1
- A50 -
APPENDIX 6
MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT
PROVINCIAL WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
INORGANIC AND OTHER
SUBSTANCE LEVEL NOT EXCEEDED
pH 6.5 - 8.5
unionized ammonia 0.02 mg/L (to protect aquatic life)
chlorine 0.002 mg/L
cyanide 0.005 mg/L
dissolved gases 110%
hydrogen sulphide 0.002 mg/L (to protect aquatic life)
oil and grease should not exceed levels which create: visible
film, sheen or discoloration, odour could cause
tainting or edible aquatic organisms or cause
deposits
phosphOrus 30 ug/L
(general guidelines)
HEAVY METALS
arsenic 100 ug/L (to protect aquatic life)
beryllium 11 ug/L (unfiltered sample of hardness 75 mg/L of
CaCO.:l)
1100 ug/L (unfiltered sample of hardness 75 mg/L
CaC03)
cadmium 0.2 ug/L (to protect aquatic life)
chromium 100 ug/L (to protect aquatic life)
copper 5 ug/L (to protect aquatic life)
iron 300 ug/L (to protect aquatiC life)
mercury 0.2 ug/L
nickel 25 ug/L (to protect aquatic life)
selenium 100 ug/L (to protect aquatic life)
sil ver 0.1 ug/L (to protect aquatic life)
zinc 30 ug/L (to protect aquatic life)
~R. ~''t
- A5l -
APPENDIX 6 (cont'd.)
PROVINCIAL WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
SWIMMING AND BATHING USE OF WATER
AESTHETICS The water should be devoid of debris, oil. scum and any
substance which would produce an objectionable deposit,
colour, odour, taste or turbidity.
DISCHARGE OF Must be curtailed or controlled in order to maintain
WASTE MATERIALS recreational usage.
...
~ pH of water used for recreational purposes should be within
the range of 6.5 - 8.5.
WATER CLARITY Should be sufficiently clear to estimate depth or to see
submerged swimmers. (Secchi disc transparency of at least
1. 2 m)
PUBLIC HEALTH Water should not cause disease(s) or infection(s) as a
CONSIDERATIONS result of pathogens, including bacteria, fungi, protozoa
or viruses.
Fecal coliforms should not exceed 100/100 ml.
Summary Table of Provincial Water Quality Control Objectives from Water
Management Goals, policies, Objectives and Implementation Procedures of
the Ministry 0 f the Envi ronment. 1984.
wR:J.Io~
I
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSBRVATION AUTHORITY
PROJBCT FILBS, 1990
for
BUDGBT PREPARATION
WATER RESOURCB DIVISION
Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board
Meeting 14/89
June 30, 1989
t
1990 PROJECT FILE LISTS ~
.
~
FLOOD CONTROL - MAJOR MAINTENANCE ~
~
Benefiting Local Estimated
Municipality Project File Title Watershed Municipality Cost
All S t o,u f f v ill e 0 am Duffin Creek Whitchurch-
Stouffville $ 82,000
All Stream Gauge Maintenance $ 10,000
All York Mills Channel Don River North York $ 39,000
All Black Ck. Chan. 11 Access Ramp Humber River North York $ 19,000
All Claireville Dam - Water/Sewer
Fuel Tank Upgrading Humber River Brampton $ 20.000
FLOOD FORECASTING AND WARNING
Project File Title
All Flood Warning Centre Improvements $ 40,000
All Computerized Flood Forecasting and Warning System $ 30,000
All Data Logers/Telemetry Equipment $ 10,000
FLOOD CONTROL - SURVEYS , STUDIES
Benefiting Local Estimated
Municipality Project File Title Watershed Municipality Cost
All Floodplain Planning Policy Technical Implmentation $ 22,000
All Unionville -Prel. Eng. Study Rouge River Markham $ 15,000
All MOP Generic Terms of Reference $ 15,000
All Mapping Update Program All $ 20,000
All Bonnyview Drive Mimico Creek Etobicoke $ 25,000
All Albion Road at West Humber Humber River Etobicoke $ 25,000
All Highland Creek - Hec. 11 Highland Ck. $ 6,500
\
-""-
'-
~
- ----...
-- - -
-
-
FLOOD CONTROL - CAPITAL -
Benefiting Local Estimated
Municipality Project File Title Watershed Municipality Cost
Metro Metro Acquisition Project Not available
Metro Keating Channel Don River City of Toronto $400,000
York. German Mills Creek. Don River Town of $ 50,000
Richmond Hill
Peel Little Etobicok.e Creek. Etobicok.e Ck.. Mississauga $ 50,000
Tyndall Nursing Home
Peel Dixie/Dundas Damage Centre Etobicok.e Ck.. Mississauga $600,000
All Master Acq. Base Information All $ 19,750
All Hazard Land & Valley
Land Acquisition All $200,000
York. Kerrybrook. Dr./Richmond St. Don River Town of
- Acquisition Richmond Hill $220,000
Peel Burnhamthorpe Rd.- Acq. Etobicok.e Creek. Mississauga $360,000
York. Broda Drive - Acq. Humber River Town of Vaughan $180,000
Durham Riverside Drive - Acq. Duffin Creek. Town of Pick.ering $200,000
Metro Albion Rd./Bank.field - Acq Humber City of Etobicoke $300,000
Metro Black Ck. - Jane to Weston Humber River City of York $1,000,000
York Kennedy Road - Markham - Acq Rouge River Town of Markham $1 ,000,000
C
7V
R
-........:.~
E
-,c
~
COMPREHENSIVE WATER BASIN STUDIES ~
Benefiting Estimated
Municipality Project File Title Cost
All Duffin Creek Watershed Phase II $100,000
All Don River Watershed Study $ 50,000
All Phase 1 Humber River, Urban Drainage Study $150,000
RECHARGE/DISCHARGE
All Oak Ridges Moraine Groundwater Study $ 60,000
F.D.R.P. - FLOODPLAIN MAPPING
Benefiting Estimated
Municipality Project File Title Cost
All MTRCA Mapping Extension Program $125,000
All Flood Damage Analysis and Mapping Study for Metro
Toronto, Peel, York and Durham $200-300,000
All Shoreline Mapping $ 17,000
All Public Information Maps $ 10,000
-
-
/
- -' -
-
-. ---
~
/'
~-
~~
"-
'.
"
"-
\
EROSION CONTROL - CAPITAL
BENEFITING WATERSHED/ ESTIMATED
MUNICIPALITY PROJECT FILE TITLE LAKE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY COST
SPECIAL PROJECT
- MET RO Bellamy Ravine Bellamy Ravine City of Scarborough $ 100,000
METRO - LAKESHORE Kingsbury Crescent Lake Ontario City of Scarborough $ 300,000
South Marine Drive Lake Ontario City of Scarborough $ 250,000
Fishleigh Drive Lake Ontario City of Scarborough $ 300,000
Guildwood Parkway Lake Ontari 0 City of Scarborough $ 250,000 $1 ,000,000
Sylvan (Phase I) Lake Ontario City of Scarborough $ 100,000
39-41 Springbank Lake Ontario City of Scarborough $ 100,000
Sunnypoint Berm Lake Ontario City of Scarbrough $ 100,000
Springbank - (Property Acq ) Lake Ontario City of Scarborough $ 300,000
55 Sunnypoint Crescent Lake Ontario City of Scarborough $ 300,000
Chesterton Shores (Property Acq ) Lake Ontario City of Scarborough $ 350,000
#1 Fenwood Hts - (Property Acq ) Lake Ontario City of Scarbrough $ 75,000
Toronto Islands Lake Ontario City of Toronto $1,500,000
METRO - VALLEYLANDS Burgandy Court Humber River City of North York $ 150,000
Carmel Court Don River City of North York $ 250,000
Alder Road Don River Borough of East York $ 128,000 $ 500,0000
31-33 Cherryhi 11 Avenue Centenni a 1 Ck City of Scarborough $ 42,000
Creekwood Drive Highland Ck City of Scarborough $ 44,000
Humber Valley Yacht Club Humber River City of Etobicoke $ 46,700
Forest Grove Drive Don River City of NorthYork $ 88,000
Saddletree Drive Don River City of North York $ 23,000
3022-3068 Weston Road Humber River City of North York Not available
Slope Stability
PEEL King Street - Bolton Humber River Town of Caledon $ 22,000
YORK 1161 Highway #27 Humber River Town of Vaughan $ 15,000 c.-
Greenwood Conservation Duffin Creek Town of Ajax $ 12,000 ~
DURHAM
Petticoat Creek Lake Ontario Town of Pickering $ 15,000 )J
<5"-
-0
c:
~
,...,
Benefiting Local Estimat~
Municipality Project File Title Watershed Municipality Cost
EROSION CONTROL-SURVEY & STUDIES
All Priorization Update and All $ 37,000
Environmental Inventory Study
All Fill line Mapping Extension All $ 50,000
All Hazard Land Acquisition All Not
Master Plan available
All Erosion Monitoring Stations $ 30,000
All Toronto Islands Lake Ontario City of Toronto $ 35,000
EROSION CONTROL-MAJOR MAINTENANCE
All Lawrence & Parkway Channels Don River City of North York $ 55,000
All Lower Humber Channels Humber River City of Etobicoke $ 40,700
All Inspection of Water Control
Structures All $ 18,000
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLANS-STUDIES
All Shoreline Management Lake Ontario $ 45,000
- Data Base
All Review of Revetment Design Lake Ontario $ 20,000
.
r
/
/
/'
r
/'
,/
LUR. ~7J
t a~~n PRo,TErT FI LE CONSEKVATION SERVICES
NET E,ENEFITIN';
F fi,()GEAM EXF END I TTlf.'E REVENUE EXPEND I TT lEE t111NI('IPALIT 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------
TREE PLANTING/EEFOKESTATION
Conservation Fl~nning 216,000 23Fi nllO All
PlanT Prupagatiun 16El,00n 11',EI 000 10,000 All
Tree Moving '3 000 1,000 0 AI'
-'--'-
R,,=,f()re5t.~tion 17 000 '3, E,OO " 'i , ., CJll All
Tree awj Shrqb 17,000 17 000 n .A:l
Re::v,lu'(e Maintenance 7 EJ 000 7 El oon All
FClree,t Managemeut 120,000 20,000 100,000 All
TnTAL 6E" 000 198,500 4 54 ElOO
3nIL rONSERVATION/SEDIMENT rONTROL
Valleyland Rehabilitation 150,000 ~Jl) ,000 100,000 All
- Rouge River All
- Humber River All
- Etobicoke Creek All
Hydroseeding 15,000 15,000 (J All
TOTAL 165,000 6EI,000 100,000
FISH/WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
Fish Rearing - Glen Haffy 15,000 15,000 All
Fish Management 25,000 2EI,000 All
TOTAL 40,000 40 000
GREENSPArE STRATEGY INITIATIVES
HEADWATERS STRATEGY
Private Land Stewardship 175,000 17EI,000 All
TOTAL 175,000 17El,OOO
WATERSHED STKATEGY
Authority Land Management 100,000 100,000 All
Enviroillnental Services HIO , 000 H,O , 000 All
Basin Planning Pr0ces3 100,000 100 000 All
TOTAL 350,000 1El0 ,000
W~ ;;t1l
OUTDOOR RECREATION
Benefi ti ng Local Estimated
Municipality Project File Title Municipality Cost
Metro Col Sam Smith - site servicing City of EtobicoKe $300,000
Metro Col Sam Smith - complete outfall weir structure City of EtobicoKe S100,OOO
Metro Tommy Thompson ParK - E A approval hearing City of Toronto $100,000
Metro Tommy Thompson ParK - interim management City of Toronto $125,000
Metro Waterfront - waterfront monitoring S 82,000 $727,000
Metro East Point - launching ramp basin - Phase I City of Scarborough $250,000
Metro East Point - traffic control City of Scarborough $ 10,000
Metro Bluffers - Brimley Road sidewalK City of Scarborough $150,000
Durham Ajax - pathways Town of Ajax $ 40,000
Metro Ashbridge's Bay - Coatsworth Cut dredging-Class EA City of Toronto S 10,000
Metro Col Sam Smith - marina proposal call City of EtobicoKe $ 10,000
Metro Ashbridge's Bay - shoreline improvements City of Toronto $150,000
Metro Col Sam Smith - interior shoreline protection City of EtobicoKe $150,000
Metro Motel Strip - legal and survey City of EtobicoKe S 15,000
Metro Motel Strip - Public Amenities Study/Hearing City of EtobicoKe S 15,000
Metro Humber Bay East - Seaquarium concept evaluation City of EtobicoKe S 10,000
Durham Frenchman's Bay - property acquisition Town of PicKering $300,000
Durham PicKering Beach - property acquisition Town of PicKering S200,OOO
Metro Humber Bay West - asphalt pathways - Phase I City of EtobicKe S 35,000
Metro Bluffers ParK - toplands parKing lot design City of Scarborough $ 30,000
Metro Col Sam Smith - final grading - Phase I City of EtobicoKe S 75,000
Metro East Point - site servicing - design
water and sanitary City of Scarborough S 40,000
Metro Bluffers ParK - electrical improvements City of Scarborough S100,OOO
Metro Humber Bay West - final armouring HP - Phase I City of EtobicoKe $150,000
Metro East Point - site servicing construction
water and sanitary City of Scarborough S100,OOO
Metro Bluffers ParK - toplands parKing lot const City of Scarborough S 75,000
Durham Ajax - tree and shrub planting Town of Ajax S 15,000
Metro Col Sam Smith - landscaping - Phase I City of EtobicoKe S 25,000
Metro Col Sam Smith - final armouring - Humber College City of EtobicoKe S120,OOO
Metro Col Sam Smith - final armouring - HP 4 City of EtobicoKe S100,OOO
Metro Col Sam Smith - final armouring - breaKwater City of EtobicoKe S300,OOO
Metro Humber Bay West - final grading at HP City of EtobicoKe S 20,000
Metro Humber Bay West - final landscaping at HP City of EtobicoKe S 20,000
Metro Humber Bay West - Mimico CreeK channelization City of EtobicoKe $150,000
f.,JR.;l76
THE PROJECT FOR EROSION CONTROL AND SLOPE STABILIZATION
IN METROPOLITAN TORONTO
1987-1991
.
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
SEPTEMBER, 1989
WR.;).7Cf-
PROGRESS REPORT
The following is a list at which major or minor remedial work was
carried out between the inception of Project W.C.-60 - 'Erosion
Control and Bank Stabilization in Metropolitan Toronto' in
September, 1974, through to the end of the 1985-1986 Erosion
Project and including a number of works which have been completed
in the first three years of the 1987-1991 Project for Erosion Control
and Slope Stabilization.
LOCATION WATERSHED WORK YEAR
MAJOR REMEDIAL WORKS
90 Forestgrove Drive East Don River 1974
20-30 Islay Court Humber River 1974
39-41 Storer Drive Humber River 1974-1975
99-103 Burbank Drive Newtonbrook Ck. 1974-1975
Hi Mount Drive Newtonbrook Ck. 1974-1975
8-10 King Maple Place Newtonbrook Ck. 1974-1975
113 Burbank Drive Newtonbrook Ck. 1975
14-22 Archway Crescent Humber River 1975
6 Wooden Heights Humber River 1975
45 Riverbank Drive and Vicinity Mimico Creek 1975
32-38 Bonnyview Drive Mimico Creek 1975-1976
37-43 Lakeland Drive West Humber 1976
Yvonne Public School Black Creek 1976
30-56 Grovetree Road West Humber 1976
95-97 Portico Drive East Branch 1976
Highland Creek ,
197-205 Sweeney Drive East Don River 1976
24 Stonegate Road Humber River 1976-1977
24-36 Westleigh Crescent Etobicoke Creek 1976-1977
158-168 & 190-212 Three Valleys Dr. East Don River 1976-1977
6-14 Sulkara Court East Don River 1978
Don Valley Drive Don Riv.er 1978
50-58 Stanwood Crescent Humber River 1978-1979
Enfield/Sunset/Jellicoe Vicinity Etobicoke Creek 1979
17-53 Riverview Heights Humber River 1979
10 Codeco Court - Phase I Don River 1980
35 Canyon Avenue Don River 1979
LOCATION WATERSHED WORK YEAR ~R. :J.7~
MAJOR REMEDIAL WORKS (Continued)
31-39 Rivercove Drive Mimico Creek 1980
25-31 Alamosa Drive Don River 1980
Don Valley Parkway & Lawrence Don River 1980
10-14 Bruce Farm Drive Don River 1980-1981
39-47 Presley Avenue Don River 1980-1981
Grenview Boulevard Mimico Creek 1981
Rainbow Creekway 1 Development Newtonbrook Creek 1981
9 & 11 Sulkara Court Don River 1981
Denison Road Vicinity Humber River 1981
146-168 Humbervale Blvd. & Mimico Creek 1982
835 Royal York Road
45-55 Wynford Heights Crescent Don River 1982-1983
12-30 Beaucourt Road Mimico Creek 1983
Delroy Drive & Berl Ave. Vicinity Mimico Creek 1983
Raymore Drive Humber River 1984
Moorevale Park Don River 1984
100-104 Gwendolen Crescent Don River 1984
Fairglen & Weston Road Humber River 1985
Duncan Mills Road Don River 1985-1986
Riverside Crescent Humber River 1985-1986
Rainbow Creekway 11 Newtonbrook Creek 1986
(East Don River)
14 Neilson Drive Etobicoke Creek 1986
Chipping Road Bridge East Don River 1986
6 Burnhamthorpe Crescent Mimico Creek 1986
Maple Creek Farms Highland Creek 1986
Warden Woods Park Massey Creek 1986
14 Forest Path Humber River 1987
P.U.C. Lands Highland Creek 1987
Scarborough College Highland Creek 1987
Lawrence Avenue Bridge Highland Creek 1987
The Queensway + The West Mall Etobicoke Creek 1988
Highland Creek - Confluence Highland Creek 1988
10 Glenorchy Place West Don River 1988
Leslie Street & Steeles Avenue East Don River 1988
(German Mills Ck.)
5201 Dufferin Street West Don River 1989
wp.. ~7'"
LOCATION WATERSHED WORK YEAR
MINOR REMEDIAL WORKS
520 Markham Road Vicinity
(Cedarbrook Retirement Home) Highland Creek 1975
84-89 Greenbrook Drive Black Creek 1975
Kirkbradden Road Mimico Creek 1975
West Hill Collegiate Highland Creek 1975
Shore ham Court Black Creek 1975
27-31 Ladysbridge Drive West Branch 1975-1976
Highland Creek
N.W. of 56 Grovetree Road West Humber River 1975-1976
37-43 Mayall Avenue Black Creek 1976
79 Clearview Heights Black Creek 1976
S.W. of Shoreham Drive Bridge Black Creek 1976
Driftwood Court Black Creek 1976
75 Decarie Circle Mimico Creek 1976
4 Woodhaven Heights Humber River 1977
73 Van Dusen Boulevard Mimico Creek 1977
Donalda Club (8th Fwy.) Don River 1978
Westleigh Crescent Vicinity Etobicoke Creek 1978
Scarlett Woods Golf Club Humber River 1978
22-26 Dunning Crescent Etobicoke Creek 1978
Kennedy Road Shopping Mall Don River 1978
Sheppard and Leslie Nursery Don River 1978
Leslie Street at Sheppard Don River 1978
Meadowvale Road Rouge River 1978
Zoo (Z-15) Rouge River 1978
Orchard Crescent Mimico Creek 1978
Forest Valley Dam Camp Don River 1978
Beechgrove Drive Highland Creek 1979
Restwell Crescent Don River 1979
Deanewood Crescent Vicinity Mimico Creek 1979
Dawes Road - 2 Sites Don River 1979
Twyn River Bridge Rouge River 1979
Glen Rouge Trailer Camp Rouge River 1979
Beechgrove Drive - II Highland Creek 1980
LOCATION ~R.~11
WATERSHED WORK YEAR
MINOR REMEDIAL WORKS (Continued)
Jason and Riverdale Humber River 1980
Warden & St. Clair - 2 sites Don River 1980
Zoo -II Rouge River 1980
Glendon College Don River 1980
Scarlett Road & Eglinton Humber River 1980
Wil ket Creek Don River 1980
Glen Rouge Trailer Camp Rouge River 1980
Sunnybrook Park Don River 1981
Donalda Golf Club Don River 1981
Glendon College Don River 1981
Bonnyview Drive II Mimico Creek 1981
West Side of Markham Rd. (W. Branch} Highland Creek 1981
Alderbrook Drive Don River 1981
West Dean Park (2 sites) Mimico Creek 1982
Royal York Road Mimico Creek 1982
Waul r.on Street Etobicoke Creek 1982
Colonel Danforth Park Highland Creek 1982
Upwood Greenbelt Vicinity Black Creek 1982
55 & 73 Vandusen Blvd. Mimico Creek 1986
Royal York Road II Mimico Creek 1986
14 Brian Cliff Drive Wilket Creek 1987
Summary: Major Works 61
Minor Works 53
Total Expenditure $7,020,000
~R.~7'1
The following table lists the top thirteen (13) valley land
erosion sites in order of their technical priority. The
current pool of priorities will be reviewed regularly during
1990 to accommodate any significant changes and the possible
inclusion of new sites.
METROPOLITAN TORONTO PRIORITY LIST - 1990
PRIORITY LOCATION WATERSHED MUNICIPALITY COMMENTS
1 6-10 Burgandy Court Humber River North York Problem: Slope failure
Structures Affected. 5 Homes
Height of Bank. 17m
Length of Bank: 80m
2 C a rme 1 Court East Don River North York Problem: Riverbank erosion
Structures Affected: 8 homes
Height of Bank: 10m
Length of Bank- 350m
3 3030-3068 Weston Road Humber River North York Problem: Slope failure and
riverbank erosion
Structures Affected: 15 Homes
Height of Bank. 14m
Length of Bank: 210m
4 Alder Road Massey Creek East York Problem: Slope fa;1ure
Structures Affected: 1 road-
way and services
Height of Bank: 20m
Length of Bank. 16m
5 Cherryhill Avenue Centennial Creek Scarborough Problem. Valleywall erosion
Structures Affected. 2 homes
Height of Bank. 9m
Length of Bank: 20m
E
~
.
l>
...J
--C:)
~
~
.
METROPOLITAN TORONTO PRIORITY LIST - 1990 ~
~
PRIORITY LOCATION WATERSHED MUNICIPALITY COMMENTS
6 91 Forest Grove Drive Don River North York Problem: Slope failure &
riverbank erosion
Structures Affected
One Residence
Height of Bank: 8m
Length of Bank: 23m
7 6 Sadd1etree Drive East Don River North York Problem: Slope fail ure &
(German Mills Ck) riverbank erosion
Structures Affected. 2 homes
Height of Bank: 14m
Length of Bank: 75m
8 Humber Valley Yacht Humber River Etobicoke Problem Riverbank erosion
Club Structures Affected. Yacht
Club, gas pumps, hydro and
water services, docks
Height of Bank: 1.5m
Length of Bank: 300m
9 + 93-113 Weir Crescent Highland Creek Scarborough Problem. Slope failure &
riverbank erosion
Structures Affected:
One residence, one pool and
9 private properties
Height of Bank: 35m
Length of Bank: 105m
lO 353 Betty Ann Drive West Don River North York Problem: Slope failure
Structures Affected: 2 homes
Height of Bank: 25m
Length of Bank: 20m
METROPOLITAN TORONTO PRIORITY LIST - 1990
PRIORITY LOCATION WATERSHED MUNICIPALITY COMMENTS
11 22l Martin Grove Rd. Mimico Creek Etobicoke Problem. Slope fialure &
riverbank erosion
Structures Affected.
One residence
Height of Bank: 12m
Length of Bank. 24m
12 + 14-21 Stanwood Cres. Humber River North York Problem: Slope failure
Structures Affected:
Four residences
Height of Bank: 21m
Lenght of Bank: 60m
13 Sewell Rd. at Finch Rouge River Scarborough Problem: Slope failure &
riverbank erosion
Structures Affected:
One roadway
Height of Bank: 14m
Length of Bank- 88m
+ Sites considered for remedial work in previous years, but for various reasons have been
deferred indefinitely (these sites have been included for your information and will be
reconsidered for remedial work upon the resolution of outstanding issues).
B
~
.
. ).>
~
-
LVR. ;2g-~
THE PROJECT FOR EROSION CONTROL AND SLOPE STABILIZATION
IN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM
1987-1991
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
SEPTEMBER 1989
W~.2.9'3
PROGRESS REPORT
The fOllowing is a list of sites at which remedial work was carried
out from the inception of the Interim Water and Related Land
Management Project, 1979-1981, through the 1982-1984 Erosion Control
and Slope Stabilization Project, the 1985-1986 Erosion Project and
including the first three years of the 1987-1991 Erosion Control
Project.
LOCATION WATERSHED WORK YEAR
16 Elizabeth Street, Ajax Duffin Creek 1979
558 Pine Ridge Rd, Pickering Rouge River 1979
Hockey Ranch, Pickering Duffin Creek 1980
Woodgrange Avenue, Pickering Rouge River 1981
Altona Road, Pickering Petticoat Creek 1981
Sideroad 30 (Whitevale) Duffin Creek 1982
8-10 Elizabeth Street Duffin Creek 1987
3555 Greenwood Road Duffin Creek 1988
Summary Major Works Completed 8
Total Expenditures $82,200
~R'~&lf
The following table lists the top eight (8) valley land erosion
sites in order of their technical priority. The current pool of
priorities will be reviewed regularly during 1990 to accommodate
any significant changes and the possible inclusion of new sites.
DURHAM PRIORITY LIST - 1990
PRIORITY LOCATION WATERSHED MUNICIPALITY COMMENTS
.
1- Greenwood Cons. Area Duffin Creek Ajax Problem Valleywall erosion
& slope failure
Structures Affected Lookout
tower
Height of Bank 23m
Length of Bank SOm
2 . 5th Cone. Greenwood Duffin Creek North-Pickering Problem Riverbank erosion
Finch Avenue South-Ajax Structures Affected Bridge
abutment
Height of Bank 3m
Length of Bank SOm
3. 1879 Altona Road Petticoat Creek Pickering Problem Riverbank erosion
Structures Affected House,
Private Property
Height of Bank Sm
Length of Bank SOm
4. 1840 Atona Road Petticoat Creek Pickering Problem Riverbank erosion
Structures Affected House,
Private property
Height of Bank 3m
Length of Bank 40m
E
~
.
JJ
~
b:
A>
DURHAM PRIORITY LIST - 1990 .
}.)
~
~
PRIORITY LOCATION WATERSHED MUNICIPALITY COMMENTS
5 . Brock Road at Finch Duffin Creek Pickering Problem. Riverbank erosion
Structures Affected 1 shed
Height of Bank 1m
Length of Bank 58m
6 . Valley Farm Road Duffin Creek Pickering Problem Riverbank erosion
Structures Affected Farm
building
Height of Bank 2m
Length of Bank 89m
7 . 1436 Highbush Trail Petticoat Creek Pickering Problem Riverbank erosion
Finch Avenue Structures Affected Garage
Height of Bank 6m
Length of Bank 16m
8 . Rotherglen Road Duffin Creek Aj ax Problem Riverbank erosion
Structures Affected MTRCA
land
Height of Bank 2m
Length of Bank 133m
.
.
wR.2.?:7
THE PROJECT FOR EROSION CONTROL AND SLOPE STABILIZATION
IN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL
1987-1991
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
SEPTEMBER, 1989
wR .;2.~~
PROGRESS REPORT
The following is a list of sites at which remedial work was carried out
from the inception of the Interim Water and Related Land Management
Project 1979-1981, through the 1982-1984 Erosion Control and Slope
Stabilization Project, the 1985-1986 Erosion Project and including the
first three years of the 1987-1991 Project for Erosion Control and
Slope Stabilization.
LOCATION WATERSHED WORK YEAR
138 King Street Vicinity - Bolton Humber River 1979
(Ca1edon)
Sherway Drive, (Mississauga) Etobicoke Creek 1979
Wildwood Park, (Mississauga) Mimico Creek 1979
Mill Street, (Brampton) Etobicoke Creek 1980
Pony trail Drive & Steepbank Cres. Etobicoke Creek 1980-1981
(Mississauga)
10 Beamish, Wi1dfie1d (Brampton) West Humber River 1980
(Lindsay Creek)
Centennial Road - Bolton Humber River 1981
(Ca1edon)
Legion Street near Derry Road Mimico Creek 1982
(Mississauga)
Charo1ais Blvd., (Brampton) Etobicoke Creek 1982
Glasgow Road (Ca1edon) Humber River 1983
93 Scott Street (Brampton) Etobicoke Creek 1984
2130 Dundas Street East Etobicoke Creek 1987
(Mississauga)
Summary Major Sites Completed 12
Total Expenditure $363,500.00
wR. 2.8'~
The following table lists the top eight (8) erosion sites in order
of their technical priority. The current pool of priorities will
be reviewed regularly during 1990 to accommodate any significant
changes and the possible inclusion of new sites.
.
POOL OF EROSION PRIORITY SITES 1990-PEEL
PRIORITY LOCATION WATERSHED MUNICIPALITY COMMENTS
1 King St. West Humber River Caledon Problem Riverbank erosion
- Bolton Structures Affected
Two homes
Height of Bank 7m
Length of Bank 80m
2 Dundas West Etobicoke Creek Mississauga Problem Riverbank erosion
of Neilson Structures Affected
A Parking Lot
Height of Bank 3m
Length of Bank 40m
3 4424-4434 Etobicoke Creek Mississauga Problem Valley wall erosion
Palisades Lane Structures Affected 3 Homes
Height of Bank 16m
Length of Bank 70m
4 Little Etobicoke Ck. Little Etobicoke Mississauga Problem Minor riverbank
- Site #1 Creek Structures Affected Public
park land & private property
Height of Bank 5m
Length of Bank 30m
5 Little Etobicoke Ck. Little Etobicoke Mississauga Problem Minor riverbank
-Site #2 Creek Structures Affected Public
park land
Height of Bank 4m
Lenghth of Bank 35m
6 1726 Lincolnshire Blvd. Etobicoke Creek Mississauga Problem Riverbank erosion
Structures Affected
One home
Height of Bank 20m
Length of Bank 30m E
~
.
P
....D
()
t
ib
POOL OF EROSION PRIORITY SITES 1990-PEEL .
""
~
-
PRIORITY LOCATION WATERSHED MUNICIPALITY COMMENTS
7 6469 Netherhart Road Etobicoke Creek Mississauga Problem Slope failure and
riverbank erosion
Structures Affected- Storage
area behind industrial
building
Height of Bank 12m
Length of Bank 40m
8 W.H.-142 Beamish Court West Humber Brampton Problem Slope failure and
River riverbank erosion
Structures Affected Private
property
Height of Bank 6m
Length of Bank 20m
wR.~q~
THE PROJECT FOR EROSION CONTROL AND SLOPE STABILIZATION
IN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK
1987-1991
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
SEPTEMBER, 1989
W/2...2CJ3
PROGRESS REPORT
The following is a list of sites at which remedial work was carried
out from the inception of the Interim Water and Related Land
Management Project, 1979-1981, through the 1982-1984 Erosion Control
and Slope Stabilization Project, 1985-1986 Erosion Project and
including the first three years of the 1987-1991 Project for Erosion
Control and Slope Stabilization.
7374 Kipling Avenue, Woodbridge Humber River 1979
7440 Kipling Avenue, Woodbridge Humber River 1979
(Rainbow Creek)
8254 Pine Valley Drive, Woodbridge Humber River 1979-1980
14th Avenue, Markham Rouge River 1979-1980
19th Avenue, Markham Rouge River 1979
King Township and Humber River 1979
Town of Caledon (Cold Creek)
Cedar Grove Community Centre Rouge River 1980
146 Riverside Drive, Woodbridge Humber River 1980
Postwood Lane, Markham Don River 1980
Pine Grove Vicinity Humber River 1980
North Don Sewage Treatment Plant Don River 1981
Kennedy Road West, Markham Don River 1981
Nobleton, Lot 5, Conc.8 ( Cole F a rOm) Humber River 1982
5760 Kirby Sideroad Humber River 1982-1983
Buttonville Rouge River 1984
Klein's Crescent Humber River 1985-1986
36 Prince Edward Boulevard Little Don River 1987
Markham Channel Rouge River 1987
14-16 Cividale Court Don River 1988
Swinton Crescent Don River 1988
8-10 Cachet Parkway Rouge River In Progress
Summary. Major Sites Completed 21
Total Expenditure $280,500.00
WR.~qtr
The following table lists the top ten ( 10) erosion sites in order
of their technical priority. The current pool of priorities will
be reviewed regularly during 1990 to accommodate any significant
changes and the possible inclusion of new sites.
YORK PRIORITY LIST - 1990
PRIORITY LOCATION WATERSHED MUNICIPALITY COMMENTS
1 11611 Hwy. #27 Humber River Vaughan Problem Riverbank erosion
Structures Affected One
Residence & One Workshop
Height of Bank 5m
Length of Bank 20m
2 R.R.#3 Woodbridge Humber River Vaughan Problem' Riverbank erosion
Structure Affected One pool,
one tennis court
Height of Bank 4m
Length of Bank' 110m
3 IBM Golf Course Rouge River Markham Problem Slope failure
and riverbank erosion
Structures Affected Golf
course tee & greens
Height of Bank 15m
Length of Bank 105m
4 16 Ravencliff Road Don River Markham Problem. Slope failure
Structures Affected One
residence, one pool
Height of Bank 18m
Length of Bank 10.5m
5 20 Deanbank E. Don River Markham Problem Toe erosion and
slumping of slope
Structures Affected One
residence
Height of Bank. 13m
Length of Bank 40m
&
AJ
.
)t}
-a
Ir\
~
^'
.
YORK PRIORITY LIST - 1990 ""
-s:>
~
PRIORITY LOCATION WATERSHED MUNICIPALITY COMMENTS
6. 8272 McCowan Road Rouge River Markham Problem Riverbank erosion
Structure Affected One
residence, one shed
Height of Bank 4m
Length of Bank 14m
7 . 9853 Hwy. #27 Humber River Vaughan Problem Riverbank erosion
Kelinburg Structures Affected One
residence
Height of Bank 2m
Length of Bank. 37m
8. 9961 Warden Avenue Rouge River Markham Problem' Slope failure
(Berczy Creek) Structures Affected One
residence
Height of Bank 3m
Length of Bank 75m
9 . 22 Farmingham Drive Don River Markham Problem Undercutting of
due to seepage and surface
runoff
Structures Affected One
residence
Height of Bank 20m
Length of Bank 40m
10. Fiddlehead Farm Humber River King Problem Toe erosion and
slumping
Structures Affected Private
property
Height of Bank 10m
Length of Bank. 30m
lNR. ~<17
THE METROPOLITAR TORORTO ARD REGIOR CORSERVATIOR AUTHORITY
TOMMY TBOMPSOR PARI
IRTERIII IlANAGBllBRT PROGRAII
STAFF REPORT
Septeaber 22, 1989
Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board
Meeting 15/89
September 22, 1989
W~'~9g
TOMMY THOMPSON PARK
INTERIM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
STAFF REpORT - SEPTEMBER 22, 1989
BACKGROUND
1972 - Province designated the MTRCA as its
implementing agent
1973 - 1984 - Interim Users Program in effect,
administered by the Toronto Harbour
Commissioners
May 17, 1984 - TTP transfer of ownership from
province to MTRCA
October 1, 1987 - 1988 Interim Management Draft
circulated to Interim Users for
review and comment
November 6, 1987 - Water and Related Land Management
Advisory Board approve 1988 Interim
Management Program
January 29, 1988 - Authority approves the Tommy
Thompson Park Master Plan
July 4, 1989 - Authority submits Tommy Thompson
Park Environmental Assessment
Document to Minister of the
Environment
EVENTS
January 7 - December 17, 1989 - Tommy Thompson Park open on weekends
and holidays from 9 00 a m to 6 00
P m for public use
January 8, 1989 - Lake Ontario Waterfowl Inventory
January 31, 1989 - Tour for Ryerson Geography students
March 28 - July 7, 1989 - Gull Control Program - achieved 100%
reduction in the control areas
April 5 - June 15, 1989 - Canadian Wildlife Service - research
programs
April 11 - August 30, 1989 - Trumpeter Swan Restoration Program
- Ministry of Natural Resources
April 29 - May 28, 1989 - spring van shuttle service
April 30, 1989 - Variety Club of Ontario Bike-a-thon
June 3 - september 4, 1989 - Special Summer Bus Service - Toronto
Transit Commission
June 3 - September 4, 1989 - Nature Interpretive Program
WR'~~9 - 2 -
June 4, 1989 - World Environment Day Activities
- Friends of the Spit
June 11, 1989 - Landscape Reading (with June
Call wood) - Society for the
Preservation of Wild Culture
May 21 - September 16, 1989 - Yacht Races - Lake ontario Racing
Council
August 6, 1989 - American Institute of Biological
Sciences - Field Trip
September 9 - October 9, 1989 - Fall van shuttle service
September 17, 1989 - Annual Terry Fox Run
~ f< Boo
Ring-billed Gull Control Program
Tommy Thompson Park, 1989
For The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authonty
BY Ulrich Watermann and Gwynneth Cunningham
OF Bird Control International
IN July, 1989
~
BIRD CONTROL INTERNATIONAL
HUMANE SOLUTIONS
348 Brontc Street South
Milton, Ontario Canada
L9TSB6
Tcl:(416)878-8468
W((. 30'
I
Acknowledgements
I would lIke to thank the Metropolitan Toronto and Region ConservatIon Authonty
(MTRCA) for its support of this program,
In partIcular, I would like to thank: Mr Dave Dyce, Manager, and Mr J C. Mather,
Director, who gave theIr support to the project; Mr Scott Jarvie, Parle- Services Coordmator
of Tommy Thompson Park, who supervised MTRCA staff on the site, and Mr Peter
Wigham, Environmental Projects Coordinator, whose bud-banding project in the spnng of
1989 was of assistance m formmg the Bird Checklist.
In addition, I would like to thank Ms. Susan McCready and Mr John Forsythe (the two
MTRCA contract bIOlogists) who were responsible for general Ring-bIlled Gull control
work.
Mr Greg Sadowski of Bird Control International Incorporated, was responsible for the
mam Rmg-billed Gull Control work and for the falconry program, His bird-banding and
orruthological experience and his skill in falconry helped greatly in the successful completIOn
of the program and in bird identification,
Gwynneth Cunningham of Bird Control Internatlonal Incorporated worked to relieve Greg
on his days off, Her prior knowledge of the control work obtained during the 1985, 1987
and 1988 programs was useful both in general control work and in the falconry aspect of
the program.
It should be pointed out that good co-operation between the MTRCA staff, the Bird
Control staff, the Canadian Wildlife ServIce (CWS), and myself, led to the overall success
of the program.
w R. 30.<..
ii
Summary
Since 1973 the numbers of breeding paIrs of Ring-billed Gulls (Lan!s delawarensis) at
Tommy Thompson Park increased from ten (10) pairs to approXlIDately eighty thousand
(80,000) plus pairs m 1983
The 1984 program was undertaken by the MTRCA to prevent tbe existing populatIOn of
gulls from expandmg their nesting territory to the then newly constructed Endikement at
Tommy Thompson Park. The firm of U W Enterprises was contracted to undertake
falconry work in conjunction with other scare tactics on the Endikement. In 1985, '86 and
'87, U W Enterprises was agam contracted to discourage gull nesting in specific areas at
Tommy Thompson Park. These areas were the new Endikement, areas south of the mam
road, and area 0 (See Figure 1). The program used the same scare methods as were used
in 1984 and was again successful in the followmg years.
In 1988 the program was again tendered to a number of wildlife control agencies and UlrIch
Watermann, now of Bird Control International Incorporated (BCI) was awarded the
contract for the 1988 season. Bird Control International Incorporated was again successful
in bidding for the two year contract for 1989 and 1990 with the stipulation that the work
for 1990 must be given budget approval before implementation. As in previous years the
purpose of the program was to maintain the Significant bIOlOgical amenities of the park, the
implementation of the master plan and to allow for continued construction of the Site.
0
'S"
~
~
c;;)
\>3
. - --
~.."", ,_.. I ~ . . .
. - - -.
.
I
/-
)!?.,=~!~pson Park
--
FIGURE 1 - 1989 STUDY AREA
W f? ~o Lj-
tv
Table or Contents
Page
Acknowledgements 1
Summary II
Table of Contents IV
List of Figures V
LIst of Tables v
1.0 Introduction 1
2,0 Purpose 2
3,0 Study O~Jectives 2
40 Methodology 3
50 Results 5
6,0 Observations 12
70 RecommendatIons 18
References 19
Appendices 20
WR 3o~
y
List of Figures
Page
1 1989 Study Area III
2, Peak Egg-Laying Period on the Endikement Tip,
Fingers 2 and 3 9
3 Peak Egg-Laying Periods on Hardpoints 5, 6 and
the Lighthouse 10
List of Tables
Page
1 Location and Number of Eggs on the Endikement
During the Egg-Laying Period 8
2. Comparison of Total Number of Eggs Collected
From 1985 - 1989 11
3 Nest Counts For Ring-billed Gulls in the
Uncontrolled Areas 11
~R. aob
1
1.0 Introduction
Tommy Thompson Park, also referred to as Aquatic Park and the Leshe Street Spit, extends
five (5) Ian. into Lake Ontano from the filled Crown Land at the base of Leslie Street,
Toronto, The peninsula is man-made and was constructed initially to provide increased port
facIlIues. By 1972 the Toronto Harbour Commissioners determined that a large portion of
the headland was no longer required for port expansion, and thought was directed toward
developing a public park, In 1973 the province of Ontario appointed the Metropolitan
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority as its agent for the development of this site
Since 1973 the numbers of breeding pairs of Ring-billed Gulls (~ delawarensis) has
Increased drastically from ten (10) pairs to an estimated eighty thousand (80,000) paIrs In
1983 (Blokpoel and Tessier, 1983), A study undertaken by P Fetterolf (1983) stated that
the gull population would grow to approximately one hundred and eighty thousand
(180,000) pairs by 1993, if left unmanaged.
The presence of eighty thousand (80,000) pairs of gulls in close proXIm.ity to an urban area
has given rise to a number of public complaints, including the befouling of public areas and
aggressive begging behaviour at outdoor areas, The number of gulls also poses a threat to
flight safety at airports. Biological amenities in the park itself are also threatened. for
example, vegetative growth is retarded, species diversity is reduced and more sensitive and
significant species, such as Common Terns (Sterna hirundo) are displaced.
In 1984 U W Enterprises was contracted to prevent the existing Ring-billed Gull colony
from expanding to the newly constructed Endikement at Tommy Thompson Park, The
methods used were falconry and other scare tactics. Although never tested before in a
nesting habitat, these methods proved to be successful.
(p~.307
1
2.0 Purpose
The purpose of the 1989 program was to restrict Ring-billed Gull nesting from the
Endikement, areas south of the malO road, and area D at Tommy Thompson Park (See
Figure 1), By limiting the gull nesting habitat to specific areas (Peninsulas A, B and C) the
gull population will reach a saturation point and eventually stabilize naturally Area C has
actually experienced a sharp decrease in nesting Ring-billed Gulls due to the growmg
numbers of Black-crowned Night Herons and the subsequent predation of Ring-billed Gull
chIcks.
The rational for restricting Ring-billed gull nesting habitat is.
. to maintain all options for the Master Plan,
. . to allow for continued filling and construction of the headland by the Toronto
Harbour Commissioners; and
. to maintain the significant biological amenities of the park,
3.0 Study Objectives
The objectives of the program were.
1) to prevent Ring-billed Gulls from nesting on the Endikement, areas south of the
main road, and area D;
2) to report any disturbances to the other bird species at Tommy Thompson Park
occurring as a result of the consultant's work;
3) in consultation with the MTRCA, assess the effectiveness of the efforts two weeks
into the program, and when necessary thereafter, implementing alternative methods
when called upon;
4) to maintain good public relations and provide expert advice when required,
5) prepare a report summarizing the consultants' observations and results, including
· the behavioral response of the Terns, if any;
· changes in Ring-billed Gull behaviour and nesting density;
· effects on other bird species,
· documentation of compliments and complaints, if any.
().) R. 30g
J
4.0 Methodology
The program commenced on the 28th of March 1989 and continued until the 9th of June
1989 Control work was undertaken from Monday to Friday with the exception of the month
of May At this time egg-laying pressure became apparent and control was thus undertaken
on a 7 day-a-week basis until the pressure eased off. The control team consisted of three
(3) falconers, Greg Sadowski, Ulrich Watermann and Gwynneth Cunningham, and two (2)
asSIStants to MTRCA The falconers made use of the raptors, as falconry was the mam
scare techmque. Each member of the team covered a specific area of the park in order to
become familIar WIth site-specific problems. The members of the team co-operated fully
when specific areas were subject to excessive pressure by the gulls and assisted each other
whenever necessary The program was supervised on a daily basis by Mr Watermann and
Mr Jarvie.
I
The following techniques were used to prevent the gulls from nesting In the designated
areas,
4.1 Falconry
Modified falconry techniques were used to prevent the gulls from settling in potentIal
loafing and nesting grounds. These techniques are effective in gull control based on the fact
that gulls will take to the air when raptors are present. Thus, if the birds are kept in the aIr
due to the presence of raptors, they are unable to establish nesting territories, and are
unable to loaf in future nesting territories. The falconry techniques employed did not
involve the chasing or the capture of the gulls by the raptor
4.2 Pyrotechnical Devices
.
The use of noise-makers i.e. screamers, whistlers and bangers, complement the falconry
technique and provide an overall discouragement technique. These devices were used m
such a manner as to refrain from disturbing other birdlife and nesting gulls in the
uncontrolled areas ^ B, C, and the Blokpoel Islands.
,
w~ 3fY1
..
4.3 Mock Gull
It has been proven that a dead gull thrown repeatedly In the air and falling through a flock
of gulls IS a deterrent to their settling. Thus, mock gulls were constructed and thrown 101'0
the aIr to achieve the scare effect.
4.4 Distress Calls
Taped distress calls, played and loudhaled were used in a few instances, It was foul'1d that
the dIstress call of the Herring Gull is more effective in scaring Ring-billed Gulls than thelr
own distress call, Similar findings were made during the Gull Control Project at Jack
Garland Allport In 1978 (Ulrich Watermann),
The above methods were all used at varying locations and at varying times. The need for
"
change in location of a device, or a change in type of device used was assessed by the
assistant responsible for each area, The use of alternate methods was determined based
on the number of gulls present and their reaction to different treatments,
A daily log was kept by each assistant noting, in particular, gull activity and the presence
of other bird species in the area.
fNR. 3/Q
s
5.0 Results
Tbe Ring-billed Gull Control Program started March 28, 1989 with a staff of five (5)
Mr Ulrich Watermann, of Bird Control International Incorporated, (the contracted bird
control firm), was responsible for the general supervision of the control work. He supphed
the proper raptors and provided relief duty when and wherever needed, He worked most
weeknights (wheT} not on duty at L.B.P.I.A) and on Saturdays as malO controller
Mr Greg Sadowski of BCI was responsible for general Ring-billed Gull control work, for
the falconry aspect of the program and the upkeep of the bird checklist. Ms. Gwynneth
Cunningham, also of BCI, relieved Mr Sadowski on Thursdays,
Ms. Susan McCready and Mr John Forsythe, both of the MTRCA, were responsible for
general Ring-billed Gull control work. They also assisted the Canadian Wildlife Service on
vanous Projects.
After an initial census, which revealed 30,030 Ring-billed Gulls on the entire Spit, the actual
control work started.
Ring-billed Gulls were well advanced in their courtship and a number of scrapes were
already constructed in the uncontrolled Areas A and B, while Area C had only a remnant
population of Ring-billed Gulls present (See Table 3).
Two Harris Hawks, one Prairie Falcon and one Hybrid Falcon were used in alternating
ways to do the initial control work. All the raptors were flown in a regular pattern in the
controlled areas. H not flown, the raptors were tethered on perches in the controlled areas
with the highest gull concentrations. Ring-billed Gulls did not try to relocate on Finger 1.
Area D showed little gull activity, still we found it necessary to fly one or both of the Harris
Hawks there on a daily basis.
lN~ 011
6
Pressure by Ring-billed Gulls to nest in the controlled areas was light in the beginning of
the program since water levels in Lake Ontario were the lowest they had ever been in the
six-year history of the program and gulls had plenty of room to establish nest sites in the
uncontrolled areas, The main nesting area in Peninsula A had been enlarged by extra
dumping and grading of the rough areas, giving the Gulls additional nesting area,
However, water levels in Lake Ontario started rising steadily through the 10 week program,
after most of the Ring-billed Gulls were firmly incubating, We registered the highest water
levels ever encountered during the program. ThIS meant that in our estimation a thIrd of
the counted nesting pairs of the Ring-billed Gulls got washed out, and, tI)'lng to re-nest,
were desperately looking for alternative nest sites, The pressure by the Ring-billed Gulls
trying to relocate increased tremendously in the controlled areas, Only a concentrated
effort and good co-operation on behalf of the entIre control team prevented this from
happening.
The Tip of the Endikement, the Beach from HP6 to the Lighthouse and the newly created
land along the Causeway were the major points of this increased gull activity Hawks and
Falcons were flown constantly and all alternative methods were used as well to disperse the
gulls,
The newly created land mass at the base of the SpIt (Outer Harbour Marina) had attracted
by rough estimation (a count was not done), some 5000 pairs of Ring-billed Gulls to nest
there. This freshly formed colony of Ring-billed Gulls was destroyed by construction
activities during the middle of the program, and again an increase in gull pressure was felt
in the controlled areas of the Spit.
Egg-laying in the controlled areas increased by more than 300% over the previous year (See
Table 2). Ring-billed Gulls were still involved in active courtship in the beginning of June
and freshly layed eggs were collected from well constructed nests until the third week of
June, two weeks later than in previous years.
wi<. -a\Z.
7
Due to low water levels during the beginning of the program and theu subsequent Increase
in SIZe, the Blokpoel Islands had attracted a largely increased number of Ring-billed Gulls
compared to 1988 when a count revealed 1,161 nestmg pairs. Two paIrs were actually
nestIng on top of bushes. The Islands literally disappeared when water levels rose and
countless numbers of drowned clucks and eggs washed up on the shoreline.
Common Terns started nesting during the latter part of ApriL This meant that we had to
change our strategy to accommodate these birds, Falcons and Hawks were gradually moved
away from the areas of their choice and the flymg of raptors was restricted to areas far
away from the nesting Terns.
Gull control activities came to an end for BCI on June 9, 1989 while the MTRCA staff was
kept on for an extra three weeks.
Tbe overall objective to prevent Ring-billed Gulls from reproducing in the controlled areas
of the Spit was met in spite of sharply increased pressure of the gulls to nest or re-nest
there.
t.UR..3 J~
TABLE 1
LOCATION AND NUMBER OF EGGS ON THE ENDIKEMENT DURING
THE EGG LAYING PERIOD
DATE DAY AREA D ANGER 2 ANGER 3 TIP UmrrnOUSE HP S HP6 ANGER 1
April 20 Thurs 1
21 Fri
22 Sat
23 Sun
24 Mon 9
2S Tues 1 8 4 4 4
26 Wed 2 1 4 2 3
27 Thurs 1 5 2
28 Fri 2 1 5 3 2
29 Sat
30 Sun
May 1 Mon 2 24 3 2
2 Tues 9 10
3 Wed 2 4 2 1
4 Thurs 2 5 4 7 1
5 Fri 6 4 1
6 Sat 3 11
7 Sun 8 7 SO
8 Mon 2 3 10 2 1
9 Tues 2 6
10 Wed 11
11 Thurs 11 2
12 Fri 1 1
13 Sat 2 1 28
14 Sun 9
15 Mon 1 3
16 Tues 3 1 1
17 Wed 10 1
18 Thurs 3 8
19 Fri 2S 9
20 Sat 4S
21 Sun 14
22 Mon 17
23 Tues 5 14
24 Wed
2S Thurs
26 Fri 5 3 1 3
1:7 Sat 1
28 Sun 2 5 9
29 Moo 1 11 1
30 Tua 4
31 Wed 2 3 1 2
June 1 Thurs 1 1 20
2 Fri 6 4 12
3 Sat
4 Sun 5 5 17 2
5 Moo 14 3 7 2
6 Tues 2 5
7 Wed
8 ThIl1l
9 Fri
10 Sat
11 Sun
12 Mon 18
TOTALS 4 88 53 382 52 24 10 49
~
^'
,
~
PEAK EGG-LAYING PERIOD ON THE ENDIKEMENT ~
TIP, FINGERS 2 AND 3
150
130
N
0
. 100
0
F
E
G 50
G
S
0
16-22 22-29 29-6 6-13 13-20 20-27 27-3 3-10 10-17
DATE (WEEKS) APRil 16 TO JUNE 17
FIGURE 2
PEAK EGG-LAYING PERIODS ON HARDPOINTS
5, 6 AND THE LIGHTHOUSE
70
60
N 53
o 50
.
o 40
F
30
E
~ 20
S
10
0
16-22 22-29 29-6 6-13 13-20 20-27 27-3 3-10 10-17
DATE (WEEKS) APRIL 16 TO JUNE 17
8"
FIGURE 3 /b
.
{)J
-
VJ
lNR. 3, to
TABLE 2
COMPARISON OF TOTAL NUMBER OF EGGS COLLECTED FROM
1985 . 1989
HP
ARPA 0 ANGER 1 ANGER 2 ANGER 3 TIP L1GIffiIOUSE HP S & 6 SOUlli
ANGER 1
1985 62 60 128 2529
1986 10 2 7 144 as 299
1987 86 0 4S 70 12 10 420
1988 6 0 14 32 90 15 30
1989 4 0 88 S3 373 S2 34 49
TOTALS
1985 2779
1986 547
1987 643
1988 187
1989 653
TABLE 3
NEST COUNTS FOR RING-BILLED GULLS IN THE UNCONTROLLED AREAS
No. of Nests
Peninsula ~ 1282 1987 l288 1989
A 13,000 11,550 13,944 24,414 28,491
B 20,590 19,957 22,706 31,264 30,621
C 14,305 13,134 8,705 6,726 2,833
Blokpoel
Island no count no count no count 1,161 no count
Complex
~f1.3'7
u
6.0 Observations
6.1 Ring-billed Gulls
Most of the 30,030 Ring-billed Gulls, counted in a census on March 28, 1989 were actively
Involved in courtship Numerous fresh scrapes were found in Peninsula A and B RelatIvely
fe\\ Ring-billed Gulls were found loafing in groups and rafts on the lagoons and bays, and
on the land In the controlled areas,
Unusually low water levels had increased the size of the beaches in the uncontrolled areas
by a considerable amount. An estimated one third of the nesting Ring-billed Gulls (maybe
unexperienced birds) chose these beaches as their nest sItes, Two paIrs of Ring-billed Gulls
were observed nesting on bushes on Blokpoel Island.
The first Ring-billed Gull eggs were found in area A and B on April 12, 1989 The first
egg.in the controlled area was found on April 20, 1989 That indicates that ovulatIOn started
about one week earlier than in 1988, A nest count of Ring-billed Gulls was undertaken by
the CWS in early May which revealed 61,945 nests in ^ B and C. However the nestmg
gulls on Blokpoel Island and on the new Marina site were not counted,
Water levels of Lake Ontano started rising gradually In May with the result that all the
gulls nestmg on the beaches lost their eggs or young. Pressure by Ring-billed Gulls tI)'lng
to nest or re-nest mcreased sharply m the controlled areas by mid-May Rmg-billed Gulls
were especially active on the Tip of the Endikement, on the West side of the Causeway, at
the Lighthouse and at the beach between the Lighthouse and HP 6.
The newly created Outer Harbour Marina site at the foot of the Spit had attracted an
estimated 5,000 pairs of Ring-billed Gulls to establish a new nesting colony This colony was
destroyed while the program was at its half-way point. It is believed that the displacement
of these gulls led to more pressure in the controlled areas with the result that Ring-billed
Gulls were still involved in active courtship when BCl's involvement in the program came
to an end in June 1989
~P..3/9
13
6.2 Other Gulls
Hemng Gulls were observed in usual numbers and they nested between the Ring-billed
Gulls in the uncontrolled areas with 64 nests in A and 48 nests in B. Herring Gulls seemed
to be predating heavily on adult Ring-billed Gulls in area B during the beginning of the
program.
Up to 24 Greater Black-backed Gulls were present at the Spit during the beginning of the
program. The birds were either sub-adult or in immature plumage. One single Lesser
Black-backed Gull was observed on the first day of the program.
Several Glaucous Gulls and the odd Iceland Gull were also observed during the first part
of the program.
Bonapart's Gulls showed up on April 5th and remained on site for about one week.
6.3 Caspian Terns
The first Caspian Tern was sighted on April 12th, a week later than last year Their total
numbers never reached 20 and no serious attempt at courtship was observed. They
dIsappeared towards the end of April.
6.4 COmmon Terns
Common Terns appeared by mid-April and their numbers increased quite well. Nesting
sites were selected along the entire Endikement with the exception of Finger 1, on both
sides of the causeway, on the Blokpoel Islands and at 1'3 in area C. One pair chose the
constructed raft as a nesting site, The largest concentration of nests was found at the Tip
of the Endikement.
A count conducted by Gaston Tessier of the CWS with assistance from the MTRCA and
the MNR, on June 5th 1989 revealed 194 Common Tern nests at the Spit. A second count
conducted by Dr Hans Blokpoel of the CWS with assistance from the MTRCA, on June
27th and 28th 1989 revealed 237 Common Tern nests at the Spit.
wR 31'1
14
Predation of Common Tern eggs by Ring-billed Gulls was observed twice by the author'
May 27 at the inner Hardpoint across Finger 1 and on June 3rd on the south side of the
Tip of the Endikement. Predation by Black-crowned Night Herons and Ruddy Turnstones
is possible as well, but was not directly observed, Predation by mammals such as skunk, fox
and raccoon is possible as well.
The overall low reproduction by the Common Terns was not helped by landfill activlties on
the west side of the Causeway during the breeding season. Bulldozers drove several times
right over their small nesting colonies or over single nests along the Endikement and at the
Causeway Dumptruck drivers were observed throwing stones at nesting Terns on the Outer
Hardpoint of the Endikement.
Several (at least six) freshly fledged Common Tern chicks were observed by the author in
mid-July on the Endikement.
6.S Black-crowned Night Herons
Black-crowned Night Herons were observed on the first day of the program, Their numbers
increased considerably and serious nesting activity was observed by mid-April in areas A,
Band C.
A nest count undertaken by the MlRCA on June 5t 1989 revealed the following:
Area A 19
B 135
C 765
----------------
Total 918 nests
This amounts to an increase of 297 nests compared to 1988. Most of the additional nests
were built in area C. It is interesting that in area C with increasing numbers of Black-
crowned Night Herons is experiencing a steady decline in nesting Ring-billed Gulls.
tJJR. 3~o
15
The number of nesting pairs of Ring-billed Gulls in area C has declined since the arrival
of the nesting Herons In 1987 in area C.
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
BCNH 0 0 516 621 765
RBG 14,305 13,134 8,705 6,726 2,833
Heavy predation by Black-crowned Night Herons seems to be the major cause of this
development. One adult Night Heron was observed by Mr Sadowski in nud-May trying to
catch a two week old Canada Goose gosling, The Heron gave up when the gosling returned
to its parent.
6.6 Waterfowl
Canada Geese were present at the Spit in usual numbers and involved in courtship In the
beginning of the program.. In spite of increased predation (most likely by fox) their
reproduction was more successful than in the previous year
Two Snow Geese and a part albino goose (maybe a hybrid) joined the Canada Geese
during May
A flock of Brant Geese was observed on May 22. These birds stayed for several days and
were found to be feeding on clover on HP 5 several times.
wR . 3~ )
16
All species of ducks (except for Ruddy Ducks and Pintail) seen in the previous years were
present during this years program.
Some species were obselVed in unusually high numbers such as 85 Gadwall near Blokpoel
Island on March 30. Several pairs of Green-winged Teal were also obselVed at the same
tune. A flock of 26 Canvasback was present for 2 days in early April.
Three pairs of Mute Swans tried to nest several tImes in different lOcatIOns on the SpIt,
however, each time the eggs were predated upon, ThIS was most likely done by humans.
Overall duck reproduction was low as well.
6.7 Shorebirds
The bulk of the shorebirds went through in the third week of May
Whimbrel were seen in several flocks up to 300 birds but the overall numbers were lower
than in 1988.
A flock of 21 Red Knots were seen on May 2 L
Ruddy Tumstones appeared on May 16th but theIr numbers were lower and they did not
stay as long as in the previous year PredatIon by Ruddy Turnstones on Common Tern eggs
is possible but was not obselVed.
110(<. a;2~
17
6.8 Birds of Prey
Birds of Prey made a poor showing this year Only three Peregrine Falcons were seen
during the program,
Snowy Owls were completely absent and very few accipiters were recorded,
Susan McCready might have seen a Rough-legged Hawk on April 23rd, but the sighting was
not confirmed,
tvR.3&3
18
7.0 Recommendations
Most Ring-billed Gulls on the Spit were courting by the time the program started on March
28, 1989, and many were still involved in nest building and egg-laying when the program
came to an end on June 9, 1989 Several environmental and artificial reasons (as previously
described) contributed to a prolonged ovulation period in the Ring-billed Gull population
on the entire Spit and especially in the controlled areas,
Therefore it is recommended that the program start one week earlier and be continued 14
days longer to account for this problem.
This is the only recommendation since the program ran smoothly otherwise,
IJJR. 3~ If
19
REFERENCES
American Ornithologist's Union, 1983 Checklist of North American Birds,
6th Ed.
Blokpoel, H., 1989 Report on Common Tern Nest Census of
Eastern Headland. June 27 and 28. 1989,
CWS, 1989
Blokpoel and Tessier, 1983 In Aquatic Park Environmental Study. 1978-
~ MTRCA, 1983
Fetterolf, P., 1983 In Aq~atic Park Environmental Study. 1978-
~ MTRCA,1983
Sadowski, G., 1989 Personal Communications
Tessier, G., 1989 Common Tern Count Tommy Thompson
Park. Toronto. June 5. 1989.
CWS, 1989
Watermann, U., 1978 Report on the Bird Scare PrQ~am at North
~ 1978.
wR 3~ ~
20
APPENDIX I
Checklist or Birds Observed at Tommy Thompson Park
TIus list comprises bird species observed at Tommy Thompson Park on the Endikement, areas south of the mam
road, and in area D, in 1989 Species marked with an asterisk e) have been known to nest at the site (Aquatic
Park Study, 1982). Species marked with an exclamation (!) are new species for the park in 1989 The
nomenclature and sequence of species follows that of the American OrnithologLSt's Union Checklist of North
Amencan Birds (6th Edition, 1983).
Soecies nm
GA VIIDAE. LOONS
Common Loon April 4
PODICIPEDIDAE. GREBES
Pied-billed Grebe March 29
Homed Grebe March 30
Red-necked Grebe May 12 ·
PHAlACROCORACIDAE. CORMORANTS
Double-crested Cormorant April 12
ARDEIDAE. HERONS, EGRETS AND BITIERNS
Great Blue Heron April 4
Great Egret May 30
Green-backed Heron May 20
Black-crowned N"Jght Heron · March 28
wi< 0 'Jt,
21
ANATIDAE. SWANS, GEESE AND DUCKS
Tundra Swan March 28
Mute Swan · March 28
Snow Goose March 28
Brant Goose May 22
Canada Goose · March 28
Wood Duck April 17
Green-winged Teal March 28
American Black Duck · March 28
Mallard · March 28
Blue-winged Teal · April 5
Northern Shoveler April 25
Gadwall · March 28
American Wtgeon April 16
Canvasback March 28
Redhead · March 28
Ring-necked Duck March 28
Greater Scaup March 28
Lesser Scaup March 28
Harlequin Duck April 5
Oldsquaw March 28
White-winged Seater March 29
Common Goldeneye March 28
.
Bufflehead March 28
Hooded Merganser April 10
Common Merganser March 28
Red-breasted Merganser March 29
CATHARTIDAE. AMERICAN VULTURES
Turkey Vulture April 15
22 [.of).. ~~ 7
ACCIPITRINAE. OSPREYS, EAGLES, HARRIERS AND HAWKS
Osprey April 13
Northern Hamer April 11
Sharp-shinned Hawk April 20
Red-tailed Hawk April 4
American Kestrel · March 28
Merlin May 10
Peregrine Falcon May 15
PHASIANIDAE: PHEASANTS AND QUAIL
Ring-necked Pheasant · April 5
RALLIDAE. RAILS, GALliNULES AND COOTS
American Coot April 4
CHARADRIIDAE. PLOVERS
Black-bellied Plover May 22
Semipalmated Plover May 14
Killdeer · March 28
SCOLOPACIDAE. SANDPIPERS, GODWITS, TURNSTONES, SNIPES AND DOWITCHERS
Lesser Yellowlegs May 22
Spotted Sandpiper · May 2
Upland Sandpiper May 1
Whimbrel May 21
Ruddy Turnstone May 16
Red Knot May 21
Sanderling May 16
Semipa,lmated Sandpiper May 19
Least Sandpiper May 21
White-romped Sandpiper May 26
Baird's Sandpiper June 6
Dunlin May 4
Short-biDed Dowitcher May 22
Common Snipe March 31
American Woodcock April 4
wR 3;Z ~
13
lARIDAE. JAEGERS, GULLS, TERNS AND SKIMMERS
Bonapart's Gull April 5
Ring-billed Gull · March 28
Herring Gull · March 28
Glaucous Gull March 28
Iceland Gull March 28
Greater Black-backed Gull · March 28
Lesser Black-backed Gull ! March 28
Caspian Tern · AprilU
Common Tern · April 17
Black Tern MayU
COLUMBIDAE. PIGEONS AND DOVES
Rock Dove · March 28
Mourning Dove · March 28
CUCULlDAE. CUCKOOS AND ANIS
Black-billed Cuckoo June 5"
STRIGIDAE. OWLS
Great Horned Owl March 29
Short-eared Owl April 7
CAPRIMULGIDAE. GOATSUCKERS
Common Nighthawk May Z7
APODIDAE. SWIFl'S
Chimney Swift May 18
ALCEPINIDAE: KINGFISHERS
Belted Kingfisher April 6
PICIDAE, WOODPECKERS
YeUow-bellied Sapsucker April 17
Downy Woodpecker March 28
Hairy Woodpecker April 17
Northern Flicker March 28
WR.3~q
24
TYRANNIDAE. TYRANT FL YCA TCHERS
Eastern Wood Pewee May 16
YeUow-bellied flycatcher May 22
Traill's flycatcher May 29
Least flycatcher May 15
Eastern Phoebe April 3
Great Crested Flycatcher May 3
Eastern Kingbird May 18
AlAUDIDAE.lARKS
Homed Lark April 3
HIRUNDINIDAE. SWALLOWS
Purple Martin May 16
Tree Swallow · AprilS
Northern Rough-winged Swallow May 3
Bank Swallow · April2S
Cliff Swallow May 8
Barn Swallow May 8
CORVIDAE. JAYS, MAGPIES AND CROWS
Blue Jay May 1
American crow March 28
PARIDAE. CmCKADEES
Black-capped Chickadee May 16
Tufted Titmouse ! May 1
SI1TIDAE. NUTHATCHES
Red-breasted Nuthatch April 7
White-breasted Nuthatch May 4
CERTImDAE. CREEPERS
Brown Creeper March 28
TROGLODYfIDAE, WRENS
House Wren May 21
/;J((.330
15
MUSClCAPIDAE. KINGLETS, GNA TCA TCHERS, THRUSHES AND MIMIDS
Golden-crowned Kinglet March 28
Ruby-crowned Kinglet March 28
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher May 13
Veery May 13
Hermit Thrush April 17
Wood Thrush May 22
American Robin March 28
Gray Catbird April 3
Northern Mockingbird May 13
Brown Thrasher April 28
BOMBYCll.LIDAE. WAXWINGS
Cedar Waxwing May 13
l.ANIIDAE. SHRIKES
Northern Shrike April 3
STURNlDAE. STARLINGS
European Starling · March 28
VIREONIDAE, VIREOS
Warbling VII'CO May 21
Red-eyed VII'CO May 22
EMBERIZIDAE. WOOD WARBLERS, TANAGERS, GROSBEAKS, BUNTINGS, TOWHEES,
SPARROWS, LONGSPURS, BLACKBIRDS, MEADOWlARKS AND ORIOLES
Tennessee Warbler May 22
Nashville Warbler May 16
YeUow Warbler MayS
Chestnut-sided Warbler May 13
Magnolia Warbler May 13
Black-throated Blue Warbler May 13
YeUow-rumped Warbler April 18
Black-throated Green Warbler MayS
Blackburnian Warbler May 16
wf<. 33/
16
Blackburnian Warbler May 16
Palm Warbler May S
BlackpoU Warbler May 22
Black-and-White Warbler May 3
American Redstart May 25
Ovenbird May 21
Kentucky Warbler May 22
Common Yellowthroat May 13
Wtlson's Warbler May 22
Canada Warbler May 23
Scarlet Tanager May 7
Northern Cardinal April 25
Rose-breasted Grosbeak May 18
Rufous-sided Towhee May 17
American Tree Sparrow March 28
Chipping Sparrow March 28
Field Sparrow April 27
Vesper Sparrow May 7
Savannah Sparrow · April 13
Song Sparrow · March 28
Swamp Sparrow May 16
White-throated Sparrow April 18
White-aowned Sparrow May 9
Dark-eyed Junco March 28
Snow Bunting April 10
Bobolink May 13
Red-winged Blackbird · March 28
Eastern Meadowlark March 28
Common Grackle · March 28
Brown, headed Cowbird · March 28
Northern Oriole MayS
FRINGn..uoAE. FINCHES
American goldfmch April 24
PASSERIDAE, WEAVER FINCHES
House Sparrow April 4
.
W~ .33.2.
.
MTRCA FOREST
ANNUAL REPORT
for the period
April 1, 1988 To March 31, 1989
Prepared by Debbie Pella Keen RPF
SIGNATURE <"ban~o~
DATE: 89. 0 7
W~.~~3
ANNUAL REPORT 1988/89
MTRCA FOREST
INTRODUCTION
The MTRCA Forest consists of 13 tracts with a total
area of 772 hectares. The Forest is owned by The Metro
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and managed by the
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources under a 20 year agreement
running to the year 2000
This Forest has developed into an integrated resources
management area, valuable for the production of wood and wood
products, the provision of proper environmental conditions for
wildlife, the maintenance of water levels and stream flows, the
prevention of erosion and flood, and for recreation, education
and research Management is conducted in accordance with an
approved annual plan, operating plan and management plan for
the Forest
This report represents an attempt to provide you with one basic
report during the year It primarily focuses attention on the
activities conducted during the year being reported. The
report also addresses in somewhat less detail, the activities
which are now in progress or which are planned for the current
year (1989/90). Finally, general comments on the .coming year"
(1990/91) are included.
(j)R.33Lf-
PART I
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE YEAR
April 1, 1988 to March 31, 1989
.
lAJ f. . ?>3;-
PART I (A) MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
Timber Sales
A total of 2,968 2 cubic metres (m3 ) of wood were sold in
1988/89 Of this total 1,408 2 m3 was boltwood, 360 1 m3 was
hardwood sawlogs, 1,002.8 m3 was fuelwood and 197 1 m3 was posts
Thinning Operations
A total of 16 1 hectares of forest were cut to produce wood
products in 1988/89. These areas were thinned selectively to improve
the growing conditions of the remaining higher quality trees
As much is possible thinning and improvement operations are
accomplished through sales of wood products arranged by
contract, tender or negotiations.
Artificial Regeneration
The clearcut areas (23 7 ha) in the Kelly and Ballycroy Tracts were
planted with 58,900 bareroot red and white pine seedlings Severe
spring and summer drought conditions resulted in a loss of most
of these seedlings.
Woodlot and Plantation Marking
Tree marking paint is used to identify the trees to be removed
or pruned based on an approved silvicultural prescription A
total of 50 1 hectares were marked in 1988/89 in preparation
for cutting operations.
Recreational and Educational Use
The Forest is open to the public for a wide variety of
recreation and education purposes. Skiing, hiking and horseback
riding are the major recreational activities
The Canadian Equestrian Driving Team used the Ballycroy Tract
for a driving event in July 1988.
The Albion Hills Conservation Area Field School used portions
of the Little Tract for an ongoing forest management demonstration.
A research study was initiated in a spruce plantation in the Ballycroy
Tract to demonstrate the use of a Makerii harvester for spruce
thinnings.
W{(.3~
Access, Protection, General Maintenance
Expenses related to fence and access maintenance and
improvement, fire maintenance protection and general
maintenance were minimal in 1989/90 Signs to identify the
Forest Tracts and provide information regarding Forest uses
were erected in 1988/89. Ten kilometers of road were graded and
portions graveled in various Tracts
Forest Resources Administration
. Administration costs do not include the staff salaries of the
District Forest Management Supervisor, Forest Operations
Manager and clerical staff who cannot be coded to specific sub-
activities for the Forest
~R. 307
,
TABLE 1
MTRCA FOREST
FOREST MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY SUMMARY 1988/89
ACTIVITY AREA (Hectares)
Artificial Regeneration
58,900 bareroot stock 23 7
Even-aged Management
Thinning 10.1
Uneven-aged Management
Thinning and Improvement 6.0
Tree Marking
Thinning - even-aged 27.5
Thinning and Improvement - uneven-aged 22.6
ltJR. 3.3 g
PART 1 (B) FINANCIAL STATEMENT
.
L,OR.. ~O?
METROPOliTAN TORONTO REGION C.A AGREEMENT FOREST
.
Statement Of Revenue and Expenditures
For Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 1989
Expenditures
Management and Support $ 2,75805
Artificial Regeneration 9,51400
Tending 6,190.44
Uneven - Aged Management 3,727.50
Pest Control 202.04
Resource Access 4,091.89
Forest Fire Management $ 361.57
$26,845 49
Revenue
Sale of Forest Products $ 15,844.67
$ 15.844.67
Net Expenditures
for Year Ended March 31, 1989 $ 11.000.82
WR.a~
METROPOUTAN TORONTO REGION C.A AGREEMENT FOREST
.
Statement Of Accumulated Management Costs
For Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 1989
Expenditures
Balance March 31, 1988 $277,746.29
Current Year $ 26.845.49 $304,591 78
Revenue
Balance March 31, 1988 $ 56,082.11
Current Year $ 15.844.67 $ 71.926.78
Net Expenditure
as at March 31, 1989 $232,66500
Management Costs Repaid For Lands
Removed From Forestry Agreement
Balance March 31, 1988 $ 912.04
Current Year $ NIL $ 912.04
Net Management Costs as at March 31, 1989 $ 231.752.96
IA R . ~tt-'
METROPOUTAN TORONTO REGION C.A AGREEMENT FOREST
.
Statement Of Grants Under The Forestry Act
As At March 31, 1989
O/S Grants as at March 31, 1988
Grants Paid Under The Forestry Act
(Section 2 (3)) as at March 31, 1988 $ 35,669.06
Grants Repaid to Province $ NIL $ 35,669 06
Grant Transactions
Current Year
Grants Paid $ NIL
Grants Repaid $ NIL
Balance of O/S Grants As At March 31, 1989 $ 35.669.06
I
W~. ~4-2
PART II
CURRENT FOREST MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
April 1, 1989 to March 31, 1990
~he 23 7 hectare c1earcut will be replanted to red and white pine
bareroot stock and norway spruce container stock Chemical vegetation
control is planned for the planting area.
Approximately 12 hectares of forest will be marked for thinning and
improvement
The White Spruce Seed Production Area in the Ballycroy Tract is
scheduled for seed collection depending on the quality of the
cone crop
IA R. ~~
PART III
PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
April 1, 1990 to March 31, 1991
Approximately 10 hectares of thinning and improvement
operations are planned for this year
Chemical tending is anticipated for the areas planted in 1989
WR. 3lf '+
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
ETOBICOKE MOTEL STRIP
WATERFRONT PUBLIC AMENITY SCHEME
SUMMARY OF CONSULTANTS' REPORT
Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board
Meeting 15/89
September 22, 1989
wR 3'f5
ETOBICOKE MOTEL STRIP
WATERFRONT PUBLIC AMENITY SCHEME
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #3/89, the following motion was adopted
" E~_s_.._!]~
THAT staff be directed to look into the most appropriate means of
achieving Authority objectives before the Ontario Municipal Board
Hearing on the Etobicoke Motel Strip, and report to the Water and
Related Land Management Advisory Board for submission to an Authority
meeting "
At the subsequent Meeting #4/89, June 23, 1989, the Authority adopted a
further motion
" E..e_~:._lL!.2.
THAT staff be directed to work with the Waterfront Public Amenity Scheme
Steering Committee for the Etobicoke Motel Strip;
AND FUTHER THAT staff be directed to submit the Waterfront Public
Amenity Plan to the Board and the Authority for comment and approval
prior to the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing on the Official Plan
Amendment C-65-86 (Motel Strip Area)
In May 1989, the City of Etobicoke, in conjunction with the Ministry of
Municipal Affairs and The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority, selected the consulting team of Philip Weinstein and Associates
which included Brad Johnson and Associates, Jerome Markson Architects,
Philpott Associates, Tarandus Associates, NAK Design Group, RGP Transtech
Inc , Cosburn Patterson Wardman Ltd , and Stephen Chiat Consultants to
undertake the study
The study evaluated three public amenity schemes A summary table comparing
the three alternatives is attached. The main emphasis on the schemes
relates to
i) improved water quality;
ii) minimum lakefill;
iii) recreation opportunities;
i v) marsh/wetland habitat and expanded natural area
The consultants have selected a preferred plan - Scheme B (see attached)
which includes the following facilities and activities
PREFERRED PLAN - ETOBICOKE MOTEL STRIP - WATERFRONT PUBLIC AMENITY SCHEME
!!..aj.l_f_e_ll~!~__~Q9L!>_~_!L1J_~~l?!_e_ti~~__~~ Q,1:!~
Facilities Visitor services, trail guides, bike rental
interpretive displays, natural history
Parking 50 cars at grade; 100 cars below grade
'Lh_~_g !_e_~Q_l'..a_~~_!'!_<?I!!~L1..a_<!~
Activities Passive park setting, trees, grassed play and sitting
areas; water contact
Parking "Overlook" parking bays only (approximately 25 spaces)
fA) R.. a4-h
So '?ll!U'~!l.U.~ .1L~ h 9 b.b.'?~:: b~.'?~ .l'..a.~~
Facilities Children's play areas, unstructured active play area,
Community Recreation Centre, "overlook" areas
~~..a.~~:: ~ .1.~.S!!.n.t~~
Public Boat rental, transient docking, water taxi service within
Facilities bay area, ferry service dock connecting to other waterfront
parks
Parking Limited to small parking bays to permit .overlook. parking;
parking in adjacent private developments (approximately 300
spaces)
Private Potential for buildings on piles (eg restaurants); small
Facilities retail; food service kiosks (maximum 2 storey structures)
tt<2!? l$.'? ~ ~.~. ~~~l:. .~U ~.l'.~::i1-.i.'?u
Year round facilities/activities washrooms, change facilities, terraces
for sit ti ng
Summer Swimming, wading and diving !?ools, sunning terraces, pea
gravel beach, tree shaded areas for sit ti ng in proximity
of water and boardwalk
Winter S k a ti ng
[.i.~tliE.;U;'~E.t..~~
Education Displays, for example, of the history of fishing activities
in Lake Ontario, species of fish, etc ; instruction area
Activities Sell and rent fishing equipment, book charter boats;
minimal day docking facility for transient charter boats
and day visitors; fishing dock
Parking Adjoining the centre, surface parking lot for a!?proximately
60 cars
~!!.t..t~!J~ .s,.(..~!!.9.~l?Sj.r_~ u_ll.rj.~s!! J__f::.~..a.~i~~
Facilities Wetlands Marsh area with pedestrian bridge for viewing
Link to year-round facility, the Aquarium
.Catwalk · pedestrian paths along wetlands in Humber Bay
Park East
IMPLEMENTATION
The capital cost of the .Preferred Amenity Scheme" is estimated at $26 7
million The funding guidelines for the waterfront amenity scheme is based
by four assumptions
1 All private development along the Motel Strip will benefit from
development of the waterfront public amenity scheme
2 Development rights (measured in square feet gross) are the mos t
equitable basis for apportioning the capital cost of develo!?ing the
waterfront public amenity scheme
3 Public funds may not be available to finance all capital
acquisition and construction costs
4 Public funds will be available to finance annual operating costs
. y
IA) R.3l+7
!,tl.e. .~!;~ 2.Y..! ~ ~.<2.'E!!I~.n.<! ~.$ ,!1.~~ .1l1l. ~~ 91.a.t~ 1~.. ~~!l..'ll2e~ .?~~1..? t. S,tl ~__t:l~,!: _e}..~$ !.vz
~~Sg!l2.~~~.J.t~D4..~hl..~~~94..~~!;~!._hg'!:~..~D~..~ie2!.~~D.!.~~b,!:~..t~E..tQ~~~.<2.'Eel~_t~
~!!I~.n.~~~~~.~Q~~~..~~..n.~~~,!:j.~~~~..~iS,tl_.tQ~.j.~~l2j.<!~~1..<2.~D~~.~.~!l2..~~~u.~~~~..~t.~~.~.
U,!ll.~.~~ _l.I2.~.~..u_~h l~..t~D~.s.~..Jl'.~ ~ ~..c.<2.~S ~ ..~Q~~.~<!. ~~..~~l~.b.~~~~2. _t!~ ,!ll..1~2j. ~~
~o.th~ s.t.~(L!!.<2.'E. ,!:,!1.~.9~.v.~hg~.m.~IlS. .?t.!;,tl~..~9J.?~~ l!l.;L.h~!l2.~. ~~.. tQ~~. J2.~~S~.~9.
!E.e.. ~~~.o.~ t.J.e_~<2!!1~.e.I2.9.~..sJ2.hl '!:..i~E Ls.<!i~,!:j.. <2.~.Lo.~.~~.mJ2.<2D~.n.t ~.~L. tb~..~s b~.m~
s:,!:.o.~ i ~ ~.k.. ~.~,tl.?~ h9..r.~~.~~..~S ..~~~~,!:..<2.l2~J..a.t~.,!:.h.~.~!.b.~~.~.e..s.'E ~!l.t.. :.f.t.<2. ~ls.?Is.~. ~.e.~ sl:!.
~!l...cLI?~2 .r.<!~ ~l.k..~~!l.t..~~
~l'J.C.~.~ .x.t~D~..~~~...i.~~l~~.l.s~1.?~.~.L.l!.~!!I1'~.~.~2:/.... ~~~.t..~~!.l<.. .i~..i. ~sl~ 2.~.g:,~.~~~,tljJ2..
~D~..<2.l2 ~ !..a.Ug!l..<2.L'!:l'.~.~l.s.h.lD~ .c..~D$!.~".~.?.9.~2~.t<2E..tJl~.~.e..h~s.t.<2.~ _2~.~.~!l~__~~'!:..u.~~
t~E~J__~D~..<2.~D..t..~~.J!.~ll...a.~9..J~.t~!~~.~~~2~..~~!l.t..~~
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
The study raises a number of issues that require review and comment to the
Board
The issues can be summarized as follows
1 The extension of the waterfront drive into Humber Bay East and across
the proposed wetlands to the Motel S tr ip The Authority did not
support the road connection as shown when commenting on the Official
Plan Amendment C-65-86
2 The scale of the regional waterfront scheme which is 30-50 metres in
width excluding the waterfront drive and the level of waterfront
development proposed within the area
3 The deflector arm requirements to achieve significant water quality
improvements
4 The potential requirement of the Minister of the Environment to
undertake an environmental assessment of the deflector arm in addition
to the Environmental Management Master Plan included in the
consultant's report
5 The utilization of the wetlands concept to provide increased wildlife
habitat diversity for the natural area of the park while improving the
qua li ty of stormwater from the Motel Strip.
6. The implementation mechanism proposed to acqu i re all lands/water lots
for the public amenity scheme in advance of development
.
7 Ownership and operation of the regional public amenity scheme
Further public input is scheduled An information centre is scheduled for
September 27, 1989 at Mimico High School from 6 30 P m to 9 30 P m A
formal public meeting at Etobicoke Development Committee is scheduled for
October 11, 1989 Etobicoke has requested agency comments by
October 11, 1989.
Upon approval by Etobicoke Council, the Public Amenity Scheme will form the
basis of that component of the Official Plan Amendment currently before the
Ontario Municipal Board with a hearing scheduled for early January 1990
1989 09 13
Table 4 1 Comparison of Alte rna tlve
Configurations of Proposed
Public Amenity Scheme
SCHEME A SCHEME B SCHEME C
no deflector large deflector large deflector. cut HBE
very poor to poor 9000 ond better thon good and better than
WATER QUALl1Y at aU times other deflector arms other alternative
schemes most of the
titM
lAKEFILL Mainland 4,4ha 109ac 44ha 10 9ac 7 2ho 1 7 Bac
Deflector 0 51ha 1 2 6ac 7 1 ha 1 7 5ac
TOTAL 44ha 109oc95ha 23 50c 1 4 3ho 353a
PARKLAND
Waterfront mainland 7 6ha 1 8 8ac 7 6 ha 1 8 Bac 8 4ho 20 8ac
Deflector 0 0 5 1 ha 12 60 7.1 ho 1 7 50 c
Local Pork 1 Sha 3.7ac 1.5ho 37ac 1 5ha 370c
TOTAL 9 1 ha 22 Sac 14 2ha 35 lac 170ha 420ac
RECREATIONAL limited transient docks transient docks transient dock3
limited to small ~roft aD bootJr'IQ poaible 01 booting possible
OPPORTUNITIES booting
ittle swinvning in boy mot'll swimming in Boy moet IWlmming In Bay
more pa r1don<i and 9".olest oml of pona
expcInalYe nature ""N
n<rture reMtW
eeparatlon of more
oc:tNe elements (e.g.
Aquonum) from passive
conaet'\lGtJon oreas
QROter elewtion/tAat - 10.... eIewtion of lower elewtion of
ment 01 mainland moiNond shore mainland shore
IMPLICATIONS ..Isting WGYe action ,heItered water area .heltered WQter area
InBCPJ rectuc.d ~ of
more laklfl' weUonda to tr.at
atonnwGt.<<
concern ~rclng
existing Iakiafi' in HBE
and etMroNMlltGl
im~ of pc opoeed cut
rnor. Ioktfl'
COST $23 million $25 million $30 million
Source of cost horeline protectio shoreline protectio
Increase oture pork nature pork
interpretive centre
NOTE. FIGURES ARE APPROXlW.TE
. tn~lude' Publi~ Land, ~urrently under litig<rtion
""---
1 "'~
- ~
J-"
WI'<,34-1
-
- ------. ,
.
v
~-
\
\ \
TraI~
Green Pattl PronI8o lade ~~
T_ ....... IHIMt. \ \
---. \ \
! --~
\ \
\ \
\ \
The ~ Centre . . \ \
<AIoto, --.. '" .... \ \
- \ -.. -..--
I ----.- .... \ \
i .....,._11I____
..-.- \ \
~Io__ .
- ~..... Clr1w. \ \
. \ \
, \ \
\ \ \
, . \ \
. \ \
, \ \
\/
Scheme A
Fig.4.13
^ ~
1 .
,
WR.DSO
~
Loolooul ,,-,
Green Park PromenacIe
I T_ rou, _.....
...... COftIlld.
-- pan..,
I
I .
.
CAfft. _.. ,.. _I,
_ac_.. _ __.
_ Iloot __ _ ....
.....,._11I___.
........ .la1tOft
Ilele.. '" c_... -.
...... ~""'t 0......
.
,
'WIt
. ,
-
Scheme 8
Fig.4.14
r~
o " 10 00
/"-
1 .
-,
, ~l~";'~:': Ok),,~ ~~.r i0 R 3S
"
!
.
I
I
Green Park Pro.....~
T_ ...... ...Itftt,
..t... c.Gfttllc:t.
--~
,
,
The BoIIrdweIl Centre
c.-.. _.. '" ..,...
~-.. -.. -.
_ Iloot ,_ _ ....
.....,._11I--....... ,
.. "-d .....,.,
-.. '" - .......
".or ~I CrM. ..
--
~
....
~.
,~...~=~;;::;-.~~.;...
:1
':
II
V Scheme C
Fig.4.15
rt..r1....-...J
o II 10 - -.
wR. SS~
"
APPENDIX A
INTERNAL PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES
FOR THE
SPECIAL POLICY AREA PROCESS
.
WR.3S'3
INl'ERNAL PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES
FOR nm
SPECIAL POLICY AREA PROCESS
IN CENl'RAL REGICN -
MINISTRY OF NA'lURAL RESOORCES
"THESE PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES MUST BE READ 'lOOETHER WITH THE
P~NCIAL FLOOD PLAIN PLANNIOO POLICY STATEMENT AND
IMPLEMl!NrATICN GUIDELINES."
I
RAM,lJAR
OC'roBER 1988
-.
----.
~
INR. "35'+
TABLE OF CCNl'ENrS
PAGE
1 0 IN'l'ROOOCTICN . . . . . . . . 1
2 0 SPECIAL POLICY AREA PROCESS - AN OVERVIEW . . . 1
3.0 ROLES ......... . . . . . . . . 5
3.1 MUNICIPALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2 cc::NSERVATICN Al1I'HORITY ....... . . 5
3.3 MINISTRY OF NA'lURAL RESOORCES . . . . . . 6
3.3.1 REGIONAL OFFICE . . ...... 6
3.3.2 DISTRICT OFFICE . . ...... 6
3.3.3 cc::NSERVATICN AlJ'I'HORITIES AND
WATER MANAGEMENT BRANCH . . . . . 7
3.4 MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS . . . . . . . . 7
4.0 RESPONSIBILITIES ................ 8
4.1 MUNICIPALITY ................ 8
4.2 cx:tlSERVATICN AlJTII)RITY ........... 10
4.3 MINISTRY OF NA'lURAL RESOORCES . . . . . . . . 12
4.3.1 REGIONAL OFFICE . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3.2 DISTRICT OFFICE . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3.3 CCNSERVATICN AlJ'1'II)RITIES , WM'ER
_BRAftDl...... . 15
4.4 MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS ........ 16
FIGURES
I
SPA ~ PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
~
.
~R. as~
- 1 -
1.0 INTRODUCTICN
Responsibilities for the implementation of the SPA concept lie with several
agencies and ministries. These include: the initiating Municipality; the
Regional Municipality where they exist; the local Conservation Authority
(CA); the Regional Office of the Ministry of Natoral Resources (MNR) and
the District Office of the MNR; the Plans Adni1nistration Branch (PAS) of
the Ministry of Municipal Affairs (MMA); and, the Conservation Authorities
and Water Management Branch (CAWMB) of the MNR.
An objective of all involved agencies is to participate in an effective,
yet streamlined process. A coordinated and cooperative approach will
assist in achieving these results. The participantsjpartners must be
willing to meet, to discuss and to negotiate, if the process is to have a
chance to be shortened and streamlined. The process will only became
lengthy if the partners do not fulfill their responsibilities, or, if they
are not fully prepared to ensure that all SPA requirements have been dealt
with effectively.
It is therefore essential that the lines of communication be established at
the onset of the process and be maintained throughout on a proactive basis.
Each agencyjpartner must also be aware of its role and responsibilities
during this process, and in the importance of fulfilling these obligations.
Only in this way will it be possible to minimize or to avoid future
problems or lengthy hold-ups during the SPA approval process.
To date, these individual responsibilities have never been clearly outlined
nor been integrated into a step-by-step guide1ine~ This report is intended
to define the responsibilities of each agency and ministry within Central
Region, and will illustrate the steps required to take an SPA frClll its
inception to its final approval. This report will serve as a guide to
staff at MNR-central Region involved in the SPA process.
2.0 SPECIAL POLICY MEA PROCESS - AN OVERVIEW
The concept of the SPA was developed to recognize areas of historic flood
plain developaent and permit limited developaent and redevelopaent on the
basis of exceptions to Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policy. It also .
allows for agreement on acceptance of a higher degree of risk where
adherence to the levels of protection specified in the Provincial Policy
are not feasible.
~
~it~ .
- 2 -
The SPA designation identifies certain exceptional situations based on
local watershed conditions. SPA status is based primarily on two premises:
firstly, technical justification must be provided to demonstrate that both
the Two Zone Concept for floodplain management and structural remedial
measures cannot be achieved either technically, reasonably or economically;
and secondly, the municipality must demonstrate the social and economic
justification, that without further development ,opportunities, the
continued viability of the community would be'threatened.
The SPA process is illustrated simply in chart form at the end of this
section (Figure - Page 4). The Province has established procedures for
approval of an SPA as follows:
PHASE 1 - Identification for need and approva1-in-princip1e
PHASE 2 - Data collection, preparation and approval of SPA/OPA.
These phases have also been incorporated in the chart to help illustrate
the overall process.
The concensus of many of the involved agencies is that the SPA process is
too lengthy and cumbersaDe, with particular reference to the identification
of need in Phase 1. The intent of this phase is primarily to ensure that
the Municipality and the CA cOlllDlUlicate and evaluate all of the available
alternatives and assess the implications. Close liaison with the
Municipality during this phase will ensure that appropriate documentation
is prepared to support the request for approval-in-principle, and to
provide adequate justification for the SPA. These preliminary meetings
will serve to open the door to discussions on floodplain and water
management, with particular emphasis on the feasibility of Provincial Flood
Plain Planning Policies, and whether the benefit-cost warrants a program of
structural works designed to eliminate or alleviate the flood risk, or
whether a combination of structural works and policy t..plementation might
sufficiently reduce the flood hazard.
It is necessary to have accurate up-to-date mapping and the floodway flood
fringe areas identified prior to requesting ~pproval-in-principle for an
SPA. If the mapping is completed as part of the SPA process, it can greatly
lengthen the process (one to two years) and perpetuate the impression that
the process is onerous.
,
The key phase to streamlining the SPA process would be Phase 1. The
groundwork developed and the data collected during this phase will serve to
expedite the time required by the working group during Phase 2. Phase 1
would also be the time to develop an appreciation of the technical aspects,
in order to assist in the policy development aspects of Phase 2. CAs might
be able to short ci rcui t Phase 1 of the process, through data available in
association with their watershed Plans or other studies such as P'load
Damage Reduction Studies, etc.
~
~R..3s7
- 3 -
one of the most important aspects of the SPA process, yet essentially
overlooked to date, is the actual admdnistration and implementation of the
SPA policies, once they fo~ part of the Municipality's Official Plan. 'nle
next step usually results in the preparation and approval of an
implementing Zoning By-law. Some municipalities will also have site plan
controls to cover the SPA.
However, a question arises regarding the imp1~mentation of these policies
in consideration that two agencies have jurisdiction over the SPA. 'nle
jointly approved policies will require cooperation and continued proactive
liaison between the Municipality and the local Conservation Authority to
ensure their effective implementation. A good working relationship at the
staff level will assist in the realization of long-te~ benefits from the
SPA process.
In addition to Phases 1 and 2, it is appropriate to consider a third phase
to fully complete the SPA process. 'Phase 3' should address the importance
of the administration and implementation of the approved OP Policy. It
should provide the opportunity for the Municipality and the Conservation
Authority to develop and maintain a mutually beneficial relationship, and,
an additional safeguard for future compliance to Provincial Flood Plain
Planning Policies. 'nlis third phase will encourage me.bers of the
Technical Committee to meet subsequent to formal approval of the SPA/OP
Policy, in order to discuss and prepare staff guidelines for administration
that consider the local si tuation at both the municipal and CA levels.
.
.
~
~
SPA~ FLOWCHA~OCESS ~
.
PHASE I
CA/UNR DISTRIOT
IDENTIFICATION OF NEED .. .
FOR AN SPA ,..-.. REFUSAL OF
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL MNR/MMA REQUEST
- Community Related IN PRINCIPLE OF SPA REVIEW OF
- Municipal Oommltment - i- REQUEST FOR
- Designated Growth Centre - Formel request by PRELIMINARY
- Infrastruoture Inveatment munlolpallty aubmltted APPROVAL FORMAL
I to MNR/MMA
- APPROW.L
TECHNICAL CRITERIAI IN PRINCIPLE
ESTABLISHMENT OF 1
BOUNDARIES I
I ~
MUNICIPALITY SEE PHASE II I
I
PHASE II I
APPROVAL
ESTABLISHMENT OF AN FOR MAL OF SPA
SPA WORKING GROUP DATA COLLECTION ~ SUBMISSION - BY MINISTER
AND PREPARATION PUBLIC _ TO MN R OFMNR
- Munlolpallty OF DRAFT OP/OPA - I
- Delegated Regional ~ POLICIES AND REVIEW
Municipality If IMPLEMENTATION FORMAL APPROVAL
established MECHANISMS - SUBMISSION ~ OF OP IOPA
- MNR - Region TO MMA BY MINISTER
- MMA - PAB OF MAA
- CAIMNR Olltrlot FIGURE
~
~R. ~S1
- 5 -
3.0 ROLES
This section prescribes the role of each of the agencies included in the
SPA process as well as the composition of the Technical Committee.
3.1 MUNICIPALITY
The Municipality is one of the key partners in the SPA process. '!he
Municipality's primary role is to initiate the request for designation,
with the supporting background report(s). '!he request should only be
initiated after a thorough discussion and review with the CA on the flood
plain management options. '!he Municipality must be cCDllitted to the
continued growth and development of the area requested for SPA designation.
The Municipality must also: assist the PAS of MMA in setting up the
Technical Committee; prepare the SPA/OP Policy document in a format
suitable to meet the Planning Act requirements; prepare the background
data and justification material for the SPA; and, ensure future compliance
to the approved SPA/OP Policy through the implementation of the necessary
zoning bylaws and site plan controls and through administrative
coordination of the CA regulations and the bylaws.
3.2 <.'CNSERVATICN Al1I'HORITY
The Conservation Authori ty is the lead agency for flood plain management,
having been delegated the authori ty by the Province. However, the SPA
process provides for accepting a higher degree of risk than is normally
provided for in Provincial Policy and, therefore, the Province is a full
partner in this process. '!he resultant policies must be acceptable to all
of the partners. As lead implementing agency for Provincial Flood Plain
Planning Policies, the CA must ensure that the Province, both MNR and MMA
are notified when the concept of SPAs are seriously being considered.
Principal amongst CA responsibilities will be:
i) to assist member municipalities in understanding the floodplain
management options available for incorporation into Official
Plan documents;
ii) to identify the technical information requirements, i.e. flood
plain mapping, depth and veloci ty calculations as it relates to
floodproofing, structural remedial solutions, flood forecasting and
warning, etc.;
iii) to provide major input into the development of the technical .
policies for SPAs as a member of the Technical CoIIIDittee; and,
iv) to ensure that their Regulations and Resource Planning programs are
adjusted accordingly in areas subject to SPA policies, in order to
ensure compliance with Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policy.
.
~R.~
- 6 -
3.3 MINISTRY OF NA'lURAL RESOORCES
3.3.1 REGICNAL OFFICE
The CA Section at Central Region have the staff responsibility on
all matters relating to SPAs. The CA Section will recOlllDl!nd
approval-in-principle for an SPA by the Regional Director and,
ultimately, approval of the OP/OPA by ,the Minister. The CA Section
will ensure that sufficient staff time is available to effectively
deal with SPAs in Central Region on a proactive basis. Staff will
coordinate input from both the Engineering and Lands Sections, and
the appropriate District Office, as required.
The CA Section will also ensure that staff is available with the
required expertise to provide an adequate resource base for problem
solving to CAs, Districts and the MMA, regarding the intent of
Provincial Flood Plain Policies. This will be an iup:>rtant aspect
in the monitoring of the delegated authority for the implementation
of Provincial Policies.
The designated staff at the Region should also be certain to keep
the Districts advised of matters regarding SPAs in their areas.
Districts should also be involved in training sessions or workshops
regarding this matter. This will be especially critical for those
Districts where no CA exists, to be certain that the Districts
adequately fulfill their implementation responsibilities as it
relates to Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policies.
The Region shall also ensure that the CAHMB is kept apprised of the
progress and status of an SPA throughout the Technical Ccmai ttee
phase of the process. Qle method of achieving this is to provide
the CAMtB wi th copies of the SPA Technical. CCIIBi ttee minutes and
drafts of the OPA policies as they are being developed.
3.3.2 DISTRICT OFFICE
The role of the District Office in the SPA process must be separated
into the differing responsibilities that result in areas where no CA
exists, and in those where CAs have jurisdiction over floodplain
management matters.
,
,
- 7 - tAR . ~b 1
The role of the Districts in Central Region is as follows:
i) Where no CA exists, the District Office assumes the responsibility
for flood plain management which should be reflected in DLUP.
Areas requiring flood plain mapping are to be identified.
Possible SPA where adequate justification exists should also be
identified. In consultation with the Regional Engineer, the
District should ensure water management initiatives are
included in the appropriate Work Plan and budgeted separately.
Where a potential SPA has been identified and the municipality
is interested in proceeding with a request, the District Office
shall actively participate in the SPA process and shall work
closely with Regional staff and rely on the Region to provide
the technical expertise; the District will assume similar
responsibilities to that of the CA in this case (Section 4.2).
ii) Where a District Office is within an area where a CA has
been delegated jurisdiction over floodplain management matters,
the District's role will be comparatively ~nor and limited to
an initial review, to determine whether other Ministry programs
or resource objectives will be affected by the SPA.
A primary role of the District, however, whether a CA exists or
not, will be to review official planning docu.ents through the
normal plan input and review functions and ensure that designated
staff at the Region are notified of any SPA possibility. In this
regard, it will be necessary that the appropriate District staff
understand and appreciate the intent of Provincial Flood Plain
P1ann~ng Policies.
3.3.3 cc:NSERVATICN AUTHORITIES AND WATER MANAGDtENl' BRANCH
The role of the CAHMB in the SPA process in Central Region is
primarily to review requests for SPA approval and to recallll8nd
approval to the Minister. Since approval-in-principle has been
delegated to the Regional Director, it is critical that the Region:
(a) keep the CAHMB advised of the progress of an SPA, (b) ensure
that when approval of the SPA by the Minister of Natural Resources
is requested, it adequately represents the intent of Provincial
Flood Plain Planning Policies.
3.4 MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
I
As a full partner in the SPA process, the primary role of the MMA, through
its Plans Admdnistration Branch (PAB), is to assist and to provide
direction to the Municipality in the coordination of the Technical
Camadttee and, to actively participate as a member of same to ensure that
Provincial interests are addressed and proper land use planning procedures
pursuant to the Planning Act are followed. The CclIIIaunity Planning Advisory
Branch (CPAB) may also become involved in providing advisory and financial
assistance to the municipality in terms of assembling background
information in support of the SPA/OP initiative.
~
wR. at~
- 8 -
4.0 RESPONSIBILITIES
The specific responsibilities of each of the agencies involved in the
Special Policy Area process are outlined below
4.1 MUNICIPALITY
4.1.1 The Municipality shall identify the area where the requirements of
the one-zone or two-zone policies are too onerous and shall contact
the local CA or, where no CA exists, the local District Office of
the MNR, to discuss the alternatives and the appropriate course of
action.
4.1.2 The Municipality shall assess, in conjunction with the local CA, the
PAS of the MMA and the MNR Regional Office, the floodplain
management options that are available, to deteI'1lline whether the SPA
is technically justified.
4.1.3 The Municipality shall also assess various community-related
factors, in order to ascertain whether the area potentially
qualifies for SPA designation, based on the social and economic
circumstances in the cOllllllJI1i ty (see APPENDIX C of the Implementation
Guidelines for the Flood Plain Planning Policy Statement).
4.1.4 The Municipality shall request PAS of the MMA to organize a
preliminary meeting of the involved partners (Le. - the CA, the
PAS of the MMA and the MNR Regional Office), to discuss and confina
the merits of an SPA request. Where appropriate, a representative
of the regional municipality should also attend the meeting.
4.1.5 The Municipali ty shall prepare, in conjunction with the local CA,
the required documentation to support the request for approval-in
principle. A council resolution shall accompany the request to the
Director of the PAS at the MMA (NB - an approval-in principle
request will not be processed without the required documentation).
4.1.6 The Municipality shall participate on the Technical COIIIDi ttee. '!he
Technical COIIIDittee shall consist of representatives frail the local
and/or regional lIIJOicipali ty where appropriate; the CA, or, where
no CA exists, the District Office of the MNR; the Regional Office
of the MNR; the PAS of the MMA; and others as deemed necessary or
appropriate.
4.1.7 The Municipality shall ensure that its elected representativesl .
councillors are aware of the future implications of the SPA process,
in order to avoid possible delays in the process at a later date.
In this regard, the Municipality is encouraged to select an elected
representative to sit on the Technical Committee, to promote
Council's awareness throughout the process.
~
- 9 - IAR.3b3
4.1 8 'I11e Municipality, as determined by the Chairperson, may be
responsible for the administration of the Technical Committee
including the minutes of meetings, and the ci rcu1ation of same to
the committee members.
4.1.9 'I11e Municipality shall prepare the necessary draft SPA/OP Policy
document for the review and approval of the Technical Committee. 'lbe
Regional Office of MNR, or the CA, will provide assistance when requested.
4.1.10 Subsequent to the approval of the final SPA/OP Policy document by all
of the representatives of the Technical Committee, the Municipality
shall obtain municipal support through Council resolution.
4.1.11 'I11e Municipality shall then undertake a public review of the SPA/OP
Policy document in accordance with the requirements of the Planning
Act. 'I11e Municipal! ty shall ensure that the CA has endorsed the
SPA/OP Policy document through resolution prior to the date of the
public meeting.
4.1.12 Subsequent to the public review process, the Municipality shall
formally subDit the final document for approval of the Minister of
Municipal Affairs, via the Director of the PAS and the Minister of
Natural Resources, via the Regional Director. All background data
reports, official Council resolutions, as well as records
identifying the public review process, shall accompany the request
for final approval.
4.1.13 Subsequent to the formal approval of the OP Policy by the Director
of the PAS, the Municipality shall reconvene the Technical Ccmmittee
to develop and prepare a plan for the effective and successful
administration of the policies from both a municipal and conservation
authority perspective. 'Ibis plan may be in the form of staff
guidelines that the Municipality and CA may fo~ly wish to endorse.
4.1.14 'lbe Municipality shall inform MMA or the delegated Region of any
proposed OPA to change the approved SPA bowldaries or policies prior
to a public .-eting or adoption by Council.
NB - ~ere the municipality seeking approval-in-principle for special
policy area status is wi thin a 'delegated' regional lllmicipali ty, the
Region will be involved in the review. Regional representatives may
coordinate the review of all materials relating to a special policy area
designation, once the municipality has been given approval-in-principle and
direction has been provided as to the additional studies required to
support an approval of a specific special policy area.. (Excerpt from I
Implementation Guidelines, dated July 1986 - page 89(b).)
'Ihe Regional Municipali ty, as di rected by MMA, may asswe the coordinating
and review responsibilities for the Technical Committee as well as the
SPA/OP Policy document developDent and preparation in the circumstance
previously noted. 'lbe Regional Municipali ty would be assuming BaDe of the
responsibilities of both the Municipality and the PAS of the MMA.
~
~R.gbLf
- 10 -
4.2 CCI-lSERVATICN AtJI'HORITY
4.2.1 The CA shall take the lead role in ensuring conformity to Provincial
Flood Plain Planning Policies in any SPA designation. As the
Municipality's main contact in floodplain manage.ent matters, the CA
is expected to explain the floodplain management options that are
available during the formative stages of deve10~nt of Official
Planning documents. Where sufficient justification for an SPA
exists and the Municipali ty is interested in pursuing same, then the
CA, as the technical expert, should facilitate the initiation of the
SPA process. In many cases, the technical justification for SPAs
is already completed as a result of other studies completed by the CA.
4.2.2 The CA shall inform the MNR Regional Office and the PAS of the MMA
of the potential for an SPA, once ini tial contact has been made by
the Municipality.
4.2.3 The CA shall also notify the MNR Regional Office and the PAS of the
MMA of any prelimdnary meetings regarding potential SPAs and, shall
request their attendance at same to as ascertain any Provincial
implications.
4.2.4 The CA shall confirm, in conjunction with the Municipality, that
other floodplain management alternatives are not feasible. It is
essential for the CA to analyze the technical and economic
feasibility of the TWo Zone Concept and structural flood damage
reduction alternatives. If, after this analysis, there ia still
justification to allow development in the (loodway or to accept a
level of protection below the Regulatory flood level, then the
request for SPA designation should proceed.
4.2.5 Once the CA has determined that the SPA concept is the only
reasonable alternative, a request for approval-in-principle shall be
forwarded to the Directors at the MNR Regional Office and at the PAS
of the PIMA. The request for SPA status must be supported by the
appropriate technical information and, cannot proceed wi thout
floodplain mapping that identifies the floodway and flood fringe.
Wi thout this information, it would be impossible to determine the
applicability of any Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policies. I
4.2.6 The CA shall actively participate on the Technical Coamittee and,
shall provide major input into the develqpment of the technical
policies required to address the lUlUSUal cirClDDStances in the SPA
based on the local watershed conditions.
.
w R. ~~
- 11 -
4.2.7 The CA shall ensure that its Executive Conmittee and/or Full
Authority are aware of the future implications of the SPA process,
in relation to the Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways
Regula tion. Once the CA approves and supports the SPA designation
and its relevant policies, the administration of its Regulations
wi thin the SPA must then comply wi th the special, IOOre flexible
policies approved in the OP Policy document.
-
4.2.8 Subsequent to the approval of the SPA document by the Technical
Coumi ttee, the CA shall obtain formal endorsement of the SPA/OP
Policy document through a resolution from the EXecutive Committee
and/or Full Authority prior to municipal council's approval.
4.2.9 The CA shall forward the approval resolution ( s) to the Municipali ty
and copy the Regional Director of the MNR, the Director of the PAB
at .the MMA, and all Technical Committee members.
4.2.10 The CA shall ensure that permits issued pursuant to their Fill,
Construction and Waterways Regulation, and ComBents in the municipal
plan review program confoon to the approved SPA policies.
4.2.11 The CA shall ensure that the MNR Regional Office is notified
regarding the circulation of applications by municipalities to CPAB
of MMA for grants to update an Official Plan document. 'Ibis may
initiate early liaison in areas that might have the potential for
SPA status, and may avoid future problems and delays through an
awareness of Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policy requirements.
4.2.12 The CA shall contact the MNR Regional Office and the PAB of the MMA
should any changes to the SPA be proposed by the municipali ty at a
future date, as a result of updated fl~lain ..pping studiea or
other circumstances.
4.2.13 As a member of the Technical CaIIIli.ttee, the CA shall participate in
the development and preparation of procedures for the adDdnistration
of the policies, subsequent to the formal apprOYal of the OP Policy
by the Director of the PAB.
4.2.14 'Ibe CA shall, in its Municipal Plan Review Program, IOOnitor all
planning documents, zoning by-laws and developaent proposals to ,
ensure compliance with SPA/OP policies.
.
~RI 3b~
- 12 -
4.3 MINISTRY OF NA'lURAL RESOORCES
4.3.1 REGIONAL OFFICE
4.3.1.1 The Region shall rely on its Districts and local CAs to notify the
appropriate Regional staff of the potential for an SPA.
4.3.1.2 The CA Section of the Regional Office' (hereinafter referred to as
the Region) shall assume the lead role in matters relating to
Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policies, and in particular, to
SPAs . The CA Section shall coordinate involvement in the SPA
process between the other sections at the Region (i.e.
Engineering and Lands), and also the District Office.
4.3.1.3 The Region shall closely liaise with District Offices, where no CAs
exist, to provide the Districts with the technical expertise required
to evaluate an SPA designation and to assist with policy development.
4.3.1.4 The Region shall prepare current contact lists for Regional staff
responsible for SPAs in Central Region, and circulate same to MNR
District Offices, CANMB of MNR, all CAs in the Region, and to the
PAS of the MMA.
4.3.1.5 The Region shall attend all preliminary SPA meetings, and shall activp'y
participate on the Technical Committee as MNR's representative, to
monitor confor.mity to the Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policy;
to identify other Ministry resource concerns and provincial implications.
4.3.1.6 SUbsequent to the receipt of a request t~ the Regional Director
for approval-in-principle of an SPA, the Region shall ensure:
(a) that the CA, by executive resolution, has granted
approval-in-principle for an SPA designation; (b) that all support
documentation has been sutmitted with the request; (c) that the
technical information available has been evaluated and provides
justification for the SPA designation (i. e. - the TWo Zone Concept
is neither feasible, nor are structural flood damage reduction
measures viable or economdcal, from a benefit-cost perspective).
'l1le Region will consult with the CANMB regarding the granting of
approval-in-principle. Regional staff will then prepare, for th,!
signature of the Regional Director, a letter to the Director of
the PAS at the MMA reccmmending that approval-in-principle be
granted. Copies of same will be forwarded to all Technical
Commi ttee members, the District Office of MNR and the CAHMB of
MNR, PAS of MMA, the CA, the Municipal! ty and Regional
Municipali ty . The letter should recommend the establishment of a
formalized SPA Technical CODIDittee and identify the MNR
representative(s) to that Committee.
~
- 13 - ~R.3b7
-
4.3.1.7 The Region shall be the key MNR liaison during the SPA process,
and shall keep the CAWMB advised on the progress and details of
the SPA at intervals throughout the COIIIIli.ttee level phase.
4.3.1.8 The Region shall ensure that SPAs are maintained on-track and
processed expeditiously. Sufficient staff time must be available
to properly handle the SPA from MNR's perspective and, to complete
all associated tasks and follow-up work.
4.3.1.9 The Region, as a member of the Technical Committee, shall ensure
the efficient relay of information regarding the developing SPA
document. This will be achieved through the preparation and
circulation of memorandums to other Technical Committee members.
4.3.1.10 The Region shall be responsible for ensuring that the appropriate
District staff are notified, should a District program be
potentially affected (i e. fisheries, mineral or forest resource,
ANSI, etc.).
4.3.1.11 The Region shall ensure that the Regional Engineer and the
appropriate District Manager are kept apprised of the status of an
SPA through the circulation of copies of all incoming and outgoing
correspondence and minutes.
4.3.1.12 The Region shall circulate a copy of the draft SPA/OP Policy
document, that is proposed to be approved by the Technical
Committee, to the Regional Engineer, District Manager, and CANMB
for review and information purposes. This would allow the
opportunity for any outstanding major cQOcerns to be identified
and dealt wi th prior to public review and Council's approval.
4.3.1.13 The Region shall provide cODlDents on SPl\IOP Policy documents
directly to the PAS of the MMA as the official MNR response.
Copies of the memorandum will be forwarded to the District Office
for their records and to all of the Technical Committee members.
.
~
~~. ~t~
- 14 -
4.3.1.14 Subsequent to the adoption of the SPA/OP Policy document by the
Municipality and the CA, and sul:mi.ssion to ~ for approval, the
Regional Director of the MNR shall advise the Director of the
CAWMB of same and forward the following infor.ation:
i) municipal endorsement resolution;
ii) CA endorsement resolution(s);
iii) confirmation of the public review process for the SPA/OP
Policy;
iv) District support for areas outside CA jurisdiction;
v) Regional support;
vi) a copy of the final version of the document (N.B.- should be
confi~ that version forwarded to CAHMB is the same
version that is before the Director of the PAS at the MMA);
vii) justification for SPA Policy outlining the basis, the SPA
boundary and future land use; and,
viii) an indication that all background data has been completed
and is available (Le.- engineering or planning studies etc.).
4.3.1.15 The Region shall be responsible for the continued monitoring of
CAs to ensure that approved SPA/OP Policies are being implemented
in accordance with the intent of Provincial Policy.
4.3.1.16 The Region shall be responsible for ensuring that effective
training and development programs are established for Districts
and CAs for both the SPA process and Provincial Flood Plain
Planning Policies.
4.3.1.17 The Region shall, in its role as member of the Technical
Coaadttee, participate in developing and preparing procedures for
the effective administration of the policies, subsequent to their
formal approval by the MMA.
4.3.2 DISTRICT OFFICE
4.3.2.1 The District Office shall advise the Region of the potential for
an SPA, as part of its municipal plan input and review program.
4.3.2.2 Where no CA exists, the District shall fulfill the responsibilitaes
of the CA as outlined in Sections 3.2 and 4.2. In this instance,
however, the District will rely on the technical expertise of the
Region.
.
- 15 - ~.3b~
4.3.2.3 The District Manager, where a CA exists, shall have the
discretionary option to become directly involved in the SPA
process through participation as a member of the Technical
ColIllli. t tee. The District's involvement on the Technical Commdttee
would be to ensure that Ministry program concerns were adequately
addressed in the SPA/OP Policy document.
4.3.2.4 The District shall continue to coordinate the preparation of the
MNR official position on the OP Policy document, exclusive of the
section relating to the SPA. The District will merely advise MMA
in their comments that "SPA policies in OP docwnents require
approval by the Minister of Natural Resources in accordance with
the Provincial Flood plain Planning Policy. In this regard, they
should contact ( ) ,
of the MNR Central Region office as to the status of any specific
SPA approval." The District shall forward a copy of the OP
document and a copy of their comments to the Regional Conservation
Authorities Program Coordinator. The Regional Office will be
responsible for informing MMA of MNR's position on the SPA/OP
Policy, the status of the Minister's Approval, and will copy the
District on any correspondence in this regard.
4.3.3 CCliSERVATICN AU'IHORITIES AND WATER M1\NAGEMEN1' BRANCH
4.3.3.1 The CAWMB shall be available to Region staff for consultation
purposes with respect to SPA designation and policy developaent.
4.3.3.2 The CAWMB shall be responsible for verifying conformity to
Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policies and, shall rely on the
Region, the Districts and the CAs to ensure that appropriate
policies are developed and that they are implemented.
I
~
fl.)R. ?>70
- 16 -
4.3.3.3 The CAHMB shall have the opportunity to review the final draft
SPA/OP Policy document approved by the Technical Committee. This
will allow the CAHMB to provide the Region with any comments prior
to the public review process and Municipal Council's approval,
should any changes be necessary.
4.3.3.4 The CAHMB shall ensure that all required information has been
submdtted with the Region's request far Minister's approval of an
SPA (see Section 4.3.1.14).
4.3.3.5 The CAHMB shall then prepare a covering memorandum to the Minister
of Natural Resources recomnending approval of the SPA, as well as
a draft letter to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, indicating
MNR's approval of the proposed SPA Policies. Should the CAWMB
have any problems or concerns with the policies, they will direct
the MNR Region to resolve same with PAS of MMA (Le. - normally
this would be accomplished by obtaining agreement from the
Municipality, the CA, and PAS of MMA to a Minister's modification).
4.3.3.6 The CAWMB shall provide staff support to the Region for
educational and training programs for CA, District and Region
staff to ensure that any changes in staff do not necessarily
jeopardize the process due to lack of familiarity or understanding
of the SPA process.
4.4 MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
4.4.1 The MMA shall be responsible for ensuring that municipal staff and
elected officials are aware of the SPA process, its implications and
the Municipality's obligations further to the requirements of the
Planning Act, and the provincial Policy for flood plain planning.
4.4.2 The CPAB Regional Office shall ensure that the CA receives copies of
correspondence regarding applications for grants to update an
Official Plan document. This may initiate early liaison in areas
that might have the potential for SPA status, and may avoid future
problems and delays through an awareness of Provincial Flood Plain
Planning Policy requirements.
,
4.4.3 The MMA shall serve as an advisor to the Municipality and
participate in preliminary meetings to assess potential SPAs.
4.4.4 The MMA shall ensure that MNR Regional Office and the local CA receive
all requests for approval-in-principle of an SPA for their review,
call1lent and approval. The MMA shall coordinate the approval-in-
principle with the Regional Director of MNR.
~
~R. 371
- 17 -
4.4.5 Subsequent to the receipt and review of comments for
approval-in-princip1e of an SPA from the Regional Director of MNR,
the PAB of the MMA shall issue an approval letter to the
Municipality and forward copies to all partners. The letter will
recommend the establishment of a SPA Technical Committee to develop
the SPA policies and prepare the OP document. The Committee will
have representation from the Municipality, CA, MMA, MNR, and the
Regional Municipality, if appropriate. A representive from muncipa1
council will also be encouraged.
4.4.6 The MMA shall co-chair and/or chair the Technical Conmittee and
shall assist the Municipality in coordinating same, to ensure the
deve10pnent of an acceptable document further to the requirements of
the Planning Act and Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policy.
4.4.7 The MMA shall ensure that minutes are taken at the SPA Technical
Committee meeting and distributed to commdttee members in advance
of the next meeting.
4.4.8 The MMA shall ensure that all Technical Coumi ttee members have a
copy of the final version of the SPA,IOP Policy document which is
sutmitted to MMA by the Municipality for approval. (N.B.- the
Minister of Municipal Affairs has delegated the authority to approve
OP documents to the Director of the PAB).
4.4.9 Subsequent to the receipt of the approval letters fram the Minister
of Natural Resources, and the local CA, MMA shall proceed wi th the
final approval of the OP document.
4.4.10 The MMA shall provide the Regional Director of MNR with a copy of
the OP/OPA certified that it has been approved by the Minister,
including all Minister's modifications.
4.4.11 The MMA shall be encouraged to take a more proactive and lead role
in the education, of not only municipal staff and elected officials,
but also, for PAB and CPAB staff to promote continued appreciation
of the SPA process and Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policies.
4.4.12 The MMA shall inform the CA and MNR Region of any future OP documents
which change the SPA bo\mdaries or policies and convene an SPA I
Technical Coumittee meeting, as necessary.
we. a7~
, -
APPENDIX B
PROVINCIAL FLOOD PLAIN PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT
1988
THEp
PLANNING -~-
ACT
wR 373
W POLICY STATEMENT
......nllt,O
Flood Plain
Planning
A statement of Ontario Government
polley issued under the authority of
Section 3 of the Planning Act 1983
Approved by the
Lieutenant Governor in Council
Order in Council No. 1946/88
August 11, 1988
W.J7~L. ~ ~ 90. '~
Vincent G. Kemo John Eakins
Minister of Minister of
Natural Resources Municipal Affairs
,~R. '37tf
The Planning Act, 1983, Section 3
--
Pol,,, 3 ~ I) The Minister or the \iInlSter together with am other minister of
<lalemenlS the Crown. may from time to time Issue pohcy statements that ha\e been
approved by the Lieutenant Governor In Council on matters relating to
mUnlClpal planning that In the opinion of the MinISter are of pro\ Inclal
Interest
"',nlSler 10 (2) Before ISSUing a pohcv statement. the Minister shall confer with such
conter mUnicipal. provIncial. federal or other offiCials and bodies or persons as the
Minister considers have an Interest In the proposed statement.
\'ollce (3) Where a pohc\ statement IS Issued under subsection (I). the MInister
shall cause It to be publIshed In The Omano Gazerre and he shall give or cause
to be gIven such further notice thereof In such manner as he considers
appropnate, to all members of the Assembl\ to all mUnicipalIties and to such
other agencIes. organIZations or persons as he considers have an Interest In
the statement.
Idem (4) Each mUnlclpahty that receives notice of a pohc\ statement under
subsection (3) shall In turn gl\e notice of the statement to each local board of
the mUnlclpahty that It conSiders has an Interest In the statement
R e~ard 10 (5) In exercising any authorit~ that affects any planning matter. the council
"" ~aa 1(\ of every municipality. even local board. even' minister of the Crown and
"',)iIC\
:a ~'Tlen~~ every ministn. board. commission or agency of the government including
the Municipal Board and Ontario Hydro. shall have regard to polin
statements issued under subsection (I). 1983. c. I, s. 3.
Purpose wQ 37~
This document is prepared under the authonty of section 3 of the Planrung Act 1983
and is the Provmce of Ontario s pollcy statement on planning for flood plam lands
Interpretation
Tlus provmcial policy statement
. is ISSUed jointly by the Minister of Natural Resources and the Mirnster of MUnicipal
AffalCS under the Planning Act. 1983.
. does not supersede or take prionty over other pollcy statements ISSUed under section
3 of the Planning Act. 1983. or any other pollcy approved by the Lieutenant Gover-
nor in Council. and
. replaces the . 'Flood Plain Criteria-A Policy Statement of the Government of On-
tario on Planning for Flood Plain Lands ISSUed 10 September 1982
Background
The need to manage flood plain lands was emphaslZed m 1954 when Hurricane Hazel
struck the Metropolitan Toronto area resulting 10 the loss of 81 lives and approXimately
$75 million in propeny and other damages
Since that time, many flood prone areas have been protected throughout OntariO by
remedial measures and effons have been made to minimize the intrUSion of new develop-
ment into the more hazardous portions of flood plams
Although flood plains have been actively managed for more than 30 years. problem
areas still exist. SiDce the mid-1970s, major floods resulting in millions of dollars of
damages have oa:urred in Cambridge (1974), Dover Township (1979), Field Township
(1919), Nipissing River/French River area (1979), Pon Hope (1980). Windsor (1981).
Chatham. Dover, Dresden, Huntsville, and Fon Albany (1985), and Winisk (1986)
In 1985, Ontario experienced a record number of floods for a given year ProvlOce
wide, approximately 2,000 homes were flooded or made inaccessible by high water
levels and 11,000 hectares of agricultural land were flooded.
In addition to the loss of life, an immeasurable cost, and direct costs from damages
to buildings and structures, indirect costs and social disruption have also been exten-
sive in certain areas. For example, after the 1979 flood in the Township of Field. many
of the local residents had to be relocated because of the severe damage and destruction
to their homes. The mental anguish of being flooded and the resulting social disruption
of relocation are real but often overlooked aspects of flood susceptibility
1
t.0Q. :>76
Therefore In the plannmg and management of flood plam lands there IS a government
role WhICh can be summarized as follows
. to provIde order and equity In the use/non-use of flood plam lands and
. to protect sOCiety, Including all levels of government from being forced to bear
unreasonable SOCIal and econonuc burdens of unwise indIVidual chOices
In Ontano, flood plain management consists of a combination of 3 components
. prevention
. land use planrung and regulatIon of developrQ..e.!1t
· protectIon
. structural/acquisition measures
. emergency response
. flood warning and combat/disaster relief
a) Prevention
The orderly planning of land use and the regulation of development represent the
preventative approach to flood plam management and provide the focus for this policy
statement. This approach is the most cost effective in helping to ensure new bUildings
and structures are not flood susceptible and that upstream and downstream problems
do not occur as a result of new development.
The Ministry of Municipal Affairs. and the municipalities of Ontario. through the
Planning Act. 1983. are responsible for land use planning in the Province The
Ministry of Natural Resources and the Conservation Authorities of Ontario act In
an advisory capacity to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the municipalitIes on
land use matters related to flooding.
The Ministry of Natural Resources, through the administration of the Conservation
Authorities Act, R.S.O 1980, together with the Conservation Authorities. have tradi-
tionally played the foremost role in the overall management of flood plains and Will
continue in this regard. Through regulations, Conservation Authorities review develop-
ment proposals from the technical viewpoint of flood susceptibility and
upstream/downstream implications Where Conservation Authorities do not exist,
the Ministry of NalUral Resources is responsible for the implementation of flood plam
management policies and practices
The preventative approach may include the acquisition of undeveloped flood plain
lands in certain situations. Such acquisition IS usually only considered. however, If
other resource management objectives are to be achieved.
b) Protecdoa
The protection approach involves the constrUction of dams. dykes, channels. diver-
sions and other flood control works These works are designed to provide protection
to aisting development located in the flood plain.
In some instances though. a cost-benefit analysis may indicate that acquIsItIon and
the removal of buildings from the flood plain is more appropriate than the construc-
tion of protective works
2
c) Emergency Responses wR 377
The Mirustry of Natura! Resources. 10 co-operauon With the Conservation Authontles
of Ontano. maintains a streamflow forecast centre which IS linked to a network of
weather statIons. stream gauges and ram gauges throughout the Province Advance
warning of an unpending flood enables municIpalitIes and other government agen-
cIes to put mto operatIon theIr emergency action plans for evacuating people and
moveable property from flood susceptible areas
Various levels of goverment have historically provided disaster relief and aSSIStance
to flood VlctunS after major flood events However government subSidies do not
cover all losses They specifically exclude such Items as secondary residences land-
scaping, recreational vehicles. and non-essential furniture/appliances Also flood
msurance on private properties in flood risk areas is not readily avallable at econolTUcal
rates
Although this approach asSISts in reducing the threat of life and some property losses
it does not prevent flooding and the bulk of related damages from recurring
Each of the three components IS deSigned to address different aspects of flood plam
management. Over the long term. however. the preventatIve approach IS the preferred
approach to flood plain management. By effective land use planning and regulation of
development. problems relating to flooding can be prevented or mininuzed before they
occur It is m this context that this policy statement takes effect.
Definitions
For the purpose of this policy statement.
. Development means the construction. erection or placing of a building or structure
of any kind or the making of an addition or alteration to a building or structure that
has the effect of increasing the size or usability thereof. and includes such related
activities as site grading and the placing or dumping of f1l1
. FUl, Cc...ta ..ctioD, amd AttentioD to Waterways RegulatioD means a regulation
passed punuant to Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act. R.S 0 1980. or
its succn&OR, whereby a Conservation Authority may, among other matters. regulate
. the straightening, changing, divening or interfering in any way with the existing
channel of a river, creek. stream or watercourse,
. the construction of any building or structure in or on a pond or swamp or m any
area susceptible to flooding; and
. the placing or dumping of fill of any kind in any defmed part of the area over which
the Conservation Authority has jurisdiction in which. m the opinion of the Conser-
vation Authority, the control of flooding or pollution or the conservation of land
may be affected.
. Flood means a temporary rise in the water level resulting in the inundation of areas
adjacent to a watercourse not ordinarily covered by water
3
WR. 37~ · Fl~ Fringe means the outer portion of the flood plain between the floodway and
~e lurut of the regulatory flood Flood depths and velocities are generally less severe
In the flood fnnge than those experienced in the floodway
· Flood Plain means the area. usually low lands. adjoining a watercourse which has
been. or may be covered by flood water
· F100dproofing means a combination of structural changes and/or adjustments incor-
porated mto the basic design and/or constructIon or alteration of individual buIldings
structures or propenies subject to flooding so as to reduce or eluninate flood damages
· F100dway means the channel of a watercourse and that iMer ponion of the flood
plain where flood depths and velocities are generally higheF than those expenenced
In the flood fringe The floodway represents that area required for the safe passage
of flood flow and/or that area where flood depths and/or velocities are considered
to be such that they pose a potential thre<:at to lIfe and/or propeny damage
· Hazardous Substances means substances which individually, or in combination With
other substances are normally considered to pose a danger to public health. safety
and the environment. These substances generally Include a wide range of materials
that are toxic. ignitable. corrosive reactive, radioactive or pathological
· Level of Protection means a specified level. elevation and/or flow velocity to which
new development must not be susceptible to flood related damage
· Local Conditions means the physical and hydrologIc characteristics of an area as
they input to and may affect flood plain management.
· Obsen-eeI Flood Event means a flood actually experienced in a partIcular watershed
or ponion thereof
Subject to the policies contained in this document. and the availability of sufficient
documentation. an observed flood event may be used for regulatory purposes as follows.
-to define flood plain limits for that specific area where ice jams have historically
occurred.
or
-to define flood plain limits for an entire watershed by transposing or extending
data derived from the observed flood event with reference to the physical and
land use characteristics of the entire watershed. The transposing of data is con-
sidered acceptable where the evidence suggests that the flood event could have
potentially occured over other ponions of the watershed.
· 100 Year F100d means that flood. based on analysis of precipitation, snow melt. or
a combination thereof, having a return period of 100 years on average, or having
a I % chance of occurring or being exceeded In any gIven year
· One Zone Concept means the approach whereby the entire flood plain. as defined
by the regulatory flood, is treated as one unit, and all development IS protublted or
restncted
· Regulatory Flood means the approved standard(s) used in a panicular watershed to
define the limit of the flood plain for regulatory purposes
4
· Restricted means that new development IS linuted to w((. 371
· flood and/or erOSIon control structures
· faculties wluch by theIr nature must locate near water or traverse watercourses
· ancillary facll1t1es of an adjacent land use WhICh are of a passive non-structural
nature and do not adversely affect the abilIty of the flood plain to pass flood waters
· Special Polley Area means an area within a communIty that has hIStOrically eXIsted
In the flood plain and where strict adherence to cenaIn Province-wide pohcles con-
cerning new development would result In SOCIal and econonuc hardships for the com-
munity As a result, site speCIfic policies are fonnulated and applied WIthin the de-
fined lImits of the special polIcy area
· Stonn Centred Event means a major stonn of record used for regulatory purposes
The rainfall actually experienced during a major stonn event can be transposed over
another watershed and when combined with the local conditions, flood plain hnuts
can be establIshed. TIus centenng concept IS considered acceptable where the evidence
suggests that the stonn event could have potentIally occurred over other watersheds
In the general area.
In Ontario, two stonn centred events are used for regulatory purposes
· the Hurricane Hazel stonn (1954), and
,
· the Timmins stonn (1961)
· Two Zone Concept means the approach whereby cenain areas of the flood plain are
considered to be less hazardous than others such that development potentially could
safely occur The flood fringe defines that ponion of the flood pla.m where develop-
ment may be permitted, subject to appropriate floodproofing The floodway defines
that ponion of the flood plain wherein development is prohibited or restricted
· Watenbed means all lands drained by a river or stream and Its tributaries (Conser-
vation Authorities Act, R.S 0 1980)
Basis of Policy
The provincial policies contained in this document have been developed based on the
following objectives and principles
Objectives
(1) to prevent loss of life,
(2) to minimize propeny damage and SOCial disruption. and
(3) to encourage a co-ordinated approach to the use of the land and the management
of water
~R. 3'i'O
Principles
( I) effective flood plam management can only occur on a watershed basis with due
consideratIon given to the upstream/downstream and cumulatIve effects of
development,
(2) local cOndItIons (phYSICal. envIronmental. economic, and social characteristIcs) vary
from watershed to watershed and, accordingly, must be taken mto account for the
planrung and managing of flood plam lands,
(3) the degree of risk (threat of life and property damage) can vary witfun the flood
plain of a watershed and from watershed to watershed, -some portions may be too
hazardous for development while the potential for development to safely occur may
eXIst for other portions,
(4) new development susceptible to flood damages or which will cause or increase flood
related damages to existing uses and land must not be permitted to occur; however.
some communities have historically located in the flood plain and as a result, special
consideration may be required to provide for their continued viability, and
(5) flood plain management and land use planning are distinct yet related processes
that require overall co-ordination on the part of municipalities, Conservation
Authonties, the Ministry of NaUJral Resources and the Ministry of Municipal AfflW'S.
Policies
(1) General
It is the policy of the Province of Ontario that:
1 1 All land use planning and resource management bodies within the Province
have regard to the implications of their actions respecting the creation of new
or the aggravation of existing flood plain management problems
1.2 Municipalities aDd planning boardsl recognize flood susceptibility at the various
stages of the laud use planning process for which they have jurisdiction.
(2) RepIatory Flood Standard
It is the policy of the Province of Ontario that.
2 1 The flood standards used to define flood plain limits for regulatory purposes are'
(a) the flood resulting from one of the following storm centred events
· Hurricane Hazel storm (1954)
· Timmins storm (1961).
I "plaDDiJll baud" refers to tboIe plaDDiJll boards esub1ished by the Minister of MWlicipal Affairs. in accor-
dance with section (9) or (10) of the PtIllDinI Act. 198.3
/A:)e ~81
) REGULA TORY FLOOD-Figure 1 I
I
ZONE I-Flood Produced by Hurricane Hazel Storm or the 100 Year Flood. wluchever
IS greater I
i
ZONE 2- The 100 Year Flood
ZONE 3-Flood Produced by the Timmms Storm or the 100 Year Flood. whichever
IS greater
Approxunate boundaries of the Regulatory Floods
I
,!. .0. I!. 104 1S. I
I "l(l # I (J "
,AJ'
,
i ~ ,.
s, '----- /
:.L / I
(- ,
/
.
~I
- :
Z I I
Of, I
~ I
I
I
I
I
I
1
!!~ i
I
~4~0
( ZONE 3
IuOIUIt,
0
...
u S A
4'.
IeUI U S A
10 0 10 100 "0 I
I .tI,. I
I , . \
" .
.0. IS. 10.
\.
1
\ U) ! vv y Cd. 11000 ano
~~. 38"~ (C) an observed flood event. subject to the approval of the Mmister of Natural
Resources
2 2 The 100 year flood IS the I1l.1mmum acceptable regulatory flood standard
2 3 For those watersheds with a regulatory flood standard greater than the minimum
acceptable (See Figure I). the option exists for municipalities and planning
boards to apply to the MInister of Natural Resources, In accordance With pro-
cedures established, to change the standard, subject to the follOWIng overridIng
conditIons
(a) changes to the existing regulatory flood standard will only be conSidered
with the suppon of a significant majonty of mUDlclpahties and/or planmng
boards withIn the watershed, In consultatIon -with the local ConservatIon
Authority or Ministry of Natural Resources, where Conservation Authonties
do not exist. and
(b) the lowering of the existing regulatory flood standard where the past Iustory
of flooding reveals a higher level IS more appropriate will not be considered
2 4 Where flooding is expenenced in excess of the existing regulatory flood stan-
dard. the Minister of Natural Resources may require the regulatory flood stan-
dard to be modified to reflect the observed flood event.
(3) Official Plans
It is the policy of the Province of Ontario that.
3 I MuniCipalities and planning boards show and/or describe flood plam lands in
their official plans and incorporate poliCies to address new development con-
sistent with this policy statement.
3 2 Municipalities and planning boards, In consultation with the local Conserva-
tion Authority or Ministry of Natural Resources, where no Conservation
Authority exists, include In their official plans
(a) policies whereby uses pennitted in flood plains are cognizant of flood suscep-
tibility and flood risk,
(b) policies whereby no new buildings or structures are pennitted which are
susceptible to flood related damages or will cause adverse impacts to ex-
isting upstream or downstream development or lands,
(c) policies addressing additions or alterations to existing buIldings or struc-
tures and replacement of buildings or structures located in flood plains. and
(d) policies addressing such public and private works that must locate In flood
plains by nature of their use
3 3 Murucipalities and planning boards identify in their official plans, .the planrung
controls required to give effect to the policies identified in sectlon 3 2
3 4 Where no official plan exists, the zoning document affecting the area contain
provisions to reflect thIs policy statement
8
(4) One Zone Concept W~. 3<33
It IS the pollcy of the Province of Ontario that subject to policies (5) and (6)
4 I The flood plain will consist of one zone, defined bv the regulatory flood stan-
dard (see Figure 2)
4 2 New development in the flood plam IS to be prohibited or restncted
4 3 Where the one zone concept is applied. municipalities and planrung boards in-
clude pollcles lD theIr officIal plans that explam the lDtent of the one zone concept.
4 4 Where the one zone concept IS applied. the flood plam be approprIately zoned
In confomuty With the offiCial plan deSignation. to reflect its prohIbmve or
restrictive use
(5) Two Zone Concept
It IS the policy of the Province of Ontano that.
5 I For portions of flood plams that could potentially be safely developed With no
adverse unpacts. the Conservation Authontles in Ontario. or where no Con-
servation Authorities exist, the Muustry of Natural Resources. in co-operation
with the watershed municipalities have the option of selective application of
the two zone (floodway-flood fringe) concept (see Figure 3)
5 2 New development in the floodway IS to be prohibited or restricted.
S 3 The extent of the floodway is to be detemuned based on local watershed con-
ditions, such as critical flood depth and velocity. existing and proposed develop-
ment. and the potential for upstream and downstream unpacts
5 4 New development that may be permitted in the flood fringe be protected to
the level of the regulatory flood.
S S Where the two zone concept IS proposed to be applied or is considered to be
a plausible option, municipalities include policies in their official plans that
explain the intent of the two zone concept and development potential of
the flood fringe versus the floodway
S 6 Where the two zone concept is applied, the flood fringe be zoned in confonn-
ity with the official plan designatIon, and the flood hazard and requirements
for tloodprooting be recognized in the zoning document.
S 7 Where the two zone concept is applied, the floodway be appropriately zoned
to reflect its prohibitive or restrictive use.
(6) Special Policy Area Concept
It is the policy of the Province of Ontario that:
6 I Where strict adherence to policies (4) and/or (5) is not feasible. the concept
of special policy area status IS recognized as a possible option for fl~ pr~ne
communities or portions thereof MuniCIpalities may apply for SpecIal pollcy
area status, in accordance with established procedures. and controUed develop-
ment may be permitted once such status is obtained.
toR SB'-f
ONE-ZONE CONCEPT
( -LOOO PLAIN
:lEVElONENT ~18IT!,O OR ~ESTRlCrEO ).
~EGULATO~Y -LOOO LEVEL
-----------------------------------------------
Figure 2
TWO-ZONE FLOODWAY-FLOOD FRINGE CONCEPT
( R.OOO PlAIN )
( J~ R.OOOWAY ~ >'
R.OOO FRINGE OEV1!LOfIWI!NT """"""~O OR RESTOtCTEO , R.OOO -~INGE
CONlllllClNool. , ( CONOtT'ONAl
OEV1!LOfIWI!NT ! OE'lELClOMEN'
! ~EGULA TORY R.OOO LEVEL
-----------,-------------------------------------
i
i
Figure 3
10
~R E8~
6 2 Muruclpaht~es delineate special policy areas in their official plans and tnclude
pohcles indicating the Circumstances under which new development ma'r be
pernutted and Identifying the nununum acceptable level of protection required
for new development
(7) Floodproormg
It IS the policy of the Province of Ontano that
7 1 Any new development pemutted m the flood plam. m accordance with tlus policv
statement, be protected by acceptable floodprQ9fing actions or measures
7 2 Ingress/egress for new buildings be such that vehicular and pedestnan move-
ment IS not prevented during tunes of flooding
(8) PubUc Safety
It IS the policy of the Province of Ontano that, notwithstanding Policies (3) to (7)
mclusive
8 1 New development not be pernutted to locate In the flood plain where the use IS
(a) associated with the manufacture. storage. disposal and/or consumption of
hazardous substances or the treatment, collection and disposal of sewage.
which would pose an unacceptable threat to public safety If they were to
escape their normal contauunentJuse as a result of floodmg or fallure of
floodproofmg measures,
(b) associated with institutional services, such as hospitals. nursmg homes and
schools, which would pose a Significant threat to the safety of the inhabitants
(e g the sick, the elderly, the disabled or the young), If involved In an
emergency evacuation situation as a result of flooding or failure of flood-
proofing measures, and
(c) associated with services such as those provided by fire, police and ambulance
stations and electrical substations, which would be impaired during a flood
emergency as a result of flooding or failure of floodproofing measures
8.2 Where new development identified in 8 1 is not considered to pose an unac-
ceptable risk to public safety, a higher level of flood protection and! or addi-
tional floodproofing precautions above the regulatory flood level, may still be
required due to the sensitive nature of the development.
Implementation
· In exercising any authority that affects any planning matter, the councLl of everY
municipality, every local board, every Miruster of the Crown and every nurustry
board, commission or agency of the government, including the Ontario MUnICipal
Board and Ontario Hydro, shall have regard to this policy statement as required under
section 3 of the Planning Act, 1983
~R. ~~
· The M,inistry of N~tural Resources and the M~stry of Municipal Affairs will develop
~Idelmes for the unplementatlon of ttus policy statement. mcluding the adnumstra-
non of the Plannmg Act, 1983, as It relates to flood plain lands
. The Ministry of Natural Resources will develop techrucal gUldehnes for the calcula-
tion of flood lines and the mappmg of flood plams
. The Ministry of Natural Resources, in co-operation with the Ministry of MUnICipal
Affairs, will develop procedures to be followed for applying to change the regulatory
flood standard for a watershed.
. The Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs will develop
procedures to be followed in apply 109 for sPecial policy area status
. The Ministry of Natural Resources. in co-operation with the Mirustry of Muruclpal
Affairs and the Ministry of Housing and other appropriate agencies. w1l1ldentify ac-
ceptable types of floodproofing and their application to different types of land use
. The Conservation Authorities, where they exist. are responsible for plan input and
review related to flood plain matters and 10 this regard will
. make available any existing mappmg, flood data or studies and provide technical
assistanee to any government body or planning authority, in panicular murucipaliues
and planning boards, and assist municipalities and planning boards to mcorporate
the intent of the provincial policy statement for flood plain management into the
land use planning process and appropriate planning documents,
. provide comments to review and approval agencies on proposed planrung actions
that may have implications on flood plain management;
. make representation or provide technical expertise to the Ontario Municipal Board
or ocher appeal bodies, where a matter related to this policy statement may be an Issue
. consult with ministries. public agencies, boards. authorities. and municipalities on
matten pertaining to flood plain management. as may be appropriate, and
. inform aDd educate the general public on the principles and practices of flood plain
lD8D8Iement aDd provide information on the characteristics and consequences of
a flood.
Where Conservation Authorities do not exist. the Ministry of Natural Resources
is responsible for plan input and review related to flood plain matters
. The Conservation Authorities will administer the provisions of the Conservation
Authorities Act. R.S.O . 1980. and Fill. CODStnlction1 and Alteration to Waterways
Regulations passed pursuant to Section 28 of the Act. or successors thereto. to asSist
in the implementation of this policy statement.
2 die 'COIIIIrUdioD CCluIttooe4l of COIIICrvation Aucbority replalioas is applied to areas dnuunll 12S hecwes
or greater AIeu leu dIaD 12j becW'es are considered 'local draiDaae and thus are the responsibility of the
local mwlicipalitia.
12
· The Mirustry of Natural Resources. m conjunction with the Federal government wtll w'R '3 ~~
continue to adrruruster the Canada-Ontario Flood Damage ReductIon Program
through the Conservation Authorities and the murucIpalitIes TIlls mc1udes the carrY-
mg out of flood plam mappmg and flood studies, and the preparatIon of IOformatIon
maps geared to the general public deplctmg flood susceptIble areas
· The MlIUstry of Muruclpal Affaus and murucipal.lt1es with delegated approval authonry
from the Mmister will ensure that all municipal planning documents to be reviewed
or approved. have had regard to this polIcy statement
· When an eXIsting official plan or lOOlng by-law/order comes up for reView, regard
will be had for this policy statement.
· MunicipalitIes. With IOPUt from Conservation Authorities, or the MiOlStry of Natural
Resources where Conservation Authonties do not exist. will put in place planrung
controls necessary to implement flood plam provisions in official plans (such as zon-
109, site plan control)
· The Ministry of Natural Resources and the Mirustry of MuniCipal Affairs w1l1 under-
take periodic research programs to IOveStIgate and update planning unplementatIon
and flood plam management techruques
· The Mirustry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. in co-
operation with the Conservation AuthontIes. w1l1 admiruster this policy statement,
as well as advise and explain Its content and application to municipalities, planrung
boards, and other agencies
~or further information contact any of the following offices
W~. B9<r MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS:
Community PIanniug Advisory Brancb
Ceatral Repoa South Eut Regioa South West Repm
47 Sheppard Avenue East 244 RJdeau Street 495 Richmond Street
2Dd Floor 3rd Floor 7th Floor
Willowdale. Ontano Ottawa. Ontario London. Ontano
M2N 2ZS KIN 5Y3 N6A 5A9
Telephone: (416) 224-7635 Telephone: (613) 566-3801 Telephone: (519) 673-1611
TOLL FREE 1-80Q..668.0230 TOLL FREE 1-800-267~5S4 TOLL FREE 1-800-265-4736
North Eut Regtoa North West Repoa
S50 Barrydowne Road 435 James Street South
3rd Floor Thunder Bay. Ontano
Sudbury Ontario P7C 5G6
PJA 3T7 Telephone: (807) 475-1651 -
~
Telephone: (70S) S60-0120 TOLL FREE 1-800-465-5027
TOLL FREE 1-800-461-1193
PIaIII A~ PIaIII AcbafaiItndoa 0fIIce of Local
Brudt-Nortb aad Brudt-Ceatral aad PIamdaa PoUcy
E..a Southwest 777 Bay Street
777 Bay Street 777 Bay Street 13th Floor
14th Floor 14th Floor Toronto. Ontano
Toromo. Ontario ToroDto. Ontano M5G 2E5
M5G 2E5 MSG 2E5 Telepbooe (416) 5S5~225
Telephone (416) 585~14 Telephone (416) 585~14
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES:
C~adoa Aatbortty aDd
Water ~."~rr-~t Braacb
Whitney Block. Room 5620
99 Wellesley Street Well
Toromo. <>mario
M7 A 1 W3
Telepbooe (416) 965~286
NorthwtStenl Repoa Soutb..... Repoa
PO Boll 5160 P 0 Boll 5463
S10 Robertson Street 659 Exeter Road
KeDOfa. Ontario LoadoD. Ontario
P9N 3X9 N6A 41..6
R..... 0fIIcts Telephone (807) 468-3111 Telepbooe (519) 661-2800
Nortb CeatnI Repa N-;ja-'lfera Repa CeatnI Repa
P 0 Boll SOOO 199 Larc:b Street 10670 YODJe Street
Ontario Govemmeat BuiJdiaa Sudbury. <>mario RichmoDd Hill. Ontario
43S James Street Soudl PJE SP9 L4C 3C9
lbUDder Bay. Ontario Telephone (7~) 675-4120 Telephone (416) 884-9203
P7C 5G6
Telepboae (807) 475-1261 AJao-.... Repoa EuterD Repoa
P 0 Boll 9000 P 0 Boll 2002
NortIIena ... BreDdale Square Coacession Road
l4O-4cb A VClllle (MaoomiDee Street) Keulpville. Ontario
CocbraDc. Omario Hunuville. Ontario KOG 110
POL I CO POA lKO Telephone (613) 258-3413
Telephone (~) 272-7014 Telephone (7~) 789-9611
14
Conservation Authorities LA:i1< 3g~
AUSABLE-BA YFlELD-Box 2410 MATIAGAMI REGlON-133 Cedar South.
17S Thames Rd. W Timnuns P4N 209
Exeter ~OM ISO Telephone OOS) 264-5309
Telephone (519) 235-2610 METROPOLITAN TORONTO .t REGION
CAT ARAQUI REGlON-R, R. I Glenbunue <M. T .R.C.A.)
KOH ISO S Shoreham Dnve, Downsvlew M3N 154
Telephone (613) 546-4228 Telephone (416) 661-6600
CATnSH CREEK-R,R. 5 Alymer N5H 2R4 MISSISSIPPI V ALLEY -Box 268 Lanark KOG I KO
Telephone (519) 773-9605 Telephone (613) 259.2421
CENTRAL LAKE ONTAJUo-loo Wlut1nB Ave. MOIRA RIVER.-217 North Front St, Belleville
Oshawa LIH 3TI K8P 3C3
Telephone (416) 579.0411 Telephone (613) 968-3434
CREDrr V ALLEY -Meadowvale LOJ I KO NAPANEE REGION-25 Ontano St. W
Telephone (416) 451-1615 Napanee K7R 356
CROWE VALLEY-Box 416. Telepbooe (613) 354-3312
Marmara KOK 2MO ~GARA PENINSULA-Centre St, AllanburB
Telephone (613) 472-3137 LOS I AO
ESSEX REGION-360 FlW'Vlew Ave. W . Telephone (416) 227-1013
Essex N8M I Y6 'lUCKEL DISI'IUCf-
Telephone (519) 776-5209 West Tower Civic Centre Square.
GANAJlASKA REGION-P 0 Box 328. 200 Brady St.. Sudbury P3E 510
Pon Hope LIA 3W4 Telephone (705) 674-5249
Telephone (416) 885-8173 NOR11l BAY.MATIAWA-Box 1215 348 Fraser St,
GRAND IUVEJl-Box 729 400 Clyde Rd., North Bay PIB 8K4
Cambndle NIR 5W6 Telephone (70s) 474-5420
Telephone (519) 621-2761 NOTI'AWASAGA VALLEY-R.R. I.
HALTON REGION-P 0 Box 1097, StabOD 'B' Angus LOM I DO
Burlington L 7P 3S9 Telephone (70s) 424-1479
Telephone (416) 878__131 OTONABEE REGION-727 Laaadowne St, W
HAMILTON REGION-Box 7099, Peterborougb K91 I Z2
838 Mineral Springs Rd. Telephone (705) 745-5791
Aaculer L9G 3L3 PRINCE EDWARD REGION-Box 310.
Telephone (416) 525-2181 Picton KOK 21'0
KAWAJlTBA REGION-Box 819. Fenelon Falla Telepbone (613) 476-7408
KOM INO RAISIN REGION-Box 10.
Telepbone (70s) 887-3112 MattUltoW1l KOC ISO
KETJ'LE CItEEX-R.R. 8, Telephone (613) 5is..584
St. Tbomu N5P 3T3 RIDEAU V ALLEY-Box 599 Mill St., MaDOtick
Telepbone (519) 631-1270 KOA 2NO
LAD SIMCOE REGION-Boll 282. Telepbone (613) 692-3571
120 Bayview Ave.. GREY-8AUBLE-R.R. 4. Inglis Falla Ro~1.
Newmuka L3Y 4XI Owen SollDd N4K 5N6
Telepboae (416) 895-1281 Telephone (519) 376-3076
Luc17.lR'~n REGION-Boll 3476. 1136 Oliver Rd. SAUGEEN V ALLEY-R.R. I.
nllmder Bay P7B 5J9 Hanover N4N 388
Telepboae (807) 344-5857 Telepbooe (519) 364-1255
LONG POINT REGION-Boll 525. SAULT sm. MAIUE REGION-99 FOSler Dr
Simcoe N3Y 4N5 Civic CeDlre. SauJt See. Marie P6A 5X6
Telepbooe (5 (9) 426-4623 Telephone (70s) 7'9-5342
LOWEJl1'llAMlS VALLEY-loo Tbama St.. SOUI'll NA nON IUVEIl-Boll 69.
CIwb&m N7L 2Y8 Berwick KOC 100
Telepbone (519) 354-7310 Telepboae (613) 984-2400
LOWEll TRENT REGION-441 Front St., ST CLAJIl REGION-2OS Mill Poad Crescent.
Trearon K8V 6Cl Stralhroy N7G 3P9
Telepbone (613) 394-4829 Telepbone (5 (9) 245-3710
MAI11.AND V ALLEY -Boll 127. UPPER TIIAMES IUVEll-Box 6278. Station 0
Wrour.er NOO 2XO Loadoa N5W 5S1
TeJcpbooe (519) 335-3557 Telepbooe (519) 451.2800
~R.5qD
,
APPENDIX C
M.T R.C A. FLOOD PLAIN PLANNING POLICIES
TECHNICAL GUIDELINES
FOR
SPECIAL POLICY AREAS
WR.3QJ
.
M T R C A fLOOD PLAIN PLANNING POLICIES
TECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR SPECIAL POLICY AREAS
In 1987 the Author~ty approved a Report entltled "Flood Pla~n
Plann~ng Pol~cy Revlew, M T R C A flood Susceptlble S~tes" The
Report outl~nes current M T R C A flood pla~n plann~ng polic~es
for (Flood Damage Centres and) Flood Vulnerable Areas
At Meeting #2/89, March 31. 1989, the Author~ty d~scontlnued the
des~gnatlon of Flood Damage Centre and lts assoc~ated flood plaln
plann~ng pol~c~es Th~s amendment to M T R C A POllCY was
requ~red to have regard to the Provlnc~al flood Pla~n Planning
Pol~cy Statement, 1988
Prlor to March 31. 1989, the flood pla~n plann~ng polic~es for
flood Damage Centres (attached) were used to develop Speclal
Pol~cy Area pollc~es wlth~n the context of mun~c~pal plann~ng
documents
Staff cont~nue to use these pol~cy guidelines when recommending
Spec~al POI1CY Area pol~c~es to mun~cipal~tles, once an approval-
~n-pr~nclple of an S P A designat~on has been given
The policy gu~delines are currently be~ng rev~ewed and will be
brought forward for Authority approval early ~n 1990
NOTE In add~tion to the preventat~ve measures pol~cies
outl~ned w~thin the attached, the Authority has carried" forward
~ts PROTECTIVE MEASURES pol~cy guidel~nes for flood Damage
Centres when rev~ewing mun~cipal requests for S P A designatlon
In spec~fic instances, the Authority has requested the proponent
of the S P A. to carry out the remedial works required to obta~n
this stated level of protect~on
"Protect~ve Measures The Authority w~ll prov~de, on a
prior~ty bas~s, flood damage reduction
by means of acqu~s~tion, remed~al works,
and/or flood warning and forecasting,
such that the risk of flood~ng will not
be greater than 50% over the l~fe of the
structure, assumed to be 100 years. ..
RJ jc
ENCL
OCT 12/89
- 24 - tuR. 3~
4.2 PROPOSED FLOOD SUSCEPTIBLE SITE POLICY AND
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES
MTRCA FLOOD SUSCEPTIBLE SITE POL~CY, 1987
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
supports a one-zone approach to flood plain management based on
the Regulatory Flood, as defined by the Province of Ontario.
However, development and redevelopment may be permissible in
MTRCA Plood Susceptible Sites subject to the following:
1.0 PLOOD DAMAGE CENTRES
1.1 Additions, redevelopment and infilling may be permissible
in designated MTRCA Plood Damage Centres based on the Land
Use vs. Development Pramework summarized in Table 4.1.
1.1.1. Land Use activities associated with issues of
provincial public safety, as defined within the
draft Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policy
Statement, 1986, shall be discouraged within Flood
Damage Centres.
1.1.2. Parking lots may be permissible in Flood Damage
Centres subject to the policy and criteria outlined
within the approved MTRCA Parking Lot Policy,
1985.
~
1'0
'IMlB 4.1 lAM) USB \IS. IBVBUBIIlNr PIWII!XIlK Pal N.T.R.CoA. PUXJ) SlJSI(ZYIBILE Sl'1'B IU.ICY .
~
~ RESIDENl'IAL / HABITABLE ~RESIDENl'IAL / to'HlABITABLE PUBLIC SAFETY \)J
Includes roans and spaces r8C1Jired fOI Includes forms of industrial, --~ic-1IMti~tioo~-r~nti~
overnight occupancy , any roans or CCII1Il8rcial buildings, etc. and forms Substances sick/elderly/ Servioe~
~IDA4ENr CAnxDRY facilities housing essential services of accessory buildings I young/disabled I pllice/
for same fire/etc.
MIOOR ADOITICH> . Hay be permitted in Flood D1mage . May be permitted in Flood Ianage 1b be discouraged fran Flood Lamage
Centres Centres Centres
* Cbnstruction 008t is <SO, of the
market value of the existing . Hay be penuitted in Flood VUlnerablE . Hay be permitted in Flood VUlnerable . Shall rot be permitted in Flood
structure or work Areas Areas VUlnerable Areas
MAJOR ADOITIGIS OR AL'lERATIGIS . Hay be permitted in Flood DilInlIQe . Hay be permitted in Flood DIImage . 1b be discourayed in Flood D:lmage
Centres Centres Centres
* Cbnstruction cost is ~ SO, of the
curlent market value of the . Shall not be permitted in Flood . Shall not be permitted in Flood . Shall rot be permitted in Flood
exi ting structure VUlnerable Areas VUlnerable Areas . VUlnerable Areas
INFIlLHC . May be permitted in Flood Dllmage . May be permitted in Flood Olmage . 1b be discouraged in Flood Damage
Centres Centres Centres
* Erection of new structures 00 a
developed lot or previously . Shall not be permitted in Flood . ~ildings accessory to existing . Shall rot be permitted in Flood
undeveloped lot VUlnerable Areas flood prone structures may be VUlnerable Areas
permitted in Flood VUlnerable Areas
( ie) garages , garden sheds
REPLACEaNl' (minor expansion) . May be permitted in Flood IlIImage . Hay be permitted in Flood Olmage 1b be discouraged in Flood Lamage
Centres Centres Centres
* Existing structure renoved , new
structure erected . Hay be permitted in Flood VUlnerabl~ . Hay be permitted in Flood VUlnerabl~ . Shall rot be permitted in Flood
* Cbnstruction cost of expansion is Areas Areas VUlnerable Areas
< SO, of the market value of the I
replacement structure or work "
REPLACEaNl' (major expansion) . May be permitted in Flood J:anage . May be permitted in Flood Olmage . 1b be discouraged in Flood Damage
Centres Centres Centres
* Existing structure renoved , new
structure erected Shall not be permitted in Flood . Shall not be permitted in Flood Shall rot be permitted ~n Flood
* Cbnstuction 008t of expansion is VUlnerable Areas VUlnerable Areas VUlnerable Areas
~ SO, of the market value of the
replacement structure or work
1,_ - --_..-....--- - -------pp- -- -.._- , ,....
'-..
- 25 - w~. S9~
1.2 Flood damage reduction measures shall be carried
out by the proponent of (re)development to provide
for flood protection to the level of the Regulatory
Flood for any Flood Damage Centre (re)development.
1.2.1. If flood damage reduction measures cannot be
carried out to achieve protection to the Regulatory
Flood level, the minimum level of flood risk
protection that shall be permissible in a Flood
Damage Centre shall be equivalent to a 25% risk of
flooding over an assumed structure life of 100
years.
1.2.2. The ingress and egress associated with Flood Damage
Centre (re)development shall be considered "safe"
pursuant to the draft Provincial Flood Plain
Planning Policy Statement, 1986 including the
supporting Implementation Guidelines, 1986.
1.3 Flood daaage reduction measures shall be compatible with
POlicy 6, Floodproofing of the draft Provincial Flood
Plain Planning Policy Stateaent, 1986 including all
docu.ents prepared in support of this Provincial Policy
Statement, such as: the r.pleaentation Guidelines and the
Technical Guidelines for Plood Plain Delineation in
Ontario.
1.3.1 Dry, Passive Floodproofing Measures shall be
incorporated to the level and extent possible to
achieve the required level of flood damage
reduction as specified in item 1.2
~.'3'}~
- 26 -
1.3.2 Wet Floodproofing Measures may be permissible to
maximize the level of flood damage reduction for
Flood Damage Centre (re)development.
<,
1.3.3. Dry, Active Floodproofing Measures may be
considered, on a limited basis, to supplement other
flood damage reduction measures incorporated within
Flood Damage Centre (re)development.
1.4 In the approval of any Plood Damage Centre (re)development
the Authority shall have regard to the legislative
requirements of the Conservation Authorities Act of
Ontario, R.S.O. 1980, and the draft Provincial Plood Plain
Planning Policy Statement, 1986.
1.4.1 Conservation Authority approval pursuant to Ontario
Regulation 293/86 shall be required for all Flood
Damage Centre (re)development.
1.4.2 Flood Damage Centres should be designated as
Special Policy Areas, pursuant to the requirements
of the draft Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policy
Statement, 1986 including the supporting
Implementation Guidelines, 1986, in all land use
planning documents and mechanisms of implementation
prepared pursuant to the Municipal Planning Act of
Ontario, 1983.
wR. ~~~
THB METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSBRVATION AUTHORITY
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
in the
INTBRIM REPORT, SUMMER 1989
of the
ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF THE TORONTO WATERFRONT
Water and Related Land Management Adv.isory Board
Meeting #6/89
October 20, 1989
IMlERI.. REPMT, sutN:R 1989
ROYAl CmI'ISSION OR 11E FUTURE (F TIE TOROOO WATERFRmIT wR. sq7
Recommendations
A) 'laorI'O ISIMD Ail<t(AQ"
The Royal Commission makes the following
recommendations:
1 The Toronto Island Airport should continue its dual role
serving general aviation and limited air commuter
operations within the Tripartite Agreement:
2. The City of Toronto, in consultation with Transport
Canada, should consider whether to keep or replace the
Toronto Harbour Commissioners as its agent in the
management and operations of the Airport.
3 Irrespective of the response to the previous
recommendation, the City and Transport Canada should
require improvements in the management of the Airport,
including a new financial and accounting base and
improved public and user consultation processes.
4 A new plan should be prepared to reflect the role of the
Airport as contemplated by the Royal Commission,
ensuring that it remains at its existing scale within the
waterfront environment, is cleaner and quieter, and is
sensitive to the needs of its users.
---
B) ~ (DII(Rd'J(B
- -~--'-- ----
I Harbourfront Corporation should be converted
immediately to a new entity, Harbourfront Foundation,
whose mandate will be to continue the provision of
Harbourfront's wide variety of outstanding cultural,
recreational, and educational programs, generally by
a) programming its own activities,
b)providing facilities and support to other organizations
who wish to use its amenities and expertise;
c) funding other organizations' programs which, in the
opinion of the Board of Directors, are in the public
interest and are compatible with a waterfront
environment;
f.,0R. ~~
d)placing a stronger emphasis on marine and
water-related programs and activities,
e) reflecting, maintaining and preserving Toronto's
waterfront and marine heritage;
f) endowing the Foundation sufficiently to sustain the
continuation of Harbourfront's programming activities,
The Commission also recommends that the Board of
Directors and staff of Harbourfront Corpor'!tion be invited
to become the Board and staff of the new foundation, and
that the Board be expanded to include community
representatives, representatives of user groups and
appropriate municipal government representatives.
2. The Harbourfront lands and properties should be planned
with the City in accordance with the following principles.
a)A minimum of 16 hectares (40 acres) of land be made
available immediately for parkland and be conveyed to
the City, including a continuous waterfront promenade
along the water's edge.
b) Provision of a community school site (acceptable to the
appropriate school board) to serve the Harbourfront
community and the surrounding area, for conveyance to
the school board.
c) Provision of community facilities, including, but not
necessarily limited to a community centre, medical
clinic, library facilities, day~are and play space for
children, and a place to worship.
d)The completion of flarbourfront Corporation's
commitments with respect to assisted housing.
e)The allocation of sufficient lands and properties to
support the Harbourfront Foundation's programming
mandate, as defined in recommendation 1 above, and
including additional program facilities, such as:
(i) a nautical centre, with sufficient space to provide
permanent accommodation for the sailing clubs and
schools currently operating out of makeshift
facilities at Harbourfront; and
(ii) preservation of the Canada Malting silos, and
consideration of their conversion to a civic
museum.
o The further planning and development of the wR. 39~
Harbourfront lands including links to adjacent areas
such as Coronation Park, Molson's, Dylex, Loblaws,
Sky Dome, the Railway Lands, the financial district, and
the Central and East Bayfront be included in the City's
review of the Central Area Plan.
g)No further building south of Queen's Quay West with
the exception of low-rise buildings considered by the
City to be in the public interest.
Note: Ongoing Commission research appear~ to support
the argument that the pipeline projects are
essentially completed deals creating irrevocable
property rights that were agreed to by
Harbourfront, the federal government, and the City
more than two years ago.
Recognizing the City's responsibility in planning
matters, and the fact that it has retained legal advice
concerning the "pipeline projects", should City
Council decide that changes in these projects can be
negotiated through redesign or removing one or
more of them by relocation to the north side of
Queen's Quay West, or by the acquisition of
property rights thereof, then such changes should
be the first priority in the consideration of any
building program for the balance of the
Harbourfront lands.
h) An urban design plan be established as an integral part
of Harbourfront's Official Plan amendments. This plan
should incorporate ideas such as those proposed by
Gary Hack in a report to the Minister of Public Works
addressing the need for visual coherence; proposals put
forward by Harbourfront's design panel concerning the
need for a distinctive architecture appropriate to a
setting along the wC!ter's edge and for special treatment
of Queen's Quay West and attempt to capture the
principles of Eberhard Zeidler in a submission to the
Commission which spoke of bringing back the "romance
that is the key draw of the Harbour, the ag~ld \
fascination of mankind with water" I
3. The federal government should work with the City, the
Harbourfront Foundation, and other appropriate bodies to
give effect to the changes arising from these
recommendations. The lands, properties, and residual
interests now managed by Harbourfront Corporation, and
those still in the inventory of Public Works Canada should
be held and administered by PWC on a temporary basis
until appropriate agreements with the City are
implemented.
LUR.tfoO
C) 'IaOm) HARIOJR COItISSI<R:RS
1 The THC's responsibility, jurisdiction, and mandate to
operate the Port of Toronto should be clearly separated
from planning or development of lands that do not serve
the Port function on the waterfront. The THC should
retain its mandate to operate the Port of Toronto in and
for the interests of the City of Toronto, Qut its
jurisdiction should be limited to that task.
2.In addition to the proposed changes to the THC's
mandate, there is a need for both greater local control of
waterfront planning and a better system of
accountability These, too, will require amendments to
the Toronto Harbour Commissioners Act, 1911 The Royal
Commission will be making more specific
recommendations in this regard
3.The actual amount of land now needed to operate the
Port, and the amount of land likely to be needed in the
future, should be defined after further detailed analysis.
This is a subject to which the Royal Commission will
return in the second phase of its work.
4.A complete environmental evaluation of all THC lands
should be undertaken immediately and should include
tests of air, water, and soil quality to identify and
measure contaminants. That evaluation, as well as
development of new standards for material used as
lakefill, should take place before any major decisions are
made on the future of the Port and the lands adjacent to
it.
5.In order to facilitate the necessary degree of
co-operation and co-ordination among jurisdictions
with an interest in the future of the Toronto waterfront
. '
the Royal Commission recommends that the mc lands
and adjacent provincial lands in the Central Waterfront
be pooled to permit the governments of Ontario and
Canada to jointly sponsor an environmental evaluation
of them. The Royal Commission recommends that, while
it is being conducted, the Province use its powers under
Section 3 of the Planning Act, 1983 to declare a Provincial
interest, covering the combined lands as well as the
headwaters and river valleys of the Toronto watershed.
WR. LWI
D) ~ AND HFAL'l1I ISSUES
Environmental and health problems are crucial to the future
of the waterfront, as they are nationally and globally The
following is a compilation of recommendations in the
various sections of this chapter
Lakefilling ,
The Commission recognizes that the lakefilling projects
developed along Toronto's waterfront in the past 25 years
have benefited the public: they have provided marina
facilities and a diverse array of passive recreational
opportunities, enhanced fish and wildlife habitat, and
increased overall access to the Lake Ontario shoreline
However, the trade-off for those benefits has been
environmental change, some of it potentially damaging in
the long term.
The Commission believes the tiqie has come for a
comprehensive evaluation of the consequences of lakefilling.
Lakefilling is to be completed at Colonel Samuel Smith Park
later this year; the Leslie Street Spit is to be finished in two
to three years, and, in using lakefill at the Spit, the Toronto
Harbour Commissioners will permit only that material
which passes the Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority's most restrictive open-water
guidelines. In light of those facts, the Commission
recommends:
t.A moratorium on all new Iakefilling should be declared
until a comprehensive policy is developed, based on the
Ministry of the Environment's current review of methods,
quality controls to be applied in alllakefilling projects, and
development of its sediment quality guidelines. In
recommending a moratorium, the Commission recognizes
that some exemptions may be necessary for extraordinary
projects; these should be determined by an exemption
process that would be established jointly by the provincial
MOE and Environment Canada, and should be based on
public consultation and review
2. Current projects such as Colonel Samuel Smith Park
should follow the THe's standard of using only fill that
meets the MTRCA's most restrictive open-water disposal
guidelines.
~R. 4f)~
3.Once the moratorium has been lifted, all individual
lakefilling projects, including private-sector
developments, should be subject to thorough
environmental appraisals. Such reviews could take place
under Ontario's Environmental Assessment Act, a revised
federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process
(EARP), or the Planning Act, if the latter is strengthened to
address environmental concerns thoroughly (See
recommendations dealing with the Planning Act and the
Environmental Assessment Act)
Impact on the Watershed
1 The Commission recommends that the provincial Ministry
of the Environment and Environment Canada move
urgently to prepare and implement the Metro Toronto
Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Efforts should be made to
reduce the time for doing so and should involve the public
more effectively than is now being done, perhaps in line
with suggestions made by Ruth Grier
2. The responsible environmental protection agencies should
not wait for the RAP to be completed and should take
remedial action in keeping with recommendations for
watersheds made as part of the Toronto Area Watershed
Management Strategy ITA WMS) or other studies.
3. Approval of new developments in the Toronto area
watersheds should be based only on the best economically
achieveable technology
4. The moratorium on lakefilling should not be lifted until
the Metro Toronto RAP has been approved. Maintaining
the moratorium would make it necessary to establish
priorities in pollution abatement, to define resource
requirements, to schedule remedial action, to obtain secure
cost commitments, and to monitor programs. It makes no
sense to allow further lakefilling and dredging according
to resbictive protocols and guidelines while contaminated I
waters continue to pour into the waterfront.
Natural Areas
The Environment and Health Work Group's description of
current conservation programs identifies key issues that
threaten the future of natural areas on the waterfront. Based
on those, as well as on the work of the other work groups,
and submissions at the public hearings on environment and
health, the Royal Commission makes the following
recommendations:
l.0R. '+03
1 All existing natural areas along the waterfront and in the
river valleys should be safeguarded in perpetuity
2. There is a need for a green belt, created from an integrated
system of nodes and linkages, across the Toronto
waterfront. In order to help reach that goal, public
authorities should set an example on their own lands,
while private landowners, including industrial and
commercial users, should be encouraged to follow suit.
Developing a green belt would involve redesigning
existing landscapes, and, where land uses are changing,
would require developers to include elements of the
natural landscape in areas to which the public has access.
In that way, every new development would contribute to
the creation of the green belt.
A continuous green belt of wildlife habitat should be
created along the entire waterfront, to include a
combination of existing natural areas, newer naturalized
areas on public parkland, industrial and commercial
lands, hedgerows along narro}V bands where space is
limited, and wildlife gardens in residential
neighbourhoods.
3. Naturalization should be adopted as a standard element
of park landscape design on the waterfront.
There is a need for a comprehensive re-evaluation of
recreational and educational requirements and activities in
the entire Outer Harbour area. Rather than placing all the
facilities together, the MTRCA, the City of Toronto, and
the THC should make provisions to distribute the
sailing-dub facilities, interpretive centre, and parking lots
on the north shore, in the new marina, and at the base of
the Spit, leaving the Leslie Street Spit as an urban
wilderness.
4. In that regard, the Royal Commission recommends that
the Leslie Street Spit be recognized and protected as an
urban wilderness park. In this context, "urban wilderness"
is defined as an extensive area where natural processes
dominate and where public access, without vehicles,
provides low-key, low-<ost, unorganized recreation and
contacts with wildlife.
~~'lfot4
5 The Royal Commission recommends that the Rouge River
Valley be protected as a natural heritage park. Therefore,
the Province should co-operate immediately with the
federal government in establishing such a park, as
outlined in the proposal of the group known as Save the
Rouge Valley System.
The Commission further recommends that the City of
Scarborough review proposed official plan amendment
712 to ensure that the types and scale of permitted uses are
compatible with the protection of a regional natural
environment.
6. The Royal Commission recommends that Humber Bay
Park East be protected as a significant regional open space,
providing for a mix of low-key recreation uses. The
MTRCA should reject the proposal to locate the
Seaquarium in the Park, because placing it there is
incompatible with the Park's use as a passive regional
open space. Instead, as recommended in the Royal
Commission's publication number 4, Report of the Parks,
Pleasures, and Public Amenities Work Group, the Seaquarium
should be located on the motel strip.
Heritage
1 The Province should develop and implement a
waterfront-wide heritage preservation policy, a
co-ordinated effort involving all levels of government and
the public. In developing the policy, the following
considerations should be taken into account:
(a) Opportunities to preserve heritage should be a
priority in all plans for redevelopment on the
waterfront. Specific proposals along these lines should
be a prerequisite for planning approval.
(b) An essential ingredient of all plans should be
adaptive re-use of old buildings, sensitively undertaken,
without removing all signs of age and former use.
(c) There should be an appropriate balance between the
old and the new, which would result in a landscape with
a depth and meaning that cannot be achieved with
elements from only one period.
(d) The definition of waterfront heritage should' be
broadly based, to include not only grand buildings, but
also the ordinary, the industrial, the water's edge,
buildings that are associated with history,
neighbourhoods, working districts, and individual
elements of our marine and industrial heritage.
(e) There is an opportunity to incorporate the concept of
"heritage years" the Ontario Ministry of Citizenship
~R. ,+OS
and Culture is considering commemorating, between
1991 and 1993, significant anniversaries in the province's
history
<0 Increased co-operation and commitment from
governments, the private sector, and voluntary groups
will be essential to ensure that the new heritage policy is
successfully implemented
2. The Canada Malting Complex should be preserved as a
major historic feature of the waterfront.
3. The heritage values of the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital
and associated grounds should be preserved by using the
site for compatible institutional, cultural, and recreational
purposes.
4. Any plans for the Port Industrial District should include
heritage preservation as a priority element. .
Public Access
The following recommendations by the Royal Commission
are based on submissions to the public hearings on
environment and health, the recommendations contained in
the reports of the Environment and Health, Housing and
Neighbourhoods, Access and Movement, and Parks,
Pleasures and Public Amenities work groups, and the
Commission's publication number 6, Persistence and Change:
Waterfront Issues and the Board of Toronto Harbour
Commissioners.
The Royal Commission recommends:
1 The development of reo:eational facilities in the Outer
Harbour Area should be frozen, pending a comprehensive
analysis of the distribution and intensity of land- and
water-based recreational uses.
2. Sailors and windsurfers, for whom the Outer Harbour is
an irreplaceable resource, should be given a permanent
home on the north shore and / or in the new marina.
~R. LtO~
3. Interpretive facilities and parking should be
accommodated at the neck of the Leslie Street Spit. There
should be no private vehicular access to the Spit, with the
exception of access to the Aquatic Park Sailing Club, as
under the existing arrangements.
4 Opportunities to improve public transit ~ccess, such as
use of a trackless train, should be explored, so that the Spit
can be enjoyed by older people, the disabled, families with
young children, and other members of the public.
S The water's edge along the Toronto waterfront should be
in the public domain. In order to achieve that goal,
transfer of waterfront land to public ownership should be
a non-negotiable feature of all future development on the
waterfront.
(a) Public authorities should mount aggressive
programs of waterfront acquisition.
(b) Municipalities should consider zoning properties
adjacent to the water as open space, regardless of
current use, in order to shape a public waterfront for the
future.
(c) When a property comes up for sale, the municipality
or the MTRCA should be prepared to buy it, at current
market value for its existing use.
(d) There should be no further sale of lands on the
waterfront currently held in public ownership (federal,
provincial or municipal).
6. The Royal Commission recommends that areas of public
open space along the waterfront should be generous
enough in width, and accompanied by sufficient
water'~ge setbacks, to ensure meaningful public use.
Standards for the minimum width of public spaces should
be established and linked to building setbacks; narrower
bands should nonetheless be wide enough to be used in
their own right for such activities as walking and cycling,
as well as providing links with larger, nodal open areas.
lAJ R. *07
7 The Royal Commission recommends that waterfront
development for housing, commercial, industry or other
uses not be permitted to establish visual or physical
barriers to the water; therefore, high-rise development
should not be permitted on the waterfront.
8 The Royal Commission recommends that-any proposals
for lakefilling be evaluated in terms of their potential
impact on public access and enjoyment of the waterfront,
so that existing resources are not destroyed
9 The Royal Commission recommends that all those
agencies and organizations with responsibility in the
matter work to establish an appropriate balance between
regional and local interests.
10. Public transit to waterfront facilities should be improved,
in part by strengthening existing north-south and
east-west systems, and by creating new ones. By offering
better access to the waterfront for those without cars, or
encouraging those with cars to leave them at home,
enhanced public transit will contribute to a cleaner,
healthier environment on the waterfront and in Toronto
. generally
The feasibility of having water taxis and ferry services to
link different parts of the waterfront should be explored.
11 The Royal Commission recommends that more attention
be paid to the needs and safety of frequently ignored
groups, including the disabled, older people, women, and
children. There must be accessible public trCU\Sit,
pathways, washrooms, qshing piers, etc. Safety can be
improved through lighting, patrols (mounted police are
particularly appropriate in parkland settings), and site
design. Landscaping must appeal to the senses of hearing,
smell, and touch, as well as to vision, in order to create a
richer environment for all people and to appeal especially
to the elderly, the disabled, and children.
(,UR.4-0~
The Royal Commission recommends that waterfront parks
be planned and designed with a greater variety and
quality of landscapes.
Public Involvement .
,
1 The Royal Commission recommends creation of a
Waterfront Advocacy Centre to act as an information,
research, and resource centre for general public use Key
aspects of the potential role and operation of a waterfront
advocacy centre include the following.
(a) The centre should have a library /resource centre
with research capabilities, which would enable it to
produce newsletters and conduct seminars, assist
residents in developing position papers, facilitate liaison
between groups, and provide legal advice.
(b) It should be an independent, non-govemmental
organization funded by all levels of government, as well
as by the private sector Its board of directors should be
drawn from local residents' associations and
environmental groups.
Environmental Assessment
The Royal Commission makes the following
recommendations in regard to environmental assessment
processes:
1 The federal government, acting at the earliest moment,
should strengthen and legislate the EARP process as a key
step to improving env}ronmental assessment of all federal
undertakings.
2. The provincial Ministry of the Environment should
complete its review of the Environmental Assessment Act as
quickly as possible, anQ ensure that the revised process is
clearly understood.
3. The federal and provincial governments should establish
a process to avoid overlaps and duplications in
environmental assessment processes applIcable to the wR.*otj
same project.
In considering the Planning Act and the Environmental
Assessment Act, the Commission recommends that the
Ministry of Municipal Affairs amend the Planning Act to
ensure that environmental c<?ncerns are more thoroughly
identified and addressed, as part of the planning process.
The Commission is of the opinion that, by giving greater
weight to environmental matters in developing official
plans and related amendments, as well as in considering
development applications, provincial, re~ional, and
municipal governments will have the opportunity to
integrate the concept of sustainable development into the
planning process.
B. A Watershed Approach
The Commission is persuaded that more must be done to
protect Toronto's vital regional ecosystem. To begin, a
broad evaluation is needed to ensure that sufficient open
space is maintained and that its environmentally
significant features are preserved.
The most effective mechanism for evaluating the
environment would be an intergovernmental, regional
management framework that included strong community
involvement. The joint environmental audit of the THC
lands and adjacent provincial lands, recommended earlier
in this chapter, is vital to starting this process.
In order to be effective, the review will require a
Declaration of Provincial Interest under Section 3 of the
Planning Act, supported by appropriate ministerial orders.
A recommendation to that effect is included earlier in this
chapter
More generally, the Commission recommends that, across
the entire watershed, a "green" strategy be devised to
preserve the waterfront, river valley systems, headwaters,
wetla_~ds, and other significant features in the public
interest. Such a strategy would physically link the
waterfront to the river valley systems which, in turn,
would be linked by the preserved headwater areas. A
continuous trail system would guarantee public access to
these natural and open spaces.
tuR. ",'D
TOMMY THOMPSON PARK
1990 INTERIM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
NOVEMBER 4, 1989
THE METROPOUTAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
tuil. it',
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. Location 1
2. Purpose of Site 1
3 Approvals Overview 1
31 MNR Approval of 1977 1
3.2 MTRCA Executive Approval of 1984 2
4 Interim Management Program 3
41 Background 3
4.2 Proposed 4
4.2.1 Public 5
4.2.2 Lessees 6
4.2.3 VVildlife Management 6
5 Costs 8
lo~.~,~
1
1. WCATION
Tommy Thompson Park, also referred to as the Outer Harbour Headland, is located in the
City of Toronto. It is a man-made spit of land, extending some 5 km in a southwesterly
direction into Lake Ontario from the intersection of Unwin Avenue and Leslie Street.
Figure 1 provides a summary of the waterlot transactions between the Ministry of Natural
Resources, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners and the Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority
2. PURPOSE OF SIlE
Construction on this site was initiated in 1959 by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners, for
the purpose of providing an outer breakwater for expanded port facilities. However by
1972, it was determined that much of this land was no longer required for port expansion,
and alternatively a large portion of it could be made available to the public.
3 APPROVALS OVERVIEW
31 Ministry of Natural Resource Approval of 1972
By letter dated November 29, 1972, the Honourable Frank Miller, then Minister of
Natural Resources, advised the MTRCA that Cabinet had approved of designating
the Authority as the agency responsible for planning, interim management and
development of Tommy Thompson Park. This approval was subject to two key
conditions which are as follows:
(i) that armouring of the outer shoreline, estimated at $3.5 million must be
funded by the Federal Government or one of its agencies, and
----
-- .- . -----
! i ~ - I
j
_.
- ---.
j
...
, lI'l
.. 0
, , ...
.- ----
- z- -- - G o en
I .8: .8: -
; 1 i' 0
~ . ~
I (I) 9 w
,-. . lI'l II:
, I I :
-.... ----.- ~.8: '"
- -- c.... '" z
I U U ~
i >!,:. z z ~
; J
I I :'/ 0 o ~
-L Ie ~ ~ ~
~ e ~ ~ II:
0 C C .-:
I a- -C 1-- L_ o 2
a:~ 0
! III: .! I ~ ~~
a' (,)z/ II: ~
I .~ ~
tr. .J I cn cnU
~ lAIC
- ~ I --- o~
~ ~C
~I ~ ~~
U UO
! !e
~ . .
I I --
)
I
I
, ~-.......
- - -
.
- ----- -
I
I
. !
,
i i i, I ~
, i:
I
,
) the metropolitan toronto and region Figure 1.1 Outer Harbour Eastern Headland Land
conservation authority Ownership.
.
W R. .... J II-
2
(ii) that title of Tommy Thompson Park land must be transferred to the Authority
for a nominal sum prior to any development occurring.
The first condition regarding armouring was resolved with the creation of the new
endikement extending in a southerly direction from the neck of the headland. The second
condition was resolved May 17, 1984, when an area was transferred from the Ministry of
Natural Resources to the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
3.2 MTRCA Executive Approval of 1984
At the Executive Meeting #7/84, the issue of interim management was considered with the
following resolution adopted.
Res. # 123
THAT the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority assume the
responsibility for the Interim Use Program currently under Toronto Harbour
Commissioners management when title to Tommy Thompson Park is received,
THAT the Authority request the Toronto Harbour Commissioners to act as
managers of the 1984 Interim Use Program and as our agents witp respect to all
agreements;
THAT the authority approve an expenditure of $5,000.00 to cover predevelopment
costs associated with the Authority receiving title to Tommy Thompson Park lands,
wR. if.IS-
3
AND FURTHER THAT Authority staff be directed to enter into negotiations with
the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners and the
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto with respect to management of the Interim
Users Program from January 1, 1985, and subsequent years.
4. INTERIM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
41 Back~ound
In 1973, after the Toronto Harbour Commissioners had determined that much of the
area was not required for port expansion, they initiated an informal program to allow
the general public access on a weekend basis. However, in 1977 this program was
formalized by the Commissioners with policies for the operation of a summer
program.
The basic policies for this program were:
- The length of the season for public access was determined by the bus service,
- The funding for the bus service was negotiated annually between the City of
Toronto and the TTC.,
- With the exception of emergency vehicles, no automobile access or parking
on the headland was permitted during public hours,
- Outside public hours, lock and key privileges for auto access was granted to
groups such as Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, MTRCA,
university researchers and the Aquatic Park Sailing Club (Embayment C),
- The use of a portion of Embayment C by the Aquatic Park Sailing Club for
a total of 100 berths through agreement with the Ontario Sailing Association.
w~. LJI'
4
4.2 Proposed
At the water and related Land Management Advisory Board meeting #5/89, the
following resolution was adopted:
IT IS RECOMMENDED mAT the staff report on the 1989 Interim
Management Program at Tommy Thompson Park be received for information.
In this endeavour staff of the Authority circulated a draft of the 1990 Interim Management
Program to interim users requesting comments and/or concerns.
The 1990 Interim Management Program at Tommy Thompson Park will endeavour to
maintain the basic components of the previous year's program. These basic components
include:
- year round access of the park to the public;
- a nature interpretive program offered through the summer season,
- a transportation system for use by the public during the spring, summer and
fall seasons,
- a wildlife management program (gull control and tern management); and
- a licence agreement with the Aquatic Park Sailing Club for sailing activities.
-
fA) R. 1t17
5
4.2.1 Public
Tommy Thom~on Park will be open year round on weekends and holidays from
9'00 a.m. to 6'00 p.m. commencing January 6, 1990, excluding Christmas and Boxing
Day Staff will be on site during public hours. During the winter months the park
may close periodically due to unsafe conditions.
Public transportation will be provided commencing April 28, 1990 and will operate
until October 8, 1990. The following are the proposed types and times of service.
April 28 - May 27 - Multi-seating Pas~enger Vehicles
June 2 - September 3 - T.T.C. Special Summer Bus
September 8 - October 8 - Multi-seating Passenger Vehicles
The same level of maintenance will be provided as in the past. This includes
washrooms, garbage bins and road maintenance.
A gate attendant will be on site for the duration of the open season.
A nature interpreter will be on hand from June 2 to September 3 to answer any
questions and to conduct hikes and theme tours.
The Tommy Thompson Park Newsletter will continue and will highlight scheduled
events. In addition any changes in the Interim Management Program will be
announced in the newsletter.
wR. ~JI
6
4.2.2 Lessees
Aquatic Park Sailing Club members will be permitted parking on their leased lands
and vehicle access during public hours only from April 7 - 22, inclusive, and October
13 - 28, inclusive, for any necessary preparatory work prior to and after the sailing
season. Parking during this period will be provided in a designated area to be
determined by the MTRCA
During all other public hours, the Aquatic Park Sailing Club members will be
required to park in the leslie street parking lot and access by public transportation.
During non-public hours for the time period of the 1990 lease, access to only Aquatic
Park Sailing Club leased lands will be granted upon proof of membership and key
privileges.
Security and adherence to MTRCA and THC site regulations will be the
responsibility of the Aquatic Park Sailing Club.
4.2.3 Wildlife Manaiement
Gull Control Pro~am
In 1989 the annual Gull Control Program for Tommy Thompson Park was tendered
as a two year program for the period of 1989-90. The program will utilize similar
discouragement techniques as in previous years including falconry, pyrotechnical
devices and mock gulls.
.
&,:)R.ltl~
7
For 1990 the control areas and timing of the control periods will be similar to 1989
The program will commence on March 26 and will continue until July 6, 1990, as
follows.
March 26 - Weekday Control Endikement, Areas Pyrotechnical
July 7 South of the Road, Devices, Falconry
and Peninsula D and Mock Gulls
April 28 - Weekend Control Endikement and Pyrotechnical
June 3 Areas South of Devices and
Road Falconry
The control on weekends during the peak egg laying period proved very successful
in reducing the sporadic egg laying of previous years. This component of the control
program will be utilized in 1990 to minimize any egg collection.
Tern Mana~ement
The Tern Management Program for 1990 will be similar to the 1989 program and
will include:
- delineation and monitoring of nesting areas,
- increased signage and patrol,
- a tern nesting raft;
- assisting the CWS with nest inventories, and
- monitoring tern nesting success.
.
L\)A. &J:aO
8
5 COSTS
Costs associated with the 1990 Interim Management Program have been estimated at
$ 125tOOO.OO. The following is a breakdown of costs associated with this program.
.
INTERIM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM - TOMMY THOMPSON PARK
1. Consultant for Gull Control $ 28,000.00
2. Support Staff for Gull Control $ 19,000.00
3 Resource Interpreter $ 26,000.00
4 Transportation System $ 25,000.00
5 Interpreter Facility $ 7tOOO.OO
6. Materials and Supplies $ 8tOOO.00
7 Vehicle Rental $ 12.000.00
TOTAL $ 125tOOO.00
wR.L+~'
THB METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSBRVATION AUTHORITY
LIFB AND FIRE SAFBTY REPORT
SCARBOROUGH BLUFFS AND BLUFFBRS PARK MARINA
by tbe
SCARBOROUGH FIRE DBPARTMENT
Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board
Meeting 117/89
November 10, 1989
I LIFE AND FIRE SAFETY REPORT PAGE #30
SCARBOROUGH BLUFFS AND BLUFFERS PARK MARINA lUi.~
I - SCARBOROUGH FIRE DEPARTMENT -
RECOIlMENDATI:ONS
I A second recommendation regarding access to the site is the
widening of the existing roadways to accommodate an emergency lane
down the centre for emergency vehicles only. This recommendation
I appears to have the least impact on the existing landscape and
ecology scheme.
Also under access we include a large lighted graphic display
I of the marina to assist responding vehicles in determining which
roadways to take for a given location - this would also be of
qreat value to the visiting public, and should be mounted at the
I point of entry to the marina.
Access to the buildings was determined by the Ontario Build-
I ing Code and is now in place.
The recommendation is that the Fire Department access be
defined and designated for each building and these access be
I posted and strictly enforced. The access routes within the
parking lots can be framed with precast curbing and posted under
by-law. At present time there is no legislation allowing fire
I department to require curbing or other means of defining access.
Access to the boats while in service and moored is another
consideration. These boats are slipped in groups of 20-30 craft
I with the piers running between them.
The recommendation in this area is to have access routes
I installed that would allow for placement of our vehicles as close
as possible to the slips. This could be accomplished with crushed
stone or interlocking pavers so as to reduce the impact on the
I parklike atmosphere.
The security gates on the slips should have electronic by-
passes with controlled accesses available to emergency personnel.
I Coming into consideration at this point is specialized equipment
that will be discussed later in this report.
I Also included in Access is the access to specialized extin-
guishing equipment such as foam. The recommendation is that a
quantity of Triple "F" Foam be stored on site either in the police
building or in stations located throughout the marina.
I Also stored within these areas could be lengths of hose and
other equipment such as ropes, axes, etc. This would eliminate
I the problem of large quantities of materials being stored on
vehicles that also respond to other types of fires that do not
require equipment.
I Access to the proper location at the top of The Bluffs is
another consideration and the recommendation to cover this problem
will be addressed under Communications and Identification.
I The problem of accessing the bottom of The Bluffs in areas
other than the marina is addressed under Specialized Fire Fighting
r Equipment and Techniques.
WR.~ PAGE #29
RECOIOlRNnATZOIfS
Our recommendations are based on existing Codes although
these Codes do not necessarily address this specific area, and
National Fire Protection Association standards which are not
applicable law in this country.
These recommendations are also based on twenty-three years of
experience in fire fighting and fire prevention. Wherever possi-
ble outside expertise has been solicited to help formulate our
recommendations.
These recommendations will cover from fire prevention to fire
suppression, from short term and stop gap measure to long term,
high-figure solutions. .
These recommendations are only that and are meant to serve as
a guide and as a source for thought and discussion for future
correction of these and future problems.
Where at all possible Code references will be included in our
recommendation.
ACCESS
The first subject of consideration is Access. Access breaks
down into several areas - access to the site, access to the sail-
ing craft, access to storage, access to extinguishment etc.
ACCESS TO THE SITE ,
As was stated earlier, there is only one way into Bluffers
Park Marina and this roadway is subject to a large number of
conditions; for example traffic, weather, and construction etc.
Taking into consideration the fire loading and dollar value
of the marina area, first and foremost is the recommendation that
a second access be cut to the bottom of The Bluffs and linked with
Bluffers Park. This would alleviate two problems. First it would
reduce the volume of traffic on Brimley Road South. Second, it
would allow for access to the site if Brimley Road became
impassable.
Discussions with Metropolitan Toronto & Region Conservation
Authority have led us to believe that this can be accommodated
with one of the new roads being cut down to the lake. The Bellamy
Road access is the most promising. The Conservation Authority
also lead us to believe that they do not want to make a full fire
access from Fishleigh Drive because it would take away from Cathe-
dral Bluffs Park and the panoramic view.
It is also recommended that any access road leading down to
the lake have runway lanes in the event of failure of the re-
sponding emergency apparatus on the steep inclines, or if climate
conditions made control of that vehicle difficult.
I PAGE #31
~R.1fa4
BECOMJlRNnATYONS
! During a fire, access to craft exposed to the fire and the
temperature achievable during a fire come into bearing. The
proximity of the piers to the craft also must be considered. The
recommendations for this access problem are also addressed under
Specialized Fire Fighting Equipment and Techniques as well as
under Water Supplies.
WATER SUPPLl:ES
Based on the Fire Department's policy for water, water sup-
plies, National Fire Protection Association and the fire loading
and dollar value at Bluffers Park Marina, we recommend at minimum
a looped 200mm water service Supplying the site. This loop can be
accomplished by running a line from Fishleigh Drive.
The Fire Department Policy and National Fire Protection
Association PUblication "NFPA 13" also calls for a 200mm water
line on projects with a hydrant and sprinklers on th~ same line.
Our recommendation is that this policy be enforced and the water
SUPply to the buildings be retrofitted.
The Fire Department Policy calls for a 200mm line for two or
more hydrants. Again, we recommend retrOfitting and enforcement
of this pOlicy.
We recommend legislation be put in place to allow the Fire
Department to accomplish the three aforementioned items.
The fire hydrants at Bluffers Park have been located in
accordance with the Ontario Building Code Requirements for build-
ings. No consideration has been given to boat storage or travel
distances to boats berth~d in slips. We recommend that, based on
fire loading, fire hydrants be placed in areas of winter boat
storage in accordance with the Ontario Fire Codes coverage for
lumber yards. All areas could be reached using not more than 60m
of hose.
Fire hydrants should also be located so that the farthest
point on a wharf or pier can be reached using no more than 90m of
hose or to a dry standpipe connection with no more than 45m of
hose. See recommendation under Fire Fighting Equipment.
Another recommendation for water SUpplies is that drafting
stations be located at strategic locations throughout the marina
area with piping far enough out in the lake to prevent freezing
and far enough from the water's edge to eliminate any chance of a
Fire Department pumper slipping over the edge into the water.
A portable pump is also recommended but this will be covered
under Fire Fighting Equipment.
I
I
PAGE *32
I WR.~
CITY OF SCARBOROUGH
I DATE: February 10, 1989
I To: From: John J. Lalonde
Director Fire Prevention Bureau
I
RE: Fire Protection Water Services Policy File I: JJL-032-89
I
I Fire Protection Water Services Policy
I (A) Private Fire Hydrants. Shall not be located closer than 12M. from a
Bldg. face. If conditions will not allow for
I the 12M. spacing, the hydrant may be
located closer than 12M. but no closer than
3M.
I
ml A Smilie Private Hydrant. Shall be connected to a min. 1.50MM. water
I main.
,
(Cl A Su.Je Private Hydrant and
Sprinkler or Stand Pipe SyStem. Shall be connected to a 200MM. water main
I to the hydrant or SPK/STP - 1.50MM. to the
rest, or hydraulic calculations to prove
required water supply.
f
(0) Two Private Hydrants. Shall be connected to a 200 MM. water
I main.
Or hydraulic calculations showing required water supplies.
I
m2 3 or more HYdrants. Shall be connected to a minimum 200 MM.
I looped mam.
I Continued on Page 2...
I
Page 2 wR.4ab
ID Calculations For hydrauJicaly designed sprinkler or
standpipe systems shall be based apon a flow
test for water supply not older than 12
months.
(G) Water Supply Calculations. For hydraulicaly designed sprinkler or
standpipe systems shall be based apon the
water supply curve - minus a 5% safety
factor.
(H) Water Supply Calculations. For hydraulicaly designed stanpipes designed
in conformance with O. Reg. 419/86
Sentence 3.2..5.4. (23) (c) shaH be designed
for a maximum pump pressure of 1.50 P .S.I.
0034.2.5 KPA) at the siamese connection.
Approval of Water Service Orawinss.
Before the Fire Department can examine drawings for Fire Protection Water
Services.
The drawings shall contain the following information.
- Plus new services, hydrants connections _ etc.
(A) Stamped by a professional engineer ct signed.
(8) Show location and size of all Buildings.
(C) Required number of Streets Bldg. to face in conformance with
O. Reg. 419/86 Subsection 3.2.2.
(D) Type of internal systems required i.e. (SPK/STP)
(E) Location of siamese connections if required.
(F) Location of principle entrance.
(G) Location of existing Street (public hydrants) ct \iains.
Yours truly,
John. J. Lalonde
DIRECTOR FIRE PREVENTION
JJL/mk
I LVR. 4~7
I
PAGE #34
.. t.
a
I I ,.
- .
I .
.
! ~
I ~ '"
.
I .
! .
I I
.
I
~ .
I /
I
I
~
I
I .
I .
-
I LAKE
~
I ON TANIO
I _ _ _ _ RECOMMENDED 200rnm. LOOPED WATER SERVICE
TO BLUFFERS PARK MARINA
I ...
PAGE #35
\ ~~. 42<i
RECOMMENDATIONS
FIRE LOAD:IHG AIID FIRE BREAKS
BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES ON SITE
Because of the combustible construction of the buildings
within the marinas and the exposure problems, and because of the
occupancy, we recommend that all clubhouses, restaurants and main-
tenance buildings located within close proximity to the sailing
craft whether in the water, dry docked or in service facilities,
be protected by automatic sprinklers and a fire alarm system
connected to a central location for early warning.
THE BOATS WHILE BERTHED AND OUTFITTED
There is not very much we can recommend for the boats them-
selves except Federal LegiSlation calling up flameproofing stan-
dards for materials used in pleasure crafts and education of the
populace using them.
The marinas should be made to implement minimum fire safety
standards and training programmes for their members as called upon
in National Fire Protection Association Publication "NFPA 303".
Total non-combustible piers and wharfs for use as slips and
fire protection measures built into the piers will be addressed
later under Fire Fighting Equipment.
THE BOATS WHILE STORED OR DRY DOCKED
We recommend that the craft when stored, be done so in groups
of no more than 20 boats completely surrounded with an access for
Fire Department and to serve as a fire break. The Ontario Fire
Code states for exposure purposes a clear width of 9m. Fire
hydrants should be located in accordance with our recommendation
under water supplies re 60m of hose. The grouping of boats can
also be laid out in square metre areas.
All storage areas should be designated and the same used year
after year - not as someone sees fit to change every year.
Boats dry docked for service should be stored in blocks ~f no
more than 10 boats with access to all sides of the craft/groups.
Any craft being serviced if the service involves flammable or
hazardous processes or materials should be segregated from any
other craft waiting to be worked on.
Persons working or repairing their own craft while in dry
dock should be made to conform to a set of safety rules specified
by and enforced by the club or marina. If rules are not enforced
the club should be responsible under Code.
PAGE #36
W~. '+~'1
RECOIIIIRNnATrONS
Persons living on their craft year round should be segregated
from craft in storage by at least 9 metres of access lane and from
the other craft by 6 metres. Only approved Hydro hookups and
heating units would be allowed. Legislation should be formulated
addressing this situation.
A general maintenance programme should be introduced and
enforced by the various clubs and marinas re: refuse, tarpaulins,
jerry cans, handling of fuels and general conditions of the
grounds.
We recommend that all day tanks and/or propane tanks be
removed while the craft are in storage or being repaired.
THE AMOUNTS OF FUEL AND HANDLING
As was pointed out earlier the amount of fuel stored through-
out the marina was around 477,330 litres.
It is recommended that fuelling requirements as stated in the
National Fire Protection Association Publication "NFPA 303" be
strictly enforced (National Fire Protection Association is not an
applicable law in Canada).
A second recommendation is that the Gasoline Handling Act be
amended to address filling of day tanks while in the boat.
We also recommend a programme where the clubs police and
educate their own people regarding the fuelling of their craft.
The use of propane, kerosene and naptha for cooking and
heating systems on the craft is covered under the Fuels Safety
Branch and we recommend an education programme for boaters.
EXPOSURES IN THE SURROUNDING AREAS
The only recommendation for protection of exposures in the
surrounding areas is for a beautification and landscaping plan for
The Bluffs themselves which will provide ground cover rather than
the flammable scrub brush and dried out twitch grass.
COIIIIUHICATXONS AND XDEHTXPXCATXOIf
Our first recommendation under this heading is for a skip
antenna placed in a central location at the top of The Bluffs to
reflect radio signals over the curve at the edge.
Second, is to tie into the Police Band and use their frequen-
cy.
Our third recommendation under radio frequencies is to change
to a U.H.F. frequency which is a cleaner, more powerful frequency
with less traffic per channel.
It is also recommended that our dispatch office have the
ability to monitor and answer the marine band.
I PAGE #37
~R.lfJ(
I
RECOIlllENDATIONS
I Also under Communications is the pUblic's ability to notify
the required emergency organizations of a problem. This can be
I accomplished with "Emergency Use Direct Line Phones" being placed
at strategic locations throughout the marina area including pri-
vate clubs. This is called up under N.F.P.A. 303. Added to this
we recommend a strobe light be attached to a pole above each phone
I to guide our personnel to the proper area - this light would
activate when the phone is used and could only be shut off by
emergency personnel. (These are not pay phones but call boxes.)
I We have linked Communications and Identification together
because you cannot communicate a problem if you cannot identify it
or its location. Therefore under this heading we include recom-
I mendations for identification of locations.
We recommend strobe lights located high on each building that
I activate when the fire alarm is activated but only able to be shut
off by emergency personnel when they arrive on the scene.
I Also under Identification we recommend the designation of
pier numbers and slip numbers and the posting of the same so that
when the public phones in for some reason other than a fire call,
they can say "Scarborough Yacht Club, Pier 36, Slip 22, 15 foot
I sailboat named Bonnie Spray", etc.
We also recommend markers to be placed on the face of The
Bluffs so that when a call originates from the base of The Bluffs
or the marina the calling party can say between markers 12 and 13
or the red and green markers and our dispatch people will be able
to respond vehicles to the correct access streets at the top of
The Bluffs. This will also reduce response times.
AtJ'TOIIATIC SUPPRESSION AND EARLY WARNDlG
All recommendations covered under other areas.
FIRE FI~~'.lJIG EQUIPMENT AND TECHNIQUES
We have a large number of recommendations under this heading.
These recommendations range from short term to long range.
First we will recommend that dry standpipes be installed on
all piers and wharfs with siamese connections for our trucks and
that hose outlets be positioned to allow for reach with 30m of
38mm hose, to any point on any craft moored in a slip with the
placement commencing at the outward point of the wharf. This will
allow for hose streams to be positioned from all sides of the fire
without dragging the hoses through the involved area and having
long stretches of hose lines, therefore reducing pump pressures.
We also recommend that all hoses, hydrants, standpipes,
siamese connections etc. have quick connect couplings, because of
the time factor when fighting marina fires.
PAGE #38
I,U R. If. 31
RECOMllENnATI:ONS
Because of the predicted heat generation and rapid movement
of marine fires, we recommend specialized fire fighting gear for
personnel responding to fires in the marina along the lines of
gear worn when fighting aircraft fires. These suits would be
designed so as not to trap water and cause problems if personnel
fell into the lake. At the present time for example, our boots
work against us in this situation.
Also because of the above we recommend large quantities of
Triple "F" Foam be made available and storec;i on site at strategic
locations along with associated hardware such as pick-up nozzles,
etc.
Because of the projected growth of The Bluffs and the plea-
sure craft facilities, we recommend the implementation of a fire
station and a fire boat to serve these areas. This station would
be located within the marina and manned seasonally at first with
full manning as the situation requires.
The implementation of a Fire Station will reduce response
time critical in marina fires, and facilitate onsite storage of
specialized equipment. The implementation of a fire boat will
facilitate the ability to perform required fire fighting
evolutions, aid in Bluffs rescue, and afford access to craft. If
a problem arises while that craft is in the navigational channels
it allows us to perform rescue and life saving for the swimming
public.
A short term recommendation is for the purchase of a fire
boat and to station same at existing police facilities.
Life jackets should be supplied for all crews responding to
calls within the marina and stored on site.
Another recommendation is for specialized ropes to be used
when moving or securing boats that represent an exposure problem
when a fire situation arises. These ropes should be light, quick-
biting and able to withstand high temperatures.
Because the roads are cut along the bottom of The Bluffs and
are designated as walking paths able only to support maintenance
vehicles, the snow and ice problems and the maneuverability re-
quired within the marina and park we recommend the acquisition of
a four-wheel drive vehicle stationed either at the first run hall
or within the complex for use within these areas. This vehicle
should carry the specialized equipment needed for this project and
become equipped with a front mount pump and a winch, and in the
size range of a Bronco or Blazer.
In the short term a portable pump on a dolly with a large
output that could be maneuvered about for a readily and easily
spotted water supply.
I PAGE #39
W~.~
I
RBCOJIMENDATl:ONS
I LEGAL
The only recommendation forthcoming under Legal from the
I City's solicitors is the forming of a Harbour Commission with
powers of enforcement of boarding rights, loss of craft from fire
fighting operations or damages caused by setting craft adrift.
I This Commission would also be able to set the standards for the
entire waterfront area's Maintenance, Fuelling, Training etc. and
enforce them.
I This is a delicate legal problem and we recommend that con-
sultation of Legal Departments of all levels of government be
established to find a solution. The legal aspect is of major
I concern to all involved and we recommend it be given the highest
priority.
I GENERAL
Under general recommendations we recommend portable extinguisher
coverage and placement be brought into line with the recommenda-
I tions of National Fire Protection Association Publication "NFPA
303".
I Ongoing educational programmes be put into place aimed at the
marina area.
I The strict enforcement of maintenance programmes as recommended
under National Fire Protection Association Publication "NFPA 303"
and the implementation of patrols within the marina as recommended
by National Fire Protection Association.
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
lA}f<. '"to 38
THE MBTROPOLITAR TORORTO ARD REGIOR CORSBRVATIOR AUTHORITY
BTOBICOKB M~ STRIP
WA'l'BRI'ROR'!' PUBLIC AllBRITY SCBBMB
BRVIllOlDIBlft'AL IlAllAGBMBRT MAS'l'BR PUR
Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board
Meeting 17/89
November 17, 1989
1 ,
B1"08ICOU IIOTBL STIlIP LoR.43Y.
MATIRFROIT PUBLIC AMINITY SCRIMI
- BIIVIIOI1IIBlft'AL IlARAGBIIERT IlASTBR PLU -
17 ........., ..- R~............a....
11.1 DdIectGr ~
1be problem 01 water qualilJ III Rumber Bay will Deither be IOhed DOl' CIICeIbated bJ tile
Motel Strip 1eCIevdopmad. 'I1ae beaoiDIlDIIJIia ... Iad""'ed ..,. III wbida tile
IalevelaFllaat caa. IDdoecl psoceed witbout ICIdIDa to tile probIaD ad CIa "0- die
..... to ... .... but It II cIar tba& water quaIIlJ III Ibe .. II . ~ probIaa
requirfDa . ....... IOIudaa. wbida II kpad tile tcra oIlefaaa 01..... ...,.
1be taa of Jefaace.1It far (IatcnIIa) ID bMldpdaa. enJuadaa ... ~~_
....... Ibe Deed far, ad PJ'f"~ bad.. 0( . cIe8octor ami; ........, 0DDduII0a II tbat .
~ ana ...... lie developed. '!be ~ .. II DOt . .... 10 ... ~
,..... ~_ 01.. B.... ..... Ibe Rumber ~ ..... ...... Qeet. TIIII
re<<J-"'~ II ...... ..... aa Ibe -""ptWt tba& die 1DtA~8R"''' 'F'1- ad
~_I:DII tapOOIIbIe IN ,u..dJ DOt Ill. JOlt" to .......e.teIJ......... ~fhaeat.
.... ...~tII acdaa ,..... .... 0--11 ... NIOUn8 ...... 10 .... IN( ~J 1117
III.".' acdoaIlo ___ ... fOIvt.. .~ ... die .. paIII& ...... of-"--b
...... R-'- .., ... I.aIra 0atId0 1I,...t die B__ ..... tile R..... WIQt
... )A-I- a.t. 1'11II"'" aIIo ...,1-- ... ... ~..... .. &........, 01
LdII 0DIIdD. ~...~ ..... ....- er 8OD.... ad die ,..........1IIpIct d .... ...
~ -...e:.6..
Ohea ... ~ ..... IOUIOII f1I...._ ... praJected futaIe IDcr r ~ f I II ........... ad
K Clf"... dill . .0 aaI dAg 10 dae water paIIudaD III dill .. .. ..... Ibe ItudJ ua,
... ..... I~ T'" ~ Iw. die ... tenD edudaa oflbe water ..., 01 Bumber .,
UDder two II: TI ~-= ....... ad willa . ~ UIL
.
BrOaICOIB MOnL.... WA1lllU'aONl' fUILIC ANINrrY ~ "
1 "
.wQ. ~sS-
~n.rio k Without Defleetnr ArmJBl'lI!!IlftMter
. Tbe embaJmeat fmDliDa Ibe Motel Strip wm coadDue to let . a .....p. or a .~
~ bJ&bIJ poButed w"~" ~ 110m Humber Rher aDd die Humber wPO aDd
other, .. dpifLoat IOUI'CIL
. Altboup the water quality ID aDd ..teriq the embaymeDt duriq _~ calm paiocl.
may DOt chaDae from _tin, CDDdidaal, there will be a funber build up of MdiJDellIl 011
the bottom of the embaymeDL TbilII"lfll-at will baYe a ~ to be re....peaded
durin, Whe IIOrma aa Lab ODtario aDd iDcrcaIe poDutioa CODCentratio.. duriaa .uch
events aDd for IOIDe period tbereaftcr.
. Altboup we eannnt ideDtify the time period required, the ultimate Itep ia tbia
propeuioa of even.. II that the wat eod of the Bay will be&ia to &II in with biabJy
COQuminttted tedimealL
. Fecal colif'onDa from Humber River aDd the Humber WPa' wiD peaettate to tile far
~acba of Humber Sly, proIubitiq water contact eYeD after a miaor ItonD CYeDt; there
wiD be timca wbea 101IIO water cootact will be pouible (wbea DO.tonIa event).
. Other CODlideratioaa imp-til'l' development ia the .tudy area area with DO deflector ana
are:
- bi&ber wbbol'e elevation of up to appnDimately t __ in tile cat two tbirda
of the lite;
- rec:reatioaaJ cootKt water activity (awimmiaa, wiadaur6aa etc.) rarely poaible;
aDd,
- abeltCIed water area .uitable for dia&bY aDd other IIDIII craft \lie DOt awilable.
~.ria B: With Deflector/Arm Breakwllter
. 1be poIIutaDtI eateriDa the JCDCI'II area from Humber River and Humber WPCP will be
de8eded ..., .. ... bey UDder r.oenae CODCIidoal (fDcIudIDa awnae aum~ raiD
....) and will IKJl eater ... embaymeDt while hi&bI1 ~b.ted.
. 1be water quaIItJ ID Ibe embaymeDt of tile .tudy area wiIIlmpnM to resemble tile dry
w-.~ water qadtJ of Lab Ontario aDd will be _ IeDIithe to wet weather even...
TbiI.... qadtJ wII aDow more frequeot rec:reatioaal water..tact. However, durin.
proIa~J. f wet ~.. periocII DO water contact will be JUlia
. 1be...... ~. IIOW paeIlt on the bottom of the embaymad Will DOt be re-t..peaded
duriaa ...... wave ItonDI OD Lab ODtario..
. 1be bKbbore clevadaa aJoa, tile entire maialaad aboreliDe can be lowered.
8TOBIOOICB MO'I1!L rnuP WA'I1!RPRONT PUBLIC AMENI1Y satEMB 71
-
SbcItenId water area will be auitable for amaD boa.. (e... diD&bJ IIiIiDa. etc.). WA.4U
.
, Wbaa tbe Humber River IDd Humber WPQt lie ~.aed up IDdIor ~ IUCb that
.
I water qudtJ OIl die .. aide of the breakwater (direcdy fIoatiDa Humber River) II
IimiIar to tbat olLlb ODtIrIo. the breakwater CID be radDJ turDed lllto . aeria of
ill... tbaeby iDc:raIiDa the c:ircuJatioa ill the ..,..
. 1bc dowIidc of the ~IJI' ~ter II that there will be . IIIiDor iDcrease ill
CODUlIlin-at COIIClCDtradoal iD the illl-'iat.e W:iDity of the study area due to the
~illlinatioD ofltonF III the cmbaymeDt.
3.7.2 Recommeadatioa
Uader the ..umptioDl that . broad aMroD.lDeDtal actioD pI'OIrIIII to raoIYe reaioaal iuuea
will DOt be available ill the Dear future, the study ha CIODduded that . det1cctor U'ID will be
aeeeaUJ ill ordu to preYeDt the further det.eriontioD of water qualilJ iD Humber Bay. 1bia
~illlin_fJ evaluatioD bII provided IVf&VDt CYideacc of the pot.eDdaI of . defJector U'ID to
reduce the nt.e of water quality dep'ldatioD ill the Bay; further detail deaip IDd CYIIuatioD of
a defJedor arm optioD abouJd iDdude tbaIe ltudiea let out ill Sec:tioa 3.5.
3.7.3 Further Recolll--tltioaa
DuriD, the coune of tbia atudy, public CIODCenI ba beeD wiced ItroaaIJlDd coaaiat.eDdy in aD
meetiDp aDd CIOrrapoDdeoce reprdiD, the aeed for a broad rqioDaI approach to the IOlution
of related aMroDJDeDtaI ~ impactiD, OD the wat.erfroDt (de-n~ up Humber River,
Mimico Oeet, Humber WPQt, CIOmbiaed IlOnII/ADitary IiDea, ItonD IDea. etc.). Thou'" DOt
withia the t.enDI of reCaeace of tbiI study, it is IUJlClted that the at, CODIider iDidalia, or
participadDa ill a Joaa term iDteqovemmeDtaI approach to reduciq the eDYiroameDtal problema
of the watcrfroat. The deflector arm . oaIy a IocaIlOIutioD to . ~i"l rqioDaI problem.
EI'OBIOOD M011!L I11UP WA'J'BItIlRON'I' PUBLIC AMENnY SOII!MB n
~R.lI-a7
THB METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSBRVATION AUTHORITY
CORRBSPOHDBRCB
fro.
. LOIS GRIFFIN, LUCIANO MARTIR AND SUZARRB BARRETT
regarding
LOCATION OF AQUARIUM
Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board
Meeting '7/89
November 17, 1989
(~ Lois Griffin
Metro Councillor
~~y Rexda1e- Thistletown ---------------------
IUS.....tOII AD. 141_1 'AX 1IN1.
_ ~ It\'IIt
lulte a
Toron~ 0ftW1o
MSH MEMORANDUM
To: Chairman and Members Date: November 17, 1989
Water & Related Land Management
Advisory Board
From: Lois Griffin
Metro Councillor
Rexdale- Thistletown
Re: Aquarium of Metropolitan Toronto
There is wide support for this facility and I am one of those
supporters. However, there . some debate as to whether
IS an
alternate location on the Motel Strip would be preferable to this site
in Humber Bay Puke There has been some discussion on possible
sites along the Motel Strip, and I would like to see those discussions
continue. Therefore, I am suggestinl a small amendment to the staff
recommendation, as follows:
"The Board recommend to the Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority that Metropolitan Toronto and
Etobicoke be advised that the Authority would prefer a location
on the Motel Strip, which would not impact on Humber Bay
Park.
The Board further recommend to the Authority that
Metropolitan Toronto and 2tobicoke be advised that should
such an alternate location be impossible, then the Authority
would concur, In principle, to onter into a long term (99 years)
lease ...." (continue with the 8taft recommendation)
I apologize for bein. unable to attend the meeting today, but would
appreciate your favourable consideration of this amendment.
:lk L.O.
~R. 'f-3cr
,
The Acting Chall'man,
Netl'opol1 tan Toronto and Reglon
Consel'va tion Authol'l ty,
. 5 5hol'ehalll Cl'es.,
. North York, Ontal'lo
i5 November, i9&9
Re.:Sl te for the Aqual'lum of Metropol1 tan Toronto
Deal' 511':
I strongly support the efforts to locate the Aquarlum on the
Etoblcoke Waterfront
I also wlsh that its slte be selected so as to minimlze adverse
environmental Impacts
The proposed loca tion In Humber Bay Park ralses some serious
concerns. It should be used only if all possible efforts to find
a feasible al terna ti ve in the neighbourhood fall.
I recommend the following condi Uon be Included with any earl y
appI'OVal-in-prlnclple by the MTRCA'
That flnal approval of the site in Humber Bay Park East
be granted only If, after an intensive and exhaustive
search, a sui table alternative location cannot be found
in the vic:inity.
I hope that the Authority wl1l cooperate in the search efforts 1n
whlch the Etobicoke Environment Committee is parUcipa Ung
I respectfully request that the above recommend a tion be placed
before the appropriate Board and the full Authority.
Luciano Martin,
2. Taysham Cl'es.
Etoblcoke, Onto
M9V fXf
Tel.: ., 4f -5346
SUZANNE BARRETT (A)R. Lt-~O
182 BUMBERVALE BLVD., BTOBICOltE, ONTARIO 118Y 3P8. (416) 234-1871
Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board
MTRCA
5 Shoreham Drive
Downsview
Ontario M3N 154
17 November 1989
Re: Etobicoke Motel Strip Public Amenity Scheme
Aquarium of Metropolitan Toronto
Dear Chairman and Members of the Board,
I am a resident of Etobicoke. My family and I have been enjoying
the HUmber Bay Park East for many years. I belong to several
environmental groups, including the Federation of Ontario
Naturalists and the Toronto Field Naturalists. In addition, I
have professional experience in the field of waterfront planning
and have recently been working for the Royal Commission on the
Future of the Toronto Waterfront, as an advisor on environmental
issues.
I should like to comment on two of the items on your agenda
today: the Etobicoke Motel Strip and the Aquarium of Metropolitan
Toronto. I have also made similar submissions recently to the
Parks and Property Committee of Metro Toronto and to the
Development Committee of the City of Etobicoke. (This is one of
those complicated inter-jurisdictional issues ! )
Etobicoke Motel Strip - Environmental Management Master Plan
I have reviewed this study and am left with serious doubts about
the adequacy of some of tqe environmental analyses undertaken.
The report raises as many questions as it answers, and has a
number of major deficiencies.
1
w R. Itlf-'
I am concerned about the amount of lakefilling proposed in the
scheme. While I realise that any lakefilling would be undertaken
according to the Improved Lakefill Quality Control Program, there
are still risks associated with ( i) the implementation of the
program, and (ii) the often unpredictable effects of altering
shoreline configurations on water circulation and the
accumulation of contaminated sediments. There is no discussion
of the potential effects on other parts of the waterfront.
I am not convinced that the proposed deflector arm will in fact
result in improved water quality. It appears unlikely that the
semi-enclosed embayment between the Motel Strip and the Humber
Park would have adequate circulation and exchange with Lake
Ontario. In fact the report admits that "the exchange rate with
a deflector arm is anticipated to be less than that of the base
case " (p36).
. . .
The report does not address the existing problem of contaminated
sediments. In addition, would the arm aggravate this in-place
pollutants problem by creating more areas of low circulation
where contaminated sediments can accumulate ?
The report is inconclusive regarding the impacts of the Humber
WPCP due to uncertainty regarding the future location of the
outfall, if it is extended. Currently, the Humber WPCP outfall
is located adjacent to the opening to Lake Ontario that would
result if a short deflector arm constructed. Thus it appears
that the effluent would have a direct route into the enclosed
embayment.
The water quality model is limited to fecal coliforms and
suspended solids although "other contaminants such as heavy
metals, total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen and other
organic and chemical contaminants may be of greater significance
if permitted to concentrate or accumulate within the embayment".
(pS 3) . The report recommends that further study be undertaken to
assess the potential impacts of these additional contaminants.
In view of the terms of reference for the study to investigate,
evaluate and make recommendations with regard to existing water
quality as well as potential impacts, this is clearly an
admission of a major deficiency in the consultants' study.
The proposal to use wetlands as part of the storm water
management system represents an innovative approach which is
certainly worth trying. Properly imp~emented, this might help to
reduce pollution loads to the embayment, and set an example for
waterfront development elsewhere. However, a few questions
arise: What are the implications to wildlife of developing
2
~.~~
wetlands over existing contaminated sediments ? How large would
the wetlands need to be ? How will the stormwater be conveyed to
the wetlands ? What wetland management would be required ? How
will the effectiveness of the wetlands be evaluated? Who will
do the monitoring and who will pay?
What happens if they don't work?
Finally, section 3.5. of the report contains a long list of
information deficiencies and recommended studies. These are all
matters that the consultants feel should be investigated before
the final designs of a deflector arm and the wetlands are
prepared.
Aquarium of Metropolitan Toronto
I wish to express my strong opposition to the proposal to locate
the Aquarium in the Humber Bay Park East. I am not opposed to
the Aquarium itself; I believe it will be an excellent facility
to enhance development on the Etobicoke waterfront. However I
feel that it should be located in the Motel Strip, in association
with the other buildings to be developed there, and not in the
Humber Bay Park East.
As I understand it, Humber Bay Park was originally created by the
MTRCA because there was an acute shortage of public parkland on
the Etobicoke waterfront. It has become one of the most
successful parks on the Metro Toronto waterfront. It is popular
for a variety of informal activities including walking, jogging,
bird-watching, picnicking, kite-flying, and simply enjoying the
lake. It is also an invaluable educational resource for
university courses, school trips and other groups such as
naturalists, cubs, brownies and so on.
Much of the success of the park is due to its semi-wild
character, due to a management approach that has allowed parts of
the area to develop naturally, providing habitat for many species
of resident and migrating wildlife. The nearshore waters are
well known as a favoured location for wintering waterfowl. I
have watched this natural development over the years since the
park was created and predict that it will continue to become a
richer environment in the future, through these natural
processes.
The value of the Park as a peaceful, semi-natural open space will
increase as Etobicoke's waterfront is developed, particularly
with the high-density residential development proposed for the
adjacent Motel Strip.
3
.
wR. ~'+.!-
Given the character and values of the Humber Bay Park East, I
believe that a major Aquarium, with its attendant high numbers of
visitors, cars, buses, traffic movement, parking requirements and
so on, is a totally inappropriate facility. A facility of this
scale would have dramatic and negative impacts on the quality of
recreational experiences provided by the park. While I
understand that studies are underway to try locating parking off-
site, the Aquarium and its visitors would still create an
intrusion into the away-from-it-all experience of the Park.
I was concerned that the Etobicoke Motel Strip Public Amenity
Study did not take advantage of the opportunity to include an
assessment of the most appropriate location for the Aquarium.
There is potentially land available on the Motel Strip for this
purpose. The Public Amenity Scheme proposes a variety of
facilities on public land including a fishing centre, boardwalk
centre, trail centre and interpretive centre; there is ample
space for an aquarium in addition to, or in place of one of these
elements.
I feel that, if it was located on the mainland, the Aquarium
would be an asset to both the public amenity scheme and the
proposed private development on the Motel Strip, in terms of
attracting visitors and business. In addition, it would be much
easier to provide car access, parking, public transit, eating
facilities etc for Aquarium visitors on the Motel Strip than in
the Humber Bay Park East.
I should like to ask whether there has been any attempt to
consult the users of the Humber Bay Park East about the Aquarium
proposal ? I should expect that most of them are unaware of this
threat, since there has been very little public discussion of the
proposal. I also feel that proponents of placing the Aquarium in
the Park must be unaware of the numbers of people who use and
appreciate the Park just the way it is.
As you may be aware, both Commissioner David Crombie of the Royal
Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront and the recent
Toronto Waterfront Charrette have indicated that the Aquarium is
an inappropriate use for the Humber Bay Park and that it would be
more suitable to locate it on the Motel Strip.
The Metro Parks system is a fine one, admired and envied by other
cities in Canada and the United States. The Humber Bay Park East
is a significant part of this system, especially since it is the
only regional park on the Etobicoke waterfront that includes
major natural areas and wildlife habitat; in short, a bit of
urban wilderness.
4
~R.&+~Lf
The future of Humber Bay Park East should be assessed in the
context of the growing public awareness of environmental issues,
and the increasing interest in outdoor recreation in natural
settings. I anticipate that if a decision is made to locate the
Aquarium in the Humber Bay Park East, there will be a major
public outcry against the degradation of such a special place.
Conclusions
I haven't addressed the Public Amenity portion of the Etobicoke
Motel Strip Study as it isn't on your agenda today. However, I
should like to point out that it, too, raises a number of issues
and warrants your scrutiny, as well as further opportunities for
public involvement.
As a conservation authority, you have a special responsibility to
ensure that natural resources are carefully protected and managed
on behalf of Metro residents. In this case, I believe this means
you should:
(1) Request that an environmental assessment be undertaken for
the proposed deflector arm and stormwater management system:
(2) Refuse the request to locate the Aquarium in Humber Bay Park
East: and
(3) Undertake, in conjunction with the City of Etobicoke, and
with full public consultation, an analysis of potential
alternative sites for the Aquarium on the mainland of the Motel
Strip.
Thank you for your consideration of my submission.
yourgnCerelY.
Suzanne Barrett.
cc Hon.Lyn McLeod
Ruth Grier MPP
wit. ~~S-
A COMPREHENSIVE BASIN MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
FOR THE ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED
JANUARY 12, 1990
iA) R. '" Lt-"
- i -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
. PAGE
Table of Contents (1)
List of Figures (v)
List of Tables (VI)
List of Appendices (VB)
The Rouge River Vision 1
10 Preface 3
2.0 Introduction 6
2.1 The Watershed 6
2.2 The Context of the Rouge Management Strategy 8
30 Rouge River Urban Dramage Study 10
31 Background 10
3.2 The Study 11
3.3 Comment 13
40 Rouge River Vision 14
41 The Vision 14
50 The Management Strategy 15
5 1 Purpose and AIms 15
5.2 Comment 16
~ R. &fJI-7 - ii -
PAGE
60 Public Health 24
61 Comment 24
6.2 SpecIfic VisIon Statement 25
6.3 Techrucal Standards 25
6.4 Recommended PolIcIes 26
641 Prevention 26
6.4.2 Protection and Improvement 27
6.5 OperatIonal Cntena 28
6.5 1 Prevention 28
6.5.2 ProtectIon and Improvement 29
6.6 ImplementatIOn of PublIc Health 30
(a) PreventIOn - Immediate Action 30
(b) PreventIOn - Future ActIOn 31
(c) ProtectIOn and Improvement - ImmedIate ActIOn 32
(d) Protection and Improvement - Future ActIon 35
70 Public Safety - Flood Control 37
71 Comment 37
7.2 SpecIfic VisIOn Statement 39
7.3 Techrucal Standard 39
74 Recommended PolIcies for PublIc Safety (Flood Control) 39
7.5 Operational Criteria For PublIc Safety (Flood Control) 42
76 Implementation of Public Safety (Flood Control) PolICIes 45
8.0 Public Safety - Erosion Control 51
8.1 Comment 51
8.2 Specific Vision Statement 52
8.3 Techrucal Standards 52
8.4 Recommended Policies for PublIc Safety (EroSIOn Control) 52
8.5 Operational Criteria for PublIc Safety (EroSIOn Control) 53
8.6 Implementation of Public Safety (EroSIOn Control) Policies 59
90 Fisheries 63
91 Comment 63
9.2 SpeCIfic VisIon Statement 65
9.3 Technical Standard 66
94 Recommended PolICIes for Fishenes 66
941 Prevention 66
9 4.2 ProtectIOn and Improvement 68
9.5 Operational Cntena for FIshenes 69
9.5 1 Prevention 69
9.5.2 ProtectIOn and Improvement 70
- iii - ~R.~lfg
PAGE
90 Fishenes (cont' d.)
96 Implementation of Fishenes PoliCIes 71
100 RIpanan Habitat 79
101 Comment 79
10.2 Specific Vision Statement 79
10.3 Techrucal Standards 79
104 Recommended Policies 79
1041 Prevention 79
10 4.2 Protection and Improvement 80
10.5 Operational Criteria 80
106 Implementation of Riparian Habitat 81
(a) Protection and Improvement - ImmedIate ActIOn 81
(b) ProtectIon and Improvement - Future ActIOn 83
110 Terrestnal HabItat 85
111 Comment 85
11.2 Specific Vision Statement 85
11.3 Technical Standards 86
114 Recommended Policies 86
1141 Prevention 86
114.2 Protection and Improvement 86
11.5 Operation Criteria 87
11.5 1 Prevention 87
11.5.2 Protection and Improvement 87
11.6 Implementation of Terrestrial HabItat 87
(a) Prevention - ImmedIate ActIOn 87
(b) Protection and Improvement - ImmedIate ActIon 88
(c) Protection and Improvement - Future Actions 89
wR.l+lfq - iv -
PAGE
12.0 Aesthetics 91
12.1 Comment 91
12.2 SpecIfic Vision Statement 91
12.3 Technical Standards 91
12.4 Recommended PolIcIes 92
12.4 1 ProtectIOn and Improvement 92
12.5 Operational Cntena 92
12.6 ImplementatIon of AesthetIcs 93
130 The Rouge RIver Basin Management Strategy' A Long Step 95
Forward - But Not The Final Step?
140 Glossary 98
150 References 101
- v - 1A>R. ~5o
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
1 Ecological Course of ActIon 17
2. Stable Defined Valley - Development Lunit 54
3 Unstable, Defined Valley - Development LImIt 55
4 Ill-Defined Valley - Development Limit 56
5 Fish Target SpeCIes Report - Rear Cover
6 RelatIOnshIp of Setback Constramts 72
7 Important Flora/Fauna Areas Report - Rear Cover
WR.1-I-51 - vi -
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
1 Characteristics of a Healthy Ecosystem IndIcator - Eg. Aquatlc (Fish) 18
2. Watercourse Impact Zones 21
3 Public Health Summary 36
4 Summary of Runoff Control ReqUIrements 41
5 Public Safety - Flood Control - Summary 50
6 Public Safety - EroSIOn Control - Summary 62
7 Habitat SuitabIlity - Index Standards 67
8 FIshenes - Summary 78
9 Riparian HabItat - Summary 84
10 Terrestrial Habitat - Summary 90
11 Aesthetics - Summary 94
.
LuR.lfs ~
- Vll -
LIST OF APPENDICES
PAGE
1 Stakeholders' Comrmttee Al
2. Technical Committee A3
3 Rouge RIver Urban Drainage Study ConclUSIOns A4
4 Fish ConsumptIOn GUIdelines A46
5 Drinking water ObjectIves A47
6 Provincial Water Quality ObjectIves A49
7 HabItat SUItability Index A51
- Smallmouth Bass AS1
- Rainbow Trout A81
- Brook Trout A122
.
- 1 - U'JR. ,+S3
A COMPREHENSIVE BASIN MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
FOR THE ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED
THE ROUGE RIVER VISION
0 Recognize that the Rouge River watershed is a component of the larger Great
Lakes ecosystem and that watershed management must also benefit the Great
Lakes.
0 Ensure that one can take pride In the mere eXIstence of the Rouge River
watershed -- Its system of mterconnected waterways and valleys, Its source and Its
lacustnne marsh, woodlands and wetlands, a healthy ecosystem WIthm the most
heaVily populated metropolitan area m Canada.
0 Integrate the mutual benefits of sustamable economIC growth and development,
and ecological health and qualIty, withm the Rouge RIver watershed.
0 Mamtam.and enhance the qualIty of life opportunities provided through publiC
ownership and collective management of the watershed ecosystem.
0 Swim in the Rouge River without becoming Infected by disease or SOl led by waste
films on the water surface.
0 Eat fish from resident Rouge River populations knowing they are uncontaminated by
dangerous chemicals.
0 Drink from groundwater supplies wit/un the watershed that are free of hannful
viruses, protozoa and poison.
0 Eliminate or minimize the threat of llfe and property from flooding and erOSlOn
within the Rouge River watershed.
tvR. ll-51f - 2 -
0 EnJoy the beauty of natural aquatic habitats and nverbeds that are uncontaminated
by abnonnal algal growth and unsoiled by Industrial and domestic wastes.
0 Angle in the Rouge River WIth some expectatlOns of encountenng various preferred
speCles of fish.
0 Enjoy with pleasure a healthy riverine/valley environment, watching blrds, mammals
and fish in their natural enVlronment.
.
0 Enjoy terrestnal habItats that support sustaining populations of wlldlife and
waterfowl.
0 Delight in the enjoyment of clear stream waters (In the seasons when waters should
nonnally be clear) that have no unpleasant odour, abnonnal algal growth, or
industrial and domestic wastes.
.
- 3 - LOR. ij.S-~
10 PREFACE
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA, the AuthOrIty)
is a provinCIal-municipal partnership established in 1957 under the Conservation
Authoritles Act to manage the renewable natural resources of the nine watersheds of
the Metropolitan Toronto and surroundmg area.
The Authonty carnes out watershed management programs to
0 maintain and Improve the quality of the regIOn's lands and waters,
0 contribute to public safety from flooding and erosion,
0 provide for the acqUIsition of conservatIOn and hazard lands,
0 enhance the qualIty and vanety of lIfe m the community by usmg Its lands for mter-
regional outdoor recreation, hentage preservatIOn and conservatIOn educatIOn.
In September, 1988, the Authority published Greenspace For the Greater Metro Region,
outlInmg the strategies It intends to follow to carry out these aims. One of these IS A
Strategy for Watershed Management, which mcludes the followmg pertment obJectlves
1 To develop long term management plans for each of the nine watersheds withm the
Authority's jurisdIction that:
0 recognize the headwaters, rivers and Lake Ontario as distmct but mseparable
planning units in ecosystem planmng;
0 resolve existmg econOmIC and politIcal constraints to existmg watershed
management through cooperatIve planmng by all agenCIes,
LUR. ~ 5" - 4 -
0 balance ecological health and quality with economIC growth and development,
and
0 manage our investments of yesterday and plan for our mvestments and needs of
tomorrow
2. To develop and implement an intenm plan of actIon that Will respond to today's
water and related land management problems.
3 To monitor, assess, and update on an ongomg basis, the effectiveness of the
watershed plannmg, management, and implementatIOn efforts ImtIated under the
watershed strategy
A Comprehensive Basin Management Strategy for the Rouge RIver Watershed (CBMS,
the Management Strategy) is the first applicatIon of the MTRCA's watershed
management strategy to a partIcular watershed, that of the Rouge River in the east
central part of the Metro Region. In fact, the ComprehensIve Basin Management
Strategy was developed concurrently WIth the watershed management strategy This
report summarizes the conclusions of the Rouge River Urban Dramage Study, and sets
out the Management Strategy itself in the form of polIcies, techmcal standards,
operational critena and implementation actions that provinCIal agencies, mumcIpalItIes,
and all bodies with special interests in the plannmg of the watershed are able to endorse
and Implement.
Participation from those municipalities, provinCial ministries, public agencies and non-
governmental organizations having an mterest m the watershed was essential m
preparing the CBMS These agencies and groups are listed below; a more detailed list
of the Stakeholders' Committee IS found within Appendix 1.
- Ministry of Environment
- Ministry of Natural Resources
- Ministry of Agriculture and Food
- 5 - wR'lI-57
- Mirustry of Government Services
- City of Scarborough
- Town of RIchmond Hill
- Town of Markham
- Town of PIckenng
- Town of WhItchurch-StouffvIlle
- Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto
- Regional Mumcipality of York
- Urban Development InstItute
- ConservatIOn Council of Ontano
- Save the Rouge Valley System
- Toronto Field Naturalists
- Sierra Club of Ontario
This group reviewed the Terms of Reference and commented on the Phase I and II
reports of the Rouge RIver Urban Dramage Study
The Authority was also assisted by a group of experts m hydrology, fishenes, land use
planning, erosion processes, and urban dramage planning and design (AppendIX 2)
- 6 - IA)R. &.f.58
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 The Watershed
The Rouge River watershed includes the north-eastern sector of Metropolitan Toronto
(City of Scarborough), most of the south-eastern quadrant of the RegIOnal Municipality
of York (towns of Markham, Whitchurch-StouffvIlle and Richmond Hill), and a small
portIOn in the west of the Regional MurucIpalIty of Durham (Town of PIckenng),
compnsing altogether 320 square kilometres. The pnncIpal streams, apart from the
Rouge River itself, are Berczy, Bruce and Little Rouge Creeks. All rise in the Oak
Ridges Moraine and join to form the boundary between Metropolitan Toronto and
Durham before flowmg mto Lake Ontario
The watershed consists of four phYSIOgraphic zones
0 HEADWATERS high gradient first and second order streams onginatmg
on the Oak Ridges Moraine. Existing land uses are predOmInantly agnculture,
conservation lands and estate reSIdentIal.
0 MID REACHES low gradient second and third order streams flowmg
across a relatively flat clay plain. EXIstmg land uses are predominantly
agriculture and rapidly expandmg urbamzatIOn.
0 LOWER REACHES moderate gradIent fourth and fifth order streams
flowing through deeply incised forested valleys. Existing land uses are
predominantly conservation lands and urban development.
0 DELTA MARSH. low gradient fifth order stream flOWing through extenSIve
cattail marsh outletting on the shore of Lake Ontano Existing land uses are
predominantly conservatIon lands and urban development.
wR.IfS~ - 7 -
HIstoncally, development of the watershed has brought about major changes In the land
use characteristIcs of the basin and the physical and hydraulIc characterIstICS of the
watercourse, as a result of forest harvesting, agriculture, urban development, and flood
control. Land uses tended to be supenmposed upon each other, In the same fashIOn as
urban development is now superimposed on agricultural lands. Human Impacts tend to
be greatest adjacent to the lake and least in the headwaters, such that some headwater
streams still remain relatively undisturbed by human settlement.
The pressures of urban and population growth on the Rouge watershed have not yet
been as intense as on other watersheds, for example, the Don River Nonetheless, with
the contmuIng rapid growth of the regIOn's populatIon, growth pressures Within the
watershed will continue to intenSIfy The planmng studIes of the Rouge RIver Urban
Drainage Study have establIshed and evaluated existing land use and commItted land use
WIthin the watershed and provided future land use scenanos. These planmng studIes
estImated urbanizatIon would amount to approXImately 34% and 41 %, respectIvely, for
medium and high growth scenarios and are lImIted to a planmng honzon of 30 years.
The recommendations of this strategy are based on a number of assumptions made In
the planning studies for the Rouge River Urban Drainage Study whIch must remain
valid, otherwise the strategy, may require rethinking. Key assumptions included.
0 York Region growth is dependent on the capaClty of the York-Durham sewer system.
0 The high growth scenario in York Region assumed additional servlce allocations.
0 Regional transportation network will be improved by Highway 407 and the East Metro
Transportation Corridor
0 Development of Federal Government land in Markham, would not occur until after
2010 - 2020 time period.
- 8 - wR. I+~O
2.2 The Context of the Rouge Management Strategy
Watershed management strategies call for watershed management plans to "recogmze
the headwaters, rivers and Lake Ontano as dIstmct but inseparable planning units m
ecosystem planning" In other words, while the Rouge watershed IS a part of a larger
ecosystem, it is also an ecosystem itself, in which the natural elements - water, land,
wildlife, fish, vegetation - constantly interact not only with each other, but also WIth
human activities and the man-made enVironment. No single aspect of the watershed can
be considered in isolation, each affects and IS affected by the others in a contmuIng,
complex, dynamic process. Recogrution of this fact IS the essential basis of a watershed
management strategy
The M.T.R.C.A.'s 'A Strategy for Watershed Management' recognizes a watershed as an
ecosystem and is also the key to achieVing the objective of "balanc(mg) ecologIcal health
and quality With economIC growth and development" TIns ObjectIve is VIrtually
synonymous with "(enVironmentally) sustainable (economIC) development", the central
theme of two recent landmark reports. Our Common Future, the report of the
(Brundtland) World Commission on EnVIronment and Development, and the report of
Canada's National Task Force on Environment and Economy
Both of these studies, the one global and the other natIOnal, reached the same
conclusion. that the successful marriage of economic growth With environmental health IS
the indispensable condition of the future welfare and even the survival of human SOCIety
With the state of "the environment" a subject of rapidly growmg publIc concern m
Canada and world-wide, the sustainable development Idea has attracted WIdespread and
enthusiastic support. The report of the National Task Force has been endorsed by
Canada's First Ministers, and in accordance with Its recommendations both the OntarIo
and federal governments have recently established EnVironment-Economy Round Tables
to promote the translation of the concept of sustainable development into reality
A Comprehensive Basin Management Strategy for the Rouge River Watershed, as one
of the first major products of the AuthorIty's watershed management strategy, IS
LUR. J+t>' - 9 -
therefore extraordinarily tImely In converting the general concept of sustainable
development into a comprehensIve set of specific, workable, Integrated policies and
programs, it can be a practIcal demonstratIOn of the path which must be followed by
Ontario, Canada and the world.
.
- 10 - fAR. ~L:J
30 THE ROUGE RIVER URBAN DRAINAGE STUDY
3 1 Background
DUrIng the 1970's development pressures in the Rouge watershed Increased rapIdly,
reflected in changes in both murucIpal planning polICIes and land use. ThIS created a
need for new watershed management programs and techniques. During the same
period, Important technological advances were made in the field of urban drainage and
stormwater management, tending to outstnp progress in policy development,
administratIon and Implementation.
The responsibilitIes of MTRCA and partICIpating agenCIes WIth respect to urban
drainage planning began to raise a number of questIOns regarding the success and cost-
effectIveness of the techniques then being employed for flood control, eroSIOn control,
and addressing urban drainage impacts. QuestIOns also arose with regard to the
Implementation of environmental safeguards and water qualIty ObjectIves. Furthermore,
It became clear that there was a need to clanfy the roles of the vanous agencies WIth
water management related responsibilities.
Other factors cOmIng into play during the 1980's included
0 growing publIc concern over the impacts of urbanizatIon on the streams and valley;
0 the Ontario Ministry of the Environment's project (Toronto Area Watershed
Management Strategy Study - T A WMS) to develop a pollutIOn control strategy for
urbanized portions of the MimIco, Humber and Don watersheds (west of the Rouge
watershed), involving recognition of the need for a comprehensive watershed based
approach to pollution control,
0 concern over water quality in Metro, expressed In the formation of the Metro
Toronto Water Pollution Committee,
wR. *b3 - 11 -
0 new technical studies and officIal gUIdelines for urban drainage design and
stormwater management, and
0 new provincial funding for urban drainage projects.
This combination of factors led to two Important actIOns by the MTRCA. adoptIOn of an
overall Strategy for Watershed Management, and, in 1986, ImtiatIon of the Rouge RIver
Urban Drainage Study (RRUDS, the Study)
3.2 The Study
The broad aim of the RRUDS was to provide a common forum and information shanng
network for the various agencies involved In the management of the watershed, to
provide a common baSIS for decisIOn making In the form of a comprehensive data base,
reliable state-of-the-art predictive models, and effective mitigatlve management
techniques, and to lay the foundation for coordinated planning, ImplementatIOn and
monitoring in the future.
The specific objectives of the Rouge River Urban Drainage Study were to evaluate
existing watershed management practlces relating to urban dramage, and to develop and
evaluate new practices where warranted, including examination of implementatlon, cost,
and legal considerations. Public participation was a required feature of the Study
The study used state of the art modelling and assessment techniques and employed
experts from the fields of hydrology, erosion processes, water quality and aquatIC ecolog:
to complete a series of technical studIes describing eXIsting basin characteristICS,
predicting future changes and examIning the effectlveness of current and innovative
stormwater practIces. The Phase I technical studIes have been completed by Marshall
Macklin, Monaghan Ltd., Beak Consultants Ltd. and Walker, Wright, Young and
Associates Ltd. and consisted of seven (7) volumes
- 12 - ~R. '+bij..
0 Volume 1 ExecutIve Summary
0 Volume 2 Subwatershed HydrologIC Modelling
0 Volume 3 Subwatershed Water Quality Modelling
0 Volume 4 Subwatershed Runoff Control Study
0 Volume 5 Subwatershed Erosion Control Study
0 Volume 6 Watershed Water QualIty Assessment
0 Volume 7 Watershed Environmental Studies
Phase II techrucal studies were completed by Marshall, Macklin, Monaghan Ltd. and
Beak Consultants Ltd. and consisted of five (5) volumes ,
0 Volume 1 Completion of Subwatershed Studies (channelIzation and erosion
control studies)
0 Volume 2. Watershed Wide StudIes (hydrology, runoff control,
channelizatIOn and erOSIOn control studies)
0 Volume 3 Flood Control Study - Upper Rouge Study
0 Volume 4 Water Quality Study - Phase II
0 Volume 5 Environmental Studies Phase II
At the completion of the Phase II technical reports, the MTRCA assembled a Techmcal
Committee comprised of recognized experts in a number of fields. In addition, the
Stakeholders Committee comprising those murucIpalities, provincial agencies and publIc
groups with a mandate and/or an interest in the Rouge Watershed was utilized. Both of
these groups assisted the MTRCA In.
0 reviewing and qualIfying the conclusions of the Rouge River Urban Drainage Study,
0 producmg a Vision which described in human terms the essential natural features of
the Rouge Watershed,
/AR. J+/P'S" - 13 -
0 establishing a number of goals regarding the future use of the Rouge watershed,
and
0 developing a comprehensive watershed management strategy outlIning immedIate
actIons and future reqUIrements.
The qualIfied conclUSIOns of the Rouge River Urban Drainage Study have been
summarized in Appendix 3 These qualified conclUSIOns form the basis on which the
Vision and recommended watershed poliCIes were developed.
3.3 Comment
The Rouge River Urban Drainage Study had three Innovatlve features of partIcular
sigmficance.
First, while imtiated by the City of Scarborough and Save the Rouge Valley System, and
spearheaded by the MTRCA, it was to a large extent a "JOint venture" WIth the actIve
participation of all the principal public agencies With responsibilIties relating to Rouge
River watershed management.
The second feature was public participation In the Study through membership of publIc
Interest groups in the Stakeholders' Comrmttee which monitored It and reviewed Its
findings.
The third and perhaps most important feature was that the Study embraced the entIre
watershed as a single physical and ecologIcal unit, a significant departure from the
technically and geographically limited approach preVIOusly employed.
- 14 - wR. '+~ b
40 THE ROUGE RIVER VISION
41 The Vision
Out of the process of collaboratIOn, dIscussions and debate among the vanous
partlcipants in the Rouge RIver Urban Drainage Study emerged a "ViSIOn" of the Rouge
watershed. The ViSIon conSIsts of a set of statements defining shared goals for
watershed planrung and management, goals which are appropriately ambItious but not
unrealistic. Collectively, their purpose IS to restore and protect the chemical, phYSIcal
and biological integrity of the Rouge River watershed as a natural resource which
provides the setting and foundatIOn for mtegrated SOCIal and econOmIC development.
There are four general vision statements.
0 Recognize that the Rouge River watershed IS a component of the larger Great
Lakes ecosystem and that watershed management must also benefit the Great
Lakes.
0 Ensure that one can take pride in the mere eXistence of the Rouge River - Its
system of interconnected waterways and valleys, its source and its lacustnne marsh,
a healthy watershed within the most heavily populated metropolitan area in Canada
0 Integrate the mutual benefits of sustained economic growth and development, and
ecological health and quality, within the Rouge River watershed.
0 Maintain and enhance the qualIty of life opporturutIes proVIded through publIc
ownership and collective management of the valley system.
I>
LUR. '+'7 - 15 -
50 THE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
5 1 Purpose and Alms
The general ViSIOn statements whIch emerged from the Urban Drainage Study became
the basis of a ComprehensIve Basin Management Strategy for the Rouge RIver
watershed, which also was In accordance With the AuthOrIty's 'A Strategy for Watershed
Management'
0 recognizes the watershed (headwaters, rivers) and Lake Ontano as distinct but
inseparable plannmg uruts through ecosystem planmng;
0 attempts to resolve existing econOmIC and polItIcal constraints through cooperatIve
planning by stakeholders,
0 balances the benefits of ecological health and quality, and economIC growth and
development,
0 manages the watershed community's Investments of yesterday and plans for the
investments and needs of tomorrow
In addition to these aims, the follOWIng CrIteria were established by the Authonty for the
management plan.
0 it must establish ambitious yet realIstIC goals based on ecosystem planning;
0 it must be autonomous in that any land uses or land practices must be judged
against the overnding goal of protection of the plan,
0 it must describe to all stakeholders their role and functIOn in the plan and the
importance of Implementing the plan as a team,
- 16 - wR.. &+~~
0 it must be a lIVing plan that determines and imtIates Implementable measures
immedIately "but also proVides flexibIlIty for more InnovatIve measures In the future,
0 it must be a liVing plan that can be continually reviewed and revised to ensure that
the Vision will be achieved, and
0 it must chart a new course for the Rouge watershed away from degradatIOn,
towards conservatlon, enhancement, rehabIlItatIOn and restoratIOn. ThIS dIrectIOn of
actions (conservation, enhancement,...) will bnng the watershed back to a healthy
state and away from eXIsting conditions, and stIll proVide opportumties for
sustainable economic growth and development (Figure 1)
A further working objective was to prepare the management strategy In such a way that
as far as possible its structure and proVISIOns could readily be adapted to other
watersheds.
5.2 Comment
The Rouge River Watershed Management Strategy takes the form of a set of speCIfic
Vision statements, technical standards, a set of recommended poliCIes, a set of
operatIonal criteria and a set of Implementation actIons under the headings, in order of
priority, of public health, public safety, fishenes, nparian habitat, terrestrial habItat, and
aesthetics.
Sections on Fisheries, Riparian Habitats and Terresfnal Habitats do not represent
management plans to increase the recreational potential of these natural resources in the
watershed, although recreational benefits may accme as a result of implementation of the
policies in these sections. Rather, the policies, guidelines and operational criteria in these
sections focus on establishing the healthy natural features of the Rouge ecosystem by
identifying target communities and indicator species whose presence as self sustaining
populations will provide a barometer of ecosystem health. In order for a species to be an
indicator species it must have the characteristics outlined In Table 1
LOR. Ilk, - 17 - ROUGE RIVER BASIN
MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
* Initial, wild state ECOLOGICAL COURSE OF ACTION
JANUARY 1890 I FIG 1
-
Preservation barrier
- -
Rehabilitation
Restorat ion Enhancement
Recent trends
Palliation
Degradation
* Francis, G.R. et el, 1979
- 18 - ~.lI-70
. TABLE 1
CHARACTERISTICS OF A HEALTHY ECOSYSTEM
INDICATOR - EG AQUATIC (FISH)
a Resident through its life cycle or for an important component of its life cycle in the
ecosystem.
a Its habitat reqUlrements should be reasonably well suited to the actual conditions
which exist in the river reach being consldered.
a Sufficient qualitative and quantitatlve mfonnatlOn should be available on its habitat
requirements to detennine suitability levels for key habItat critena.
a The species should represent a higher trophlc level (ie. predator) since these species'
habitat needs tend to integrate a broader range of habItat parameters.
a Its habitat requirements should be consldered generally representative of the needs
of assoclated species in the resident fish communIty (species guild). If It is one of
the more sensitive species, protecting us needs should ensure that the needs of
associated species are also met.
a It should be a species recognized as havmg some value (to humans) thus priority in
resource management decisions.
INR. 14 '7' - 19 -
The development of watershed wide management plans. in addressing the recreational
potential of these resources is recommended as implementation actions. These would be
guided by the Comprehensive Basin Management Strategy as well as resource management
planning documents such as the Maple District Fisheries Management Plan (MNR 1988)
The recommended policIes, operational critena and implementatIOn actIOns of the
Comprehensive BaSin Management Strategy have been further categonzed Into two
sections
1 Prevention, and
2. Protection and Improvement.
Items under the preventIon category would be those policies, operatIOnal cntena and
implementation actions that are administered through the official plan development
process, the urban drainage planning process and plan input and review process. Items
for the protection and improvement category would be developed to protect and/or
improve the existing resources and are admmistered through capital works, education
programs and/or resource management programs.
The technical standards are the measurables which must be met to fulfil the ViSIOn.
These standards are based on eXIstmg federal/proVincial objectives or gUIdelInes, or
Authority objectives. Where standards are not in existence, this document (through
discussions with appropriate agencies or leadmg experts) has suggested appropriate
standards.
The recommended watershed policies define the course of actions selected to guide and
determine present and future decisions for the management of the Rouge River
Watershed.
- 20 - (v~. lI-?~
To set In motion the policIes of the strategy, operatIonal cnterIa have been provIded to
dIrect the required actions for the management strategy
The Implementation section is divided into ImmedIate and future actIons reqUIred for
the Rouge River BaSin Management Strategy to be successfully carned out. The
management actions are further categorized according to lead agency that the strategy IS
recommending would be responsible for implementatIOn. PartIcipating and supportIng
agenCIes and a tIme frame to Initiate the actions are also indIcated. These agencies'
Involvement will Include input to the actIOn and may include funding, techmcal adVIce
and/ or in-field implementatIon.
A number of policies, operational cntena and implementation actions WIthin the maIn
headings of PublIc Safety and Fisheries have been developed according to a stream level
claSSIfication system. ThIS classification system was deSIgned corresponding to
hydrologIC Impacts (water level changes affecting flooding and eroSIon) as determined In
the Rouge River Urban Drainage Study, and stream order whIch reflects fish community
dIstribution. The classification system IS described In Table 2. A further dIviSIOn of the
stream level classification was necessary for the proposed fishenes as described In Table
2. Figures A-I and 5, respectively, indIcate the hydrologIC classificatIOn system and the
fisheries classification system with regard to the actual watercourses and tributanes of
the watershed.
It is MTRCA's objective in floodplain management, as part of its flood control program, to
map all watercourses greater than 130 ha and designate them as hazard lands in mumcipal
Official Plans. Land uses are restricted on these lands because of the assoclated risk to ltfe
and property from flooding, and they are nonnally deslgnated for acqulSltlOn by the
Authonty. As a result, the classification of watercourses as less than or greater than 130 /za
has been in common usage in the MTRCA's junsdictlOn.
However, flooding and erosion concerns In watercourses less than 130 ha are still addressed
through the MTRCA's Stonnwater Management Program. Flooding In these small drainage
LNR.*7~ - 21 -
TABLE 2
WATERCOURSE IMPACT ZONES
STREAM LEVEL FLOOD/EROSION CONTROL FISHERIES
(Impact Zones)
Level 1 (L-l) -mtermIttent flows -Level 1
(mIcro system) -generally pIpes, swales -supports downstream
and dItches fishenes habitat
-water qualIty
-temperature
-turbIdIty
-dIssolved oxygen
Level 2 (L-2) -defined low-flow -Level 2A Brook
(tributary channel Trout (Moraine and
system) -continuous flow Morame Influenced
Watercourses)
-Level 2B Bass
Level 3 (L-3) -principle watercourse -Level 3A Bass
(nver system) -Level 3B Rambow Trout
Level 4 (L-4) -river mouth Influenced -Level 4
by Lake OntarIo -Bass, PIke
(LacustrIne Marsh)
- 22 - Ld<. '+-71.)-
areas has generally been regarded as being a municlpal drainage responsiblluy Key cntena
of the program include.
. requirements for the preparatlOn of master drainage plans, stonnwater management
plans and erosion and sediment control plans,
. the major-minor drainage system philosophy,
. zero increase in runoff;
. user pay management approach to control runoff lmpacts at source and avold the
need for downstream remedial works.
The preparatIOn of master drainage plans and stonnwater management plans provldes the
opportunity to achieve floodplain management objectlves on these small drainage areas
although they are not designated as flood hazard lands in Officlal Plans.
The major-minor drainage system has been commonly used to treat flooding and eroslOn
concerns in small drainage areas. The minor or convenience system accommodates the
runoff from the more frequent stonns up to the design frequency of the system (usually the 2
to 5 year stonn) The major system comprises the natural streams and valleys and the man-
made streets, swales, channels and ponds and is designed to accommodate flood flows from
less frequent events to eliminate or reduce the risk of loss of llfe and property damage due to
flooding.
While the Authority argues for the maintenance of natural floodplmns and watercourses or
the use of natural channel design if watercourses are altered to faCilitate passage of flows,
an alternative is to "enclose" the watercourse in a pipe as part of the minor system and
convey the major system through streets, easements, etc.
In recent years concerns have been raised regarding the "enclosure" of these small
watercourses because of their potential value in providing terrestnal and aquatic habitats,
.
wR. ij.75 - 23 -
and aesthetic benefits. In response to these concerns, the CBMS recognizes these
watercourses as a special subset of Level 1 and 2 watercourses, and has developed specific
pollcies, guidelines, operation criteria and implementation actions under the headings of
Public Safety, Fisheries and Riparian Habitats.
The following sections outlIne the Vision, technical standards, recommended policies,
operatIonal criteria and Implementation actIOns under each of the main headings.
After each main headmg, a summary table is proVided indIcatmg the ViSIOn, pnncIpal
policies, implementation actions and time frame
I
oo~. Lf 7'
PUBLIC HEALTH
- 24 - wR. 4-'77
60 PUBLIC HEALTH
6.1 Comment
The Public Health section is pnmarily concerned with protecting the health of residents
and visitors when usmg the natural resources of the Rouge RIver Watershed. The
Management Strategy conSIders the end uses of the natural resources as
- swimming in the Rouge River;
- eating reSIdent fish, and
- drinkmg groundwater
The present mOnItoring data of the Rouge RIver Study mdIcates the river system.
- IS non-turbid, except in the mIddle reaches and after ramfall,
- IS eutrophic;
- has adequate oxygen resources,
- has moderate levels of bacterial counts, and
- is probably non-toxic (based upon levels of metals)
The focus of this section is on water quantity and quality, and the protection of the
aquatic biota.
Primarily, the protection of public health is achIeved through the control of
sedimentation reaching watercourses. Sediment has many harmful effects including:
- increasing turbidity;
- increasing toxic substances,
- changing the substrate of the stream, and
- introducmg nutrients such as phosphates and rutrates, and bactena.
L,VR. ..,.7'1 - 25 -
6.2 Specific VisIon Statement
0 SWIm m the Rouge River without becoming Infected by dIsease or SOIled by waste
films on the water surface.
0 Eat fish from resident Rouge River populatIons knowing they are uncontammated
by dangerous chemicals.
0 Drink from groundwater supplies WIthm the watershed that are free of harmful
viruses, protozoa and poison.
6.3 Techmcal Standards
(a) Swimming
~ - 100 F C./100 mls
- TurbIdIty <50 NTU
- gUIdeline to be assessed withm the watercourse
Frequent Rain Event
- up to and including the 3 month ram event
- 100 F C./I00 mls E.M.C. (Event Mean Concentration)
- guidelme to be assessed at urban/rural dramage outlets to the
watercourse or point discharges and any SWimming areas
Infrequent Rain Event
- meet standard of 100 F C./100 mls 48 hours after rain event
- guideline to be assessed at urban/rural dramage outlets to the
watercourse or point discharges and any swimming areas.
- 26 -
wR.Ii'7~
(b) Fishmg
Fish tissue to meet consumption guidelmes (Appendix 4)
(c) Drinking Water
OualIty - Follow dnnking water guidelines (Appendix 5)
Ouantity - GUIdelines need to be developed
6.4 Recommended PolICIes for Public Health
641 Preventlon
(a) SWImming
(i) The MmIstry of the EnVIronment's Provmcial Water QualIty objectIves
(PWQO) for Swimming and Bathmg Use of Water
(Appendix 6) should be met throughout the rIver system dUrIng perIods
of no runoff (dry weather)
(Ii) The Ministry of the EnVIronment's PWQO Standards shall be met at
sWImmmg areas during frequent summer precipitatlon events (up to
and including the 3 month deSign storm)
(IiI) The Ministry of the EnVIronment's PWQO standards shall be met at
swimming areas within 48 hoursl followmg infrequent summer
precipitation.
(b) Drinkmi Water
(I) The Ministry of the EnVIronment s DrInking Water ObjectIves shall be
met for existing municIpal and pnvate dnnking uses for groundwater
(Appendix 5) .
1 48 hours is considered a reasonable period to allow passage
.
of contaminated flows and settling of sediments.
wR.~f&O - 27 -
(11) The existmg groundwater drinking supplies for mumcipal and
private uses shall be mamtamed wherever possIble, given that other
uses such as for stream baseflow should not be compromIsed
(c) Toxms
(I) The levels of metals, pestICIdes, and other organic chemIcals In tIssues
of reSIdent Rouge RIver fish shall not result m human consumptIOn
restnctIOns or cause mcreased exposure to transmIttable disease,
paraSItes and/or viruses (Appendix 4)
(d) Chemical SpIlls
(i) The occurrence and dIscharge to dramage systems of all spIlls shall be
mIrumIzed.
64.2 Protection and Improvement
The following recommended policies are identlcal as stated for the preventIon
component of the Public Health section. They are repeated m the protection and
improvement component, as implementation of remedIal and/or resource management
programs, can also meet these same policies.
(a) Swimming
(i) The Ministry of the Environment's ProvinCial Water qualIty ObjectIves
(PWQO) for Swimming and Bathing Use of Water
(Appendix 6) should be met throughout the river system during perIods
of no runoff (dry weather)
(11) The Ministry of the EnVIronment's PWQO Standards shall be met at
swimming areas during frequent summer precipitatIOn events (up to
and mcluding the 3 month design storm)
- 28 - ~R. Lf- t I
( Iii ) The MImstry of the EnVironment's PWQO Standards shall be met at
swimmmg areas WIthm 48 hours followmg Infrequent summer
precIpItatlOn.
(b) ChemIcal SpIlls
(I) The occurrence and dIscharge to dramage systems of all spIlls shall be
mIrumIzed.
6.5 Operatlonal Cntena for PublIc Health
6.5 1 Prevention
(a) The preparatIOn of an erosion-sedIment control plan shall mclude mechanisms
deSIgned to ensure on site sedIment control during active construction. Such
mechanisms could mclude but not necessarIly be limIted to the follOWing:
o temporary vegetatIOn of stock-piled earth and exposed construction sites,
o retention of vegetation buffer stnps,
o diversion dItches for runoff;
o sediment traps, basins and ponds,
o temporary dIscharge contounng; and
o infiltration trenches and galleys.
NOTE. Operational critena are reqUIred for retentIOn and spIll
control ponds, natural channels, groundwater quantIty and quality and resource
gUIdelines for master drainage plans. Resource gUIdelInes would deal with
wR. ~i~ - 29 -
- fisheries,
- ripanan habitat,
- terrestnal habItat, and
- aesthetIcs.
Certam related implementation actlons (SectIOn 6 6) WIll aSSIst m the
preparatIOn of these operatIonal cntena. The need for resource gUIdelInes for
master dramage plans is discussed m the Public Safety sectIon (SectIOn 76)
6.5.2 Protection and Improvement
(a) The preparation of a municipal spill action program should follow the
procedures and responsibilitles as outlined by the MImstry of EnVIronment's
Province of Ontano Contingency Plan for SpIlls of 011 and Other Hazardous
Matenals.
(b) Municipal mamtenance and/or enforcement programs should be followed
(c) The preparation of farm remedial plans should mclude mechamsms designed to
elimInate and/or minimize bactena sources to watercourses. Such mechanIsm"
could include but not necessarily be lImIted to the followmg.
o fence pastures to control all livestock from direct access to watercourses and
drainage ditches,
o use alternate watering sources such as
- well water
- indirect stream watenng;
o all milkhouse washwater be treated or dIscharged to manure storage system
- 30 - IAR. ,+9''3
o divert ramfall and snowmelt from barnyards and manure storage by'
e eavestroughmg structures
- utIlIzmg ditches, berms and drams
- constructing retaIning wall around barnyard and manure
storage and direct to storage tank,
o mcorporate manure WIthm 24 hours after spreadmg and avoId spreadmg
Within 10 metres of watercourses,
o ensure all farmhouses have properly operatmg sewage systems, and
o ensure adequate storage and containment for manure storage facllities.
66 ImplementatIOn of Public Health PoliCIes
.
(a) Prevention - Immediate ActIOn
(i) Lead A2ency: The MetropolItan Toronto and RegIon ConservatIon
Authonty /Local MurucIpalItIes
Participatin2 and SuPportin2 A~encies: RegIonal MuniCIpalitIes
MOE
MNR
Time Frame: IrutIate withm 1 year and thereafter, ongoing
Expand MTRCA and mumcIpal enforcement programs to ensure that
erosion and sediment control plans are properly designed, implemented,
maintained and removed.
.
wfl. JI.~1f - 31 -
(ll) Lead A2ency: The MetropolItan Toronto and RegIon ConservatIOn
Authonty
Participatin2 and SuPportin2 A2encies: MOE
MNR
Local MUniCIpalitIes,
Urban Development InstItute
Non-governmental OrganizatIOns
Time Frame: InitIate WIthm 1 year and ongomg for 2 to 3 years
EstablIsh a pilot project to investIgate design cntena, gUIdelines and
effectIveness of water quality ponds and other control measures such as
infiltratIOn trenches and galleries and soak-away pitS. ThIS project would
be a joint venture of a number of agenCIes and relevant non-governmental
organiZatIons.
The project results will assist in the deSIgn of control measures effectIve In
improving water quality
(ill) Lead A2ency: Local/Regional MunicipalIties
Time Frame: Continue in 1990 and thereafter, ongoing
Ensure all new industrial/commercial developments are designed WIth
retention ponds (equipped With skimmers/separator) to function as the
final control measures for spills.
(b) Prevention - Future Actions
(i) Lead A2ency: Ministry of the Environment
- 32 - wR. .,.a~
Partici{>atin2 and Supportinl: A2encies MTRCA, MNR, MOH
Time Frame: Irutiate m 1990 for 2 to 3 years
Undertake additIOnal studies to aSsIst the development of polICIes and
operatlonal cntena to be Implemented m the plan mput and reVIew
process and to address deficienCIes m the present modellmg and a
monitoring data base. These studIes mclude
(a) groundwater qualIty and quantIty m the watershed,
(b) monitoring data defiCIencies.
o assessment of synthetic orgamc chemIcals (SOC's) m the Rouge
RIver system,
o measurement of sedIment contaminant concentratIons,
o measurement of fish contammant levels,
o leachate qualIty from waste management SItes, and
o toxicity morutonng.
(c) Protection and Improvement - ImmedIate ActIOns
(I) Lead A2encies: Ministnes of the EnVIronment and
Agnculture and Food
Participatin2 and SuPportin2 A2encies: MTRCA
Local MurucIpalItIes
IUR. '1-9(, - 33 -
Time Frame: ImtIate withm 1 year
Extend eXIstmg proVinCIal programs under a cooperatIve "Rouge RIver
Farm Remedial Program" to elImmate and/or control bactena sources
from manure storage, livestock access to watercourses or other agncultural
practIces. These programs include
- Rural Beaches Farm Remedial Plans (Clean Up Rural Beaches -
CURB),
- Ontano Soil ConservatIOn and EnVIronmental Protection Program II
(OSCEPAP),
- land stewardshIp program.
This recommended RemedIal Program should concentrate Its efforts on
watercourse fencing (access control), stream plantmgs, farm remedial plans
and Improved manure storage
(ii) Lead Aeency: Local/Regional MUnICIpalIties
Time Frame: Continue in 1990 and thereafter, ongomg
Maintain and/or mcrease eXIstIng mUnICIpal maintenance/enforcement
programs to eliminate and/or control bacterIa sources. These programs
would include
- By-Law Enforcement
- existing plumbmg testIng anJ In'pectlOn programs
- eXIstmg sewer use by-Ia\\ enforcement
- pet lItter control
- street sweeping
- catch basin cleamng
- 34 - w~. 'f ~
(lll) Lead Al:ency: Local/Regional MumcIpalItIes
Participatinl: and Supportinl: Al:encv: MOE
Time Frame: Contmue m 1990 and thereafter, ongomg
Mamtam and/or extend murucIpal spIll action control programs.
Extension of programs could mclude
(a) Simultaneous arrival tlme of muniCIpal works department (or
approprIate department), fire department and Mimstry of the
Environment (SpIll Management Team - where reqUIred at ~he spill
location)
(b) Changes m spill control practIces (If reqUIred)
o education,
o protocol for handling dIfferent types of spills,
o use of sorbants, and
o collectIon of spIllage/sorbants and treatment.
(c) Installation of API type, oil-water separators upon catchbasms
draining the areas of petrochemIcal industry
(d) Inspection of industnes to ensure that floor drams receIVing spIllage
pollutants from normal practIces are eIther connected to the
sanitary sewer system or lead to a water treatment system before
dIscharge.
(e) Installation of stonn drainage for gas stations and garages to include
provislOns for "first fluslz" to be routed to sanitary sewer system.
~~.ijst - 35 -
(lV) Lead Age1UJ" Local/Regional Municipalities.
Time Frame: Initiate in 1990.
(a) Modify existing road maintenance and Parks and Recreation practices
to minimize impact on water quality by the reductlOn or eliminatIOn of
the use of pesticides, herblcides, fertilizers, road salt, etc.
(d) Protection and Improvement - Future ActIOn
(i) Lead A2ency: Local/Regional MUniCIpalitIes
Participatin2 and SuPportin2 Aeencies: MOE
Non-governmental OrganizatIons
Time Frame: Initiate m 1990
Establish a public education and awareness program to outlme the benefits
of "good housekeepmg" practices such as
0 poop and scoop,
0 litter control,
0 household hazardous waste program.
o gardening and lawn care alternatives (chemicals/compostIng)
NOTE. This public education and awareness program should be conslstent
with and coordinated with public education and awareness programs in the
other sections of the Comprehensive Basin Management Strategy
TABLE 3
PUBLIC HEALTH
VISION PRINCIPAL POLICIES IMPLEMENTATION TIME FRAME
PREVENTION PREVENTION
- swim without becoming Infected by - MOE's pwao met during dry weather, Lead Agencies - MTRCA, Local Mun. 1 year to Initiate and ongoing
disease throughout the river Participatory Agencies -MNR, MOE, Reg.
Mun.
- eat resident fish uncontaminated by - MOE's pwao met during frequent summer - expand enforcement programs to ensure
dangerous chemicals precipitation events, at swimming areas design, implementation and maintenance of
erosion and sediment control plans
- drink groundwater free of hannfuf - MOE's pwao met within 48 hours following
viruses, protozoa and poison Infrequent summer precipitation, at swimming lead Agency - MTRCA 1 year to initiate and ongoing
areas Participatory Agencies - MOE, MNR, Local 2-3 years
Mun., UDI
- MOE's pwao met for existing municipal - undertake cooperative pilot project to
and private groundwater drinking sources investigate effectiveness of wet ponds for
I quality control
<D - minimize occurrence and discharge of spills
(")
I to drainage systems lead Agency - MOE Initiate 1990 and 2-3 year
Participatory Agencies - MTRCA, MNR, MOH ongoing
- additional studies required to aid
development of policies and operational
criteria
lead Agencies - local/Reg. Mun. Continue In 1990 and ongoing
- design wet ponds In new
Industrial/commercial developments to act as
final control for spills
PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT
- MOE's pwao met during dry weather, PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT
throughout the river
lead Agencies - MOE, OMAF 1 year to initiate
- MOE's pwao met during frequent summer Participatory Agency - MTRCA
precipitation events, at swimming areas - extend existing provincial programs under a
cooperative "Rouge River Farm Remedial
- MOE's pwao met within 48 hours following Program"
infrequent summer precipitation at swimming Continue in 1990 and ongoing E
areas lead Agencies -local/Reg. Mun.
Participatory Agency - MOE 'Q
- minimize occurrence and discharge of spills - maintain/extend municipal spills action .
to drainage systems control programs -t:
W
--0
U)A. 1.1-'1"
PUBLIC SAFETY
FLOOD CONTROL
- 37 - ~R. ~~ I
70 PUBLIC SAFETY - FLOOD CONTROL
71 Comment
It IS the MTRCA's mandate as a watershed manager to mmimize the threat to life and
property as a result of flooding. To fulfil thIS mandate, the AuthOrIty has IdentIfied and
mventoned numerous flood susceptible SItes on the Rouge RIver, and has developed and
Implemented a flood control polIcy for its entire junsdictIOn.
One of the objectives of the Rouge RIver Urban Dramage Study was to evaluate the
MTRCA's current polIcy for runoff control as It relates to flood control on the Rouge
RIver for both technical effectiveness and cost effectiveness.
The conclusions from thIS portion of the Urban Dramage Study are as follows
(i) The Rouge RIver watershed may be conSIdered m terms of four hydrologIC
impact zones (Table 1)
(a) Level 1 (L-l) - mIcro-system
These watercourses generally are pIpes, swales and dItches, and are
characterized by mtermittent flows.
(b) Level 2 (L-2) - tributary system
These watercourses can be 1st, 2nd or 3rd order streams and are
characterized by a defined low-flow channel and contmuous flows.
(c) Level 3 (L-3) - river system
These watercourses are generally 4th and 5th order streams and up, and
are conSIdered the prinCIpal watercourses m a watershed.
wR. J-J-q:l. - 38 -
(d) Level 4 (L-4) - lacustrIne marsh
ThIS watercourse is part of a Lake Ontano waterfront marsh and is
substantially influenced by lake level fluctuatIOns.
(iI) The effectIveness of runoff control can also be dIscussed m terms of stream
levels.
(a) Levell
The study showed that runoff controls can effectively control all peak flows
for Level 1 streams to pre-development levels.
(b) Level 2
The study showed that runoff control Implemented on Level 1 streams
does not ensure that control wIll be achIeved on downstream Level 2
streams due to changes in the tImmg of flows.
The Rouge Study results showed that runoff control for Level 2 streams
can be effective If it IS deSIgned on subwatershed baSIS.
(c) Level 3 and 4
The study showed that stream runoff contrailS not effeCtlve m controllIng
2 year and 100 year flows in Level 3 and 4 streams.
The generally accepted practice of deSIgning upstream runoff control
facilities to achieve zero mcrease In downstream peak flows is not effective
for Level 3 and 4 streams.
(Iii) The study demonstrated that extenSIve channelizatIon utilizmg a traditIOnal
trapeZOIdal deSIgn can mcrease peak flows for all storms due to reduced travel
times regardless of upstream runoff control measures.
- 39 -
wll. 4-~3
7.2 SpecIfic Vision Statement
0 Elimmate or minimIZe the threat to lIfe and property from floodmg and erosIOn
WIthm the Rouge RIver watershed.
7.3 Technical Standard
The flood standard for regulatory purposes wIthm the Rouge RIver watershed IS the
RegIOnal Flood (Hurricane Hazel, 1954) or the 100 year flood, whIchever IS greater,
pursuant to the ProVinCIal Flood Plam Planmng PolIcy Statement (October, 1988)
74 Recommended Policies for Public Safety (Flood Control)
(a) The prevention of new flood susceptible development IS achIeved both through the
admInistration of Ontano Regulation 293/86 (as defined wIthm the Conservatlon
Authonties Act) and through the plan mput and reVIew process. In thIS regard,
eXIsting policies and operational cntena have been successfully Implemented and
generally have widespread support and acceptance
.
The creatIon of new flood susceptible SItes wIthm the Rouge RIver watershed shall
be mimmIzed through a program of development control and acqUISItIOn.
In the past, the protectIOn of existing flood susceptible development has been
addressed through a combination of runoff control (stormwater management
techniques, implemented through the plan mput and reView process) and remedial
works.
LUR. ~'1~ - 40 -
The study results demonstrate a "blanket" policy of runoff control for flood control
purposes is not effectlve on a watershed baSIS.
.
The effectiveness of runoff control can be dIscussed m terms of stream levels. Flood
control policies regarding runoff control shall be stream level speCIfic (Table 4)
i) Level 1 Streams (L-l)
UrbaniZatIon causes large percentage mcreases in flows in L-l streams,
however, the absolute magrutude of the flows IS still small.
The hydrologic impacts on L-l streams become significant only m terms of the
potential cumulatlve Impacts on L-2 and L-3 streams.
Therefore: Flood Control requirements for Level 1 streams shall be assessed
based on the downstream flood hazard.
ii) Level 2 Streams (L-2)
ThIS is the first level where the cumulatIve effects of land use changes are
.
felt.
The most significant increases In flows from changing land use are felt on L-2
streams.
The Rouge Study results demonstrate that runoff control ponds can be an
effective flood control technique" hen draining to L-2 streams if It IS designed
on a subwatershed basis.
Therefore: Flood Control requirements shall be assessed based on the
downstream flood hazard.
- 41 - wR. ~~s-
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF RUNOFF CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
STREAM FLOOD CONTROL POLICIES OPERATIONAL CRITERIA
LEVEL
L-l - runoff control may be - MDP to be prepared
reqUIred dependmg on -OR-
downstream flood hazards
on L-2 streams - SWMP to be prepared with
contributIon to MDP
- runoff control not reqUIred - SWMP to be prepared, plus
when outletting directly contributIOn to downstream
to L-3 streams (L-3) remedial works and/or
acqUIsItion
L-2 - runoff control may be - MDP to be prepared
reqUIred when drairung to - OR-
L-2 streams - SWMP to be prepared WIth
contributIOn to MDP
- runoff control not - SWM to be prepared, plus
required when draIning contributIOn to downstream
directly to L-3 streams remedIal works and/or
acqUIsitIOn
L-3, L-4 - runoff control not - SWMP to be prepared, plus
required when draining contributIon to downstream (L-3)
directly to L-3 and L-4 remedial works and/or
streams acquisltlon
u>R. ~b - 42 -
lll) Level 3 and 4 Streams (L-3. L-4)
In L-3 and L-4 streams, the percentage increases m flow are less than L-l and
L-2 streams. The cumulatIve effects of upstream land use changes are
mcreasingly "dampened out" as total developed upstream dramage area
mcreases.
The Rouge Study results demonstrate that upstream runoff control IS not
effectlve in controllIng flood levels m L-3 and L-4 streams.
Large on-lIne centralized storage faCIlItles (flood control dams) may be effectIve
m controlling flood levels in L-3 and L-4 streams. Dams for flood control may
be reviewed and conSIdered along wIth other remedIal works optIons.
Therefore: In lieu of effective runoff contro~ flood control requirements on Level 3
and 4 streams shall be addressed through the protective component.
(b) Protection and Improvement
Existing development, land and terrestrial resources shall be protected through the
lmplementation of a remedial works and acquiSItIOn program.
7.5 Operational Criteria for Public Safety (Flood Control)
(a) Flood Control - Prevention
i) All Level 1, 2 and 3 streams that dram m excess of 130 ha shall have an
"Open Space - Hazard Land" deSIgnatIOn m all local and regIOnal mumcIpal
Official Plans.
ll) A one-zone approach to floodplam management shall contmue to be
implemented. Local and regIonal mumcipalities shall incorporate appropnate
statements and designatlons concermng flood hazard areas m Official Plans
and secondary plans (or theIr eqUIvalent), and restrict development in such
flood hazard areas through the enactment of restricted area by-laws (zoning)
- 43 - wR. '+'Ji
and/or development control by-laws, and Identify flood hazard lands as lands
intended for public acquisItion.
ui) Lirmted compatible uses shall contmue to be permitted In the floodplain
pursuant to MTRCA floodplain planning polIcies for Undeveloped
Floodplams (1980) and Parking Lot Policy (1985)
lV) In areas where existmg development is subject to flooding, all
development/redevelopment applicatIons shall be reviewed
based on the Authority's current floodplain planning poliCIes for Undeveloped
Floodplains (1989), and Flood SusceptIble SItes Policy (1987), and the
ProvmcIal Floodplam Planrung PolIcy Statement (1988) and supporting
guideline documents.
v) Channelization to facilitate new development shall only be
conSIdered where there IS no feaSIble alternatIve and.
- in the context of a master draInage plan,
- in ill-defined floodplains,
- where there are no other prohibitive resource-related concerns,
- utilizing natural channel deSIgn I n accordance WIth the polICIes of the
fisheries and riparian habItat sectIons
vi) Traditional channel design shall be permItted WIthm existmg
development areas only, if there IS no other flood control optIOn.
vii) Level 1 Stream Drainage
(a:) Level 1 Draining to Leve I 2
Master Drainage Plans shall be prepared prIor to development, or a
stormwater management plan shall he prepared WIth a contributIOn to the
preparation of a future Master DraInage Plan.
tvR.LJ.,S' - 44 -
MTRCA and murucIpality to determIne which of the two optIOns would
be appropnate based on the tIme frame and implementatlon of a Master
Dramage Plan.
(b) Level 1 Draining to Level 3
Stormwater Management Plan to be prepared pnor to development, plus
contribution to downstream works and/or acqUIsition.
Vlll) Level 2 Stream Drainage
(a) Level 2 Draming to Level 2 Streams
Master Dramage Plans shall be prepared pnor to development, or a
stormwater management plan shall be prepared With a contnbution to the
preparatIOn of a future Master Dramage Plan.
(b) Level 2 Draimng to Level 3 Streams
Stormwater Management Plans shall be prepared prior to development, plus
contribution to downstream works and/or acqUIsition.
ix) Level 3 Stream Drainage
(a) Level 3 Draining to Level 3 or 4 Streams
Stonnwater management plan shall be prepared prior to development, plus
contribution to downstream works and/or acquisition.
(b) Flood Control - Protection and Improvement
l) The Authority shall continue to carry out flood control works under its existing
Flood Control Program. In addition, a program of remedial works and/or
acquisition shall be undertaken on Level 3 streams in lieu of effective runoff
control. This additional program will also apply to Level 2 streams where MDP
have not been implemented.
- 45 - wR. &I-'t~
b) Runoff control and protective works shall also provide benefits to fisheries,
riparian and terrestrial habitats where feasible.
7 6 Implementation of Public Safety (Flood Control) Policies
(a) Prevention - Immediate Action
(i) Lead Allency: The MetropolItan Toronto and RegIon ConservatIon
Authority
Time Frame: IrutIate within 1 year
Extend floodlme mapping to the 130 ha dramage limIt for all Level 1 and/or
Level 2 streams and identify any additional flood susceptible SItes, also extend
fill lIne mappmg for regulation purposes.
(il) Lead Allency: Local/Regional MumcipalItIes
Time Frame: Initiate within 1 year
Ensure appropriate "Open Space - Hazard Land" desIgnations and policy
statement are contained in local and regional municipal Official Plans and
secondary plans and that area bylaws are updated to mcorporate these
designations and policy statements.
( lli ) Lead Aeency: The MetropolItan Toronto and RegIOn ConservatIOn
Authority
Participatine and SuPportin2 Allency: Local MurucIpality
Time Frame: Initiate in 1990
LU~. 5DO - 46 -
Expand MTRCA and murucIpal enforcement programs to ensure complIance
With development control and fill regulatIOns, both dunng and after
constructIon.
(iv) Lead Aeencies: The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority and local/RegIOnal MuniCIpalItIes
Time Frame: Initiate wIthm 1 year
Delineate Master Drainage Plan areas on a 1 10000 map base and Incorporate
them into municipal planning documents.
Establish a tIme frame/ImplementatIOn plan for Master Drainage Plan
preparatIOn for Level 2 watercourses.
Establish funding mecharusms for flood control works and an acqUISItlOn
program for flood susceptible sites on Level 3 streams to be Implemented In
lieu of upstream runoff control.
(v) Lead A~ency: The Metropolitan Toronto and Region ConservatIOn
Authority
Participatine and Supportin~ A~encies: MNR
MOE
Time Frame: lrutiate Within 1 year
Prepare generic terms of reference for Master Drainage Plan studIes to
ensure conSIstency within the Rouge Study methodology and resultings
includmg the preparation of guIdelInes for'
- 47 - ~e. SOl
- flood control
- erosIOn control
- water quality
- riparian habitat
- terrestrial habItat
- fisheries
- aesthetics
- natural channel design
These terms of reference shall also apply to stormwater management plans
where there are no master dramage plans.
(VI) Lead A2ency: The MetropolItan Toronto and RegIOn ConservatIOn
Authority
Time Frame: Initlate WIthm 1 year
Establish a hydrologic model mamtenance program that Includes staff
traIning, model adjustment and updating.
(b) PreventIon - Future Actions
(i) Lead A2ency: The Metropolitan Toronto and Region ConservatIon
Authonty
Participatin2 and Supportin~ A~encies: Local/Regional Municipality
Time Frame: Initiate within 1 year and then, ongoing.
Accelerate acquisition programs for publIc ownership of hazard lands.
wP-. 6"f) '- - 48 -
(ii) Lead Agenc;y: The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Participating and Supporting A~encies: MNR
MOE
WSC (Water Survey
of Canada)
Time Frame: Initiate within 1 year
Develop an enhanced data gathenng Network Plan for the Rouge watershed
incorporating both preclpItation and stream gauging for use In all aspects of water
management.
(iii) Lead Agenc;y: The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Tune Frame: Immediate and continuous.
Utilize' the Rouge Hydrologic Model to maintain an up-to-date representatlve
model of development on the Rouge River watershed.
(c) Protection and Improvement - ImmedIate Action
(i) Lead Aiency: The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority
Particioatine and Supportine Aeencies: local/RegIOnal MunicipalItles.
Time Frame: Initiate within 1 year
- 49 - ~R. 503
Develop a program of remedial works and acqUIsItIon for the flood
susceptible section of Uruonville The remedial works component of the
program shall be admIrustered by the MTRCA through its Flood Control
Program. The acquisItIOn component of the program shall be admimstered
jomtly by the MTRCA and the muniCIpalIty
Develop an acqUISItion plan for flood susceptIble sites on Level 3 streams.
ThIS plan should include
- priOrIty for acquisition
- ownership/responsibilIty
- estimated costs
- Implementatlon strategy
- admIrustratIon.
(d) Protection and Improvement - Future Actions
(i) Lead Aeency: The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority
Participatine and Supportine Aeencies: Local/RegIOnal MumcipalItIes
MNR
Time Frame: Initiate in 1990
Establish a public education program to increase publIc awareness of
floodplain management and flood and erOSIOn control ObjectIves.
E
TABLE 5 ~
.
PUBLIC SAFETY &\
FLOOD CONTROL ~
VISION PRINCIPAL POLICIES IMPLEMENTATION TIME FRAME
PREVENTION PREVENTION
- eliminate or minimize the threat to - creation of new flood susceptible sites shall Lead Agency - MTRCA 1 year to Initiate
life and property from flooding and be minimized - extend f100dline mapping to 130 ha drainage
erosion within the Rouge River limit on Level 1 and 2 streams
Watershed Level 1 Dralnlna to Level 2 Streams
Lead Agency - MTRCA 1 year to Initiate and ongoing
- runoff control may be required, depending Participatory Agencies - Local/Reg. Mun.
on downstream flood hazards on Level 2 - expand enforcement programs to ensure
streams development control and fill regulation
Level 1 Dralnina to Level 3 Streams Lead Agencies - MTRCA, Local/Reg. Mun. 1 year to Initiate
I - delineate MDP areas on a 1 10,000 map
- runoff control not required when outlettlng base
0 directly to Level 3 streams - establish funding mechanisms for flood
lC)
I control works and acquisition programs for
Level 2 Dralnlna to Level 2 Streams flood susceptible sites on Level 3 In lieu of
runoff control
runoff control may be required when
draining to Level 2 streams Lead Agency - MTRCA 1 year to Initiate
Participatory Agencies - MOE, MNR
Level 2 Dralnlna to Level 3 Streams - prepare generic terms of reference for MOP
studies Including resource guidelines
- runoff control not required when draining
directly to Level 3 streams Lead Agency - MTRCA 1 year to Initiate
- establish hydrologic model maintenance
Level 3 Dralnlna to Level 3 Streams program
- runoff control not required when draining
directly to Level 3 streams
PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT
- protect existing development. land and Lead Agency - MTRCA 1 year to Initiate
terrestrial resources through remedial works Participatory Agencies - Local/Reg. Mun.
and acquisition program - develop a program of remedial works and
acquisition for the flood susceptible section of
Unionville
WR.6DS-
PUBLIC SAFElY
EROSION CONTROL
..
- 51 - ~R.5"o~
80 PUBLIC SAFETY - EROSION CONTROL
8.1 Comment
Generally, eroSIOn hazard as It relates to publIc safety IS a functIOn of the measured
distance from the phYSIcal erosion problem to a structure(s) and assocIated usable
property TypIcally, eroSIon problems within the Rouge RIver watershed are related to
rIverbank erosion and/or slope instability
The MTRCA developed an erosion control program of preventIon, and protectIon and
Improvement to address the public safety Issue The prevention component addressed
the assumed negatlve Impacts of urbaruzatlon through the plan input and reVIew process
whIch mcludes stormwater management and also through the admInistratIOn of the
Authority's regulations (Ont. Reg. 293/86) The protectIon component addressed
eXisting erosion problems through the implementation of a remedial works program on
watercourses generally in excess of 1300 hectares
The purpose of the erosion component of the Rouge RIver Urban Drainage Study was
to determIne and comprehend more thorough Iv the effects of urbaniZatIOn on channel
erosion, and to determine the effectIveness of the Authonty's storm water management
policy (re runoff control ponds) to control erosIOn In downstream watercourses.
The study demonstrated that urban hydrology changes can aggravate or accelerate
erosion, however, the rate of erosion is SIte speCIfic and dependent on a number of
vanables. The study also indicated that duratIOn and volume of flow is as important as
peak flow in increasing erosion potential and that /'XlSllng stonnwater management practices
appear to be ineffective in reducing the erosIOn potmllal when runoff peak is controlled to
predevelopment levels. It is also recognlZed that acllle\'lng "zero volume increase" was not
feasible. Therefore it was felt that the Authonn s current "blanket" stonn water management
policy for erosion control may not always be effectwe and should discontinued. In its place
the strategy is recommending that erOSlOn control studies be camed out at the MDP level to
/I.)~. 507 - 52 -
detennine the most effective means to control erosion on Level 1 and 2 streams. Thls may
take the fonn of local control, downstream channel works or a combination thereof
The flood control component of the study demonstrated that stream nmoff control is not
effective in controlling 2 year and 100 year flows in Level 3 and 4 streams, therefore, it is
lmplied that runoff controls are also not effective for erosion control. Therefore, in addItlOn
to the Authority's existing remedial works program and in lteu of effective runoff control, a
funding mechanism should be developed whereby the MTRCA can collect and admimster
funds for remedial works and acquisition on Level 3 streams.
Finally, there is recognition that development limits (set backs) provlde the best opportumty
to prevent new erosion prone development from occumng.
8.2 SDecific Vision Statement
Eliminate or minimize the threat to life and property from flooding and erosion within the
Rouge R,ver watershed.
8.3 Technical Standards
Development adjacent to rivers/valleys is to be safe from eroSIOn during Its life which
the Authority assumes to be 100 years. Safety from erosion is a function of long term
stable slopes and/or erosion rates.
8.4 Recommended Policies for Public Safety (EroSIOn Control)
(a) Prevention
Prevent the creation of new erosion prone development and mmimize the negatIve
Impacts assocIated with new development through the enforcement of the
Authority's regulations (293/86), the adoptIon of appropnate development controls
under the Planrung Act, and participation In the municipal plan mput and review
process.
- 53 - tAi. SOi
(b) ErosIOn Control - ProtectIon and Improvement
EXIsting development, land, and terrestrIal resources shall be protected through the
Implementation of a remedIal works and acqUIsition program.
8.5 OperatIonal CrIteria for Public Safety (EroSIOn Control)
(a) Prevention
(I) EroSIOn studies shall be undertaken as part of the Master Dramage
Plan/Stormwater Management Plan process on Level 1 and 2
watercourses to determine the most effective means of control.
(iI) Development limIts (rear property lme) for new development tributary
to watercourses draIrung more than the 130 ha shall be determined as
follows
(a) Stable Defined Valley
A mimmum of 10 metres back from the top of bank (Figure 2)
(b) Unstable. Defined Valley
A mIrumum of 10 metres back from a projected 2H 1 V slope or
stable slope lIne as determmed through a geotechnical study;
whichever IS greater (Figure 3)
(c) Ill-Defined Valley
A mirumum of 10 metres back from the Regional Storm FloodlIne
(Figure 4)
New development can be grouped mto four major categones, as
described in the following:
1) new multi-lot or large lot development;
structures proposed for previously undeveloped areas (large-
scale)
c;
~
.
~
-a
Stable defined valley
Rear Property
Line
""I Top of Bank
/
,_ 10 m
I
~
I
/
Low Flow
Development Limit A minimum of 10 metres
back from the top of bank
Figure 2
Unstable, defined valley
Rear Property
line
"'. Top of Bank
10 m /
1- -
I
I{)
I{)
I Projected 2H 1V
Slope
--
low Flow
Development Limit A minimum of 10 metres back from
a projected 2H 1V slope or stable slopes as determined
through a geotechnical study. whichever is greater E
'b
Figure 3 .
Ctt
....
()
f
ib
.
'"
...
-
111- defined valley
Rear Property Regionally Storm
Line Floodline
"I /
-10 m -
I
~
I /
low Flow
Development limit A minimum of 10 metres back from
the Regional Storm Floodline
Figure 4
- 57 -
wR. 5J:l..
2) major redevelopment or mfillmg;
development which IS at a large enough scale where, generally,
.
conformity WIth surrounding areas is not necessanly cntical.
3) infillIng, replacement, major additions,
mfilling - development on preVIOusly undeveloped lots, generally
bounded by eXIstmg development on adjacent sIdes, development
may be pennitted to match exlsting similar development on adjacent
sides subject to satlSfyIng geotechmcal concerns,
replacement - existmg structure removed and new structure
erected,
major additions/alteratIOns - constructIon IS equal to or exceeds
50% of the market value or floor area of the eXIsting structure or
work.
4) minor additions/alteratIOns,
construction that is less than 50% of the market value or floor
area of the existing structure or work.
The proposed development limIts shall be applied to new development
(categories 1 and 2 above)
It is recognized that there may be restnctIOns to applymg the new
development limits to development category (3) - (mfillmg,
replacement, major additions) and development category (4) - (mInor
additIOns/ alterations) It would be permIssible to allow these to
proceed subject to
tAR.51S - 58 -
- the placement of fill, and accessory buildmgs includmg pools not be
allowed beyond the defined crest of valley slope,
- It bemg demonstrated by a qualified engineer that the structure(s)
shall be safe for its assumed life and that the development wIll not
have any negatlve impacts on the adjacent valley slopes.
It is also recognized that there may be restrictions to applying limits to essential
servicing assoclated with new development l.e. stonn sewers, sanitary connectIOns,
water, etc. Therefore, servicing will be pennitted within the erosion impact zone
provided it is safe from erosion and does not cause or accelerate erosion. Where
practical, the location of servicing should follow exlstmg corridors or easements.
NOTE. The development limits establish the rear property line and thus, the
murucIpalIties would still reqUIre a prImary buIldmg setback from thIS point.
The development limit is recommended to be In publIc ownership as an
enVironmental buffer zone, however, the local mumcipality and the affected
landowners will decide the best method of establishing the ownership of this limit.
In sites where SIgnificant flora and/or fauna communitles and/or speCIes habItats
extend beyond the 10 metres dIstance or where the eXIstmg vegetatIon is
Important for slope stability, the development lImIt shall be increased m distance
to include the entire community Examples of sIgruficant communities and/or
habItats are
- The Metropolitan Toronto and Region ConservatIOn Authonty's
Environmentally Significant Are as
- MIniStry of Natural Resources Class 1- 7 wetlands,
- Ministry of Natural Resources Areas of Natural and/or SCIentIfic Interest,
- 59 - wR. S'4-
- MunicIpal Environmentally SIgmficant Areas.
(b) Erosion - Protection and Improvement
(i) The Authority shall continue to carry out erosion control works under its
existing ErosIOn Control Program. In addition, a program of remedIal works
and/or acquisition shall be undertaken on Level 3 streams In lieu of effective
runoff control. This additional program will also apply to Level 2 streams
where MDP have not been implemented.
(ii) Runoff controls and protective works shall also provide benefits to
fisheries and riparian and terrestnal habItats where feasible
8.6 Implementation of Public Safety (Erosion Control) PoliCIes
(a) PreventIOn - Immediate Actions
(i) Lead Aeency: The Metropolitan Toronto and RegIOn Conservation
Authority
Participatin~ and SU{)portine Aeency: Local Municipality
Time Frame: Initiate in 1990
Expand MTRCA and murucIpal enforcement programs to ensure
compliance with development control and fill regulations, both during and
after construction.
Extend floodline mapping and fill lInes (development limIts) to the 130 ha
limit.
Prepare a Development LImIt PolIcy for implementatIOn through the plan
input and review process.
wR.~/f) - 60 -
Inventory and monitor existmg storm water management storage
facIlities to calibrate eroSIOn models and to determine their effectIveness In
controlling eroSIOn.
(ii) Lead Agencies. The MetropolItan Toronto and RegIOn ConservatIon
Authority and Local/Regional MumCIpalitles
Time Frame: IrutIated m 1990
Delineate Master Dramage Plan areas on a 1 10000 map base and
incorporate them mto muniCIpal planrung documents.
EstablIsh a funding mechamsm for erosion protectIOn works and
acquiSItIOn on Level 2 and 3 watercourses in lIeu of runoff control.
( iiI ) Lead Aeency: The MetropolItan Toronto and RegIOn ConservatIOn
Authority
Participatine and Supportine Aeencies: MNR
MOE
Time Frame: Imtiate in 1990
Prepare generic terms of reference for Master Drainage Plan StudIes to
ensure consistency with the Rouge River Drainage Study methodology and
results including the preparation of guidelInes for'
0 Flood Control
0 Erosion Control
0 Water Quality
0 Riparian Habitat
0 Terrestrial HabItat
- 61 - wR.51"
0 Fisheries
0 Aesthetics
0 Natural Channel design
(b) Protection and Imorovement - Immediate Actions
(i) Lead Age1UJ': The Metropolitan Toronto and Region ConservatlOn Authonty
and Local/Regional Municipalzties
Tune Frame: Initiate in 1990
Carry out additional erosion protectlOn works and acqulsition on Level 2 and
3 watercourses in lieu of nmoff control.
(ii) Lead A2ency: The Metropolitan Toronto and Region ConservatIon
Authority
Participatin2 and SUDportin2 A2encv: Local MumcIpalIty
Time Frame: Initiate m 1990
Amend the operational CrIterIa contaIned WIthin the EroSIOn and Sediment
Control Program of the Watershed Plan to read all Level 1, 2 and 3
streams that drain in excess of 130 hectares.
~
TABLE 6 ~
.
PUBLIC SAFETY !!J
EROSION CONTROL '-.::I
VISION PRINCIPAL POLICIES IMPLEMENTATION TIME FRAME
PREVENTION PREVENTION
- eliminate or minimize the threat to - prevent the creation of new erosion prone Lead Agency - MTRCA Initiate In 1990
life and property from flooding and development and minimize negative impacts Participatory Agency - Local Mun.
erosion within the Rouge River associated with new developments - expand enforcement programs to ensure
Watershed compliance with development control and fill
regulation
- extend f100dline mapping and fill lines to 130
ha limit
- Inventory and monitor existing SWM storage
facilities to calibrate erosion models and
determine effectiveness In controlling erosion
I Lead Agency - MTRCA Initiate within 1 year
C\I Participatory Agencies - MNR, MOE
CD - prepare generic terms of reference for MOP
I studies Induding resource guidelines
Lead Agencies - MTRCA, Local Mun. Initiate within 1 year
- delineate MOP areas on a 1 10,000 map
base
PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT
- protect existing development, land and Lead Agencies - MTRCA, Local Mun. Initiate within 1 year
terrestrial resources through remedial works - carry out additional erosion protection works
and acquisition program and acquisition on Level 2 and 3
watercourses In lieu of runoff control
~R. 51 c;r
FISHERIES
- 63 -
wR. 5'~
90 FISHERIES
9 1 Comment
The Rouge nver supports fish populatIOns whIch are recognized as havmg substantial
present and future biological and recreatIOnal value.
The Rouge watershed can be broken mto four physiographIC zones that largely dIctate
the types of aquatic habitats and fish commumties (typified by an mdicator speCIes)
present:
0 HEADWATERS high gradient first and second order streams - brook trout.
0 MID REACHES low gradient second and thIrd order streams - smallmouth bass,
rambow trout (Little Rouge)
0 LOWER REACHES moderate gradient thIrd and fourth order streams - rambow
trout (mIgratory)
0 DELTA MARSH low gradient fifth order stream flOWing through extensive marsh
on shore of Lake Ontano - northern pike, largemouth bass.
Aquatlc habItats and fish communities were further refined and clasSified into stream levels
(consistent with the flood and erosion impact zones). An indicator species was identified
with each aquatic community to serve as the "barometer" of ecosystem health for that
stream level of the Rouge watershed as follows.
Stream Level Indicator Specles
1 downstream fish community
2a Brook Trout
b.Jt. S~D - 64 -
2b Bass
3a Bass
3b Rainbow Trout
4 Bass, Pike
However, protection, rehabilitation, enhancement or habitat creation efforts within the
watershed should focus on ecosystem-based principles, not fish production princlples, for
example.
0 sustainable development, not sustainable Yleld
0 management for healthy ecosystems, not for recreational fisheries
0 presence of self sustaining populatIOns of Indlcator species, not maximlze the
productive capacity of the river to produce sports fish
0 rehabilitate/create the important habitat characteristics of a river system, not
create/expand the most productive habitats for sports fish.
The Comprehenslve Basin Management Strategy, in adopting an ecosystem approach,
recognises that migration of aquatic organisms, particularly fish, throughout the nver lS key
to the establishment of the Rouge as a healthy ecosystem. Obstructions to fish passage are
not acceptable unless equipped to allow upstream/downstream movement of fish.
By categorizing the watershed into stream levels wlth representative indicator species, there
are transition zones (represented on Figure 5 by lines) between each stream level. In any
river ecosystem there is no clear boundary between a coldwater and wannwater aquatic
community, rather there is a gradual shift in the physical and chemical habitat attnbutes of
the river that result in a change in the relatlve abundance in the wannwater and coldwater
representatives of the river's aquatic community
- 65 - t.\)R . S~ \
Often there are species whose habitat needs are better sUlted to these transition zones than
either the coldwater or wannwater indicators. Brown and rainbow trout are pnme examples
of speCles which are sUlted to "cool" water habItats.
.
In dealing wlth land uses In these transition areas, the phzlosophy would be to focus on the
Indicator species whose habitat requirements are most sensitive. In general, this WOI 'd
afford adequate protection to the "transition" species. For example, protecting habitats for
brook trout would also provide protection for brown and rainbow trout.
As outlined in SectlOn 7 - Public Safety, Levell and 2 watercourses draining less than 130
ha are considered as a special subset of the stream classlfication system. From an aquatlc
~cosystem standpoint, these watercourses will be treated as a Level 1 stream unless they have
the following characteristics.
0 well defined valley
0 penn anent flow/fish habitat
0 natural terrestnal (woody) vegetatIOn
0 associated with a wetland, ANSI or ESA.
In the latter case it wlll be treated as a Level 2 watercourse.
9.2 SpecIfic VISIOn Statement
0 Enjoy the beauty of natural aquatic habItats and nverbeds that are
uncontaminated by abnormal algal growth and unsoiled by industnal and
domestic wastes.
0 Angle in the Rouge River With some expectatlons of encountering vanous
preferred species of fish.
f.,J~.~~ - 66 -
9.3 Technical Standard
(a) Meet ProVinCIal Water QualIty Objectives (AppendIX 6)
(b) Use HabItat SUItabIlIty Index and indIcator specIes to meet physical habItat
conditions (Table 7 and Appendix 7)
94 Recommended PoliCIes for Fishenes
941 PreventIOn
(a) The eXIsting groundwater quantIty should be maintained for baseflow In the
Rouge River
(b) The existing groundwater quality should be mamtaIned.
(c) The aquatic habitats of the Rouge River shall be managed for desIgnated
indicator species and to pennit migratlOn throughout the river
(d) A publicly owned riparian habitat zone (as described in Section 100) shall be
established adjacent to. .
i) all Level 2, 3 and 4 watercourses In excess of 130 ha,
ii) Levell and 2 watercourses less than 130 ha in drainage area if they have any
of the following charactenstlcs.
0 well defined valley
o penn anent flow/fish habaal
0 natural terrestrial (woody) ~'egt'tcJtlOn
0 associated with a wetland. or /fllporrant terrestrial feature (eg. ANSI,
ESA).
TABLE 7
HSI STANDARDS
DESCRIPTION RAINBOW TROUT SMALL MOUTH BASS BROOK TROUT
TEMPERATURE
Mid summer noon maximum 24De 30De
Mlnimum during growing season 18De 11 - 16DC
Spawning season lODe 11 - 26De 4.5 - lODe
Fry optimum 12.4 - 15.4De
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
I MINIMUM 5 mg/l 4 mg!1 optimum> 7 mg/1 at < 15De
t-- Minimum for egg incubation 8 mg/l optlmum > 9 mg/l at > lSDe
CD
I
TDS
Range for optimal growth 150 - 400 mg!1 < 20 ppm
TURBIDITY
Maximum monthly average < 50 JTU optimum 0 - 3 JTU
Event maXlmum 250 JTU
STREAM SHADING
% shade (between 1000 - 1400 hrs ) 40 - 75%
E
~
.
~
W
~R.SJtIt - 68 -
(e) The levels of ammorua, trace metals, pesticIdes and other organic compounds m
water and aquatic sediments should be non toxic to fish and shall not
bIOaccumulate to levels m fish that are toXiC to fish eating orgarusms.
(f) The occurrence and dIscharge to drainage systems of all spIlls shall be
minimIzed.
9 4.2 Protection and Improvement
(a) The aquatlc habItats of the Rouge RIver shall be managed for deSIgnated
mdIcator speCIes and to permIt migratIOn throughout the nver
(b) A publlcly owned nparian habitat zone (as described in Section 10.0) shall be
established adjacent to.
i) all Level 2, 3 and 4 watercourses In excess of 130 ha,
ii) Level 1 and 2 watercourses less than 130 ha in drainage area lf they have any
of the following characteristlcs.
0 well defined valley
0 penn anent flow/fish habitat
0 natural terrestrial (woody) vegetation
0 associated with a wetland, or lmportant terrestrial feature (eg. ANSI,
ESA).
(c) The incidence of fish diseases, paraSItes and viruses m resident fish populatIons
should be controlled to levels acceptable to the fishery
(d) The occurrence and discharge to dram age systems of all spills shall be
minimized.
- 69 - ~R.s~
9.5 Operational Criteria for Fisheries
9.5 1 Prevention
(a) . The stream levels shall be managed for the aquatic commumties represented by
following indicator species (Figure 5)
Stream Level IndIcator SpeCIes
1 Downstream Fish Commumty
2a Brook Trout
2b Bass
3a Bass
3b Rambow Trout
4 Bass, PIke
Master Drainage Plans and/or stormwater management plans must ensure that
habItat needs of these speCIes are met.
(b) Level 1 watercourses (intermIttent streams) are Important for downstream water
quality and quantity and generally not for fish habitat wIthm the Level 1
watercourse Master Dramage Plans and/or stormwater management plans must
ensure that the water qualIty and quantity IS mamtained and supportIve of
downstream fish communities.
For those Level 1 and 2 watercourses less than 130 ha with important fish
habitat, riparian and/or terrestrIal hahltat. the Master Dramage Plan and/or
stormwater management plan shall ensure these habitats are maintamed.
(c) Overland soil erosion and sedIment transport shall be controlled at sources such
as construction sites, industrial and agricultural lands, and reSIdential areas.
Techniques could include
- sediment traps, basins and ponds,
w(? 'SRfr, - 70 -
- conservation farmIng practices, and
- infiltration trenches and galleys.
For urban construction sItes, addltlonal guidelInes are found wIthm "Erosion and
Sediment Control Guidelmes for Urban ConstructIOn SItes"
(d) The Ripanan HabItat Zone shall be managed to provide aquatIC habItat benefits
such as temperature regulation, cover and proVision of food sources and organic
matter ThIS zone shall be placed m publIc ownershIp
9.5.2 ProtectIOn and Improvement
(a) The stream levels shall be managed for the aquatlc commumties represented by
the followmg mdicator species (Figure 5)
Stream Level IndIcator SpeCIes
1 Downstream Fish Commumty
2a Brook Trout
2b Bass
3a Bass
3b Rambow trout
4 Bass, Pike
.
(b) Fish habitat improvement plans/projects could include the following techmques
- streamSIde fencing and plantmgs,
- Installation of log crib structure,
- installation of in-stream cover (log, boulder), and
- creatIon of spawning beds.
(c) The Riparian Habitat Zone shall be managed to provide aquatlc habitat benefits
such as temperature regulation, cover and provision of food sources and organic
matter This zone shall be placed in public ownership.
- 71 -
NOTE. I.A)~. S-~.,
Figure 6 shows the relations/up of the various setback constraints outlmed
in the CBMS. top of bank, regional floodline, riparian habitat zone and erosion
development setback. Adjacent to all of these are setback requlrements of
municipalities, for example, municlpalities usually require a bUllding setback of 7 -
10m on pnvate lands abutting open spaces. Thus, as a mimmum m urban areas,
a watercourse with fish habztat would have a 10m riparian habitat zone in pubilc
ownership plus an addItional 7 - 10m mumclpal building setback in pnvate
ownership.
96 Implementation of Fisheries PolICIes
(a) Preventlon - ImmedIate Actions
(I) Lead Aeency: The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservatlon
Authority
Participatine and Supportine Aeency: Local/Regional MuniCIpalIty
MNR
MOE
Time Frame: Initiate within 1 year
Require all Master Drainage Plans for urbamzmg areas to address
implementation of control measures whIch WIll.
o provide control of overland SOli eroSIOn and transport dunng runoff;
o minimize the period of time that obJecnves for ammonia, metals and orgamc
compounds are exceeded in runoff;
o incorporate methods of preventmg spIlls from reachmg watercourses,
o regulate the water temperature m the watercourses.
~R. 5;l9' - 72 - ROUGE RIVER BASIN
MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
\ RELATIONSHIP OF
SETBACK CONSTRAINTS
JANUARY 1ftO I FIG. .
Water Quality / Quantity To Support
Downstream Aquatic Ecosystem . .
. . .
.
.
.
.
130 Hectare .
Drainage .
.
Umlt .
.
.
. .
- - r- -,- - - - - -
- - - - - ~
. .
" . ..
. I
. .
..
. . I
,. .
. 8
,. . . ,
III. . . 8
. I
I . .
Defined . . .
Vaney I . . I
8 L 2 · .
, . I
. .
. .
, . . ,
. . . .
, . . ,
. . . .
I . . \
. ~ - --\ - - - - - -
- - - T - -.-
. .
. . \.
I .
. . ,
I .
. .
Wen I . LEGEND
. .
Defined I .
Valley . .
I- . D
. Riparian Habitat Zone
I Width .
.
810 m Varies . B Regional Aoodline
. .
.
I .
.
8 .
I . B Top Of Bank
.
.
8 .
! .
. .
, . . B Development Setback
. . .
.' I' . . I_I (rear lot line)
. .
.' / . .
. .
, . . @]
. Stream Level
- 73 - ~R.trOJ~
(11) Lead A2ency: The MetropolItan Toronto and Region Conservation
Authonty
Participatin2 and Supportine Aeencies: MNR
Time Frame: Irutlate within 1 year
Define HabItat SUItabilIty Index (HSI) crIterIa for target speCIes m each
commumty zone to more clearly express phYSIcal habItat needs m engmeerIng
design and planning terms.
(iii ) Lead A2ency: The Ministry of Natural Resources
Partici(Jatin2 and SUDDortine A2encies: MTRCA
Local/RegIOnal MuniCIpalitIes
Non-governmental OrganizatIons
Time Frame: IrutIate withm 1 year
Prepare a fishenes management plan for the Rouge RIver whIch wIll
0 Develop generic terms of reference to assess fish habitat management
needs on a sub-catchment basis for fish community zones for use in
land use planning and master dramage planmng studies.
0 Establish the current status of fish habItats and commuruties within
each fisheries stream level through an extensive inventory program
measunng appropnate HSI cntena and index of biotlc mtegrity (IBI)
metncs.
~R.530 - 74 -
0 Establish the habitat management requirement on a sub-catchment
basIs for all watercourses.
0 InvestIgate the accessibIlity of eXIsting and potential public access
locatIons.
0 Develop an mformatlon and educatIOn program to promote fishmg
opportunities.
(lV) Lead A~enc;y: The Metropolitan Toronto and Regzon Conservation Authority
Participating and Supporting Agencies: MNR
MOE
OMAF
Municipalities
Tune Frame: Initiate in 1990
Review policies regarding pennitted uses in the floodplain to minimize impacts on
the Riparian Habitat Zone.
(b) Prevention - Future Action
(i) Lead A~ency: The Ministry of the Environment
Participatine and SUDportin~ Aeencies: MNR
MTRCA
Time Frame: Initiate m 1990
- 75 - IA)R.SSI
Monitor contamInant levels m fish tissue from young-of-the-year Rouge
RIver fish and m aquatic sedIments as early mdIcators of the presence of
potentIally bIOaccumulative chemIcals and locatIOn of potentIal sources.
(c) Protection and Improvement - ImmedIate ActIOns
(i) Lead A2ency: The MetropolItan Toronto and RegIOn ConservatIOn
AuthOrIty
Participatin2 and SuPportin2 A2encies: MNR
Local MuniCIpalItIes
Non-governmental
OrgamzatIOns
Time Frame: Imtiate wIthm 1 year
Establish the Riparian Habitat Management Program that would prepare
or undertake the following:
0 Guidelines for ripanan habItat management,
0 Streambank plantings (pnonty may be gIven to salmomd watercourses)
that meet riparian habItat techmcal gUIdelInes,
0 Streambank stabilization,
0 Promote public educatIon and encourage publIc interest groups to
"Adopt-A-Stream"
. The cooperation of the followmg eXIstmg programs or funding for these
programs would be required
wi. 68:2- - 76 -
0 Ministry of Natural Resources Angling License Funds (those funds
IdentIfied for stream rehabilItation),
0 Commumty Fisheries Involvement Program,
0 Metropolitan Toronto and RegIon Conservatlon Authonty's SedIment
Control Program,
0 EnVironment Partners Fund,
0 Municipal Valley Management and NaturalizatIon Programs.
This Ripanan Habitat Management Program could be expanded to mclude
instream fisheries rehabilitatIOn and envIronmental buffer management
(tableland)
(ll) Lead Aeency: The Metropolitan Toronto and RegIOn Conservation
Authority
Time Frame: ImtIate m 1990 and thereafter, ongomg
Use opportunities prOVided by remedial works for flood and erosion
control to rehabilitate phYSIcal habitats for target fish commumtles where
feasible.
(iii) Lead Aeency: Ministry of Natural Resources
Participatine and Supportine Aeencies. MTRCA
MOE
Time Frame: Initiate wIthIn 1 \ear
I
- 77 - wi. &.53
Momtor the incidence of disease, paraSItes and viruses in resident fish
(IV) Lead A~ency: The MetropolItan Toronto and RegIOn ConservatIOn
Authority
Participatinl: and Supportinl: A~encies Local MurucIpalIty
OMAF
Time Frame: Initiate in 1990
EstablIsh a public educatIon awareness program to outlIne to landowners
the benefits of implementmg proper measures for controlling overland soIl
erosion and transport.
E
TABLE 8 'b
.
FISHERIES '"
VISION PRINCIPAL POLICIES IMPLEMENTATION TIME FRAME ~
PREVENTION PREVENTION
- enjoy the beauty of natural aquatic - manage aquatic habitats for designated Lead Agency - MNR I nitlate within 1 year
habitats and river beds that are indicator species and to permit migration Participatory Agencies - MTRCA, LocaJ/Reg.
uncontaminated by abnormal algal throughout the river Mun., Non-govemmentaJ Organizations
growth and unsoUed by industrial and - prepare a fisheries management plan for the
domestic wastes - minimize occurrence and discharge of spills Rouge River
to drainage systems
- angle in the Rouge River with some Lead Agency - MTRCA Initiate within 1 year
expectations of encountering various - maintain existing groundwater quantity Participatory Agency - MNR
preferred species of fish - define HSI criteria for target species In each
- maintain existing groundwater quality community zone
- establish a riparian habitat zone adjacent to Lead Agency - MOE Initiate In 1990
watercourses Participatory Agencies - MNR, MTRCA
I - monitor contaminant levels in fish tissue
00 from young-of-the-year Rouge River fish and
t'- aquatic sediments as early indicators
I
Lead Agency - MTRCA Initiate in 1990
Participatory Agencies - MNR, MOE, OMAF,
Local Mun.
- review policies regarding permitted uses in
the floodplain to minimize Impacts on the
Riparian Habitat Zone
PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT
PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT
- manage aquatic habitats for designated
target species and to permit migration Lead Agency - MTRCA Initiate within 1 year
throughout the river Participatory Agencies - MNR, Local Mun.,
Non-governmental Organizations
- minimize occurrence and discharge of spills - establish the Riparian Habitat Management
to drainage systems Program
- control disease, parasites and viruses in Lead Agency - MNR Initiate within 1 year
resident fish to acceptable fishery levels Participatory Agencies - MTRCA, MOE
- monitor incidence of disease. parasites and
- establish a riparian habitat zone adjacent to viruses in resident fish
watercourses
wR. Sa5
.
RIPARIAN HABITAT
- 79 - wR. S5~
100 RIPARIAN HABITAT
101 Comment
The Rouge River Urban Drainage Study did not have a specIfic component revIewmg
rIpanan habitats. However, conclusions from the water qualIty and fishenes components
of the study mdIcated the Importance of thIS habItat m protectmg and improvmg the
watercourse Therefore, npanan habitat was mcorporated as a mam headmg tOpIC
within the strategy
10.2 SpecIfic VISIon Statement
0 Enjoy WIth pleasure a healthy rivenne/valley enVIronment, watching birds, mammals
and fish in theIr natural environment.
10.3 Technical Standard
RIpanan habItat shall consIst of mdigenous plant specIes, be compnsed of at least 50%
woody species, and be a minimum of 10 m or tWIce the low flow channel width on each
sIde of the watercourse, whichever IS greater
104 Recommended Policies for Riparian Habitat
1041 Prevention
(a) A publicly owned riparian habitat zone shall be established adjacent to.
(i) all Level 2, 3 and 4 watercourses In excess of 130 ha,
(ii) Level 1 and 2 watercourses less than 130 ha in drainage area if they have any
of the following characteristics.
LiJR. 537 - 80 -
0 well defined valley
0 penn anent flow/fish habitat
0 natural terrestrial (woody) vegetation
0 associated with a wetland, or lmportant terrestrial feature (eg. ANSI,
ESA).
(b) Existing nparian habItat shall be protected and where possible, re-established.
104.2 ProtectIon and Improvement
(a) A publicly owned ripanan habitat zone shall be establlshed adjacent to.
(i) all Level 2, 3 and 4 watercourses In excess of 130 ha,
(Ii) Level 1 and 2 watercourses less than 130 ha in drainage area if they have any
of the following characteristics.
0 well defined valley
0 penn anent flow/fish habitat
0 natural terrestrial (woody) vegetatlOn
0 associated with a wetland, or lmportant terrestrial feature (eg. ANSI,
ESA).
(b) Existing riparian habitat shall be protected.
10.5 Operational Criteria for Riparian Habitat
Currently thIS strategy has not developed operatIOnal criteria for npanan habItat.
However, riparian habitats should be deSIgned to Include the followmg:
0 proVIde food, cover and orgaruc matter for aquatlc organisms,
- 81 - LOR. ssg
0 regulate stream temperature,
0 stabllIze stream banks,
0 control overland flows and sedIment transport, and
0 proVIde food, cover, shelter, nesting SItes, migratIOn corridors for terrestnal
orgamsms.
NOTE Figure 6 shows the relationship of the vanous setback constraints outlined in the
Comprehenslve Basin Management Strategy top of bank, regional floodlIne, nparian
habItat zone and eroSIOn development setback. Adjacent to all of these are the setback
requirements of municipalities, for example, municipalities require a building setback of 7 -
10m on private lands abutting open space. Thus, as a mimmum in urban areas, a
watercourse with fish habltat would have a 10m npanan habitat zone in public owners/up
plus an additional 7 - 10m municlpal building setback in private ownership.
106 ImplementatIOn of Riparian HabItat PolICIes
(a) ProtectIOn and Improvement - ImmedIate Actlon
(i) Lead Aeency: The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservatlon
Authority
Participatin~ and Supportine Aeencies: MNR
Local MumcIpalItIes
Non-governmental OrgamzatIons
Time Frame: Initiate WIthm 1 year
Establish the Riparian Management Program that would prepare or
undertake the followmg:
I!JR. 53~ - 82 -
0 GUIdelmes for npanan habitat management, .
0 Streambank plantmgs (pnonty may be gIven to salmomd watercourses)
that meet npanan techmcal gUIdelmes,
0 Streambank stabilizatIon,
0 Promote publIc educatIOn and encourage public interest groups to
"Adopt-A-Stream"
The cooperatIon of the followmg eXIstmg programs or fundmg for these
programs would be reqUIred,
0 Ministry of Natural Resources Angling LIcense Funds (those funds
IdentIfied for stream rehabIlitatIOn),
0 Commumty Fisheries Involvement Program,
0 Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authonty's Sediment
Control Program,
0 Municipal Valley Management and Naturalization Programs.
This nparian habitat management program could be expanded to mclude
instream fisheries rehabIlItatlon and environmental buffer management
(tableland).
il) Lead Ageru;y: The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authont).
Participating and SupJJOrting Agencles: Municipallties
- 83 - w~. &~O
Time Frame: Initiate within 1 year
Review MTRCA's land acquisition program for hazard lands and identify the
extent to w/llch the riparian habltat zone is included. Develop an acqulSltion
program for any riparian habitats not prevlOusly identlfied.
(b) ProtectIOn and Improvement - Future Action
(I) Lead Aeency: The MetropolItan Toronto and RegIon Conservatlon
Authority
Participatin2 and SuPportin2 A2encies: MNR
Local MumcIpalIty
Time Frame: Initiate WIthin 1 year
EstablIsh a publIc education and awareness program to outlIne the
Importance of healthy ripanan habItats m providing paSSIve recreatIOn,
maintaining important (functIonal) WIldlife communltles and mimmIzing
overland soil erosion and transport to watercourses.
~
TABLE 9 '0
.
RIPARIAN HABITAT ~
VISION PRINCIPAL POLICIES IMPLEMENTATION TIME FRAME --
PREVENTION PREVENTION
- enjoy with pleasure a healthy - establish a riparian habitat zone adjacent to - no comment - no comment
riverine/valley environment, watching watercourses
birds, mammals and fish In their
natural environment - existing riparian habitat shall be protected
and where possible re-established
- angle in the Rouge River with some
expectations of encountering various
preferred species of fish PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT
- establish a riparian habitat zone adjacent to Lead Agency - MTRCA Initiate within 1 year
watercourses Participatory Agencies - MNR, Local Mun.,
Non-govemmental Organizations
- existing riparian habitat shall be protected - establish the Riparian Habitat Management
I Program
~ Lead Agency - MTRCA Initiate within 1 year
I Participatory Agencies - MNR, local Mun.
- establish a public education and awareness
program
Lead Agency - MTRCA Initiate within 1 year
Participatory Agency - Local Mun.
- review MTRCA's hazard land acquisition
program for Inclusion of the riparian habitat
zone
wR. 5l+~
TERRESTRIAL HABITAT
- 85 - ~R. slf S
11 0 TERRESTRIAL HABITAT
11 1 Comment
Within the Rouge River watershed, a number of important and relatively large
terrestnal habItats exist within the valleys. These have been IdentIfied and studIed by
numerous agencies and groups, and include
. 0 EnVIronmentally SIgmficant Areas (MTRCA),
0 CarolIman Canada SItes (Carolinian Canada),
0 Areas of Natural and/or SCIentific Interest (MNR),
0 Class 1 - 7 Wetlands (MNR)
The Rouge River Urban Drainage Study reVIewed all avaIlable data on the terrestrial
resources m the Rouge River valleys and also developed a framework to determme any
Impacts from hydrologic related changes.
The conclusions of the study mdicated that predIctable hydrologIC changes would lIkely
have little impact on terrestrial habitat cover other than those habItats immedIately
adjacent to the watercourse. In these situatIOns, the habitat could be affected by
mcreased flows and associated bank erosion, or mcreased water levels, but generally thiS
would not be a major impact.
To aSSIst m determImng impacts on terrestnal habItats from hydrologIC changes, a
monitoring program of important habitats throughout the watershed could be
undertaken.
11.2 Specific ViSIon Statement
0 Enjoy terrestrial habitats that support sustaming populations of wildlife and
waterfowl.
~. 5)1.&f. - 86 -
11.3 Technical Standard
The following is a list of known important terrestnal habitats.
0 The Metropolitan Toronto and Region ConservatIon Authority's EnVironmentally
SIgmficant Areas (ESA),
0 Carolinian Canada sites,
.
0 Ministry of Natural Resources.
- Evaluated Wetlands (Class 1-7)
- Areas of Natural and/or Scientific Interest (ANSI),
0 MuniCIpal ESA.
114 Recommended Policies for TerrestrIal Habitats
1141 Prevention
Important flora and fauna areas such as MNR's evaluated wetlands, MTRCA's
EnvIronmentally Significant Areas (ESA), Caroliman Canada sites and Areas of Natural
and SCIentIfic Interest (ANSI - MNR) shall be protected (Figure 6)
114.2 Protection and Improvement
The following policy is the same as stated in the preventIOn component of the
Terrestrial HabItat section, other than the policy mcludes a management element.
Important flora and fauna areas such as MNR's evaluated wetlands, MTRCA's
Environmentally Significant Areas (ESA), CarolIman Canada sites and Areas of Natural
Scientific Interest (ANSI - MNR) shall be protected and managed (Figure 6)
- 87 - wR.$,+~
11.5 OperatIonal Criteria
11.5 1 PreventIon
(I) The MIrustry of Natural Resources' Wetland Poliey should be followed to
provide protectIOn to wetlands.
(ll) The CarolIman Canada's Stewardship Program proVides gUIdelines to undertake
protection programs of landowner agreements and conservatlon easements.
11.5.2 Protection and Improvement
(I) Guidelines for protectIOn and management of Important terrestrIal habItats can
be found in.
..
- Community Wildlife Involvement Program manual,
- Environmentally Significant Area Study (MTRCA, 1982), and
- ESA Management GUIdelines (Draft - MTRCA)
116 Implementation of Terrestnal Habitat PoliCIes
(a) Prevention - Immediate Action
(I) Lead Aeency: Local/Regional Municipality
Participatine and SUDDortine Aeencies: MTRCA
MNR
Carolinian Canada
Time Frame: Initiate Within 1 year
vJt. 5'*~ - 88 -
Accelerate eXisting programs of designatmg important floral and faunal
features as environmental protectIOn areas through the muniCIpal planmng
process
(ll) Lead Aeency: The MInistry of Natural Resources
Participatine and Supportine Aeency: MTRCA
Carolinian Canada
Non-governmental OrgamzatIOns
Time Frame: Initlate within 1 year
EstablIsh a resource morutonng program on selected sIgmficant terrestnal
habitats to determIne Impacts from hydrologIC changes.
(b) Protection and Improvement - ImmedIate Actions
(i) Lead Aeency: The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation AuthOrIty
Particioatine and Supportine Aeencies: MNR
Carolinian Canada
Non-governmental Orgamzations
Time Frame: Initiate in 1990
Establish a public education and awareness program to outline the
importance of healthy terrestnal habitats in providing passive recreation,
maintaining important (functional) wildlife communities and enhancing
groundwater quantIty and qualIty
(c) ProtectIOn and Improvement - Future Action
(i) Lead Aeency: The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authonty
- 89 - ~R. 511-1
ParticiDatin~ and Supportin~ A~encies: MNR
Non-governmental Orgamzations
Time Frame: Initiate in 1990
Establish a private lands stewardship program to rehabilitate terrestnal
habitats on rural and urbamzmg lands.
)
C
TABLE 10 '0
.
TERRESTRIAL HABITAT 01
VISION PRINCIPAL POUCIES IMPLEMENTATION TIME FRAME fq
PREVENTION PREVENTION
- enjoy terrestrial habitats that - Important flora and fauna areas, such as Lead Agencies - Local/Reg. Mun. Initiate within 1 year
support sustaining populations of MNR's evaluated wetlands, MNR's ANSI, Participatory Agencies - MTRCA, MNR,
wildlife and waterfowl MTRCA's ESA, Municipal ESA, and Carolinian Carolinian Canada
Canada sites shall be protected - accelerate existing programs of designating
Important floral and faunal features as
environmental protection areas
Lead Agency - MNR Initiate within 1 year
Participatory Agencies - MTRCA, Carolinian
Canada, Non-govemmental Organizations
- establish a resource monitoring program on
selected significant terrestrial habitats to
determine Impacts from hydrologic changes
I
~ PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT
I
- Important flora and fauna areas, such as Lead Agency - MTRCA Initiate In 1990
MNR's evaluated wetlands, MNR ANSI, Participatory Agencies - MNR, Carolinian
MTRCA's ESA, Municipal ESA, and Carolinian Canada
Canada, shall be protected and managed - expand land acquisition programs to place
lands containing Important floral and faunal
features Into public ownership
Lead Agency - MTRCA Initiate In 1990
Participatory Agencies - MNR, Carolinian
Canada, Non-govemmental Organizations
- establish public education and awareness
program
wR. ~1f9
AESTHETICS
- 91 - ~R.5"Sl)
12.0 AESTHETICS
12.1 Comment
The Rouge RIver Urban DraInage Study reviewed on the aesthetics In the watercourse
only wIth respect to those parameters that would also Impact the water qualIty, The
water quality component of the study Indicated that turbIdity and sIte specIfic locations
for aquatic growth were of concern, however, were not a major impact. Nevertheless, to
provide a complete and comprehensive management strategy, an aesthetic component
was Included. Many of the policies, operational critena and implementation withIn the
other sections of the strategy will aSSIst ip. meetIng aesthetics obJectIves.
12.2 SpeCIfic VISIOn Statement
0 Delight In the enjoyment of clear stream waters (In the seasons when waters should
normally be clear) that have no unpleasant odour, abnormal algal growth, or
Industrial and domestic wastes.
12.3 Technical Standard
(i) The water should be sufficiently clear that a SecchI disc is visible at a minimum
of 1.2 m.
(11) The turbidity of water should not be Increased more than 5 0 NTU
(nephelometric turbidity units) over natural turbIdIty when thIS IS low ( < 50
NT(])
.
(iii) Oil or petrochemicals should not be present in concentrations that.
- can be detected as a VIsible film, sheen or discoloratIOn on the surface,
- can be detected by odour; or
I,Jtl. 50J - 92 -
- can form deposIts on shorelInes and bottom deposits that are detectable by
sIght and odour
(IV) All waters should be free from.
- materials that wIll settle to form ObjectIOnable deposits,
- floating debris, oil, scum and other matter;
- substances producing objectionable colour, odour, taste or turbIdIty; and
- substances and condItions or combinations thereof m concentrations whIch
produce undesIrable aquatic lIfe
(v) Phosphorus levels should not exceed concentrations of 0 03 mg/l for dry penods
and the exceedance of eXisting guIdelines be mimmized for wet penods.
12.4 Recommended PoliCIes for Aesthetics
12.4 1 Protection and Improvement
(1) The Ministry of the Environment's PWQG for phosphorus shall be met dunng
penods of no runoff.
(iI) The frequency and length of time that phosphorus objectIves are exceeded
during periods of runoff shall be rrnmmIzed.
(m) The guidelines for clanty, turbidity, aesthetIcs and oil and grease (CanadIan
Water Quality Guidelines, 1987) should be met.
12.5 Operational Critena
No operational criteria are provided at thIS tIme.
- 93 - l.iJ ~ . ~s-:J.
12.6 Implementation of AesthetIcs
Protection and Improvement - Immediate ActIOns
(i) Lead A~ency: Local Municipality
Time Frame: Initiate in 1990
ElimInate and/or control dry weather phosphorus sources such as Illegal
waste dIscharges to storm sewers, faulty septIc systems.
(iI) Lead A~ency: Local/Regional MumCIpalItIes
Time Frame: ContInue In 1990 and thereafter, ongoIng
Maintain and/or extend mumcIpal spIll actIOn control programs. (see 66
(c)(Iii))
E
TABLE 11 ~
AESTHETICS ~
VISION PRINCIPAL POLICIES IMPLEMENTATION TIME FRAME ~
PREVENTION PREVENTION
- delight In the enjoyment of clear - no comment - no comment - no comment
stream waters (In seasons when
waters should normally be clear) that
have no unpleasant odour, abnormal PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT
algal growth, or Industrial and
domestic wastes - MOE's PWOO for phosphorus shall be met Lead Agency - Local Mun. Initiate In 1990
during periods of no runoff - eliminate and/or control dry weather
phosphorus sources
- minimize the frequency and length of time
that phosphorus objectives are exceeded Lead Agencies - Local/Reg. Mun. Continue In 1990 and thereafte
during periods of runoff Participatory Agency - MOE ongoing
- maintain/extend municipal spill action
- guidelines for clarity, turbidity, aesthetics control programs
I and 011 and grease (CWOG 1987) should be
~ met
I
- 95 - ~R. sSIf
130 THE ROUGE RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT STRATEGY. A LONG STEP
FORWARD - BUT NOT THE FINAL STEP?
The preparation of the Rouge River Basm Management Strategy is a SIgnificant event In
the evolution of the poliCIes and programs of The Metropolitan Toronto and RegIon
Conservation Authority
Less than a decade ago, the Authority's approach to stormwater and urban dramage
management and eroSIOn control essentIally consisted of carrymg out mdivIdual,
localIzed remedial works. A series of events m the 1980's (descnbed in S.3 1) led the
Authonty to question both the adequacy and the cost-effectIveness of thIS pIecemeal
approach, and to recognize the need to address each watershed as a functIOnal UnIt
rather than as a collection of Isolated water management problems.
ThIS perception had two further important ImplIcatIOns.
First, It led to recognItion of the watershed as an ecosystem whose dIverse components,
natural and man-made, were all interrelated. ThIS in turn meant that plannIng for water
management in effect entailed planning for the ecosystem.
Second, watershed planning could not be made the sole responsibIlity of a smgle agency,
even one with as broad a mandate as a conservation authority, because It inevitably
mvolved matters that were the responsibilIty of other agencies. It had to become a
cooperative endeavour with the full partICIpatiOn of the mUnICIpal governments and
provincial ministries that held these responsibIlIties. Moreover, because of the mterests
of watershed reSIdents and of other non-governmental groups m dIfferent aspects of
watershed planning, proviSIOn for the partICIpatIOn of the publIc as well was essentIal.
The first concrete expression of this new thmkmg was the Rouge River Urban Dramage
Study, initiated by the City of Scarborough and Save the Rouge Valley System m 1986
~R.S5G' - 96 -
For the first time MTRCA chose to exarrnne a specIfic issue, the management of urban
dramage, throughout an entIre watershed, in relation to other water management issues,
m an ecosystem context, m cooperation with other public agencIes, and WIth the
partIcipatIOn of citIzen groups.
Another manifestation of the new thinking was the Authority's 1988 Strategy for
Watershed Management, which not only set out these principles explIcItly as the
framework for future watershed planmng, but recognized that each watershed in the
Metro Toronto RegIon not only IS Itself an ecosystem but also falls into place as part of
a larger ecosystem.
Perhaps even more significantly, the MTRCA's 'A Strategy for Watershed Management'
also stressed the need to maintain a balance between economic and ecological health,
carrying in somewhat dIfferent words the identIcal message brought to Canada the
prevIOus year by the Brundtland Report on Environment and Development and that of
the National Task Force on EnVIronment and Economy
This is the sequence of events that led to the Rouge River Watershed Management
Strategy The plan is not a product of theory or ideology but the outcome of a process
of learning from very practical experience, a process which led inexorably to the
conclusion that planning for water management has to be both comprehensive and
cooperative.
The outstanding question raised, in fact, by this learning process IS is even
comprehensive water management planning enough? Expressed a little differently, is it
appropriate or practical to separate planning for water management from land and
environmental planning in general?
The Intention here is clearly not to suggest that the MTRCA, or any other agency,
should take over as a sort of supreme land and water planning authonty for the Metro
Region. It is not even intended to suggest that such a function should, or could, be
exercised collectively by several different agenCIes.
- 97 - wR.os1
However, the MTRCA's experience over the past decade, culminatIng in Its 1988
Greenspace for the Greater Metro RegIOn report and In the Rouge River Watershed
Management Strategy, points very clearly to the need for a broad, cooperatively
developed, land/water/enVIronmental polIcy framework for the RegIon, withm whIch
each public agency could exerCIse Its own responsibIlIties with regard to, for example,
mUnIcipal land use planning, transportation plannIng, and environmental assessment.
The need IS emphaSIzed by the Ontario government's appointment of an Environment-
Economy Round Table with a mandate to develop a provinCIal sustaInable development
strategy, a strategy, in the words of the MTRCA's 9wn 'A Strategy for Watershed
Management', to "balance ecologIcal health and qualIty WIth economIC growth and
development" A land/water/environment policy for The Metropolitan Toronto RegIOn
could make a vital contribution to a provinCIal sustaInable development strategy, and
would In turn be reInforced by the strategy
The Rouge River Basin Management Strategy is a long step forward In environmental
planning in the Metropolitan Toronto RegIOn, but it should not be the last.
- 98 - WR.5&7
140 GLOSSARY
base flow: stream discharge from groundwater sources.
basin: in hydrology, the area drained by a river
channel: a natural stream that conveys water; a dItch or channel excavated for the flow
of water
channelization/channel improvement: the improvement of the flow charactenstIcs of a
channel by clearing, excavation, realignment, lInIng or other means, In order to Increase
its capacity
cold water fishery: a fresh water, mixed fish populatIOn, includIng some
salmonids.
conservation: "wise use" or "multI purpose use" or "the greatest good for the greatest
number for the longest possible time"
ecosystem: a natural unit of living and nonlIving components whIch Interact to form a
stable system in which a cyclic interchange of matenals takes place between lIVing and
nonliving units.
enhancement: in an extreme form is a culture In whIch the ecosystem is brought under
close human control, as close as necessary to effect the relevant human purposes.
erosion: wearing away of land surface by running water, wind, ice or other geologIcal
agents. Detachment and movement of soIl or rock fragments by water, wind, ice or
gravity
fauna: the animals living withIn a gIven area or enVIronment dunng a stated penod.
~l.SSS - 99 -
fill: any matenal deposIted by an agent for as to fill or partly fill a channel, valley, or
other depressIOn.
flood: an overflow or inundation that comes from a river or body of water and causes
or threatens damage.
flood event: an occurrence based upon the measurement or calculation of the volume of
runoff or peak flow that results from any given raInfall or snow melt.
100 year flood: the flood that based on hIstoncal data, occurs on the
average once in 100 years. It is based on peak flows as opposed to rainfall amounts.
flood peak: the highest value of the stage or dIscharge attained by a flood.
floodplain: nearly level land situated on either side of a channel which is subject to
overflow flooding.
flora: the aggregate of plants growing In and usually peculiar to a partIcular regIOn or
period.
groundwater: subsurface (below ground) water In the zone of saturation.
headwater: the source of a stream, the water upstream from a structure or point on a
stream.
hydrology: a science dealing with properties, dIstribution and circulatIOn of water on
the surface of land, in the soil and underlying rocks, and in the atmosphere.
impervious/impermeable soil: a soil through WhICh water, air or roots cannot penetrate
- 100 - wR. ~S-,
intermittent streams: a stream or portion of a stream that flows in direct response to
precipItatIOn and IS dry for a large part of the year
marsh: a penodically wet or continually flooded area where the surface IS not deeply
submerged, covered dOmInantly With sedges, cattaIls, rushes, or other hydrophytIc plants
moraine: an accumulatIOn of glacial drift, generally of rock, gravels, and sands.
restoration: attempts to recover some of the features of the Initial Wild state currently
perceIved as partIcularly deSIrable.
stream order: A classification system that numbers the tributanes of a nver beginnIng
With headwater tributaries and IncreasIng the order number as lower order tributanes
join the maInstream.
sustainable development: the integration of envIronmental and econOmIC factors in
resource management decision-making.
warm water fishery: a fresh water, ffilXed fish population, with no salmonids.
wR. 5ho - 101 -
150 REFERENCE
Canada/Ontano Steenng CommIttee on Wetland Evaluation - An evaluatIOn system for
wetlands of Ontano south of the Precambnan ShIeld (2nd edItion) EnvIronment
Canada and Ontano MInIstry of Natural Resources. 1984
CanadIan Council of Resources and EnVironmental Mimsters - Task Force on
Water Quality GuidelInes. Canadian Water QualIty GUIdelInes. March 1987
Eagles, F.J., TJ Beechey (The identification subcomrrnttee of CarolInian
Canada) CntIcal Unprotected Natural Areas In the CarolIman LIfe Zone of
Canada. November 1985
Edwards, E.A., G Gebhart and O.E. Maughan. Habitat SUItabIlity Information.
Smallmouth Bass. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish and WIldlIfe ServIce FWS/OBS-82/10.36
1983
FranCIS, George R. et al. RehabilItating Great Lakes Ecosystem. Great Lakes
Fishery Comrrnssion, Technical Report No 37 December 1979
Hanna, R. Ministry of Natural Resources. Life SCIence Areas of Natural and
SCIentIfic Interest In SIte Distnct 7-4 1984
Metropolitan Toronto and Region ConservatIOn Authonty Environmentally Significant
Areas Study 1982.
Ministry of the EnVironment and MInIStry of Natural Resources GUIde to EatIng
Ontano Sport Fish. 1988.
Ministry of the Environment. Spills Response Program. 1988.
Ministry of the Environment. Water Management Goals, PolICIes, ObjectIves and
Implementation Procedures of the MInIstry of the EnVIronment. November 1978,
ReVised May 1984
Ministry of Natural Resources, Mirustry of the EnVIronment, MuniCIpal Affairs and
Transportation and Communications, AsSOCIatiOn of Conservation AuthoritIes of
Ontario, MUnICIpal Engineers AsSOCIatIOn, Urban Development InstItute, Ontano
Urban DraInage Design Guidelines.
February 1987
- 102 - 6Jf.S"
MinIstry of Natural Resources, MImstry of the Environment, MunicIpal AffaIrs and
Transportation and CommUnICatIOns, AsSOCIatIOn of ConservatIon Authorities of
Ontano, Mumcipal Engineers AsSOCIation, Urban Development Institute, Ontario
GUIdelines on EroSIOn and Sediment Control for Urban Construction Sites. May
1987
MInIstry of Natural Resources, Maple DIstnct Fisheries Management Plan. 1988.
RaleIgh, RF Habitat SUItabilIty Index Models. Brook Trout. U S Dept. Int., Fish and
Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-82/1O.24 1982.
Raleigh, RF., T Hickman, RC. Solomon and pc. Nelson. Habitat SuitabIlity
InformatIon. Rambow Trout. US Dept. Int., Fish and WIldlIfe ServIce FWS/OBS-
82/1060 1984
Steedman, RJ Comparative Analysis of Stream Degradation and RehabilItatIOn
m the Toronto Area. University of Toronto, 1987
iJ.JR. ~~ ~
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
ETOBICOKE MOTEL STRIP
WATERFRONT PUBLIC AMENITY SCHEME
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT BRANCH, MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT
COMMENTS
Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board
Meeting 18/89
January 12, 1990
Mlnl:'(ly ~\iIi1IS,( IC ~R. 5"3
ollhf' ell
Environment I Em lOonncmEn:
- ---.---- ------- --.- --- ---- -- -- -- -- --..--------------------- -- .- -- -- -
250 Oavl::,vllle Avenue 2~IO ~"'Pt\U~ DJ....I~....II:C
. ToronlO. DOlallO TOTonlO (Ontano)
M.IS Iii:> MJS H12
EA BRANCH CO~~ENTS ON THE CITY OF ETOBICOKE
MOTEL STRIP ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT f-mSTER PLAN
After reviewing the report, the Branch has the following
conunents
1 The report contains limited information as to the
impacts of proposed motel strip development and
public amenity scheme on off-site areas such as
Humber Bay Park East and Mimico Creek
The potential effects on aquatic habitat (fish
spawning grounds) may require further
consideration
2. Given that the study proposes a more intensive use
of the waterfront area for activities such as
swimming and board sailing, it may be wise to
broaden the water quality model to include other
contaminants which might pose a threat.
3. The proposal to develop wetland areas to filter
stormwater is an interesting and forward-thinking
idea. There is, however, the potential for these
ponds to become polluted over time, making them
unsightly and a potential health hazard. We
request that the City undertake proper design and
research work to avoid future problems
4. Public comments and suggestions were not summa.~ized
in, or appended to the report as agreed. This
material should be made available to the inter~sted
reader.
5. While the Humber Water Pollution Control Plant is
outside the study area, there is the potential for
sewage from this plant to threaten human health,
devalue property, and cause harm to both existing
beaches and those being created. As such, adequate
steps should be taken to ensure that this does not
occur.
6. Insufficient technical data has been presented to
allow for a thorough review of the feasibility, and
desirability of the deflector arm option. Given
the material presented, it can be concluded that
~. 5"' U- 3
- -
RECOMMENDATIONS
- EA Branch staff recommend that the lakefilling
component (deflector arm) be subject to
environmental assessment as it is far more
substantial than that outlined in OPA C-6S-86 In
addition to a thorough examination of the proposal
.. required by Section 5 of the Environmental
Assessment Act, the EA would include
0 Consideration of water contaminants in
addition to fecal coliforms and suspended
sediments that may pose a health risk;
0 A review of the impacts of the Humber Water
Pollution Control Plant on the Motel Strip
area; and
0 Consideration of the impacts of the proposal
on off-site areas such as Humber Bay Park East
and Mimico Creek
- Your current examination should be expanded to
include further consideration of the wetland
proposal to provide technical information on
on-site controls, interim controls, degree of
treatment and monitoring
Environmental Assessment
November 14, 1989
- -
~ -