The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWater and Related Land Management Advisory Board Appendices 1990 luR .1 -- , A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE IMPROVED LAKEFILL QUAUTY CONTROL PROGRAM FOR 1989 ~ ,_ the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority Ii)R .:). A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE IMPROVED lAKEFlll QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM .cotilEftI.S A ) A HISTORY OF THE I.L.a.c.p. a) OPERATING PROCEDURES C) ACHIEVEMENTS APPENDIX) STATISTICS I) MONTHLY BREAKDOWN OF TOTAL FILL VOLUMES RECEIVED AT EACH LAKEFILL SITE, " ) BREAKDOWN OF FILL VOLUMES RECEIVED BY DISPOSAL AREA CLASSIFICA TION, III) MONTHLY BREAKDOWN OF FILL VOLUMES RECEIVED FROM "LARGE PROJECTS" AND "SMALL PROJECTS ", IV) RESUL TS OF THE I.L.a.c.p. INTERNAL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS AUDITING SYSTEM, Page 1 lA)((. :3 A HISTORY OF THE IMPROVED LAKEFILL QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM: In 1982 The Ontario Ministry of the Envlronment(M.O.EJ initiated the Lakefi 11 auality Assurance Program(L.a.APJ in order to control the qual ity of lakefi 11 which was generated in specific areas of the city of Toronto. The program designated the area bounded by aueen St. to the north, Roncesvalles Ave. to the west and Leslie St. to the east as a Designated Control Area<DCA). All fill generated within this area had to be chemically tested in order to determine it's suitability for lakefilling. This particular region was singled out because of it's close proximity to the Leslie St. Spit; it's largely Industrial makeup and it's high fill content. I t was hoped that since a large percentage of the lakefill material which was taken to Leslie St. was generated in this area, the general qual ity of the lakefill material would improve. The formation of additional Designated Control Areas was also proposed for the L.a.AP. but the program was replaced with the present procedures before these areas could be identified. Particular concerns with the L.a.AP. were; I) A significant percentage of material deposited as lakefill was generated in areas outside the D.C.A . il) Because there was no "weigh bill" used In the program It was impossible for the lakefill site operators to tell where a given load of fill had been generated. In 1987 the M.O.E. commissioned a study of the soil quality on the Leslie St. Spit and determined that the material deposited since the inception of the L.a.AP. largely exceeded various parameters on the M.O.E. Open Water Disposal Guidelines. For this reason the L.a.AP. was replaced with the Improved Lakefill auallty Control Program(l.L.a.C.PJ on January 1,1989. wR. '+ Page :2 B: OPERA liNG PROCEDURES The Improved Lakefill auality Control Program is based on the issuance of environmental disposal permits, "Bills of Lading ", to specific excavation projects which the M.T.R.C.A has deemed environmentally suitable for lakefilllng. The determination of this suitability is made In three different ways depending upon the volume of excavated earth material expected to be generated. For "large projects" generating 200 cubic meters of fill or more, a detailed environmental report Including chemical testing analysis is required by the M.T.R.C.A before a decision is made on environmental suitability. Acceptability for "small projects" is determined by either a pre-disposal site inspection (group A small pro jects, ) 50 and < 200 cubic meters) or by the landuse and address of the project as indicated on the "Application for Bill of Lading" form ( group B small projects, 50 cubic meters or less. l.L.a.c.p. operating procedures have evolved substantially since January 1, 1989. Many of these changes in operation of the system have occurred as a result of lakeflll site operators accepting or rejecting the idea of the untested "small project" site as defined in the "Manual for an Improved Lakefill auality Control Program. Effective July 1, 1989, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners began accepting only chemically tested "open water" quality material at the Leslie St. lakefill site. Up unti1 this time the M.T.R.C.A had two members of the l.L.a.c.p. staff at the Leslie St. site at all times in order to issue "Bills of Lading" to group B small projects and to visually Inspect all truckloadS of fill entering the site which originated from untested "small projects ". After July 1, it became possible to reduce the number of staff present at Leslie St. and therefore add to the number of staff available to police the program and/or to staff other Authority operated projects requiring excavated fil1 material. This addition to the number or Environmental Control Technicians avallable for policing of the program represented an Important operational change. Increas1ng the number or Environmental Control Technicians al10ws for greater opportun1ty to identify violators of the I.L.a.c.p. and site operational rules. There are two basic activities which are carried out on a dally basis by the I.L.a.c.p. staff. The first activity is the approval or rejection of excavation projects for lakefill ing and the issuance of "Bi lis of Lading" and the second is the policing of the program to ensure that the construction community is complying with the l.L.a.c.p.. Many changes Page 3 wR.S- rlave occurred in these two areas. Over the course of 1989 the M.T.R.C.A has gradually toughened the criteria required in order to receive "Bills of Lading ". For "large projects", a substantially mo.re detailed enviro.nmental repo.rt is requIred at present than during the initial mo.nths of the pro.gram due to. the fact that the Authority no.w expects consultants to be aware of the proper format for a good environmental report. Initially, incomplete reports were accepted in order to alleviate possible costly delays in projects which were underway prior to the l.L.a.c.p. start up date. In these cases the consultants would be contacted and the proper format for a suitable environmental report would be outlined to them. At present, however, only those reports which contain all of the mandatory requirements of a good environmental report are accepted by the M.T.R.C.A. For "small projects" only material generated from residential areas or other areas with no knewn present or past potential fer centaminatien, is appreved fer lakefilling without chemical testing. The secend fundamental activity carried out by the l.L.a.c.p. staff is the monitering of applicants and centracters cempliance with the regulatiens of the l.L.a.c.p.. As mentiened previeusly, the number ef I.l.a.c.p. staff available fer monitoring the system and ensuring the proper use ef the "Bill of Lading" has risen since the programs inception and hence the prebability ef uncevering any vielations has also risen. Aleng with imprevement in the abeve mentioned fundamental areas, the l.L.a.c.p. has also improved its data processing system which allews it to. keep up to. date with the hundreds of excavations In progress at any given time. At the beginning ef each day the "Bills of Lading" received the previeus day are entered into the ILa.c.p. computer. In this way the number ef leads which have originated from any given site can be menitered as can the dates which these loads were received at lakefill sites. The Authority staff can then use the database to. assist In identifying excavatien prejects which are cempleted. Outstanding Bills of Lading would then be certified as unacceptable and would not be accepted at the lakefi 11 sites. The Authority staff are currently seeking more reliable testing methods to. ensure the quality ef "small preject .. leads as they enter the lakefilling lecatiens. This testing precess weuld be performed in conjunctien with the visual inspection which is currently perfermed en all "small preject " leads. LV R.1o Page 4 The follewing is a breakdown of the daily duties of each member of the 1.L.a.c.p. staff during the dumping seasen . 1. Coordinater, Impreved Lakefill aua1ity Control pregram - review envirenment.al reperts and issue "Bills of Lading "; prepare monthly reperts which are submitted to. the M.O.E. ; liaisen with the censtructien industry and envirenmental censultants ; update lists ef envirenmental consultants, active excavatien prejects and alternative fill sites; supervisien ef staff and co.-ordination of pelicing effert . 2. Environmental Contrel Technician (Leslie St.) - receive and count "Bills of Lading" ; co-erdinate pelicing of jobs entering the Leslie St. site; take soil samples from trucks; inspect "large project" truck loads randomly; audit site operations persennel to. ensure that they are accepting only those prejects whose bills are active and preperly filled out; previde infermation to. the industry . 3. Envirenmental Centre I Technician (Inspecter) - perform site approval inspections for greup A .small prejects" ; carry eut pel icing effert; certifying "large projects n complete; monitor compliance of the Program at the Guild site. 4. Envirenmental Centrel Technician (Flshleigh Dr. site) - issuing "Bills ef Lading" to group B "sma 11 pre jects " ; inspect trucks entering the site; co.-ordinate pel icing ef jebs entering the Fishleigh Dr. site; previde infermatlen to. the industry; take soil samples frem trucks; receive and ceunt the "Bi lis of Lading" ; 5. Envirenmental Control Technician (Enforcement) - do detailed site audits of "large prejects " to. ensure that the excavation is being carried eut in accordance with the stipu1atiens of the environmental repert ; carry out po. Ii C i ng eff ert . 6. Environmental Contrel Technician (Bellamy Ravine site) - issuing "Bills of Lading" to. greup B "small prejects " ; inspect trucks entering the site; co-ordinate pelicing of jobs entering the Bellamy Ravine site; previde infermatien to the industry; take soil samples frem trucks; receive and count the "Bills of Lading" . Page 5 WR.7 The Metropolitan Toronto. and Region Conservation Autherity has, threugh it's Improved Lakefill auality Contrel pregram , instituted a pregram which effectively moniters and centrels the quality ef lakefill material accepted at lakeflll sites within the Autheritys' jurisdiction. The pregram new In place, fulrills the alms and directiens given In the "Manual fer an Improved Lakeflll auallty Control pregram ". It Is the staff's opinion that the quality ef lakeri 11 material depesited under the l.L.a.c.p. has impreved ever the programs' predecesser, the "Lakefi 11 auallty Assurance Program ". The major achievements fer the program In 1989 were; 1,) Eighty four percent er all material depesited at lakerll1 sites, in 1989, was generated rrom 164 chemically tested "large prejects". 2,) In 1989, appreximately 680,000 cubiC meters of material was rejected for lakefilling as a result ef the l.L.a.c.p. as compared to. 1.36 mi lllen cubic meters received. 3,) All untested "small project" material was depesited in "protected" areas at designated lakefilllng lecations . 4,) "Small project" applicants are enly issued "Bills ef Lading" if their prejects are residential In nature er if the material has been determined suitable by an M.T.R.C.A. Environmental Contrel Technician. 5.) The presence of ILa.c.p. staff perferming inspections ef fill entering the lakeflll sites has deterred haulers frem attempting to deposit visually centaminated material. 6,) The test results obtained under the Autheritys' Chemical Testing Audit System have shown that only lIef 135 samples(8%) taken, railed the MInistry er the Envirenments "Restricted Landuse Guideline" which ultimately determines acceptability at lakeflll lecatiens . I t Is the staff's eplnion that these test results will Improve substantially If preposed Imprevements regarding "small prejects " are implemented. 7.Hhe ILa.c.p. paid fer $415,000 ef additlonallakefl11 menltering. wf? fr I ) MONTHLY BREAKDOWN OF TOTAL FILL VOLUME RECE I VED AT EACH LAKEFILL 51TE . II ) BREAKDOWN OF FILL RECEI VED BY DISPOSAL AREA CLASSIFICATION III ) MONTHLY BREAKDOWN OF FILL VOLUMES RECEI VED AT ALL LAKEFILL SITES FROM "LARGE PROJECTS. AND "SMALL PROJECTS" I V ) RESULTS OF THE l.L.a.c.p. INTERNAL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS AUDITING SYSTEM ~R.~ ~ MONTHLY BREAKDOWN OF TOTAL FIL~LUME RECIEVED AT EACH LAKEFILL GPAPH 1 VOlUME Of FILL DEPOSITED AT EACH LAKEFILL SITE IN JANUARY 1989 wR.IO 200000 LESLIE ,.. ~ ... I- ... t W 100000 ! u w I S. SMITH I GUILD BELLAMY FISHLEIGH 0 I 2 3 4 5 LAICEFILL SITE GRAPH 2 : VOLUME Of FILL DEPOSITED AT EACH LAKEFILL SITE IN FEBRUARY 1989 100000 LESLIE , I ,.. ! I 80000 ~ ... t 60000 W CD B 40000 w I I I I .I 20000 I i I S. SMITH GUILD BEllAMY FISHLEI6H 0 1 2 3 4 5 LAICEFILL SITE GRAPH 3 : VQUME Of FILL RECEIVED AT EACH LAKEFILL SITE IN MARCH 1989 60000 LESLIE ,.. I 50000 i 40000 u - 30000 ! u w 20000 I 10000 ! > S. SMITH GUILD BELLAMY FISHLEI6H 0 1 2 3 4 5 LAICEFILL SITE toR. I' GRAPH 4 , vetUME OF FILL RECEIVED A TEACH LAKEFILL SITE IN APRIL 1989 60000 LESLIE ,... 50000 ; .. 40000 ! w 30000 aD = ~ 20000 ~ I 10000 S. StllTH GUILD BELLAMY FISHLEIGH 0 1 2 3 4 5 LAKEFILL SITE GRAPH 5 : VOlUME Of FILL RECEIVED A TEACH LAKEFILL SITE IN MAY 1989 100000 LESLIE ,... ~ 80000 Ie = ! 60000 W I 40000 I 20000 BELLAMY I S. SMITH GUILD FISHLEIGH 0 1 2 3 4 5 LAKEFILL SITE GRAPH 6 . vetUME Of FILL DEPOSITED AT EACH LAKEFILL SITE IN JUNE 1989 100000 ,... LESLIE ~ m 80000 .. ! 60000 W aD = U 40000 w I S. SMITH 20000 BELLAMY ! :. GUILD FISHLEI6H 0 1 2 3 4 5 LAKEFILL SITE U),Q. ~ ,jRAPH 7 . VOlUME Of FILL DEPOSITED AT EACH LAKEFILL SITE IN JULY 1989 80000 LESLIE ,... en ~ 60000 '" ... ! w 40000 !II u w I 20000 S. SMITH BELLAMY GUILD FISHLEIGH 0 I 2 3 4 5 LAICEFILL SITE GKAPH 8 : V<lUME Of FILL RECEIVED AT EACH lAKEFlll SITE IN AUGUST 1989 i20000 LESL IE i 100000 ~ ! 80000 W !II 60000 u w 40000 I BELLAMY ! 20000 FISHLEI6H > 6U1LD 0 1 2 3 4 5 LAKEFILL SITE Gi<APH 9 : V<lUME Of Fill RECEIVED A TEACH lAKEFllllOCA T100 IN SEPTEMBER 1989 100000 LESLIE ,... I 80000 ! 60000 W II 40000 u FISHLEI6H w '" i 20000 BELLAMY ! GUILD > 0 1 2 3 4 5 LAICEFILL SITE !0R.13 3RAPH 9b : VOlUME OF Fill RECEIVED AT EACH LAKEFlll LOCA TI()J IN OCTOBER 1989 ~ 120000 ~ LESLIE Ie 100000 ... ~ ! 80000 y - ! 60000 y \J 40000 ... FISHLEI6H J: = 20000 BELLAt1V ! S. SMITH > 0 1 2 '7 4 5 LAKEFILL SITE GRAPH 9c : VOlUME Of FILL RECEIVED AT EACH LAKEFILL LOCATION IN NOVEMBER 1989 100000 ~ LESLIE = w 80000 .. ! w 60000 I u ~ 40000 I FISHLEI6H ! 20000 BElLAt1V > S. SMITH 0 1 2 :'i 4 5 LAKEFILL SITE GRAPH 9d : VOlUME OF FILL RECEIVED AT EACH LAKEFILL LOCATION IN DECEMBER 1989 80000 LESLIE ~ ~ Ie ~ 60000 '" E W ~ 40000 \J ! 20000 FISHLEI6H BELLAt1V > S. SHITH 6UILD 0 1 2 ~ 4 5 LAKEFILL SITE w~, 'LI- AffENIllKJl BREAKDOWN OF FILL RECEIVED BY DISPOSAL AREA CLASSIFICATION. APPENDIX II : SOil CLASSIFICATION BREAKDOWN ~f<.JS- GRAPH 10 : BREAKDOWN OF TOTAL Fill RECEIVED BY SOil CLASSIFICATION 120000 OPEN WATER (76.51) 100000 i ~ I 80000 I 0 ..I 60000 ~ , 40000 PROTECTED (23.4) i 20000 CONFINED (< 1 I) 0 1 2 3 Fill CLASSIFICATION The above graph illustrates a breakdown of fill material received at all lakeflll sites frem January 1 , 1989 to. December 31, 1989. The follewing tab Ie shows the exact numerical breakdown ef this data; Table 1 : The tetal volume ef fIll received at all1akefill sites by dlspesal classificatien. Classificat len Velume Percentage Open Water 1 ,039,260 76.5 Pretected 317,820 23.4 Confined 4,540 < 0.1 TOT AL 1,361,620 100 LuR. I" ~ MONTHLY BREAKDOWN OF FILL VOLUMES RECEIVED AT ALL LAKEFILL SITES FROM LARGE PROJECTS AND SMALL PROJECTS. ";;(APH 11 ,FILL VOlUMES RECEIVED FOR LARGE AND SMALL PROJECTS IN JANUARY 1989 200000 ~R. 17 LARGE PROJECTS (92 ~) ~ ~ I6l ... ~ W 100000 ! u ..., ~ SMALL PROJECTS (8 I) ! > 0 1 2 GRAPH 12 : FILL VOlUMES RECEIVED FOR LARGE AND SMALL PROJECTS IN FEBRUARY 1989 80000 ~ LARGE PROJECTS (85 I) 81 I6l 60000 ... ! w ! 40000 ~ ~ 20000 SMALL PROJECTS (15 I) I 0 1 2 GRAPH 13 : FILL VOlUMES RECEIVED FOR LARGE AND SMALL PR<AJECTS IN MARCH 1989 50000 ~ LARGE PROJECTS (72 I) B 40000 ... ! 30000 u SMALL PROJECTS (28 I) - ! u 20000 ..., I 10000 S > 0 1 2 w R.I 'I (;:<"PH l"'l FILL VOlUMES RECEIVED FROM LARGE AND SMALL PROJECTS IN APRIL 1989 30000 ^ lARGE PROJECTS (48 X) ~ ^ lit '" N ~ ! 20000 In .., W = ~ u i .., I 10000 ~ I i 0 1 2 GRAPH 15 : FILL VQUMES RECIEVED FROM LARGE AND SMALL PROJECTS IN MAY 1989 60000 ^ lARGE PROJECTS (58 I) ! 50000 ~ SMALL PROJECTS (42 I) ! 40000 W ! 30000 u .., I 20000 I 10000 0 1 2 GRAPH 16: FILL VOlUMES RECEIVED FROM LARGE AND SMALL PROJECTS IN JUNE 1989 60000 lARGE PROJECTS (55 I) ^ SMALL PROJECTS (45 I) i 50000 ! 40000 W CD 30000 = u .., '" 20000 . z: = ... 10000 0 > 0 1 2 GRAPH 17 : FILL VOLUMES RECEIVED FROM LARGE AND SMALL PROJECTS IN JUL Y 1989 IA)R. , 'I 100000 ,.,. ! 80000 LAR6E PROJECTS (99 I) w E 60000 W n 40000 .., ~ 20000 SMALL PROJECTS (1 I) I 0 1 2 GRAPH 18 : FILL VOlUMES RECEIVED FRCt1 LARGE AND SMALL PROJECTS IN AUGUST 1989 ,.,. 200000 81 LAR6E PROJECTS (87 I) i i 100000 .., I SMALL PROJECTS (13 ,n i 0 1 2 GRAPH 19 : FILL VOlUMES RECEIVED FROM LARGE AND SMALL PRQlECTS IN SEPTEMBER 1989 200000 ,.,. B LAR6E PROJECTS (90 I) .. ! w . 100000 = U .., ~ SMALL PROJECTS (10 I) i 0 1 2 ~R.2D GRAPH 19b, FILL 'JOl.UME3 RECEIVED FROM LARGE AND SMALL PROJEC; IN OCTOBER 1989 200000 .... LARGE PROJECTS (92 X) en i !Ii 100000 ! u ..., I = SMALL PROJECTS (8 X) 0 1 2 GRAPH 19c : FILL VOLUMES RECEIVED FROM LARGE AND SMALL PROJECTS IN NeVEMBER 1989 150000 UIR8E PROJECTS (93 .) .... 00 e 100000 ! w II :>> u ..., 50000 I SMAll PROJECTS (7 ,n I 0 1 2 GRAPH 19d : FILL VOLUMES RECEIVED FROM LARGE AND SMALL PROJECTS IN DECEMBER 1989 80000 LARGE PROJECTS (97 X) .... en Gl: '" 60000 ... '" E u Q 40000 II :>> u ..., ~ 20000 i SMALL PROJECTS (7 I) 0 I 2 INR,~, AffENDJ.X.JY. RESULTS OF THE ILQ.C.P. INTERNAL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS AUDITING SYSTEM. wR. ~;J. ^PPCHDIX IV ACOUL TO 01"' TNC "L.Q.C.P. IHTCAH^L CNCMIC^L ANALYSIS AUDITING SYSTEIj INTERNAL AUDITING PROGRAM The fellewing table summarizes the test results received fer sel1 samples taken by M.T.R.C.A. staff as part of the internal auditing program ef the l.L.a.c.p.. These samples were taken from trucks as they entered various lakefill sites on the waterfrent. The term "failed ", as seen en the table refers to. samples judged net to. meet the particular guideline in Questien using M.O.E. and M.T.R.C.A. criteria fer assessing lakefill guidelines. JOB TYPE NUMBER a= SAMPLES SAMPLES FAILING OPEN SAMPLES FAILING RESTRICTED TESTED VIA TER GUIDELINE LAND USE GUIDElINE RESIDENTIAL ORIGIN 52 26 4 C<X'1MERCIAL ORIGIN 11 6 1 UNKN~ 25 11 1 -- --------- SMALL PROJECT 68 45 6 TeTALS LARGE PROJECTS 32 11 4 STORAGE YARDS 15 11 I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTALS 135 67 11 The next eighteen pages represent a parameter by parameter analysis ef the test results ebtained from small untested prejects threugheut 1989 ' These graphs illustrate, ameng ether things, which parameters on the "Open Water Disposal Guidelines" are mest often exceeded. Following the graphs of the small project results is a review of the results ebtained frem samples cellected frem large prejects. In this sectien, scatter graphs ef the type used fer the small project section are not used because ef the cemplexity invelved in analyzing the large project results. Fer example, a successful study of these large preject results requires a comparisen between the results previeusly submitted by the applicants and consultants and the results ebtained by the Autherity . JuR.~3 MERCURV 3l I I I I i ! I I i 0 I I I 2 I . I ; I ... . J: Q& DO III Go Ul i Go ! : , 1 i I j I I o 0 : 0 I restricted guideline 0 ! DO i DO 0 I 0 I open water guideli:-:e ! 0 , i 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 1:;0 NUMBER OF SAMPLES PCB ~R. ~lI- note: restrIcted guideline equals 2 0 ppm 6 00e-2 - .. S,QOe-2 open water guidelmes 400e-2 IDO I ~ lit E , 3,OOe-2 0 CI ~ I L :: ,OOe-2 0 1.00e-2 L.1'1i1111ll1H11I11tl111 1fT'111 .11IHH11ltlH 1<Ii.... * 0 CD CIlJ lIJOOIJIID 6,78e-21 I I I . 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 NUMBER Of SAMPLES * RESUL TS REPRESENT THE LAB DETECTION LIMIT, RESUL TS REPORTED AS "< ,01 PPM" IN MOST CASES 'LUR.;l~ LEAD 800 IJ 600 IJ I ~ 40.0 E I restrlct~d guideline . IJ i .. IJ IJ 0 IJ 200 IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ IJ a IJ IJ open water guideline IJ a IJ IJ [P rn9 J' ~ . . . . 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 NUMBER Of SAMPLES ().)R. 2 J, CADMIUM 5 1 I 1 4 0 3 - restrlcteo gUloel1ne I ; J: ! = 2 DOO ~ A- I I ~ * open water gUlael.~ ~ o-~ I , I , I I , , , I 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 NUMBER OF SAMPLES it RESUL T5 REPRESENT THE LAB DETECTION LIMIT RESULTS REPORTED AS "( 1 PPM . .'LUR.~7 OIL AND GREASE 6000 [] 5000 restricted guidelines [] 0 40.00 I ~ [] I: 30.0.0 , [] i 0 a t. 200.0 [] open waler guidelines ~ [] [] 1000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0:0 . 00 0 ~~ ~~. rD~% 0 20 40 60. 80 100 120 HUMBER Of SAMPLES VOLA TILE SOLIDS v:>R.2S' 500000 - - IJ IJ C 400000 ! 300000 ; J: I i L 200000 IJ 100.0.00 IJ lJo IJ IJ ttRblJ - IJ r:1 - a ~ IJ . a ~ d"''b {} " ~ - open water guIdelines . . .' lD' .- '.a a.rJD lJa~ lJa l:tb [D q!iJ IJ ~19' D . D D& 01 ~.. ~ . D 0 20 40 ' 60 80 . 1 100 120 NUMBER OF SAMPLES '(i)R.~~ PHOSPHORUS 1600 1400 B B B B 120.0 B B,B I B 1000 open waler gulde\l~ iJ B 0 00 0 rP J: EJ 0 , EJ EJ 0 0 lJ . Dc 0 = EJ I 800 EJ 0 B L B tD B B 0 B B B B tD 0 B B 19 0 B B B om B to B B B 0 B II!J B B IB B 600 B B OJ B BEJa OB B B BB B BB 400 B B 200 . , , 0. 20 40 60 80 100 120 NU"BER OF SA"PLES ARSENIC UJ R. 30 note: RestrIcted GUIdeline eauais ~0 oom 12 0 10 . 8 open water gUIdelines I o 0 ; J: 6 lK ... ~ g) 0 0 ~ lK C 000 ~ 0 0 4 0 000 0 rr:P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oOlD 0 rfJ 0 0 lDo 0 0 0 2 0 lD fu o 0 o IDO 00 0 0 ~ olfl o 0 0 o ctJo 19 o 0 0 0000 0 0 0 00 0 (I J 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 NUMBER Of SAMPLES ~R. 3 J COPPER 200 c I ~ J: 100 restricted guideline ! ~ .. ~ L c c c c C EJ EJ C EJ a aa a 0 rF open Vt aler guidelines oC19c . aID EJ EJ C a l:I C - C rJJ l:I IDaEJ l:I a Ola EJ 'b 0 al:lEJ a 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 NUMBER OF SAMPLES LVR.3R NITROGEN 3000 0 2000 open water guidelines 0 I ;I 0 J: ! c i .. 1000. EJ 0 C Co 0 0 0 0 o 0 CO 0 0 0 0 c c cO 0 0 0 ID C o ~ 0 c c C c o 0' fQ 0 0 0 0 oEb 0 c c 0 0 c c c 0 ' , . I I , 0 20 40 60 80 100 NUt1BER OF SA"PLES Slld~VS :10 lIlg~nN 001 09 09 Ot> O~ 0 . . 0 0 0 lJ 0 0 Q]J1 OJ lJO o QlllJo lJ lJ 0 . dJ 00 lJlJO llJo OJ 0 \\ co 0 00 0 0 C!J C DO DO 0 00 Cbo 0 00 DC: 0 00 aU!lap!nfi Ja,eM uaclo 0 001 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 ,. ~ OOG ~ 0 ... ~ ,. fit " c :I ~ r'" I OO~ c 001:> 0 0 0 aUllap!nfi Pa,:l!J1SaJ oas JNIZ €~ .~~ CHROMIUM LU R. 34- note: Restricted Guideline equals 120 ppm , 80 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 lIJ 0 0 CI l:l 0 0 I 0 0 ; 0 E 40 0 ! 0 DO El El CO ~ ~ l:l .. El 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 open water guidelines 0 0 0 DO CD El 20 0 0 0 0 0 o El 0 0 lIJ 0 cf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El El 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 20 40 60 80 100 NUMBER Of SAMPLES ,~R, ~S" IRON 40000 a a a 30000 a a a a a a a a a a 0 a a a I a a IE a ; a E lEI a 0 , 20000 a EJ i aa a a 0 0 0 a 0 0 a 0 IE :J 0 0 a a L 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 EJ o 0 a 0 lEI 0 EJ 0 a 0 o 0 0 ao 0 10000 .... w open wfller guidelines 0 00 0 0 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 NUMBER OF SAMPLES NICKEL ~R. ak ...ot4 . O"ctr.ct4d GUll,oil..." "quolc 60 ppm 50 40. c 0 00 [HI 0 0 0 30 0 I 0 ~ E ,., ~ open water ,guidelines . 0 0 ~ c [] c to 0 0 ~ . 0 0 C 20 L c 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 c 0 0 00 0 0 [;] 0 0 0 0 00 !DO 0 0 0 0 [] 0 0 [] c c 0 0 0 10 [] 0 0 cc c cc 0 c c c 00 0 0 c cc c 0 aDO 0 C IJ 0 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 NUMBER OF SAMPLES ~R- ~7 COBALT note, Ocen Water GUideline eQuals 50 ppm 30 .t'J t'J t'JO at'J 20 t'JID I t'Jt'J .. .. E . t'J III I- a a . ... t'J a a . c I- a t'J t'J t'J 10 C ot'J a [IDO CD a 0 t'J lD t'J a t'J t'J 0 t'JOCDCD 0 em t'J lEO t'J CD t'J t'J a t'J a a CD CD a a OlD a a 00 0 o. a a c c c co a a 0 . 0 20 40 60 80 100 HUMBER OF SAMPLES LUk>,3i SIL VER 5 I I 4 lD CD I 3 - .J . E &Ill: ~ en ~ ~ ,.., 0 o lIIIJJD lJ lJ L ,L I I I I : I i anm lD I I I I open water guidelines '. j I I i O. 0 20 40 60 80 100 NUMBER OF SAMPLES · RESULTS REPRESENT LAB DETECTION LIMIT. RESUL TS REPORTED AS "< 10 PPM " IN MOST CASES. . . . b)~. '5' CY ANIDE 6 0 0 0 5 0 4 0 ~ I ; 0 E 3 - I ~ ~ ~ .. 0 2 EJ EJ EJ EJ 0 0 EJ 1 EJ EJ EJ EJ EJ EJ EJ EJ o 0 0 open water guideline IX] 00 0 EJ - 0 .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. 0 , , 20 40 60 80 100 NUMBER Of SAMPLES AMMONIA ~R. ~D note' Ct:e- 'Hater Guideline equals 100 ppm . 50 I 0 I I 40 lJ ! 30 0 - - 0 . J: 1M ~ CIO .. . I. 20 0 0 10 [!J1111111111i1IH""IH 1'Ii 1111'1 11'111111111111111~ 'f 1'1'1 I I * 0 0 CD 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 NUMBER OF SAMPLES -if RESUL TS REPRESENT LAB DETECTION LIMIT . RESULTS REPORTED AS . < , 0 PPM . IN MOST CASES . ~ (? ..,. J LARGE PROJECT RESULTS FROM THE I.L.Q.C.P. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS AUDITING SYSTEM: The fellewlng is a review ef the test results received fer sell samples obtained frem trucks carrying fill frem previously tested "large projects ". Of the twenty-nine samples taken frem trucks with Bills of Lading marked "open water", twenty-one samples met the guidelines and eight samples exceeded the guidelines. Only two. ef these eight samples exceeded the Restricted Land Use Guidelines which is the ultimate determination of acceptance at lakefill sites. In both cases the exceedance was marginal. The Authority staff feel that these results are encouraging for a number of reasons; 1) Four of the failing samples were ebtained frem projects that were given Bi lis ef Lading during the l.L.a.c.p. phase in period. 11) 72 ro ef the samples passed the Open Water Guidelines and hence concurred with the findings of the original environmental report. iiD When analyzing individual sample results, no. averaging Is pessible; hew ever, approved procedures allew for averaging of test results for the low prierity parameters. Therefore, many of the samples judged to. have failed because ef exceedances ef lew priority parameters may have satisfied the requirements if more samples ef the jeb site had been taken and averaged. These results indicate that in a majerity ef cases the audit samples taken by the autherity staff cencur with the findings ef the eriginal envirenmental repert . I t Is predicted that this percentage wi 11 increase as mere and mere high quality environmental reperts are submitted and the "watering down" effects of the early, Inadequately tested large prejects are eliminated as these excavatiens are cempleted . I,UR.&f-~ GRAPH 20 : TEST RESULTS FOR SAMPLES OBTAINED FROM TRUCKS PRESENTING .OPEN WATER · BILLS OF lADING 30 LARGE PROJECTS ONLY <72 I) 20 I c ~ * I ~ . 10 (28 I) 0 1 2 PASSED OPEN WATER FAILED OPEN WATER 6UIDELlNES 6UIDElINES ~ R. ~3 GRAPH 21 : HIGH PRIORITY PARAMETERS MOST OFTEN EXCEEDED 8 LARGE PROJECTS ONLY 6 A = '" ; '" CO '" I 4 CO ~ .. ! 2 0 1 2 3 4 MERCURY lEAD VOlA TILE CADMIUM SOLIDS LUR. 4-LJ- INTERIM ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING GUIDELINES for the OAK RIDGES MORAINE MTRCA March 2, 1990 i wR.4-5 TABLB OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2.0 SIGNIFICANT ASPECTS OF THB MORAINE. . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3.0 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4.0 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.2 WATER MANAGEMENT COMPONENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMPONENT . . . . . . . . . 5 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING GUIDELINES . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.2 LANDFORM CONSERVATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2.2 Authori~y Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2.3 POlicy Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.3 RIVER VALLEY CONSERVATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.3.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.3.2 Authority Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.3.3 POlicy Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.4 CONSERVATION OF ESAs and ANSIs . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.4.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.4.2 Authority Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.4 3 Policy Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.5 WETLAND CONSERVATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.5.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 .5.5.2 Authority Action, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.5.3 Policy Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.6 FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT AND CONSERVATION . . . . . . 12 5.6.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.6.2 Authority Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.6.3 Policy Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.7 FOREST AND NATURAL VEGETATION CONSERVATION . . . . 14 5.7.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.7.2 Authority Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.7.3 Policy Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . 15 -.;"' ii N R.lfi, 5.8 GROUNDWATER CONSERVATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.8.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.8.2 Authority Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.8.3 Policy Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6.0 PLANNING CASB BXAMPLBS RELBVANT TO THB MORAINE . . . . . 18 6.1 PALGRAVE ESTATE RESIDENTIAL AREA. . . . . . . . . . 18 6.2 FARMLAND AND OPEN SPACE PROTECTION. . . . . . . . . 18 ~R.'+1 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION In 1989 the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority recommended a Greenspace strategy to address the conservation of the Lake Ontario Waterfront, the river valleys and the Oak Ridges Moraine Complex. Since the release of the document, the Authority has been active in promoting the Strategy to the Province, to its member and local municipalities, to other interested groups and to special purpose bodies such as the Crombie Commission. In proposing a Strategy for the conservation of Greenspace resources on the Oak Ridges Moraine Complex, the Authority recommended three initiatives: . the preparation of environmental planning guidelines to assist municipalities in the review of development proposals; . the development of a private land stewardship program to encourage and recognize good land management practices; and . the identification of critical resource lands suitable for public ownership and management. This report will initiate the discussion of policies, guidelines and criteria to ensure that future use and management of the Oak Ridges Moraine Complex are carried out within an environmental planning framework. The Authority's intent is to ensure the recognition of the unique environmental characteristics of the Moraine and their interdependence as a part of the planning process. The designation of land use and the control of development is a municipal responsibility under The Planning Act. The Authority participates in this process in two ways: . through its regulatory powers under The Conservation Authorities Act specific requirements are exercised to -restrict development in- flood or erosion hazard areas; to regulate the placing of fill on lands mapped as schedules to the regulation; and to require approvals for any alterations affecting a watercourse; . through participation in the plan input and review process by identifying the potential impacts of development proposals on programs and policies for renewable resource management. tA) R. ~S' 2 The recommendations in this report are consistent with the Authority's practice of providing advice to its member and local municipalities with respect to renewable resource management. Areas requiring further study have been identified and it is anticipated that, as this information becomes available the guidelines will be amended accordingly. ' The interim guidelines are intended to form a basis for subsequent policies, guidelines, criteria, and by-laws which the Authority and its municipalities can use to conserve the unique and significant qualities of the Moraine within the land use designations determined by the municipality. The guidelines are termed interim in that there are a number of current activities and other interests which must be addressed prior to effective implementation. The Provincial Policy statement on Mineral Aggregate Resources has been approved and has an impact on the Oak Ridges Moraine. Further, Ron Kanter, MPP, has been appointed to develop a Greenlands strategy for the entire Greater Toronto Area, in which the Authority's area is included. There are requirements for data collection and analysis to support the technical aspects of the guidelines and a need to ensure cooperation and coordination of municipal and provincial interests. 2.0 SIGNIFICANT ASPECTS OP THE MORAINE In preparing preliminary guidelines for the Oak Ridges Moraine Complex, the Authority identified the following characteristics of the Moraine as significant: . the varied, rolling topography which creates the distinctive moraine landform and is the headwaters divide between rivers flowing north and south; . the numerous small streams which form the headwaters tributaries of the Authority's watersheds; . the wetlands, kettle lakes, Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs) and Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs) that contribute to water storage and infiltration and provide habitat resources and open space opportunities; . the groundwater recharge and discharge functions which provide local water supply and which maintain flows within the watercourses and enhance cold water conditions for fisheries; ~~~4 3 . the forest and natural vegetation cover which contribute to the infiltration of water; reduce the rate of snow melt and storm run-off; and provide natural upstream flood and erosion control; . the many high quality, cold water streams which provide the necessary habitat to support cold water fisheries. 3.0 SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS The Authority recognizes that the Oak Ridges Moraine Complex is a resource which is shared by numerous municipalities and conservation authorities. In order to effectively maintain and enhance this distinctive landform, it is recommended: . that the Province of Ontario be requested to designate the Oak Ridges Moraine Complex as an area of provincial interest. This approach would foster policies and practices applicable across the Moraine and ensure a consistent approach by each municipality and conservation authority. To provide a comprehensive basis for the future land use decisions on the Morain~, the Authority recommends: . that integrated resource studies be carried out for the entire Oak Ridges Moraine landform; . that a comprehensive resource database and maps be prepared; and . that the feasibility of developing an Oak Ridges Moraine Impact Model, to determine the cumulative effects of different land use scenarios, be considered. This model and comprehensive resource mapping would greatly assist municipalities and conservation authorities in their planning and review activities. within the Authority's jurisdiction development pressure on the Moraine is immediate and, while comprehensive studies and policies are required, actions must be taken to conserve the significant resources. To this end, the Authority will develop an Oak Ridges Moraine project to: . identify Provincially designated class 1-7 wetlands, Authority designated Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs), MNR Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs), kettle lakes, and MTRCA designated Riparian Habitat Zones, as lands suitable for acquisition. WR.50 4 The Authority recommends that its member and local municipalities: . amend their official plans and comprehensive zoning by- laws to 'include Provincially designated class 1-7 wetlands, Authority designated Environmentally Significant Areas, MNR Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest, kettle lakes and Riparian Habitat Zones in a land use designation which limits future use to conservation purposes, unless studies determine that other uses will be compatible; . adopt environmental planning policies, in their official plans and subsequent planning documents, to ensure the conservation of the sustainable resource base and to prevent the degradation of the unique environmental qualities of the Moraine Complex; . require resource management plans on a sub-watershed basis, which will integrate water management and other environmental concerns prior to secondary plan . approval; . require environmental conservation measures which will enhance the resource of the Moraine and mitigate negative impacts as a condition of draft plan approval of subdivision and through site plan control; and . consider alternative and creative design scenarios to reduce the overall impacts of development on the Moraine. (See Section 6.0). 4.0 RESOORCE MANAGEMENT PLANS 4.1 INTRODOCTION It is recommended that municipalities require a Resource Management Plan prior to approval of Secondary Plans. These plans would include two components: a) .water management concerns; and b) environmental management concerns. It is intended that they would address the specific characteristics of the subject area; the interrelationships between the water, land and biological resources; and analyze the potential impacts of various land use scenarios. It is recommended that these Plans be prepared on a sub-watershed basis or equivalent planning area. This approach is consistent with that currently recommended for Master Drainage Plans. '^-JR. 5 ( 5 4.2 WATER MANAGEMENT COMPONENT The water management component of the Resource Management Plan is intended to integrate surface and groundwater quality and quantity issues. These integrated water management reports should deal with: . current requirements of Master Drainage Plans; . the significant recharge function of the Moraine; . the contribution of groundwater to baseflow in terms of quality, quantity, and temperature control; . local needs for water supply. Substantial work is required to expand current Master Drainage Plan Guidelines to incorporate these concerns. This will require inputs from the Ministry of the Environment, responsible for water quality issues and water taking permits; the Ministry of Natural Resources with its identified fisheries concerns, wetland policies and licensing responsibility for pit and quarries; the local health units which issue permits for septic systems and approve water supply; and the regional and local municipalities in defining their local water quality and quantity concerns. With the agreement and cooperation of the other affected jurisdictions, the Authority will coordinate the refinement of these guidelines. The data base which can be built from existing information and augmented by studies carried out in conjunction with the water management component studies will enhance the regional understanding of surface and groundwater relationships and the need for integrated management. The current municipal planning process does not take into account all regional water management issues such as cumulative impacts. Larger planning units must be used in the future to ensure long-term conservation of regional water resources. 4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMpONENT The environmental management component, should include, but not be limited to: a) inventory and location of the physical features and ecological communities not included in the water management section; b) location of significant resources (eg. wetlands, ANSls, ESAs, and Riparian Habitat Zones); fl:jR. 5~ 6 c) the establishment of resource management objectives for the sub-watershed/planning area which would then be reflected in subsequent plans/site specific proposals; d) planning and implementation guidelines which will enhance the existing resources and mitigate negative impacts; e) any management measure required for wetlands, ESAs, etc. ; f) the potential for the linkage of a regional trail system. The Environmental Management Component, in recommending enhancement of the sub-watershed/area, will consider such measures as landscaping, reforestation, forest management, riparian habitat improvement, and stream rehabilitation. (See section 4). It is recognized that the above list can be substantially refined. with the concurrence of the Ministry of Natural Resources, other affected agencies and the municipalities, the Authority will coordinate the development of detailed guidelines for the Environmental Management Component. The Authority recognizes that the implementation of Resource Management Plans at the sub-watershed level requires coordination with affected ministries and municipalities. The Authority also recognizes that all development applications do not require the preparation and approval of secondary plans. Studies, on a reduced scale, may be appropriate depending on the nature of the proposal and the significance of the resources affected. Figure 1 illustrates the relationship of Resource Management Plans in the municipal planning process. 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDELINES 5.1 INTRODUCTION In section .3, it is recommended that municipalities develop and adopt environmental planning policies in their official plans to guide future land use activities on the Moraine. An example of policies developed by the Town of Caledon are included in Appendix A. In addressing the Oak Ridges Moraine, the Authority first identified the environmental components which contribute to the character of this distinctive resource. Given that the designation of land use is a municipal responsibility, the following interim environmental guidelines are recommended as a 6(a) lAj R. 53 MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING LAND USE PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS OFFICIAL PLAN .... ADOPl' ENVIRONMEm'AL PLANNING POLICIES ... DESIGNJaTE AND ZONE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ~ ., PREPARE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS SECONDARY PLAN I ~ (INCLUDING MASTER DRAINJaGE PLAN REQUIREMENTS) ESTABLISH CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES FOR SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ." DRAFT PLAN .,r OF SUBDIVISION .... ..... STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS DEVELOP CONSERVATION PLANS FOR SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ~, REQUIRE ENHANCEMENT MEASURES SITE SPECFIC ..... ..... PLANS FIGURE 1. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MORAINE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS AND MUNICIPAL LAND USE PLANNING ~R.~~ 7 means of recognizing and conserving the environmental resources of the Moraine while enabling municipal land use decisions to be implemented. In addition, this section identifies specific actions the Authority is currently or proposing to undertake that will support the efforts of its municipalities in the conservation of Moraine resources. 5.2 LANDFORM CONSERVATION 5.2.1 Backqround The Oak Ridges Moraine Complex stretches across the northern section of the Authority'S area of jurisdiction (FIG.2). This significant landform is the divide for streams draining to the north and south. The Moraine was formed between two ice lobes during the last glacial period. Its characteristics include hummocky terrain, knobby hills, kettle lakes, and a complex mix of glacially deposited sand, gravel and till with outcrops of boulder clay. 5.2.2 Authority Action The Authority will: . identify specific kettle lakes including associated buffer zones, as conservation lands suitable for acquisition and/or private land stewardship. 5.2.3 policy Recommendations To maintain the landform characteristic of the Moraine, the Authority recommends that municipalities, in considering development applications: . encourage appropriate lands to be set aside for environmental management, including enhancement. These lands could be in public ownership or be held communally by local owners, or by others to ensure restrictions on future uses and further land divisions: . wherever possible, confine development to the middle slopes to maintain the scenic characteristics of the landscape and take advantage of the ancillary benefits of energy conservation: . discourage uses which would require substantial grading or limit them to areas having slopes of less than 5%. Proposals located on areas with slopes of greater than , ~ '- v' ~ I ~ fI\\j\r;~ ~ "~WJ,":~(~l~~' .. :~~~':.' :.:.... -..' ~~~;z;;~:;:17~~.:~r .:::.:.:::::::. 'I) '.... "~'::::::::::~~~:::::1f1':::" ::::.... (ij.... ... "J ~. .. ............. a:"~;'" ':':'\~.(":':':':':':':':':':':':""":""":"'" ]. ~:'-' . i:J!; ............... ."""'...... .. ,. .............. ~....... '0 . ............ .......... ....:. ('J.. ." :t~:r:;;;t:~::::~ .::::::.:;:::::;:df\:}:::.. ~ ~ " "J.i.. .. . .. .. . ~~[ .. . ... .......... ":>!":":L '::::.:. ''r~(ff$:.:::::",::::;::,:::::::::::":,,,,:~,::::::::::::'.~::::::::~::r::::::::::;:::::::::..:...:::.:.t .:.:.' ..~ ~:~i;~~;:;;:~;;::'" :~:~I~I~I~L~;;::;~~i~~i1;;;;;;;:~:;i1r~~~~~~~j~~J:::::::~:::~~~m~f ~~:~m~~t):::~~t::~~~~~: .~~~~willfl. - ~ ~ " .. ~ P~21it~:r; :;:::;:: €...?'*~.,.,.,.. ...".,.i~ ,,,.,. ..,,-- . jJ -; ~::< .,.,/iq~ .1"" "r'.... ....,.,.".,.,.,.,.,.'.'.:r ,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,. i8'ITl.",."."""""""", a , \ ~~. .It. ....... ',:;" "I'I"'~~ ~ 'ii I)' ~ Ir~"""'" .:::-' .......... ............... ~ # I, \ <' 1 , . ............. .,;J \. \ -; (..::::::~~~~~~~r. Rl:::\~ / ~ '-,"" !( I , , /) ~ : ( t.l ~ . :: ~'" 'i~ I 't · /,.., .,:.:::::::::::::::::::. . :::. .,.. .~ " 1 ,- ~r,' ~ I ~ ~ I( .Nlt.1OCT 'V ~ ..-;-- l. ("" (fj ::f~:~:~:~w:r~:::::' ~'ll,..~ /'.-\,'1 \ ~-"', ~ · !II '<,, \ ..........;::~::. ~'I " I /,'- I' 't', . _, .... '.' . . . , .-....".. \,' \ .\ ~;' .;t'.~ -'/if>;.r~" (I )ih:'""..", "~'iJ~"H ,{if-:c!', t ];J.~ \~( LL'S C ~, ~>;, I~~ I ~I!.-I"~H:- \,,,.... .:.. \ I ' -;', ... ,\, 1 r 1./1. ~~!i \ , ~~ ,,- ;~~~'.:i!-. ';'"W~''}:'' ..~..I ~1~1t1~1 ~~~ ;~"'~> ~~:K!~~G- ::~:I"l"~,EJ! \( ~ . . ~' ,c~~~~~"~ ,. ' I~~\~ .....::~ \' ti~ ",5,~(~?'~ ~",I ~ 7 ~ '. .... '-~' , ,~~~ ,~~ _~ 1O~~' I,,,:!'-: _",~ ~'V ~I ,-, ~"S_~ ,",, ,1_'1'.1 ,- \.. .'-1- lj . ~ \ ~ .: ,~:c...1', '-l \ L.,. , ~ ,... ~ ", -, l"\ Z.!. ~c ,~:. _ .., ~". -.~-~. ..-. '., ~ J ..... , " 'I ....'" ....,-:~" "_'0 .._" \_' I 7.: ;"'~.r.' ~~ ~...~~'ei:-,,, ;~ ;I !\:.~ ~>,,-, ~-"T'_"" 'l.'; .'I'~~ '~r~ > I.~~ ~ ~ ~~; .g;~~j;' ..~ ~ ~ ~'l11 'IP;-'?~\ ~~.,-\, ,1,;1 ~"?3.' ~'I ~ - . ~ ~ ~..,.:.: ~.., J I"", ....."., ,..... I ~ , ~ \ i ~ #' .".. ..: ~~ :I-'-..I~ U'"l'I"..H\~ """ ,'f.'::I''';,~ r;..... I~' ....\1 STm..E:_ _ ---4 -'~~~~~rjl''''I' _ ':::i'I'j').: I .,- - ~":.>o,; ~~ '{ ~;:r--'-- ; .' r-'. ~'6:"':..'i.. -. ,,~ ' \ ,......._' -.: ~ ,'r ...~ - ''/,~ ",\"';'.J 1 '_ ,;' .,::I$'-.rw;: _ ~i";:- '=', 10 "" ,,' ,1_''''~'1I\,~ ~\ ,-\,.'D 11"_.........,,, - ,- " """ . "c.:"\"~.' ~#'.~ \::?""'II. 1- ~ "~l ~"" \/11'] '_\'\~'I ~\'~~ -'~I- ,~~,I ~,' -\~~ ~'"\ '\ .1 ,~j;;-!::.~e;';:I'~'i..\.;~a:;.~.r -"\""" ~I ' ~. " rA. I' '" I -" '< x~ ',J ~ I:: ""'''-~~~,,::. .,.... , \ ~~.... .. I "~~, 1/ .. " ,~\, -\,' .\ -:., " ~ \ ~.. . ~.:.. ;:i'~~' '.- .<:;;,;Jj!~: 1':>,:) " ....... '., , 1ft. " _ .....- _ ~ I. .... . _'" 1"\:... . .J r." , I 'r, ;C-i... ~ WJ I I"',' \ ,., ,,' ,I \ ~ . .?!," :.. .',' ...'.......-;..<....'r.:J'~f..7'..-. ;.t.? , ,-...;;. , " 'J"I...... 'fI, ,-.......... '-.. ~ ....;t ...,.. .~ .t"...~.,_..~..,~'.="~ ~'"\ .~~l~ "/)~;'&'~,~I "r.~_,~,~ ~~ 1\',,~!,>-....~--167 l,;1'" ~~...., ..:-:~.. ~ . '~"'..!-:' ".~;.~.~:;;.~u~;,~ .~. ~ I ~ '''.... .~ ~ I... ' , ' ,...y-~, I' ''',,'' "co.' . ... . .ih.~ -- " , - ~ '... , ~"''l ... i ' . . ;~;;" - I ~~~.~'~"IK"'I'J): ~" I... - \; ~ -, _ '\ .'. ,;:'- ',,,, ',' ~~""l --,' c ,..~.~ '--.. -:. - ~.:~~~.-\. .... . I _',n::r;~.:tl ,- .....,,/ ~,. "~f.r~l 7J' .. ~...:"."':.. ..' ..,.x-:.-'~'" ~~...... '" .... .... , ~ :...... .~~,,;. ;..... ;.' 'V :' LEG END LJ '-:III ~:-:-. ...~ ~::-:..:. ,; . -:a '~::~ti t':.: .:" ~ .:-':( . ~ ~ .,;:.., ~~-.:. . ... . .... . . .. . .. .. _ ~ ,:.r.:J.'l' '~.:I!;o,~S'~~""'C:"':'I':J' f;:. . ,').....~~t,~~~"~ . .~r (:::::::::\J Oo~ Rid.... Moro_ A . -::.....~-'IV .-,-.-..~ .,.,~...., .,........... J..... '. - ....... ....;,.. :).:-l~...:,:",f;;.:.~... :-.;:; - '..... # ....."....'-. .. ~..-:.i~iJ..\\, ~ ..:.~~o.r.'L...~:~~,~):::~ ~~. ~~~~~....~"'.;~~-;.~,~ .---. Till P'a.n ""'l"l . ~- '''''-~'''''-.,:,'!:'~ C ,..:.,. -J'..., . L-----1 ~t ~!;~=;t;;:;..;t .,'.,~ (~.:~'i~ii~q~~.,~~ :J!,;~ ;:J~lIr!.!.i~;:tL.7 F/==TI ~. .. ~~~~-:~..~,:,~; ... . ~ Peel Pla.n (bevelled 1.11) I' ;'. ~;'J'S.~:.~ · ( . I t;;;dJ:"~,:, ~. . ~ t t~-~~~;'~' ~ 'raqr.HMI Plain o 4 Mil.. . Uk. 011_ I I . ~ ~ . . ~ tl-:..a..d Nla90ra Eacergmenl Area o """'. rteO 6 Kilo....".. (~ 'I II 1! I: ~V7 themetro;M)litantoronto.ndr.'lion . I PHYSIOGRAPHIC FF.A1rIlIRI:'.~ FIG.2. lAR.5'b 8 5% should be approved only when it can be proven that such proposals would not result in significant negative impacts or hazard to life and/or property. . confine lot grading to roadways, driveways, and building areas. Septic beds should normally be installed in undistrubed soils and reserve areas should not be graded. . require that all proposals be supported by landscape design principles appropriate to the character of the Moraine. These principles include the location of roads parallel to contours, to minimize erosion and sediment generation, and the use of indigenous plant materials, to integrate buildings with the existing natural landscape. 5.3 RIVER VALLEY CONSERVATION 5.3.1 Background The Authority has responsibilities for flood and erosion control and the retention of greenspace. These responsibilities are addressed specifically in the Authority's Watershed Plan (1986) and in other components of the Greenspace Strategy. In order to address these responsibilities, the Authority has developed specific programs and plan review mechanisms which have traditionally been implemented in the developed and developing areas downstream of the Moraine. These include requirements for floodplain planning, stormwater management, erosion and sediment control, etc. The increased development pressures on the Moraine have indicated the necessity to extend the tools used for plan review to the upstream areas. 5.3.2 Authority Action The Authority is: . extending its floodplain and fill line mapping program to include those tributaries draining less than 1300 hectares. The Authority will: . establish and register fill regulations on all watercourses draining in excess of 130 hectares. {)JR. 57 9 . consider the need for further extensions to its mapping program and fill regulation. 5.3.3 policy Recommendations The Authority recommends: . that all watercourses draining in excess of 130 hectares, and their associated valley lands, be identified in planning documents and designated in an appropriate land use category (eg. open space/environment). Water courses draining areas of less than 130 hectares should also be designated, where appropriate. 5.4 CONSERVATION OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT ARES AND AREAS OF NATURAL AND SCIENTIFIC INTEREST 5.4.1 Background In 1982, the Authority adopted an Environmentally Significant Area Study which designated 126 sites as ESAs within the Authority's jurisdiction. Due to mapping and funding constraints, the study was limited in its original coverage of the Moraine. The study data is now ten years old. These factors, plus subsequent land use change and changes due to natural succession indicate that a review should be undertaken. The Ministry of Natural ~esources has identified Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest through its district land use plans. Many of these areas coincide with designated Authority ESAs and should be considered as areas appropriate for conservation measures by the Authority and its local and member municipalities. 5.4.2 Authority Action The Authority will: . review the Environmentally Significant Areas Study (1982) and determine the need to update the report and to carry out further studies on the Moraine. . identify all ESAs, ANSIs and adjacent buffer lands as conservation lands suitable for private land stewardship and/or public acquisition. fA~. 5'6 10 . assist municipalities and developers in the identification of conservation objectives and the development of conservation plans and ESAs and ANSls by: - reviewing the requirements for conservation plans with proponents, in consultation with MNR; - consider entering into agreements with local municipalities for the management of these areas, under special funding arrangements; . refine the terms of reference for the development of conservation plans for ESAs and ANSls in consultation with MNR. 5.4.3 policy Recommendations The Authority has previously requested: . local and regional municipalities to recognize Authority ESAs within the Open Space/Hazard Land and/or other environmental designations (eg. Environmental Protection Zone) within ~heir planning documents. (Authority Resolution #123-#5/88) The Authority further recommends to municipalities: . that conservation objectives for ESAs/ANSls be required in Resource Management Plans, prior to secondary plan approval and be subject to MNR/MTRCA approval; . that ESA/ANSI conservation plans consistent with these objectives be conditions of subsequent or site specific plans, (eg. subdivisions, site plan or severance approval) and be subject to the approval of MNR/MTRCA; . that, in the absence of secondary plans, preparation of .ESA/ANSI conservation objectives and conservation plans be required for site specific plans (eg. official plan and zoning amendment, ,subdivisions, site plan and severance approvals) and be subject to approval by the Authority/MNR; . that the conservation plan address: - how, where and what type of land use could proceed that would be compatible with maintaining, enhancing or improving the function(s) of the ESA/ANSI; ~R.5Cf 11 - management guidelines for during and after implementation of a compatible use. - methods by which public access to or through the property could be achieved without compromising the natural integrity of the area; - management responsibility, including funding arrangements; and - provisions for monitoring, as necessary. 5.5 WETLAND CONSERVATION 5.5.1 Backqround Wetlands are an important component of the natural resource base of the region. They improve and maintain water quality, aid in flood control, protect base flow, control erosion and provide important habitat for flora and fauna. Their naturally occurring diversity provides a genetic pool for the future. In 1989, the Province of Ontario released its Draft Wetland Policy which identified Class 1 to 3 wetlands as provincially or regionally significant. In the Authority's opinion all 7 classes are important in the Greater Toronto Region as they are generally, remnant areas and/or unique within an urban area. They are particularly significant on the Moraine because of their relationship to water management. 5.5.2 Authority Action To conserve the long term viability and natural function of wetlands located on the Moraine, the Authority will: . designate all wetlands, including associated buffer zones, as conservation lands suitable for acquisition and/or private land stewardship. . investigate the application of fill regulations to Class 1 to 7 wetlands under the conservation of land provisions of the Conservation Authorities Act. . cooperate with appropriate provincial agencies (eg. MNR, MOE) and the Authority's local and member municipalities to conserve the remaining wetlands within the Authority's area of jurisdiction. LVR. loo 12 5.5.3 policy Recommendations The Authority recommends: . that its member and local municipalities designate Class 1 to 7 wetlands within their official plans and comprehensive zoning by-laws; . that MNR assist authorities and municipalities by developing terms of reference for the development of wetland management plans; . that conservation objectives for wetlands be required in Resource Management Plans prior to secondary plan approval and be subject to MNR/MTRCA approval; . that wetland conservation plans, consistent with these objectives, be conditions of subsequent or site specific plans (eg. subdivision, site plan or severance approval) and be subject to the approval of MNR/MTRCA; . that, in the absence of secondary plans, preparation of wetland conservation objectives and conservation plans be required for site specific plans (eg. subdivisions, site plan or severance approval) and be subject to approval by MNR/MTRCA. . that the ground watershed be identified to ensure individual wetland conservation plans can include a functional water table target elevation or range. . that an adequate buffer be established for protection of the wetland. 5.' FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT AND CONSERVATION 5.'.1 Background The Ministry of Natural Resources and the Authority have an interest in the conservation and enhancement of the fisheries resource. Cold water fisheries ar~ characteristic of the Moraine in this region. In order to maintain the cold water characteristic, it is important to.have.an established riparian habitat zone: an area with distinctive aquatic and riparian ecosystems providing both the structural and non-structural habitat components required to sustain a productive fisheries resource. On the Moraine, the maintenance and enhancement of riparian habitat will also provide: travel corridors for wildlife; linkages between terrestrial habitats; habitat for small mammals and birds; and reduce nutrient and toxicant loading from overland flow. Shading the watercourses keeps summer temperatures lower. lNR.b) 13 5.6.2 Authority Action For the purpose of maintaining, extending, and enhancing the viability of the cold water fishery the Authority will: . establish Riparian Habitat Zones as areas with a minimum width of 10 metres on either side of a stream or twice the flow channel width, whichever is greater; . identify that the zone should consist of 50.% woody vegetation and that no grass cutting should be carried out; . identify Riparian Habitat Zones as conservation lands suitable for private land stewardship and/or public acquisition; . coordinate riparian habitat work for municipalities on a unit cost basis charged back to developers; . in areas where the habitat has been degraded due to agricultural activities, seek to reestablish the habitat, restrict direct access by livestock and eliminate cultivation to the stream edge, through private land stewardship initiatives; . in rural non-farm areas, address the protection and establishment of riparian habitat through private land assistance or private land stewardship; . design riparian habitat to: - include 50% woody species - provide food, cover aQd organic matter for aquatic organisms - regulate stream,temperature.by providing species which form a dense canopy - stabilize stream banks - control overland flows and trap sediment as feasible - provide food, cover, shelter, nesting sites, and migration corridors for terrestrial organisms. . seek to ensure the maintenance of cold water discharge areas by protection of the groundwater supply. v:;R. ,~ 14 5.6.3 policy Recommendations The Authority recommends that municipalities: . designate Riparian Habitat Zones in their official plans and comprehensive zoning by-laws on all permanently flowing watercourses on the Moraine: . designate Riparian Habitat Zones in their official plans along intermittent streams which link or are associated with designated wetlands, ANSls, ESAs or which are characterized by the presence of lowland vegetation: . require that existing riparian habitat be protected during land use change: . require that degraded riparian habitat be enhanced through plantings and/or stream improvement works. 5.7 FOREST AND NATURAL VEGETATION CONSERVATION 5.7.1 Background The forests and natural vegetative cover of the Moraine contribute to the character of the landform and to its water management functions. Major reforestation over the past 50 years has restored vast areas which, through overuse were subject to wind and water erosion. The maintenance and extension of forest cover: . reduces areas susceptible to wind and water erosion: . reduces sediment loading in watercourses: . improves infiltration and groundwater recharge: . maintains and improves fish and wildlife habitat: and . provides wood products. The tolerant hardwood forests on the Moraine have been identified,. by-the.Ministry, of ..Natural. Resources, as a ,remnant forest type threatened by urban development. 5.7.2 Authority Action To maintain and extend the forest and natural vegetation on the Moraine the Authority will: . coordinate the establishment, enhancement and management of forest cover on a unit cost basis, charged back to developers: tpR.b3 15 . continue its private land assistance program giving priority to: - the reestablishment of a native forest cover on abandoned fields to improve water retention and infiltration, - revegetation of steep slopes, riparian habitat areas and eroded soil barrens, and - provide habitat linkages. 5.7.3 policy Recommendations The Authority recommends that municipalities: . require that the continuity of natural ecosystems be maintained in all land use concepts; . require that revegetation and other site enhancement measures, be identified in Resource Management Plans and as conditions of site plan approval, as practical; . encourage creative planning/design scenarios which conserve the natural forest cover; and . request amendments to the Trees Act to permit the enactment of local tree cutting by-laws to permit conservation of the forestry resource. 5.8 GROUNDWATER CONSERVATION 5.8.1 Background The Oak Ridges Moraine Aquifer Complex is the primary source of the rivers and streams within the Authority'S jurisdiction. It provides the baseflow to the watercourses throughout the year. The landform is characterized by confined aquifers which are important sources of drinking water. Activities on the Moraine may reduce the infiltration of groundwater; introduce contaminants; and have negative impacts on the quality and quantity of drinking water and baseflows. Groundwater systems do not necessarily coincide with watershed boundaries nor with municipal boundaries and, therefore, must be addressed on a broader basis. Comprehensive provincial legislation, policies and/or strategies in this area are generally lacking. tAJR. b,+ 16 While it is the opinion of the Authority that the province should take a more active role in groundwater planning and management it also recognizes that the conservation of groundwater is a ' shared responsibility amongst many jurisdictions. The Authority's objectives for groundwater are to: . maintain and enhance infiltration; . maintain and enhance beneficial baseflows; . minimize contamination and pollution from land use practices; and . minimize uncontrolled reduction of groundwater supplies (ie. uncapped artesian flow) . 5.8.2 Authority Action The Authority will: . cooperate with other agencies to develop guidelines for the water management component of Resource Management Plans which integrate groundwater quality and quantity concerns with requirements for surface water management; . cooperate with affected municipalities and the Ministry of the Environment to identify significant recharge and discharge areas and appropriate strategies for their conservation. 5.8.3 policy Recommendations The Authority recommends that municipalities: . restrict gasoline pumping operations and the underground storage of hazardous materials to less pervious soils to prevent contamination of unconfined aquifers; . restrict all land uses which include outdoor storage facilities for fuel, chemicals or '.An unconfined aquifer is an aquifer in which the water table forms the upper boundary. An aquifer is defined as a saturated permeable geologic unit that can transmit significant quantities of water under ordinary hydraulic gradients. Freeze and Cherry. 1979. /A)(.<.b S" 17 industrial wastes and potentially harmful raw materials to less pervious soils to prevent contamination of aquifers; . require-that the approval of any communal water system include a condition to ensure that all abandoned wells be properly sealed (Ontario Reg. #612/84); . ensure septic fields are located with regard to soil types and the potential contamination of adjacent waterbodies; and that sewage disposal systems normally be located so that effluent resides in the soil a minimum of four months prior to discharge to any pond or stream to minimize nutrient enrichment, and thermal change, and to maximize bio- detoxification; . require the installation of accessible, permanent monitoring welles) as a condition of subdivision draft plan approval to facilitate future groundwater monitoring and study by MOE; . develop a program for septic system inspection and approval at the time of all land transfers to ensure that septic system failure does not contribute to water quality problems; . minimize the application of road salt and other chemicals. The Authority further recommends that the Minister of the Environment: . develop policies for groundwater resource protection; . establish parameters for a broader range of pontaminants,within the ,ontario Drinking Water Objectives; . provide for the development of regional strategies for groundwater resource management and protection; . provide for the maintenance of a computerized groundwater data base; lJ..JR. bb 18 . intensify the level of groundwater research and monitoring within the province and, in particular, within rapidly developing areas; . develop and maintain a system of monitoring wells throughout the Moraine for monitoring as required. 6.0 PLANNING CASE EXAMPLES RELEVANT TO THE MORAINE 6.1 Pa1qrave Estate Residential Area. In 1979, the Town of Caledon commissioned a report on the Palgrave Estate Residential Area.2 After a detailed environmental resource analysis, the report recommended areas which were most suitable, suitable, and not suitable for estate residential development. The policies developed, within this context, addressed resource management, land use and site design issues. Many of the policies proposed in that plan were subsequently adopted as part of Caledon's Official Plan and are contained in Appendix A. 6.2 Farmland and open Space Protection In 1988, a Massachusetts study addressed development pressures in a predominantly rural area. One solution proposed was the development of a farmland and open space overlay district. Development within the district is subject to a special permit procedure. Large blocks of open space are protected by encouraging the use of cluster development and by subtracting, from proposed developments, lands required for flood plain and wetland protection. The remaining acreage is then divided by two to determine the number of residences. The residences are typically clustered on lots of about 1 acre. The remaining block of land is then available for ongoing agriculture or open space conservation purposes. The specific provisions to achieve this objective are contained in Appendix B. 2 Hunter and Associates. Palgrave Estate Residential Policy Area. 1979. lAJ((. b 7 19 APPENDICES APPENDIX A. PALGRAVE ESTATB RESIDENTIAL POLICY AREA APPENDIX B. FARKLAND AND OPEN SPACB PROTECTION (p~. b<b 20 APPENDIX A PALGRAVE ESTATE RESIDENTIAL POLICY AREA .. - TOWN OF CALEDON - OFFICIAL PLAN - - - - - - - . HI COIPOIA TO. ~M lOWN OF CAI.EDON REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL - - - .. - -- - - - ---- - ------- --.- ..--" ..----------- ~ - I !Uf<. ~o n 2.5.4 Rural Estate Residential Policy Areas II 2.5.4.1 palqrave Estate Residential Policy Area 2.5.4.1(i) In order to provide for a variety of housing types and living styles within the Town and recognizing the II demand for Rural Estate Residential development, a Palgrave Rural Estate Residential Policy Area and a CaledonjOrangeville Pol icy Area have been outlined on I Schedule "A", Land Use Plan. Development within these Policy Areas shall be in accordance with Section 2.5.4.7 of this Plan and subsections thereof. II 2.5.4.1.1 Definitions (i) For the purpose of Section 2.5.4.1 "minimum net lot I area" is the smallest lot size permitted, excluding all land in the subdivision not forming part of the lot, land inside a regional flood line, land within the I Minimum Distance Separation determined by the appropr iate formula in the Ag r icul tural Code 0 f Practice, and any part of a pond. II (ii) For the purposes of Section 2.5.4.1 "structure' envelope" means the total horizontal area on a lot in which anything can be constructed or erected on or in II the ground, excluding fences and walls. This defini tion includes but is not restr icted to the area in which a house~ or garage, driveway, sewage disposal II system or accessory structures such as a garage, garden or implement shed, swimming pool or tennis court may be located. II (iii) For the purposes of Section 2.5.4.1 "regional flood 1 ine" means the 1 ine del ineat ing the area sub ject to flooding under a regional storm event as II defined by the appropriate Conservation Authority. (iv) For the purposes of Section 2.5.4.1 "deep II overburden" means between 50 feet from the surface and bedrock. , .cv) For the purposes of ,Section 2.5.4.1 "pond" means a II small.body of standing water which contains water all year..- II' , { For the purposes of Section 2.5.4.1 "township lot" rr ,the east or west half of a lot in a concession. A t ;hip lot is therefore usually 40 hectares (1~0 ac. 5), but the exact area may vary from the norm In II in~4vidual cases. The actual area of the towns?ip lot in question will be used in making calculatlons In Section 2.5.4.1. II 43 II , wR.7J (Vi~) For th"e purposes of Section 2.5.4.1 "Palgrave I POI1CY Area means the entire Palgrave Estate Residential Policy Area shown on Schedule A. I (viii) For the purposes of Sectlon 2.5.4.1 "s....amp" means a wooded wetland where standlng to gently flo....1ng I water occurs seasonally or persists for long per10ds on the surface. The substrata is usually continuall~ water-logged. The' vegetation cover may consist o~ coniferous or deciduous trees, tall shruos, heros, and I mosses. , (ix) For the purposes of Section 2.5.4.1 "marsh" means - grassy wet area, periodically inundated up to a deptn ~ of 2 metres or less with standing or slowly moving water. Surface water level ~ay fluctuate seasonally out ._ water remains within the rooting zone of plants durlng _ at least part of the g rowing season. A marsh maY:Je ..-- bordered by peripheral bands of trees and shrubs, :Jut the predominant vegetation consists of a var iety of emergent non-woody plants such as rushes, reeds, r reedgrasses and sedges. Where open water areas occur, a variety of submerged and floating plants flourish. r- (x) For the purposes of Section 2.5.4.1 "intermittent pond" means an inter~ittent wet area with a high seasonal water table (0-0..5 metres below ground level) periodically covered by shallow water (Le., spt'lng ~ flooding). 2.5.4.1.2 Planning Principles r- (i) Estate residential develo?~ent should be encouraged in appropriate parts of the Palgrave Estate Residential , Policy Area. (ii) The rural character of the landscape and the community should be maintained as new development ~ occurs. ~ (i ii) Farming should be encouraged as an inter im 1 and r- use in areas des ignated for eventual estate res iden tial development and as a permanent land use in areas not designated for estate residential development. 1 (iv) Conflicts between farming and estate residentlal development should be minimized as much as possible. , (v) Existing severances along with their existing residential and agricultural uses should be retained as an alternative type of estate lot. , (vi) Estate residential development should display 3 high level of environmental quality and amenity. I 44 ( - INR.'];l I (vii) Applicants for plans of subdivision should be required to devote ~ore pre-application effort to l environmental site research and design. (viii) Innovative environmental planning should be I encouraged to preserve and enhance the environmental characteristics of the Palgrave Estate Residential Policy Area. I (ix) The environmental impacts of construction and development should be minimized. J (x) The Mount wolfe and Lowland landforms should not be developed. I (xii) The market should determine the phasing of estate residential development in terms of location, but the rate of development should be governed by the I capability of the Town to supply services and absorb development and by the prevailing population policies in the Plan. t (xiii) Conflicts between extractive industrial ,and estate residential land uses should be minimized. I (x i v) Heritage conservation should be encouraged. (xv) Small' scale commercial uses serving the estate residential community should be encouraged in suita:lle j locations. (xv i) Energy conservation practices at the building and j site design levels should be encouraged. ( xv i i ) residential development should be moni Estate I tored by the Town to determine the effects on Town and community services. - 2.5.4.1.3 General Development policies (i) Estate residential development will take place by . registered plan of s~bdivision or condominium only. - 'fi) Estate residential plans of subdivision must conform to the Town's Official Plan and the . implementing Restricted Area By-law. (iv) Applications 'for plans of condominium in the -. Palgrave Estate Residential Policy Area will be asses sed on an individual basis subject to satisfactory financial and eng inee ring ag reements between the developer, the Town of Caledon and the Region of Peel. 45 (v) 1Nf? 73 The uses permitted in the Palgrave Estate Resi dential Policy Area will be agriculture and associated residential uses, rural estate residential uses except in Policy Area 4 where estate residential plans of subdivision will not be permitted, forestry, conserva tion, open space, recreation, residential uses on lots created by consent, home occupations, cemeteries, places of worship, public uses, institutional uses, including a Possible new separate school, which may be required depending on the rate of growth and student populat ion yield, 1 imi ted small scale comme rc ial uses in accordance with Subsection 2.5.4.1.14, and presently licensed extractive industrial uses. 2.5.4.1.4 Population ( i i) The Town will monitor population increases in the Palgrave Estate Residential policy Area having regard to Section 2.3.3 and 6.6.1 of the Plan and the projections in Table 1 above. I 2.5.4.1.5 Development Pattern ( i) Schedule G, Palgrave Policy Area Development I Pattern, establishes the fOllowing land use areas in the Palgrave Estate Residential Policy Area: I Policy Area 1, Policy Area 2, Policy Area 3 and Policy Area 4. It also recognizes existing and committed estate - residential plans of subdivision and eXisting licensed extractive industrial areas. J (i i) Policy Area I is the prime area for future estate residential development in the Palgrave Policy Area. I ( iii) Policy Area 2 and 3 are suitable for estate residential development at lower densities and higher minimum lot sizes than Policy Area 1. I (iv) Policy Area 4 is unsuitable for estate residential development and no density will be allocated to it. - , \ 2.5.4~1.6 Density _(i) The maximum permitted density in Policy Area 1 will be 40 units per 100 acres, plus any density bonuses . awarded under Subsections 2.5.4.1.10(xi) and 2.5.4.1.12(iii) . , 46 , - '0 r II ",uR. 7 Lf . (iO The maximum permitted density in Policy Area 2 will be 35 unlts per 100 acres, plus any density . bonuses awarded under subsections 2.5.4.1.l0{xi) and 2.5.4.1.l2(iii) . . (iii) _ The maximum permitted density in Policy Area 3 will ~e 25 units per 100 acres, plus any density bonuses awarded under subsections 2.5.4.1.l0(xi) and 2.5.4.1.l2(iiO. l1li (iv) Any area in Policy Area 4 will not be counted 1n the calculation of maximum number of units permitted. . (v) For the purpose of the calculations of maximum permitted density a registered plan of subdivision will be counted as one property with the total area of the l1li plan of subdivision in the township lot considered the area of the property. . (vi) If the applicant owns all of the Township lot, then the maximum number of allocated units will be determined by calculating the maximum number of units II1II permitted based on the area of the applicant's holqing only, excluding any area in Policy Area 4. (vii) If the average area of any properties other than II1II the applicant's holding in the same township lot as the applicant'S holding is 1.0 hectare (2.5 acres) or less in Policy Area 1 or 1.2 hectares (3.0 acres) or less in . policy Area 2 or 1.6 hectares (4.0 acres) or less in . Policy Area 3, then the ~aximum number of units allocated to the applicant's holding will be determined . by calculating the maximum number of units permitted for the total area of the township lot, excluding any _ area in Policy Area 4, and then subtrac ting the total number of properties other than the applicant's holding. (viii) If the average area of any properties other than the applicant's holding in the same township lot as the applicant's holding is larger than 1.0 hectares (2.5 acres) in Pol icy Area 1 or large r than 1. 2 hecta res (3.0 acres) in Policy Area 2 or larger than 1.6 hectares (4.0 acres) in Policy Area 3 then the maximuiT\ number of units allocated to the applicant's holding will be determined by calculating the maximum number of units permitted ba,sed on the area of the applicant's holding only, excluding any area in policy Area 4. (ix) I f an appl icant ' s hold ing is in more than one Policy Area, then the maximum number of permitted units for the area of the holding in each Policy Area will be determined by carrying out the calculation described in Subsection 2.5.4.1.5 (vi), or (viii), whichever 15 47 - applicable, as, if the entire area of the developer .'fR. 7s- hold~ng ~ere 1n each respective Policy Area and then I mult1plY1ng by the fraction of the total area of the holding in each respective Policy Area. The total is the number of units permitted. These units must be I distributed on the ~asis of the area 1n each Policy Area. ( x) If an individual lot :is in more than one of Policy - Area 1, 2 and 3 after the subdivision has been designed then the lot may be counted towards the allocation of - units to Policy Area 1 Policy Area 2 or Policy Area 3 , whichever is most beneficial. (x i) The max imum numbe r of units calculated according I to these density policies will only be permitted if the plan of subdivision complies with all other policies. The number of lots in any proposed plan of subdivision I must be reduced if necessary to comply with other policies in Section 2.5.4.1. 2.5.4.1.7 Lot Area I ( i) The minimum net lot area for residential uses in Policy Area 1 will be 0.6 of a hectare (1. 5 ac res) . I. (i i) The minimum net lot area for residential uses in Policy Area 2 and Policy Area 3 will be O.B of a I hectare (2.0 acres). (iii) A part of a lot in Policy Area 4 may be counted I in the calculation of net lot area. (iv) A pond may be included in a lot but no part of a pond may be counted in the calculation of net lot area. - (v) No part of a lot within the ~\in imum Distance separation determined according to the Agricultural - Code of Practice may be counted in the calculation of net lot area. (v i) Land inside a regional flood line may be included - in a lot but may not be counted in the calculation of net lot area. (vii) The minimum net lot area for a mixed-use I .--- commercial and residential lot will be 2.0 hectares (5.0 acres) . . (viii) The minimum net lot area for residential uses .--- will be e.B of a hectare (2.0 acres) where part of the - lot is in policy Area 1 and part in Policy Area 2 or 3. ~ - 48 .. - ... 1.1. ~ . t 0R.~h ~ I (ix) Estate residential ?lans of subdivision will not be permitted on holdings of less than 10 hectares (25 acres) . I ( x) Subdivisions with average net lot areas t substantially larger than the minimum permitted in the I applicable Policy Area will be encouraged. (x i) A var iety of lot sizes in a plan of subdivision ! will be encouraged. I (xii) Lot areas and dimensions must reflect the . topographic and environmental characteristics of the . i site. Lot areas larger than the minimum applicable in a Policy Area will be required in specific instances i where the topographic and environmental characteristics of the site warrant a larger area. I 2.5.4.1.8 Servicing .. - 1! I ( i) Every lot in an estate residential plan of subdivision must be serviced with a private sewage , disposal system for the treatment of domestic wastes. , , Each system must conform to the standards of and be approved by the Ministry of the Environment or its designated agents. t I ( i i) An appli~ant for an estate residential plan of subdivision will be required to undertake any studies , deemed necessary to assess the probability of , contamination of wells on nearby properties by septic system leachate or other source of contamination likely to be caused by the proposed development. Based on the I results of such studies the applicant may be required to carry out any redesign or remedial works necessary to minimize the probability of contamination. , (iii) Schedule H, Palgrave Policy Area Water Servicing, establishes water servicing areas for the Palgrave Pol icy Area identified as Regional Water Service Area I and Well Service Area. Schedule H also shows the extent of the existing Regional water supply system. Minor alterations to the boundaries of the Regional Water Service Area that have been approved by the Region of Peel wlil not require an Amendment to this Plan. (.i v) Municipal water will be provided to the Regional Water Service Area by expansion of the existing water supply system by the Region of Peel. f (v) Should an applicant in the Regional Water Service Area wish to proceed in advance of necessary works having been constructed by the Region of Peel, he may t construct those works at his own expense with the l 49 :a I INR. 77 approval of Regional Council. The works must De con str~cted to the standards and requirements of the Reglon of Peel. (vi) Esta~e resident1al plans of subdiv1sion in the Well SerVlce Area w111 be serviced by means of 1ndiv1 dual wells as approved by the necessary authorit1es. Howeve r, the Town may occas ionall y pe rmi t develop:nent by means of a municipal or communal water system approved by the Region of Peel. (viii) Private and communal wells will normally be re quired to tap a deep overburden aquifer where feasible in order to reduce the possibility of contamination of the water supply. (ix) Estate res ident ial plans of subdi v is ion w ill be required to adhere to the zero increase in storm water runoff principle in a manner acceptable to the Town of Caledon and to the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority where applicable. (x) Solid waste disposal will continue to be carried out by private contractors as at present or by another appropriate method authorized by the Town. 2.5.4.1.10 Environmental Policies (i) Schedule J, Palgrave Policy Area Environmental Zones, establishes the following Environmental Zones: Environmental Zone 1 - Primary Natural Communities; Environmental Zone 2 - Secondary Natural Communi ties; Environmental Zone 3 - Tertiary Natural Communi ties; and Environmental Zone 4 - Wetlands (ii) The boundaries of Environmental Zones 1-4 on Schedule J will be more precisely defined as a result of the detailed environmental mapping and geotechnical investigations required by Section 2.5.4.1.19. The following guidelines are provided to assist in mapping Environmental Zone 3 and 4, which are less visually prominent than Environmental Zones 1 and 2. Environmental Zone 3 - Tertiary Natural Communities i -includes small ponds, marshes and swamps or other wetland communities, isolated forest stands as well as strips of vegetation such as hedgerows interconnecting Environmental Zones 1 and 2; and, Environmental Zone 4 - Wetlands includes areas of high seasonal water table (0-0.5 metres below ground level periodically or permanently covered by water). The presence of high water table usually leads to the formation of hydric soils and the growth of 50 I l/JR.7g' I hydr~phylic (water seeking) plants. ;'letlands include contlnU?US watercourses, ponds, swamps, marshes and other lmperfectly or poorly drained soils associated I with a high water table. (iii) A Structure Envelope must De shown for each lot on any proposed plan of su~division. The Structure I Envelope should identify only the optimal area of the lot for structures but should provide ample space for estate residential and accessory uses. I (iv) No Structure Envelope will be permitted in Environmental Zones 1-3 or in Policy Area 4. I ~v) NO. part of a Structure Envelope ~ill be permitted ln Envlronmental Zone 4 except for drlveways which may cross short sections of Environmental Zone 4 if I necessary to obtain reasonable access to a lot. (vi) Parts of individual lots in estate residential I developments may be in Env i ronmental Zones 1-4, prOVided that each lot has an adequate Structure Envelope completely outside Environmental Zones 1-3 and I that no part of the Structure Envelope other than the driveway is in Environmental Zone 4. (vii) No Structure Envelope will be permitted.inside a I reg ional flood line. In add it ion, no part of a lot inside a re.gional flood line may be counted in the calculation of net lot area. I (viii) Intensive recreational uses such as snowmobile and trail bike routes will be discouraged in Environ mental Zones 1-4. I (ix) Environmental Zones 1-4 shall be zoned separately in the implementing Restricted Area By-law, except I where roads or driveways cross Environmental Zone 4. (x) Structure Envelopes will generally be restricted to areas with slopes of 10 per cent or less. However, I Structure Envelopes may include areas with an 11-15 per cent slope, and occasionally greater than a 15 per cent slope, in order to permit the advantageous siting of a I house designed for steep slopes. In all cases the Structure Envelope must include a suitable area for a sewage disposal system. I (xi) In order to encourage reforesta.tion a densi~y bonus of 1 unit over and above the denslty allotment ln Section 2.5.4.1.6 will be given for each 10 acres in I the development reforested by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Town, up to a maximum of 50 acres. I 51 ! I , (xii) The area to be reforested may be any ~a~~~ t"}~ pa~ts,of the development, including parts of lots, but prlorlty should be glven to the reforestation of steep slopes, eroded soll barrens and lowland depressional topography. (x i i i) Reforestat ion prog rams must oe approved by the Town. Reforestation programs for which a density oonus is awarded must be ,approved by the Town. (xiv) Areas previously reforested may receive the same density bonus of 1 unit for each 10 acres of reforested area to be retained as forest after development, up to a maximum of 50 acres. The Town may require alterations and improvements to existing reforested areas. as a condition of awarding the density bonus, depending u?on the quality of the reforested area and the suitability of its species. (xv) Applicants may be required to enter into legal agreements with respect to the protection and management of reforested areas. (xvi) The fire resistance of reforestation should be increased by including a higher percentage of deciduous trees than is presently the case in reforestation areas. (xvii) Future residents of estate residential developments will be encouraged to permit native plant succession and undertake private reforestation programs rather than create urban landscapes. (xviii) The continuity and integrity of the lowland open space system must be maintained in estate residential plans of subdivision. (xix) Proposed plans of subdivision will be required to minimize interference with natural drainage. (xx) Prior to final approval of any estate residential plans of subdivision, the applicant may be required to prepare an envi ronmental analys is and resommendat ions for protection or rehabilitation, as the case may be, for any pond on the property, if deemed necessary by -the Town. (xxi) The existing natural flow patterns into and from existing ponds should not oe disturbed. 52 ---- I LUR. '60 I (xxii> A buffer of natural vegetation, a minimum of 100 feet wide over at least 90 pe r cent of the shore I frontage, normally will be required around every ?ond and stream and its inlet water courses to miniml ze the impacts of development. I (xxii-i) Existing ponds should not be used as settling ! basins for runoff during construction. I (xxiv) Sewage disposal systems normally must be located at least 150 feet from any pond or stream to minlmize I nutrient enrichment. . I (xxv) Ponds may be zoned seperately in the implementing Restricted Area By-law. I (xxvi) Estate residential development adjacent to water .. course and physiographic formations that collect or . discharge groundwater will incorporate any I environmental protection measures necessary to ensure the maintenance of high water quality and a sufficient quantity of water to the satisfaction of the Town, the ~ Ministry of Natural Resources and the appropriate Conservation Authority. . (xxvii) The written permission of the appropriate Conservation Authority will be required to: ~ ( a) construct any building or structure or ?ermit any building or structure to be constructed in or on a pond or swamp or in any area susceptible to - flooding during a regional storm: (b) place or dump fill or permit fill to be placed or dumped in a fill regulated area whether such fill t- is already located in or upon such area, or brought to or on such area from some other place or places: or, (c) straighten, change, divert or interfere with the existing channel of a river, creek, stream or watercourse, where also requires the approval of the Ministry o-f Natural Resources, pursuant to . section 10 of "The Lakes and Rivers Improvemant Act-. (xxviii) Areas in proxi:nity to major road and railway rights of way that could prejudice the quiet residential character of the subdivision will :,e considered unsuitable for development. In specifiC instances a noise attenuation study carried out by a competent professional and appropriate mitigatory measures may be required for approval by the rHn is t r'l of the Environment. 53 I wI<. g) (~xix) Lot grading. ir:' estate residential developments I w1ll normally .be ll~lted to the driveway and general house area. T11e f 1elds for sewage disposal systems normally should not be graded. I (xxx) New subdivision roads w11l not be perm1tted In Environmental Zones 1-3 or in Policy Area 4. I (xxxi) Roads will be permitted to cross short sections of Environmental Zone 4 - Wetlands if necessary to ensure economically efficient road design, ?rovided I that the Environmental Zone 4 in question is in Policy Area 1, 2 or 3. . (xxxii) Roads in estate residential developments should I follow the topography of the site. (xxxiii) Reduction in road standards will be considered I by the Town if such reductions would produce substant ial env i ronmental benef its without unduly increas ing maintenance costs 0 r reduc ing the leve 1 of I service provided by the road. (xxxiv) Fill-type road construction will be encouraged . in future estate residential developments. . (xxxv) The depth of cut for local streets in future I estate residential plans of subdivision will normally be restricted to 5-6 feet. (xxxvi) The application of road salt and other I chemicals will be minimized in Policy Area 3 commensurate with the maintenance of acceptable winter driving conditions. II (xxxvii) Gasoline storage or pumping operations will not be permitted in Policy Area 3 or where sand to I water table occurs. (xxxviii) If existing domestic wells are abandoned as a - result of estate residential plans of subdivision the applicant must seal the abandoned wells in accordance ~ with the regulations of the Ministry of the _ Environment. Boreholes drilled for the geotechnical investigations detailed in Subsection 2.5.4.1.19 (1) ... tb) also must be sealed. (xxxix) Backyard wildlife programs and efforts by ~ individual property owners will be encouraged. ... 54 ... - ---- I - -- - ~ . _ l~[r-tl""l1C;:lC"\\H Ull Ie:: lY/' It _ . ()JR.~~ I I . (xl) Th~ Special Policy Area: Waste Disposal Area I designat10n on Schedule G identifies an area of known solid waste disposal and an area of influence of this . site. In this Spec ial Pol icy Area the construct ion 0 f buildings, structures and hard surface paving will only be permitted subject to: . a. written approval from the ~inistry of the , Environment verifying that the development satisfies the provisions of the Environmental . Protection Act, b. studies being carried out by a qualified engineer . satisfying the Town of Caledon and the ~inistry of the Environment that development can take place safely, . c. development occurring in accordance with the underlying land use provisions in Schedule G. . (xli) Structure Envelopes will not be permitted to include any part of the Special Policy Area: Waste Disposal Area referred to in Subsection 2.5.4.1.10(xl) . that was used for waste disposal. Furthermore, the Special Policy Area: Waste Disposal Area will be zoned separately in an implementing restricted area by-law. . (xlii) Any proposals for a density bonus for reforestation ui1der Subsection 2.5.4.1.10(xi) must be accompanied by a Reforestation Plan at the same scale __ as the environmental mapping required in Subsect10n 2.5.4.1.19(i) . (a) That clearly shows the areas to be reforested, the type of reforestation planned (in general terms), the lot configuration and road pattern, and the . location of all Structure Envelopes. 2.5.4.1.11 Energy .1 (i) As part of the site plan control process all applicants will be. required to adhere to as many of the I .-Guidelines for Energy Conservation i~ Estate , Residential Development- approved by Counc1l as 1S . feasible. These guidelines should also be considered I ~ wnen tne location of Structure Envelopes is determined. II1II 2.5.4.1.12 Heritage (i) Properties or structures designated under the Ontar io Her itage Act must be preserved 1n and integrated with any proposed estate residential plans of subdivision. 55 ~R. '63 -- (ii) The Town will encourage developers of estate . residential plans of subdivisions containing historic homes or adjacent historic homes to incorporate any design and siting features necessary to integrate the . historic homes with the proposed development. (iii) An old farmhouse designated under The Ontario . Heritage Act or recommended for preservation by the Heritage Committee without being designated under The Heritage Act will not be counted in the calculation of permitted density according to Section 2.5.4.1.6 - - - provided that the house is renovated and restored to ---- the satisfaction of the Town. - - (iv) Estate residential plans of subdivision will be ~ circulated to the Town of Caledon Heritage Committee and the Regional Archaeologist of the Ministry of - Culture and Recreation for their comment prior to - approval. --- . - - ~ - ~ - ~ - ~ ""-- - ~ ~ ~~ - - - - - - - 56 - - - - I tA.J R. f J,.I- I 2.5.4.1.13 Open Space and Recreation I (i) A major public park to serve the active recreational needs of the estate residential community should be located in either Policy Area 1 or policy Area 2. The park should be 10-20 acres in size with . excellent road access, preferably at an intersection. The Town will endeavour to obtain the park by means of the 5 per cent conveyance authorized by Section 33 of . The Planning Act or oy such other means as may oe desirable. I ( i i) Land in pol icy Area 4 or in Environmental Zones . 1-4, or land left over after lots and roads have been designed, or any other suitaole land in an estate residential plan of subdivi3ion, may be dedicated to ~ the Town of Caledon where deemed suitable by the Town, or included as open space under a condominium form of ownership, or dedicated to the appropriate Conserva . tion Authority where deemed suitable by the Conserva . tion Authority, or retained for a suitable use ap . proved by the Town of Caledon. Remnant parcels left over after the design of lots and roads may not be retained for future estate residential develop,ment unless they are to be integ rated with a plan of subdi vision on abutting land, in which case the density allotment according to Section 2.5.4.1.6 will be re duced by removing the area of the remnant parcels from . the a rea o-f the applicant's holding used in the calcu . lation of the density allotment. (iii) The Town or the Conservation Authority may re quire reforestation of land dedicated to them in . accordance with the reforestation policies in Section 2.5.4.1.10 and may enter into an agreement with respect to reforestation of such land. . (iv) Open space in an estate residential plan of subdivision but not in Policy Area 4 or Environmental . Zones 1-4 may be used for active recreational facilities or for institutional purposes such as a day care centre. These institutional or recreational uses may be operated eHivately, commercially, by a . ccndominium corporation or by a government. , ( Active recreational uses will be discouraged in , I p' :y Area 4 and Environmental Zones 1-4. . ( The development of a linked open space system I , i ',ded for passive recreational use only will be , ~ e .: raged by prese rv ing the in teg r i ty of the Lowland 1 :orms and by such other means as the Town considers a~ :Jpriate. . I 57 I I ~ ( ") 1 I~(<.. flS Vll Loca. pa~ks normally ....ill not be reqUlred-in estate resldentlal plans of subdivision. (viii) Land dedicated for park purposes in estate residential plans of subdivision will be located so as to satisfy the long term obJectives of the Town of Caledon, the Reg ional :,tunic ipal i ty of Peel and concerned Provincial agencies in the provision of maJor open space. ( ix) Open space generally should not be intens i vely managed, but left subject to natural processes. (x) Major Open Space, Local Open Space, Private Open Space, Natural Open Space and any other appropr iate open space classification may be included in separate zoning categories in the implementing of Restricted Area By-law. (xi) The Planning Department and the Parks and I Recreation Department of the Town of Caledon will have I regard to the Open Space and Recreation policies in Subsections 2.5.4.1.13 (i)-(x) in the preparation of a Parks Master Plan for the Town of Caledon. 2.5.4.1.14 Commercial I (i) Limited small-scale commercial development may oe I permitted in suitable locations in the Palgrave policy Area provided that it serves primarily the estate residential community and satisfies all other policies L in this Subsection. (ii) Commercial development will be required to associate with a residential use on a mixed-use L residential and commercial lot. ~ (iii) An amendment to the Restricted Area By-law will <- be required for each proposal on a mixed-use - residential and commercial lot. - (iv) Mixed-use commercial and residential lots should <- front on one of the roads shown on Schedule I, - preferably on a Regional Arterial or Rural Collector. A location at an intersection is desirable. . (v) The commercial use on a mixed-use commercial and - -residential lot may not front on an internal - subdivision road. (vi) Extensive landscaping and setbacks around any _ commercial use will be required. (vii) No residential lot in an estate residential plan of subdivision may be converted to commercial use. - 58 --- II V)R. gh . (vii~) No more ~han one commercial use will be . permltted on a mlxed-use commercial and residential lot. (ix) Commercial uses will not be permitted on mixed- . use . com~ercial and residential lots prior to construct1on of a residential dwelling on the lot. . (x) Commercial buildings in the Palgrave Estate Residential. pol~cy Area must be designed to complement and blend 1n wlth the character of the existing and proposed estate residential development. Innovative III design will therefore be encouraged. (xi) No commercial development will be per'mitted in . Policy Area 4 or in any Environmental Zone identified on Schedule J. . (xii) Prior to enactment of a restricted area (zoning) by-law establishing a mixed-use commercial and residential lot, a market analysis providing the following information must be submitted to and approved III by the Town of Caledon: a. a precise description of the proposed commercial III use, b. an analysis of the market area of the proposed commercial use, including its geographlc , definition and economic adequacy, III c. the effect of the proposed development on other commercial areas in Caledon, if any, d. an assessment of the economic viability of each . proposed use in the proposed location, and e. any other market information required by the Town. . (xiii) Prior to enactment of a restricted area (zoning) by-law establishing a mixed-use commercial and residential lot, an env ironmental analys is contain ing , the following information must be submitted to and . approved by the Town of Caledon: a. a description .of the proposed method of sewage . _ disposal and an analysis of its adequacy, b. a description of the proposed water supply and an analysis of its adequacy, . .M c. a description of the proposed method of SOlld .... waste disposal: and an analysis of its adequacy, d. a competent pro) ect ion of the amount of traf f ic , generated by each proposed commercial use, . e. an assessment of the impact of additional traffic on residential uses in the area, , f. a description of any air pollution that might be II generated by the proposed commercial activity and an analysis of its effect on residents, and . .pi 59 g. iNR.fJ7 · any otner environmental information required oy II the Town. (xiv) The Town may refuse to approve either the market analysis or the environmental analysis if in 1ts I judgement the environmental and social costs outweigh the benefits of the proposed commercial use. (xv) -Commercial development in plazas will not oe I permitted in the Palgrave Policy Area. (xv i) Highway Commercial uses will not be permitted 1n I the Palgrave Policy Area. (xv i i) Notwithstanding Section 2.5.10.7 of this Plan, I residences above a commercial establishment will not be permitted in the Palgrave Policy Area. (xviii) Notwithstanding Section 2.5.4.1.7(vii) and I Section 2.5.4.1.14(xi), on the lands identified as Part of the West Half of Lot 16, Concession 7 in the former Township of Albion, a gift/craft store will be I permitted within the existing garage on the 0.36 hec tare lot in the southwesterly corner of the said vlest Half of Lot 16 in accordance with the implementing I zoning by-law. 2.5.4.1.15 Transportation I (i) schedule I establishes the following hierarchy of roads: Provincial Highway, Regional Arterial, Ru r a 1 Collector and Rural Road. I ( i i) The basic road pattern shown on Schedule I will serve existing and future development in the palgrave I Policy Area. (iii) Applicants for estate residential plans of sub I division may, depending upon the function of the road or roads involved, be required to provide or contri bute to external road improvements such as reconstruc tion and paving when development takes place. I (iv) The internal subdivision road pattern in estate residential developments will not be permitted to I prejudice the development of adjoining land. (v) Internal subdivision roads in estate residential developments must be located and designed to ensure I convenient access to a higher level road for all vehicular traffic, including maintenance and emergency vehicles and school buses. I 60 I - ~ ~ f I tAR. ~~ _ (vi) The locations of access points onto Provinclal Hlghways, Reg~onal Arterial and Rural Collector Roads II will be coordlnated by the Town and other authorities II having jurisdiction and the number of such access . points will be limited. II (vil) Access to individual residential lots in an l estate residential development should oe from internal II subdivision roads rather than from higher level roads. . (viii) Reversed frontages nor~ally will be required along Provincial Highways, Regional Arterial, Rural . Collectors and Rural Roads to minimize the environmen tal impacts on residents associated with roads and to maintain an efficient road system. III (ix) The Town will analyse alternative ways of handling increased traffic volumes on Highway ISO through I Bolton, including alternative routes around Bolton, III improvements to the present connecting link and more efficient use of existing capacity during peak periods. I The analysis will take into account the interests of . downtown Bolton businessmen and the ade quacy of existing parking arrangements in downtown Bolton. I III 2.5.4.1.17 Agricultural (i) Agricultural uses other than private gardening will not be permitted in an estate residential plan of subdivision with any lot having a net area of less than 2.0 hectares (5 acres). (ii) Non-intensive agricultural uses may be permitted in an estate residential development provided that the minimum net lot area in the plan of subdivision is no less than 2.0 hectares (5 acres) and any proposed agricultural uses comply with the relevant Agricultural policies in Section 2.5.1 and the appropriate implementing Restricted Area By-law. (iii) Notwithstanding Sections 2.5.1.2(x) and 2.5.2.2(ix), the minimum permissible setback from an e.xisting livestock 'farming operation or from an unused .livestock barn in reasonable condition for any part of ~ a Structure Envelope on a lot in an estate residential plan of subdivision will be the distance calcula~ed by the Ministry of Ag:r iculture and Food on .the baS1S ,?f the appropriate Minimum Distance Separatlon Formula ln II' the Agricultural Code of Practice. In addition, no pa~t of a lot within the required setback may be counted ln the calculation of net lot area. I ... 61 ~ (') N . h ' wI<. ~~ II lV .0tWlt stan~lng Sections 2.5.1.2(xl and / 2.~.2~2(lX), the mlnimum permissible setback from an e~l~tlng or proposed estate residential plan of suodi v~slon. for any ne~ intensive livestock farming opera II t1o~ w1ll be the d1stance calculated by the Ministry of A~r~cultur~ and Food on th~ basis of the approp riate r"lnlmum Dlstance Separatlon Formula in the Ag rill cultural Code of Practice. (v) .Hobby farms on existing severances in the Palgrave polic~ Area will be encouraged. In order to ensure that II confl1cts between hobby farms and estate residen tial plans of subdivision in which farming is not permitted are minimized the Restricted Area By-law applicable to == severances with existing or potential hobby farms will ~ not permit intensive livestock farming on small acreages. II 2.5.4.1.18 Consents (i) Consents for residential purposes will not be II granted in Environmental Zones 1-4, as shown on Sche - dule J unless the proposed consent contains a clearly defined and adequate Structure Envelope outside the - Environmental Zone or Zones forming part of the lot. -- (ii) Notwithstanding Section 2.5.2.3(iv) (f) and - 2.5.2.3(iv) (h), the minimum lot area of a consent for residential purposes will be 0.6 of a hectare (1. 5 - acres) in Policy Area 1 and 0.8 of a hectare (2.0 - acres) in policy Areas 2 and 3. (iii) Subject to Subsections 2.5.4.l.l8(i) and (iil above, consents in the Palgrave Estate Residential -- Policy Area will be granted in accordance with the ~ relevant provisions of Section 2.5.2. 2.5.4.1.19 Application Requirements __ (i) Prior to application for approval of a plan of - subdivision the Town of Caledon will provide to the applicant, at the applicant's expense, the following - set of environmental maps and reports to assist in the sound environmental design of the subdivision and to - enable the Town of Caledon to evaluate the proposed ~ plan. Alternatively, the applicant may provide the same maps and reports to the Town, and the Town will evaluate - them to verify that they satisfactorily comply with the - intent of this policy, at the applicant's expense. It is expected that an integrated and multi-disciplined ~ environmental research and design approach will be adopted to fulfill the following requirements. \"ork 62 - , l)JR.~o :.l II will be completed more or less in the order lndicated below. Preparation of planning and englneeelng proposals should follow and be based on the results of pi the environmental mapping and analysis and geotechnical investigations. The Town should be consulted after the completion of these requirements but prioe to the - commencement of design of the subdivision. . (a) Environmental Mapping and Analysis ~ !:! fI All maps will be submitted at a scale of 1:1000 and be presented in a graphically consistent, ~ organized and professional manner. Maps should -- illustrate the general pattern and constraints to development of features mapped. III 1. A scale ratioed Airphoto Enlarqement that has been fitted to a legal boundary survey of the applicant's holding. A signed legal boundary ~ survey must be suppl ied by the applicant in " all cases. 2. A Topoqraphic Map with 1.0 metre contour intervals. In unusual circumstances other suitable contour intervals may be accepted. Spot elevations should be shown on roads, water surfaces, hilltops and other flat areas. The topographic map should illustrate .principal cultural and drainage features. 3. A Slope 11ap showing slopes classified in percentage categories as follows: 0-1, 2-5, 6-10, 11-15 and greater than 15. 4. A Soil and Soil Drainaqe Classification Map using a pedological approach in accordance with the Canadian System of Soil Classification (1978). The mapping should be correlated with geotechnical site data. Borehole locations for all soil samples and ,. for the geotechnical site investigations referred to in Section 2.5.4.1.19 (i)(b) below should be clearly marked and di fferent'iated. - 63 II .. ~ I 5. A Surface HvdroQolqv ~ap W~.qJ I illustrating watersheds, microdra inage, su r face wa te r areas with seasonal water tables 0-0.5 metre~ and 0.5-1.5 metres below the ground surface I includ ing . all . ponds, ma rshes, swamps: streams, lntermlt.tent ponds and drainage courses and reg lonal flood 1 ines whe r e I required by a Conservation Authority. If necessary, , the applicant will carry out a flood study satisfactory to the appropriate Conservation Authority to determine the I location of regional flood lines. 6. A Veqetation Ecoloqy and Wildlife ~ap I describing native and cultural vegetation and principal wildlife habitats. 7. An Environmental Summary ~ap illustrating the I major constraints and opportunities for estate residential development. This map will I show soils with percolation rates greater than 60 minutes per inch or less than 20 minutes per inch, poorly or very poorly drained areas, slopes greater than 15 I percent, areas with seasonal water table 0- O.S metres below the ground surface, areas with sp.3sonal water table 0.5-1.5 metres -~ below the ground surface and any other special features or sensitive areas. It will - ~lso precisely define the boundaries of the - Pol icy Areas and landforms shown on Schedule - - G, the boundaries of Evironmental Zones 1 - 4 - shown on Schedule J, and any regional flood lines required by a Conservation Authority. - - (b) Geotechnical Investigations and Report. A minimum of 100 metres of soil borings normally I will be required for each 100 acre property. The borings will include one deep borehole and a number of shallower boreholes in order to describe I adequately the soil properties and stratigraphic realtionships of the site and the characteristics of its aquifers. - - The location, depth and number of individual boreholes will be based on airphoto interpretation - and preliminary soils mapping and must be approved by the Town of Caledon. The usual requirement will - be 1 deep borehole to a 30 - 40 metre depth and 6 - - 10 shallower boreholes ranging from 6 - 10 metres in depth. This requirement may be increased or reduced according to the size and characteristics of the property but will not - 64 - - ~R.~~ . necessarily vary proportionately with the size of the property. In certain cases the requirement for the deep borehole may be waived by the Town of . Caledon if it is shown by surficial mapping and/or by the shallower boreholes that "sand to the water table" does not exist on the property. Boreholes ~ will be distributed so as to sample representative upland and lowland soil types on the site. Additional boreholes may be required near abuttlng residential uses relying on a private well for water supply. Boreholes should be logged at regular intervals with specific reference to groundwater conditions (e.g., seepage zones and quicking conditions) . .. Standard penetration tests should be performed and representative samples of overburden recovered at approximately 1.5 metre intervals, or more frequently if stratigraphic changes occur. The .. moisture contents of the recovered samples should be determined in a laboratory. Grain sizes should be analysed in a laboratory for the major .. stratigraphic units encountered in the boreholes. If geotechnical investigations are undertaken during the dry season prezometers should be installed and water levels recorded during the . subsequent wet season. On s~te percolation tests in accordance with the I latest Ministry of Health Regulations should be .- performed for all significant soil types mapped. The location and number of individual percolation I tests will be based on airphoto interpretation, . soils mapping and other available data must be approved by the Town of Caledon. It is anticipated that a minimum of six tests would be undertaken .- for each 100 acre property. Water levels in the boreholes and adjacent ponds ~ should be observed and recorded 24 hours after borings are completed. Groundwater samples will be collected from the II principal aqui,fers encountered in the boreholes. . Samples should be appropriately preserved and SUbsequently analysed. .- Laboratory an~lysis of a minimum of 3 groundwater samples for' important physical and chemical parameters will normally be required. III A geotechnical report will be prepared which will: I 1. Summarize the soil and groundwater conditions I III encountered with text and illustrations, ~ 65 I ~f?~3 2. Make recommendations concerning the design of I septic tank and soil absorpt10n field systems, 3 . ~ssess the risk of groundwater contaminatlon I 1n an~ near the proposed development, and 4 . Iden~lfy any other geotechnical conclusions pertlnent to a suodivision design. I (c) Environmental Report. An environmental report will be prepared I summarizing the environmental research described in Section 2.5.4.1.19(i) (a) and (b) and preSentlng I environmental and design guidelines for the proposed estate residential development. 2.5.4.2 Palgrave Estate Residential Policy Area Extension I The policies applicable to the development of the Palgrave Estate Residential Policy Area Extension are I as follows: ( i) .ihen fund ing is available, the Town will prepare a I detailed planning study examining the development potential of the Palgrave Estate Residential Policy Area Extension for estate residential development by: 1. conducting an environmental study, I 2. exami~ing the agricultural capa~ility of the area, I 3. analyzing community needs and services, 4. determining suitable lot sizes, densities, phasinj I and criteria for development if estate residential development is recommended, 5. studying all other r:1atters considered appropriate I by,the Town (e.g., the need for estate residential development). II (ii) Based the findings and recommendations of the - on planning study referred to in Sujsection 2.5.4.2(i) the - Town may prepare an Official Plan Amendment for the Palgrave Estate Re.s ident ial Pol icy Area Extens ion - designating additional lands for estate residential uses. - - - 66 - - - -- - i wR.qy. I (iii) It should not be construed that the total land area in the Palgrave Estate Residential Po licy Area I Extension or any of it .....ill ::>e found suitaole fo r estate residential land use. If the planning study deter:nines that any or all of the land i3 unsuita.:lle . for estate residential land use it .....ill not :le Jesignated for develop~ent. (iv) Until the planning study has .:leen co~pleted and an . Official Plan A~end~ent approved, the oolicies contained in sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.6 .....ill apply to the Palgrave Estate Residential Policy Area Extension. . 2.5.4.4 The policies applicable to the development of Estate Residential Areas are as follo.....s: . (x) Access to individual lots .....ithin a Rural Estate Residential development shall .:le, wherever possiole, I from internal secondary roads and not from existing or . proposed Concession roads, ~egional roads or Provincial Highways. . (xi v) future developnent of other lands in the immediate vicinity of all Rural Estate Residential I proposals shall not oe prejudiced by such pro?osals, especially oy the road patterns. In order for the To.....n . to assess the develop~ent potential of lands in the im~ediate vicinity and deter:nine if provision for adjacent development is required in the processing of a . subdivision proposal, the To.....n .....ill require the submission of a prelii:'linary landscape and topographlC survey of adjacent land. The To.....n .....ill satisfy itself . that development on adjacent lands is not ':leing compromised prior to recommending the Plan for draft approval. , , . Land dedicated for park purposes in Rural Estate Residential plans of suodivision shall be located in such a manner as to integrate with the long ter:n III objectives of the Town, the Regional :,\unicipality of Peel and concerned provincial agencies in the provision ! of major open space. III tn consideration 'of a plan of subdivision, the _following areas are considered unsuitable for Rural ~ Estate Residential develo?ment: (a) Areas within: or adjacent to existing or future i industrial or cOi:'lmercial use; . (b) Areas in proxii:'lity to existing quarries and ?its or future sanitary landfill sites; . I . ~ 67 - tuR.q~1 (c) Areas susceptible to flOoding, based on the I Regional ~esign Storm criteria of the Conservation Authorities Branch of the rHnistry of Natural Resources, areas exhibiting a high water table and I adjacent stream valleys; (d) Areas which are featureless by way of exhibiting flat topographical characteristics and little or I no wooded areas; (e) Areas which are deemed as critical regional I groundwater recharge areas; (f) Areas in proximity to major utility corridors which could seriously prejudice the character of - the area and its quiet enjoyment ~y future residents; (g) Areas susceptible to bank instability or severe . erosion; (h) Areas in proximity to existing or proposed II. intensive or specialized agricultural uses which, bv th,:.;,. n;a......o ....~- -- - - - - . .. . . . . . --------..l... - - - L - --~ __l ~ - L - L tN{<.1 It, 21 APPENDIX B FARMLAND AND OPEN SPACE PROTECTION tNR /1'7 ~ ~ Farmland and Open Space Protection The Problem ~ One of the most vexing problems facing small towns today is the rate at which farmland is being E: developed for residential use, Such conversions devastate rural character, and further compromise an E:: already beleaguered industry. The meadows in which children once played or cows once grazed are being carved into house-lots throughout the length of the Valley. Long-term residents see their towns r=: changing at an alarming pace and feel helpless to break the pattern of conventional suburban sprawl (often inadvertently encouraged by "protective" bylaws containing development standards inappropriate IIC: to rural areas). lit:: One of the most common reactions to new development is to increase the minimum residential lot size, in the mistaken belief that, as new homes are spread farther apart, the town's open rural character will Ie: be retained. Although this is a laudable goal, this method often produces the opposite result, with remaining open land being subdivided at an even faster rate. To worsen the situation, such C developments nearly always consume the entire parcel being sold, leaving no residual open space for farming, natural enjoyment, or rural beauty. IE:: The traditional character of Massachusetts towns has evolved gradually over several centuries, during E:: which time farmsteads and village centers grew slowly and organically, without the straitjacket of standardized land-use regulations. Rural towns often contain several villages where development is It: moderately dense, with the remainder of the land dotted by farms. If the goal is to maintain town character, then a method must be found to preserve agricultural land and open space surrounding Ie natural groupings of residential development. II:: Two approaches to farmland preservation in Massachusetts which have enjoyed some success over the past decade are: 1) the state's Agricultural Preservation Restriction (APR) program (through which II:: development rights to agricultural land are bought and held by the Commonwealth, with future land use limited to agriculture); and 2) various land trusts, which function in a broadly similar manner, It:: utilizing private funds and land donations. However, both of these programs are seriously limited by shortage of cash and escalating land prices all across the state. For example, the Commonwealth's Ie: investment of $4S million over the last ten years has protected 18,500 acres of farmland, which accounts for only 3% of this non-renewable resource. Most of the remaining 97% lies unprotected and zoned It: for conventional development. It: ....--::: - - .-r- - - --- - - --- - - --- ~ - --- ~ - -- - - -- - - Farmland parcels adjacent to moderately sized lots in Hadley's historic town center illustrate the land-use - pattem achievable by implementing the development-and-conservation standards contained in this section - of the Design Manual. - - 168 -- - -- What is urgently needed is a practical, low-cost approach to land conservation which simultaneously preserves farmland and significant open space, while also allowing landowners full equity value for re- :2ntial subdivision of their land. This is precisely what the following "Farmland/Open Space C . rvation and Development Bylaw" has been designed to achieve. Because it allows for the same nl..'er of lots under conventional subdivision, sellers receive full value for their land. It also requires the ~etting aside of naIf the acreage for agricultural or open space uses, in perpetuity, thus meeting the second goal as well. In addition, road and utility construction is generally reduced significantly, thereby saving on development costs and public expenditures for snowplowing and periodic repaving. Districts for Implementation Two types of districts may be dermed by towns for the implementation of this type of bylaw. The first are areas in which farming is predominant. These may be identified by overlay maps locating the soils which are most suitable for agriculture, land which is currently being farmed, and land already under the Agriculture Preservation Restriction program. The opinions of farmers regarding which areas are most important to safeguard should be solicited and considered carefully. A second possible type of district is an open space protection district. This type of area, if not intensively farmed, would have other scenic or natural resources worth protecting. Criteria for defining this type of zone include: large tracts of undeveloped land; aquifer recharge areas; sites identified under the Massachusetts Natural Heritage program (administered by the Massachusetts Department of Fisheries and Wildlife); areas of scenic beauty within the town (perhaps as identified in the Massachusetts Landscape Inventory, prepared by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management in 1982); and areas of historical or cultural interest. These aiteria, either singly or as a group, are important considerations in land preservation. These districts should be mapped, with a written explanation of why the boundaries were drawn and why neighboring lands were either included or excluded. This would strengthen the case for implementing the bylaw, and ~ould ma1ce it easier to defend, if the zoning boundaries are legally challenged. Farmland/Open Space Conservation and Development Bylaw 1. Purposes The purposes of this bylaw are to maintain the rural, natural, and scenic qualities of the Town of _, Massachusetts by preserving farmland and significant open lands while allowing landowners a reasonable return on their holdings. Toward this end, the creation of three (3) or more lots for residential use, whether or not constituting a subdivision, or construction of three (3) or more dwelling units within a five-year period from or on a property or set of contiguous properties in common ownership as of , within or partially within the Farmland/Open Space Protection District, shall be allowed only on Special Permit by the Planning Board, in accordance with the criteria set forth below, 2. Establishment or Overlay Districts The Farmland/Open Space Protection Districts are herein established as overlay districts. The Farmland/Open Space Protection Districts are described on a map, entitled "Farmland/Open Space Protection Districts, Town of _", a copy of which is on me with the Town Clerk. The Farmland/Open Space Protection Districts include farmland of state or local significance, said determination based upon a combination of factors, including soil type, historic use of the land in question, size of the parcels used for farming or agricultural purposes, and character of the surrounding area. Significant Open Space of more than acres is also included in the District. 169 .- .::1 below in order of priority, as it is recognized that some may conflict with others on any given site): ~~. q'l ~ a. on the most suitable soils for sub-surface septic disposal (in unsewered areas only); ~ b. on the least fertile soils for agricultural uses, and in a manner which maximizes the usable area E::: remaining for such ~gricultural use; c. within any woodland contained in the parcel, or along the far edges of the open fields adjacent -=== to any woodland (to reduce impact upon agriculture, to provide summer shade and shelter from winter wind, and to enable new construction to be visually absorbed by natural landscape ~ features); -----. d. in locations least likely to block or interrupt scenic vistas, as seen from the public roadway(s); ___ _1 e. in locations where the greatest number of units could be designed to take maximum advantage ~ of solar heating opportunities; and - --- f. other criteria listed in the Site Plan Review Bylaw, - --- 5.3 Any lot facing onto a previously-existing public road shall have frontage of not less than one- - hundred flfty (150) feet. ___ u ~ 5.4 Lots not served by town sewer shall contain not less than 30,000 sq. ft., and shall have road frontage --- of not less than fifty (SO) feet where such frontage is on a way created by the subdivision involved. ~ - --- 5.5 Distance between dwellings shan not be less than sixty ~ (60) feet. - - 5.6 Buffer zones at least seventy-five (75) feet in width shall be required between residential and --- agricultural uses, and shall be thickly planted with fast-growing native shrubs and trees (such as - - viburnum, elderberry, winterberry, wild rose, hawthorne birch, poplar, shadbush, maple, white cedar, --- etc.) to create an effective barrier separating yards from fields and pastures. ~ - - - 6. Procedural Requirements for Reviewing Special Permits -- - 6.1 The Planning Board is hereby directed to deliver one (1) copy of the application for Special Permit - to the following boards, commissions, or committees: - - Conservation Commission - Historical Commission - Board of Health - Board of Selectmen - Agricultural Incentive Committee ~ - 6.2 Special Permits shali be issued only fonowing a public hearing held within sixty-five (65) days after - the application has been fLIed. Notice of such public hearing shall be given in accordance with Section - 11 of Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws. The Planning Board shan act within ninety - (90) days fonowing the public hearing. Failure to act within ninety (90) days fonowing the date of the - public hearing shall be deemed to be a grant of the permit applied for, --- - 6.3 The Planning Board shall adopt, and from time to time amend, rules relative to the issuance of - such permits, after presenting such proposed rule changes at a duly advertised public hearing, and shall -- fLle a copy of said rules in the office of the Town Clerk. - -- - - - -- - - - I - 172 -- - - tNR . 'DO 3. Use Regulations Within the Farmland/Open Space Protection District, the requirements of the underlying districts shall apply, unless the following erovisions are deemed more stringent than the underlying requirements: 3.1 Permitted Uses 3.1.1 Agriculture, horticulture, or floriculture, and any accessory uses or structures appurtenant thereto, including farm-based businesses. 3.1.2 Creation of one or two (lor 2) lots for residential use, whether a subdivision or not, or construction of one or two (lor 2) dwelling units within a five-year period from or on a property or set of contiguous properties in common ownership as of _' Each lot for residential use shall contain at least _ sq. ft. 3.1.3 Timber-cutting for public safety, personal non-commercial use, or performed according to.a forest management plan drafted under Chapter 61, or commercial selective cutting of not more than five (5) acres of land within a five (5) year period, is permitted within Open Land Preservation Districts. 3.2 Special Permit Uses Creation of three (3) or more lots for residential use, whether a subdivision or not, or construction of three (3) or more dwelling units, within a five (5) year period from or on a property or set of contiguous properties in common ownership as of _' 3.3 Prohibited Uses All other uses are hereby prohibited. 4. Special Per'mit for Residential Development In Farmland/Open Space Protection Districts The creation of three (3) or more lots for residential use, whether a subdivision or not, or construction of three (3) or more dwelling units, within a five-year period from or on a property or set of contiguous properties in common ownership as of _, shall be allowed only on Special Permit by the Planning Board. Such Special Permits shall be acted upon in accordance with the following criteria. 4.1 Data Requirements Applicants for Special Permit shall me with the Town'Clerk one (1) copy, and with the Planning Board five (5) copies, of the following documents: 4.1.1 A Development Plan conforming to the requirements for a preliminary subdivision plan under the Planning Board's Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Such Development Plans shall also indicate, unless the development is to be sewered, the results of deep soil test pits and percolation tests, at the rate of no fewer than two (2) successful test results for each proposed septic disposal area. 4.1.2 An Environmental Analysis, if required under the Planning Board's Subdivision Rules and Regulations. 170 -- "W -- w R. , 0 ) ~ 4.1.3 A site plan, as required under Section_ ' Site Plan Review. -- -- -- 4.2 Criteria - .... Applications for Spe~ial Permits for residential construction in Farmland/Open Space Protection ~ Districts shall meet all of the following criteria: .... - 4.2.1 The Development Plan shall demonstrate that, where applicable, the proposed development - meets all of the requirements of the Planning Board's Subdivision Rules and Regulations. ..- - - 4.2.2 The minimum area of land for Special Permit development shall be six (6) acres. The total -- - number of dwelling units shall be determined at the rate of one (1) unit per every two (2) acres of - buildable land, after excluding from this computation all wetlands, as defmed by M.G.LA. CH. 131, S. ..- - 40, and flood-prone land, as defmed by the Zoning Bylaw. - ..- - 4.2.3 The total area of residual farmland or open space within the development shall be at least fifty - (SO) percent of the total area of buildable land in the proposed development, excluding from this ..- - computation all wetlands, as defmed under M.G.LA. CH. 131, S. 40. - ..- - 4.2.4 All residual land which is to be used only for recreational, conservation, or agricultural purposes, - shall be: - a. owned jointly or in common by the owners of the building lots, or - b. owned by the Town, subject to acceptance. ..- - - A third alternative is for the deed to this residual open land (with permanent conservation restrictions) - - to remain with the original property owner, who has sold the development rights to this part of the - parcel to the developer (who in turn has sold an undivided equal interest in these rights to each new - - homeowner in the development). - - - 4.2.5 The residual open land left unbuilt after development shall be mowed or plowed at least once - annually. Special Permit applicants shall provide copies of deed covenants with prospective purchasers, - or conservation easements with the Town, describing land management practices to be followed by - whichever party or parties are responsible for annual mowing or plowing. - - 4.2.6 Further subdivision of residual land, or its use for other than non-commercial recreation, conservation, or agriculture (except for easements for underground utilities), shall be prohibited. - Structures and buildings accessory to non-commercial recreation, conservation, or agriculture may be erected on residual land, subject to the Site Plan Review section of this Zoning Bylaw. These - restrictions shall be recorded in a Conservation Easement to which the Town Conservation Commission is a signatory party. - 4.2.7 Where applicable, a homeowners' association shall be established for the purpose of permanently - mainta~ing all residual open space and recreatio~al facilities. Such homeowners' association agreements, guaranteeing continuing maintenance, and giving lien to the Town in the event of lack of such maintenance, shall be submitted to the Town Counsel for approval prior to the issuance of any Special Permits. S. The proposed development shall meet the following applicable design guidelines: - 5.1 Dwelling units shall be grouped so that, on average, they consume no more than one (1) acre of land per dwelling, including roads, so that at least SO% of the parcel may remain open. - - 5.2 Lots shall be laid out, to the greatest extent feasible, to achieve the following objectives (listed - - - - 171 l... - I Lakeshore Boulevard : I ! , i Ou ter Harbour ; Marina , \ 1 \ I I Outer Harbour i I ! I i ! , i ~ I , . i ! 1 1 I i . Tommy Thompson Park i ! , -. Lake Ontario I l I j Toronto Outer Harbour i I I Water Use Study .JSlIJ+ JOHNSON SUSTRONK WEINSTEIN + ASSOCIATES ~ . f}.) f<. lD~ 1- CONCLOSIONS \...- .1.--- 1- The Outer Harbour's close proximity to Lake Ontario i attracts all types of water use activity. The relatively I sheltered water area makes it particularlY attractive for \ I ; , small sail craft racing and learn-to-sail programs. i I I I i 2 . Water uses in the outer Harbour includes wading/swimming , : off Cherry Beach, board and dinghy sailing, canoeing, rowing, jet skiing and passage to and from the lake by boats kept at the Toronto Multi-hull Club, Aquatic park Sailing Club and the outer Harbour Marina. 3. participation in summer recreational water use activities as described above is, to a great degree, affected by weather conditions. The majority of recreational activity occurs between May and September with peak activity occurring during the months of July and August. 4. summer peak water use activity in the outer Harbour usually occurs on weekend days during the months of July and August with peak hour activity occurring between the hours of 12:00 noon to 5:00 p.m. 5. Summer weekday water use activity is generally minor up to 6:00 p.m. Peak weekday activity occurs generally between Johnson Sustronk Weinstein + Associates - Toronto - - - tJ::JR. JO If Outer Harbour - Water Use study C-2 I ! , . : 6:00 p.m.and 8:00 p.m. As it relates to boat traffic weekday ,I I i use is approximately 45% of that during a weekend day. . .. , I , I 6. Weather conditions have a major effect on water use activity; th'J.s, conflicts between the various users of the Outer Harbour are most likely to occur during the peak ! i I activity hours of a weekend day, under ideal weather conditions in July or'August. 7 . Due to the low Lake Ontario water temperatures, activity off Cherry Beach is limited to wading and swinuning in the shallow nearshore beach zone and therefore does not receive interference from other boating activity. Boardsailers, not affiliated with the Toronto Board Sailing Club, also frequent Cherry Beach. A limited number of car-top boats, such as canoes, lasers, etc. are also launched from this location. S . Rowing by members of the Hanlan Boat Club usually takes place during the e~rly morning hours, when other water use activity.is low. Both rowing and canoeing by the general public off Cherry Beach is done along the north shore of the Outer Harbour, not frequented by the larger boat traffic. . Johnson Sustronk Weinstein + Associates - Toronto lIGf<. ;05 Outer Harbour - Water Use Study C-3 9. Boardsailing by the 200 members of the Toronto Boardsailing Club and non-affiliated sailors off Cherry Beach generally takes place from March to November. Club races are held on Tuesday evenings with generally 15 - 20 members attending. The occasional regatta can attract up to 50 participants. The club is relatively inactive during weekends as a large number of members travel to locations outside Toronto. Of the three classes of boardsailors, the beginner and intermediate will.tend to use the Outer Harbour in low to r moderate winds (5 - 15 knots) . . The expert is more likely to I venture out of the Harbour in winds higher than 20 knots. ! Larger swells add to the enjoyment of boards ailing in the ( expert category. ( 10. Boardsailors object to some boaters, especially power boaters, not respecting and staying clear of their race course I and are concerned with the use of jet-skiers in the' Harbour. Vice versa the unpredictable nature of boardsailing activity I in the Outer Harbour and in the Harbour entrance channel I outside the Outer Harbour, draws complai"nts from other boaters. Complaints have been registered against boardsailors I approaching both recreational and commerical vessels I dangerously close, apparently to sail through the large swells created by such craft. I . I I Johnson Sustronk Weinstein + Associates - Toronto WR /0/,0 Outer Harbour - Water Ose Study C-4 1l. The sailing clubs and non-club affiliated boaters oft en assist boardsailo~s in distress. This relationship is viewed as a critical safety feature to the boardsailing community. 12. Sailing instructions are provided by the Ontario Sailing Association's Sail Toronto Sailing School during weekday mornings and afternoons and by the community sailing clubs on some weekday evenings. These instructions are generally conducted when other water use activity is light. 13. Dinghy sailing is provided by the northshore Water Rat Sailing Club, the Outer Harbour Centreboard Club and 3 community clubs (Mooredale Sailing Club, St. Jamestown Sailing Club and West Wood Sailing Club) . The above account for approximately 400 dinghy sailboats. All have an active social and organized sailing schedule. Most weekday evenings between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. during the period May - September, sailing activity is scheduled in the Outer Harbour by one of the clubs. For a summer weekend day usually a club race or regatta is scheduled between 11:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. 14. Field observations showed that with a few exceptions other boat traffic respected dinghy race courses and stayed clear of racing boats, if the race course was so laid out to provide for passage by others. When the race course was laid Johnson Sustronk Weinstein + Associates - Toronto ~(<.lD7 outer Harbour - Water Use Study C-5 out not considering other traffic, but requiring them to cross the course, all other boat traffic changed course or slowed down to clear racing craft. Some powerboats were observed to approach and cross the race course at relatively high speed. This type of inconsiderate behaviour is objected to by those racing. 15. Even though the -Outer Harbour's width, with or without the Marina, is marginally suitable for dinghy racing, it is possible under virtually all wind conditions to establish a course layout which will allow a passage for other boat traffic. That this is not always done suggests that interference by other boats is not a major concern to those . racing. 16. Jet-skiing, a fairly recent form of water use activity, has been observed to occur in the Outer Harbour. At present the activity appears to be limited to a few jet-skis launched , and operated out of the Outer Harbour Marina. A jetski is ~ classified as a wet boat under the Canada Shipping Act. Provided the operator wears a lifejacket or personal - floatation device and has the required T.H.C. Power Vessel -- Operator's Licence, the jet-ski can legally be operated in the - Toronto Harbour. These recreational watercraft are fast, - ....... noisy and objected to by most other sailors as a safety hazard and are not considered appropriate for use in the Toronto - Harbour by the Metro police. - Johnson Sustronk Weinstein + Associates - Toronto Outer Harbour - Water Use Study C-6 wR.)o<z 17. Boats kept at the Toronto Multi-hull Cruising Club, the Aquatic Park Sailing Club and the Outer Harbour Marina essentially use the Outer Harbour only as a passage to and from the Lake. Under good weather conditions during a summer weekend day only 20% - 25% of the seasonal docked or moored boats will go out. This ratio will increase to between 30% - 35% during the July and August long weekend holidays with a peak of 40% under ideal weather conditions and the coincidence of a waterfront event, such as the C.N.E. Airshow, Tall Ships Parade, etc. which attracts boaters. With weather conditions being equal during weekdays only 9% to 15% of the seasonal fleet may leave their dock or mooring. 18. The relatively inactive use of a seasonally wet-berthed boats has been known for a long time but is not necessarily appreciated by other users of the Outer Harbour. While boat owners may spend a great deal of their spare time on their boat, they do not necessarily leave the dock. They may choose instead to socialize with other sailors, relax or do maintenance. 19. Wet-berthed sailboats and powerboats have more or less an equal active use and generate similar traffic. Johnson Sustronk Weinstein + Associates - Toronto tNf<. Joq - Water Use Study Outer Harbour C-7 20. The provision of a marine service centre is not a factor in boat traffic generation. The limited amount of boat traffic generated by such a facility gener~lly occurs during weekdays when other water use activity is low. 2l. Except for the occasional charter tour boat entering and subsequently leaving, or the limited number of car-topped craft launched from_Cherry Beach, the Outer Harbour is not frequented by boats kept outside the Outer Harbour. 22. The proposed development of the Tommy Thompson Park in accordance with the present Master Plan will more or less - maintain the existing club facilities at their present level. 23. The completion of the Outer Harbour Marina will expand the number of berths from 385 to 1200. It is anticipated that the fleet mix will remain at more or less 60% power boats and - 40% sailboats with the median size increasing slightly from 28.9 to 30 feet in overall length. - - - 24. Based on an internationally accepted formula to determine - congestion levels in harbour entrances, the peak activities - observed and recorded this summer showed that existing peak harbour area water use was not even remotely close to what is - - considered the start of congestion. .- - .- -- - Johnson Sustronk Weinstein + Associates - Toronto Outer Harbour - Water Use Study c-8 ("DR. JI 0 25. The same formula applied to the future anticipated water use with the completed marina for the worst possible summer holiday peak conditions resulted in similar extremely 10'''; indices even if it was assumed that marina boat traffic would all have to cross a race course. This indicates that future marina traffic crossing a dinghy race course does not. constitute a safety hazard but merely a nuisance to those racing. Corrunon sense, however, suggests that the Race Corrunittee set a course which would allow other traffic to pass .the course without interfering with racing craft. 26. The above analysis clearly indicates that the proposed expansion of the marina will cause neither congestion nor a pose a safety hazard to other users of the harbour. This was also confirmed by spokesmen of the Metro Toronto police Marine Unit. When asked if, based on their experience and in their opinion, they considered the expansion of the marina would cause congestion or raise a concern, they replied negatively. They did, however, mention that present complaints by other Outer Harbour water users, dinghy and boardsailors all related to speeding powerboats. Irrunediately outside the Harbour complaints were generally made by powerboaters with reference to boardsailors. Johnson Sustronk Weinstein + Associates - Toronto tAR.H) . 1.2 RECOMMENDATIONS R-l l. That the Harbour Master remind, in the form of written notice, the North Shore Sailing Clubs of the requirement of the THC that all races and race courses in the Outer Harbour be approved by the Harbour Master. Such race courses should be set so as to provide passage for other craft between the course and the south shoreline. - 2 . That, to assist .with the above, the recreational craft water depth (3.5m below chart datum) be marked along the south shoreline with green spar marks, and that the present Outer Harbour channel buoys marking the commercial shipping lane be eliminated. I ( 3. That boat traffic from the Outer Harbour Marina co'ntinue to be monitored each season by the Harbour Master until its r completion and that the results of the monitoring be submitted . I . to the Toronto Harbour Commissioners in the form of an annual - report. i ! - 4 . That. the THC embark on an active campaign to educate - I boardsailors in safe sailing practices in the Outer Harbour and in the vicinity of the Eastern Gap. Such a campaign I should include but not limit itself to workshops, articles in trade magazines, and beach signage ill~strating the use I patterns of the Outer Harbour. Such a program should be I I Johnson Sustronk Weinstein + Associates - Toronto 'Outer Harbour - Water Use Study R-2 /..U./(. II z.. undertaken in cooperation with the Ontario Sailing Association and the Toronto Boardsailing Club due to their obvious interest in such matters. \ 5. That the THC undertake a review in consultation with the 1 , , Metropolitan Toronto Police Force of the adequacy of the Power Vessel Operator's Licence Testing Procedure. I' I' , , J \ ~ 6. That prior to issuance of any berthing agreements at the & I Outer Harbour Marina the registered operator(s) occupying :1 a I,' slip produce a Power Vessel Operator Licence. i' I. I, I' ~ r 7. That interpretive signage of the Outer Harbour be erected t '. . at Cherry Beach and at the Outer Harbour Marina by the THC 1 ~ which will illustrate to the' public the various use patterns \ I of the harbour and safe boating practices. t r: t 8 . That the Outer Harbour Marina not allow jet-skis or Ir I . similar craft to be launched and/or operated within the limits I' : i of the marina. I ' 11. " 9. That the Public Affairs department undertake to prepare a , II ,: I short video combining segments of the video shots recorded I ,. during the survey showing both proper and inconsiderate behaviour by boaters. By adding sound it could be explained, I I Johnson Sustronk Weinstein + Associates - Toronto \ ~ Wt<'.l ,~ outer Harbour - Water Use Study R-3 for instance, why one should not speed in the harbour or operate close to a dinghy sailboat, sailboard, canoe, etc. This video should be included as part of the Power. Vessel Operator's Licencing Instruction provided by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners and also during meetings with the Outer Harbour Marina Boaters Association. -' . 10. That prior to the development of any lands adjacent. the Outer Harbour, including any eventual relocation of the North Shore Sailing Clubs, consideration first be given to the use patterns of the Outer Harbour as outlined in this Study. Johnson Sustronk Weinstein + Associates - Toronto '^' f< . "If THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY A PROPOSAL for the USE OF GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS and REMOTE SENSING TECHNOLOGY for WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLANNING Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board Meet ing H/90 March 1, 1990 ..- -.~ c.., LVi<. JJS , the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority 5 shore ham drive, downsview, ontario, m3n 1 s4 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-6898 January 15, 1990 The Honourable Jim Bradley Minister of the Environment 15th Floor 135 St. Clair Avenue West Toronto, Ontario M4V 1P5 Dear Minister: Re: A Proposal for the Use of Geographic Information Systems and Remote Sensing Technology for Watershed Management Planning On behalf of The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, I am pleased to submit to you this unsolicited proposal to apply Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and remote sensing technology to environmental management planning. I am aware of several potential funding sources within the Ministry of the Environment, including the Research and Development Fund, and I request that you bring this proposal to the attention of the appropriate individuals. As you are well aware, we are currently facing tremendous challenges in managing our diminishing environmental resources in the face of unparalleled social and economic growth. I firmly believe that we need to research and develop new technologies that will enable us to address emerging environmental issues in a comprehensive and anticipatory way. The study described in the attached proposal will provide the MTRCA with the opportunity to develop GIS and remote sensing technology as tools to examine alternative development strategies on watershed features, such as fisheries, water quality, water quantity, and greenspaces (woodlots, wetlands, groundwater; r_echarge, ESA's, etc.). A key element in the study will be the linking of the GIS database to various predictive models by developing an intelligent database/ modelling interface. This project will benefit the Kanter Committee, Ontario Round Table, Office of the Greater Toronto Area, and many other organizations by providing a thorough assessment of these technologies in an application that is of interest to us all. . . ./2 LDR.ll~ - 2 - The project is phased over two years at a total cost of $300,000. This includes the cost of GIS hardware and software and a staff training program. The MTRCA would provide overall project coordination and be the principal beneficiary of the study. Geomatics International, an environmental consulting firm specializing in GIS applications, would act as the prime consultant coordinating the technical study components. Research professionals from the Universities of Toronto and Waterloo will provide expertise in GIS systems development and interpretation of remotely sensed databases respectively. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this project with you further at your earliest convenience. I have taken the liberty of forwarding copies of this proposal to Mr. Doug Vallery and Mr. John Kinkead of your Ministry. Yours truly, 0.Q W. A. McLean General Manager Attach. cc: Doug Vallery - Coordinator, Technology Development Fund Research and Technology Branch, MOE John Kinkead . Manager, Watershed Management Section Water Resources Branch, MOE -.~ wi<. 117 The Use of Geographic Information Systems and Remote Sensing for Watershed Management Planning A Proposal Prepared For Ontario Ministry of Environment Prepared By The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority In Association With q- --- Geomatics International University of Waterloo University of Toronto January, 1990 loR . 1I g Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................. 1 1 .1 Role of the MTRCA ....................................... 1 1.2 Geographic Information Systems ............................. 2 1.3 GIS Database Development ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.4 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.0 PROJECT OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.0 STUDY AREA ................................................ 5 4.0 SCOPE OF WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.0 STUDY TEAM ....................,....,...................... 8 6.0 PROJECT SCHEDULE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.0 BUDGET REQUIREMENTS ..................................... 10 8.0 ANTICIPATED USER BENEFITS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9.0 QUALIFICATIONS ............................................ 12 ..- -.- I b:J R. I (4 The use of Geographic Information Systems and Remote Sensing for Watershed Management Planning 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Role of the MTRCA The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA) is a provincial/municipal partnership established in 1957, under the Conservation Authorities Act, to manage the renewable natural resources of the region's watershed. With one-third of Ontario's population within its area of jurisdiction, the MTRCA acts in the community's interest through advocating and implementing watershed management programs that: 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; and 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. Over the past three years, the MTRCA has completed a strategic planning exercise to establish long term goals in fulfilling its mandate. The MTRCA's Greenspace Plan f'?t the Greater Toronto Region (1988) is a strategy to manage the resource base within its jurisdiction in a more proactive fashion. The Greenspace Plan is founded on the development of comprehensive watershed management strategies for each of MTRCA's nine watersheds. The Rouge River watershed was the first comprehensive basin management strategy (CBMS) to 1 (pR. J~O be completed. The CBMS for the Rouge River watershed was a set of policies and implementation actions to manage the watershed as a healthy ecosystem. This ecosystem approach not only integrated the land, water, biological, and human features of the. watershed, but also attempted to unite the interests of provincial and municipal agencies and non-governmental organizations through a multiagency planning exercise. A committee of these stakeholders participated in setting a long term vision for the Rouge River and developing the policies and implementation actions based on a series of state-of-the-art technical studies. The MTRCA has recently embarked on a similar study for the Duffins Creek watershed. This watershed is perhaps the most rural of the nine watershed in the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Area. With the current pressures for development (e.g. waste disposal, airport development, and affordable housing), it is critical that an integrated watershed management plan be developed as soon as possible. MTRCA staff have determined a critical path that will be used for this study (Figure 1). Public consultation is expected to play an even larger role in this study in light of the controversial issues within the watershed. The technical framework for the Duffins Creek study will be based on land-use scenarios (existing, committed, , designated, and future (sustainable and extensive growth) scenarios) that will enable agencies to evaluate the potential impacts of development in the watershed. In recent years, the broadening use and applications of GIS have made it imperative for us to incorporate GIS in our watershed management studies. Through this study, the MTRCA will establish a GIS that will integrate the social, economic, and environmental data bases in a manner that will facilitate decision- making in watershed management. ..- --~ 1.2 Geographic Information Systems A central and vital part of the watershed planning process is the evaluation of the impacts of development proposals on the natural and socio-economic 2 DUFFINS CREEK STUDY PROCESS Public Consultation Process Preview/Formulation ConM8tion Stege MeIn AnIIytIceI ~ ~ll-. SIIige ApprowI & Implementation Stage ~ ~' ~. Stages )II" "'119" 119'1 ....' ...... .. 1IlL" ~.. ...... ..... .... )If- 'I '*0&'1 "'1 )If" ,.,.+CMd ...,.. ............. -+ .. ........... -+ ......... -+ Nil..... -+ ......... W1rIlr... Nil ................ ,.,... + ......IWIa+....... ......, .... ....... c.a... u_ _..... w........ ......111... ...... ........... IIIWIMoIII ........ ........ 0... ,......, ...... fliIIrSIiIIMII ....... ....~..,. 9 .............. ... .............. ...... ..... _If r.i9 iIIdoWII ..... ... ,.. ... ~ ........ Technical Process Ill" ..... ~.. ... ... >..-..... ..- c.-... .... hWl ... Geographic Information Syat m (GIS) Ja" CAlMII~ + c.6Itflld. + '::If FIGURE l. THE DUFFINS CREEK STUDY PROCESS . . - E 't) - l.> .. - .. - - - - - - - - - - - - - .. . ....- J,:}tQ. \ ~ ~ environments. Geographic Information System (GIS) technology is a powerful land:'use ?I~nning and management tool. It offers the potential for providing the spatial database management framework required for integrated watershed management envisaged by MTRCA. Geographic Information Systems are typically thought of as a means of coding, storing, and retrieving data about aspects of the earth's surface. However, it can be used to represent a model of the real world. In GIS, data can be manipulated in a manner that allows the user to analyze trends, model environmental processes, and evaluate possible impacts of planning decisions. By using GIS in a similar way that pilots use flight simulators, it is possible for planners and decision-makers to explore a range of possible planning and management scenarios and to obtain an idea of the consequences of a course of action before mistakes have been irrevocably made in the environment itself. GIS also facilitates and provides the opportunity for a number of other important functions, including: 0 standardization of data collection; 0 rapid and inexpensive data manipulation, updating, and tracking; 0 display and integration of data from a variety of sources; 0 resolution of scale inconsistencies in mapped information; and 0 sharing of information among users. Traditionally, large mainframe GIS systems were required for many of these GIS planning activities. The recent development of mini and PC-based GIS systems have .facilitated the incorporation of'the technology into day to day planning and manag-ement activities. 3 lAJR. )~ 1.3 GIS Database Development A number of government agencies have been involved in the development of digitized spatial databases. Although each of the various planning agencies, including MTRCA, has particular information needs, a great deal of the required information is common to all agencies. Since broader regional level planning requires the integration and coordination of each of the various planning agencies, the need for database compatibility is evident. It is imperative that a centralized GIS database for planning and monitoring development activities be created. A centralized GIS database can be developed through two approaches. First, coordination of existing digital sources available from various government agencies. Second, creation of additional spatial coverages that are required as part of the regional and individual watershed management program. The creation and/or updating of existing GIS spatial coverages can be achieved through digitization of map or point data or through the use of remote sensing technology. Advances in both spatial and spectral resolution of satellite-based remote sensing data, and its compatibility with GIS data structures, now makes it feasible to use this technology as a source of relatively inexpensive spatial information. 1.4 Objectives To facilitate environmental planning, the MTRCA has taken the initiative of: 0 establishing a centralized GIS/integrated database which will be accessible ;to both government and non-government agencies and which can be used for both broad scale (regional) and detailed (site-specific) environmental planning purposes. 0 creating an intelligent GIS database / modelling interface enabling comprehensive evaluation of development proposals. 4 LOR. 1 ~If 2.0 PROJECT OBJECTIVES Based on above-noted objectives, a number of more specific project objectives can be defined. In defining these objectives, a progression of GIS activity is followed. Initially the program will focus on development of a regional digital database for the Metropolitan Toronto and Region watersheds. Existing digital data sources and newly created coverages will be incorporated at this time. Focus will then shift to the use of the database for land planning and management purposes. Of particular interest will be the examination of effects associated with alternative land development strategies on watershed features, such as fisheries, water quality, water quantity, and green spaces (woodlots, ESA's, wetlands, groundwater, etc.). More specifically the objectives are as follows: 1. Develop a digital GIS database, at a general level of detail (scales of 1 :50,000 and smaller) for the nine watersheds within the jurisdiction of the MTRCA from existing digital databases, satellite imagery and digitizing of new map coverages; 2. Develop detailed map coverages for the Duffins Creek Watershed (scales of 1 :10,000 and larger). These coverages will contain additional spatial and thematic detail appropriate to the increased scale. 3. Develop an Intelligent Database Manager jModelling Interface to provide higher level access to GIS functions and modelling simulations. 4. Evaluate watershed management scenarios using GIS capabilities and simulation models. 5. Develop expertise within MTRCA with respect to the use and application of GIS, remote sensing and spatially distributed simulation modelling. 3.0 STUDY AREA The study area is the land base under the MTRCA's jurisdiction. This area covers nine watersheds: Etobicoke, Mimico. Humber, Don, Highland, Petticoat, Rouge, Duffins and Carruthers. The area also Indudes four regional and twenty-six local 5 WI<.'~S' municipalities. Throughout the study, emphasis will be placed on the Duffins Creek watershed which is the second of MTRCA's watershed management initiatives (Figure 2). 4.0 SCOPE OF WORK The following scope of work is anticipated in order to achieve those objectives outlined in section 2.0. Data Acquisition, Development and Integration Regional Database 1. Acquire existing digital databases from various federal, provincial and municipal agencies such as Energy, Mines and Resources (1 :50,000 NTS data); OMAF (land-use, soil); Environment Canada (CLI - forestry, agriculture, recreation, wildlife capability data) and Statistics Canada (socio-economic data). 2. Acquire most recent Landsat TM and SPOT satellite data and prepare regional level land-use coverage using image analysis techniques. 3. Acquire all relevant existing map and point data for physical, chemical and biological features, such as watershed and sub-catchment drainage basins, stream classification, groundwater resources, geology, land-use, soil classification, aggregate resources, ESA's, wetlands, ANSI's, fisheries and wildlife resources, and water quality and quantity. 4. Digitize all relevant map data and integrate with existing databases. Duffins: Creek Database -.~ 5. In addition to the regional coverages, develop additional, more detailed data (from maps and other point data at scales of 1 :10,000 and larger) including: 6 ~ it> . - J) ~ . . : TOWN OF . . : WHITCHURCH- . . 60 . ! STOlllrFVIUE ........................-c : TrJ'N i'.......~.~......... . : tJIr . . . 1 TO~N QF:. : MARKHAM FIGURE 2. STUDY AREA wR. \~7 Land-use categories o existing and committed land-use plans o designated land-use plans (10 - 25 year planning horizon) o future land-use scenarios (one based on sustainable growth, the other on extensive, unbridled growth) Watershed Features o sub-catchment basins o flood lines (2, 5, 25, 100, 350 years, regional) o flood and erosion susceptible sites o surface water, groundwater, and recharge areas Environmental Data o physical and chemical water quality characteristics o point sources of pollution to air, water, soil o fisheries and wildlife o environmentally significant areas (ESA's), areas of natural and scientific interest (ANSI), wetlands, etc. o licensed gravel pits and proposed gravel extraction areas GIS Analysis 6. Develop an Intelligent Database Manager jModelling Interface. The ability to access spatial information and use the information with both the GIS and the simulation models is a key element in the predictive capability of the system. Predictive models will be integrated and fine-tuned throughout the technical studies component. Potential models include: QUALHYMO _' (surface water quality and quantity), GAWSER and TRACTIVE FORCE ~:~ (groundwater), and Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) (fisheries and wildlife). 7. Develop watershed management scenarios and incorporate these scenarios into the GIS framework. A variety of scenarios are possible at both the regional scale and the individual watershed scale. 7 tuR.' a~ Trainin~/Technology Transfer 8. Conduct a number of training sessions for MTRCA staff in the use and application of Geographic Information Systems, remote sensing image analysis, and the use of spatially distributed simulation models for watershed management planning. MTRCA and the study team recognize the importance of involving staff directly in the various study components as the best means of transferring the technology to ensure skills development and long term use. 5.0 STUDY TEAM Watershed management planning is a complex process requiring the input and expertise of a variety of individuals and groups. Although the MTRCA will serve as project coordinator, a team of experts from universities and the private sector has been assembled to conduct the technical components of the program. These include the following: University of Waterloo, Earth Observation Laboratory. This group is part of a Provincial Centre of Excellence: The Institute for Space and Terrestrial Science. University of Toronto, Institute for Land Information Management (ILlM). The ILlM was established to address several challenges in GIS, land information systems, land information management, computerized mapping, and related areas. Geomatics International, an environmental consulting firm specializing in the application of GIS and remote sensing technologies for land- use and resource planning. Geomatics will provide technical ~ .:Coordination of the study components, and act as the prime -'consultant to the MTRCA. 8 ~R. )~1 6.0 PROJECT SCHEDULE Phase one of the project will focus on the development of a comprehensive GIS digital database for the nine watersheds comprising the MTRCA jurisdiction (Regional Database). During the early stages of this phase, purchase of the GIS and remote sensing hardware and software, existing digital data coverages (including the remote sensing data) will be undertaken. It should also be noted that this phase is also the most labour intensive period of the project as the database and the Intelligent Database Manager/Modelling Interface are developed. AntiCipated Completion: March, 1991 Anticipated Budget: $225,000.00 (75%) In Phase two of the project, we will determine the impacts of current and future land-use scenarios in the Duffins Creek Watershed. This will be achieved through integration of predictive models into the integrated database management system. The predictive models will be developed and "fine-tuned" through the technical studies component of the Duffins Creek study process. Anticipated Completion: December, 1991 Anticipated Budget: $75,000.00 (25%) 7.0 BUDGET REQUIREMENTS Primary GIS and Remote Sensing Equipment ..' There~are a number of commercially available GIS software packages. Each has inherent strengths and weaknesses in the context of this project. SPANS is a raster based GIS with powerful analytical and modelling capabilities. ARC/INFO is a vector based system with well developed digitizing capability. Together, these systems provide the range of capability desirable for this study. 9 10R. '3D SPANS Workstation (GIS) SPAt:-JS (Hardware) $ 18,000 SPANS (Software) $ 20,000 E-Size Plotter $ 8,000 Digitizing Table (36" x 48") $ 8,000 Colour Printer (e.g. Textronics) $ 5,000 ARC/INFO Workstation (GIS) ARC/INFO (SUN-SPARC Station) $ 30,000 ARC/INFO (Software) $ 20,000 Remote Sensing Workstation EASI-PACE (Image Analysis Software) $ 20,000 EASI-PACE (Hardware-utilize SPANS) - SUB TOTAL $129,000 Database Development Regional Database (1 :50,000) (includes purchase of existing digital data and remote sensing data, new digitization, and analysis) $ 50,000 Duffins Creek Database (1 :2,000/10,000) (includes digitizing of additional coverages, SPOT data coverage, and analysis) $ 35,000 SUB TOTAL $ 85,000 Intelligent Database Manager/ Modeu~ng Interface Development and implementation $ 35,000 of predictive models into GIS SUB TOTAL $ 35,000 10 WR.131 GIS An'alysis Query development, evaluation of impacts of future land-use scenarios, map outputs $ 35,000 SUB TOTAL $ 35,000 GIS and Remote Sensing Training of MTRCA Staff $ 6,000 SUB TOTAL $ 6,000 Report Preparation, Presentations, Workshops, and Liaison $ 10,000 SUB TOTAL $ 10,000 GRAND TOTAL $300,000 8.0 ANTICIPATED USER BENEFITS There are many benefrts that would be generated through this study. These include: 1. ~_The opportunity for the Ministry of the Environment and other -agencies (e.g. Kantor's Committee, Ontario Round Table, Greater Toronto Authority, and other provincial ministries) to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of different GIS technologies for environmental management. 2. The integration of remote sensing and GIS. 11 ~R. \'3~ 3. The development of an interface between predictive modelling and GIS. 4. A demonstration of the effectiveness of GIS for public presentation purposes and stakeholder conflict resolution. 9.0 QUALIFICATIONS Please refer to attached materials for qualifications of the study team members. --- --~ 12 iJ.JR. 13~ THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY PARKING LOT SURFACES COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting 11/90 March 2, 1990 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ~R.139- f"our (4 ) different parking lot surfaces were examined. The advantages and disadvantages of each are listed as follows: TYPE Of" SURFACE ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES 1. Gravel - cheapest surface to - not as durable as install asphalt - does not require the - easily eroded and installation of storm results in high sewers or catch basins turbidity in runoff if areas are not too large - must be treated with calcium chloride to - is somewhat permeable keep dust levels clown and promotes some in dry seasons lnflltration of runoff - is not as effective in promoting infiltration dUring winter months or after fine particles clog the gravel - difficult to grade to keep runoff from ponding in lot - requires higher maintenance for repairs etc. - not easily marked to ensure efficient use of the parking area 2. Asphalt - most durable surface - requires catch basins provided sub-base is and storm sewers if properly constructed surface area is large - runoff can be drained - does not promote to ditches if surface infiltration and area of lot is small surface runoff is high - inlet control devices - increases peak flow can be installed in levels in streams; parking lots to control therefore, could runoff promote downstream erOSion - oil traps can be installed to collect - surface is fairly pollutants impermeable so any pollutants deposited - can withstand heavier are easily washed away loads and higher volume of traffic than gravel - easy to mark to ensure efficient use - easy to clean with conventional sweepers . . . /'2 l,t)t(.135 - 2 - TYPE OF SURFACE ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES - promotes infiltration - 15-20% more expenS1ve and therefore, can than normal asphalt 3. Porous Pavement reduce stormwater the management storage - subject to frost requirements for the damage due to water site 1nfiltrat10n - easy to mark to - any contaminants ensure eff1cient use wh1ch pass through the asphalt have access to - easy to clean wIth groundwater conventional sweepers - can prematurely clog if not properly protected - can only be used 1n park1ng lots and 11ght access roads 4. Turf Stone - attractive 1f grass - m1nor settlement or is maintained frost heave can Make - precast concrete surface difficult to 1nterlock1ng paving - fairly permeable so maintain and subject to blocks desIgned w1th 1nfiltration is damage from snow open areas to hold maximized cleaning equipment s011 or sand and support turf growth - surface is fairly - grass between stones durable provided sub- can d1e during base is properly prolonged hot, dry prepared periods - substantially more expensive than other pav1ng techniques - any contaminants which leach through the soil have access to groundwater CONCLUSION 'oJhen all aspects are cons1dered, asphalt is probably the best surface for parking areas, but we need to put more effort 1nto catch bas1n clean1ng, cleanIng of the surfaces by sweep1ng and treating the runoff through the use of grassed swales, marshes and/or 1nf1ltratl.on techniques. BD/gds February 19, 1990 wR.13~ FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN for the METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY FOREST of the MAPLE DISTRICT 1983-2003 - ~ Ministry of Lyn McLeod Natural Minister Resources Ontario ~---- - -.-......, tvR.1B7 , APPROVAL PAGE FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY FOREST OF THE MAPLE DISTRICT OF CENTRAL REGION FOR THE TWENTY-YEAR PERIOD FROM 1983 TO 2003 - PREPARED BY: DEBBIE PELLA KEEN DATE REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL FORESTER I RECOMMEND THAT THE PLAN BE APPROVED FOR IMPLEMENTATION. APPROVED BY: AGREEMENT HOLDER DATE DISTRICT MANAGER DATE REGIONAL DIRECTOR DATE (i) wR.. \3~ MAPLE DISTRICT INTERNAL REVIEW FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN for the METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY FOREST 1983-2003 - We have reviewed this plan and recommend alterations and/or additions as attached. The plan is consistent with other resource management objectives and plans for this area subject to the attached changes. Forest Management Supervisor Date Land Management Supervisor Date Fish and Wildlife Supervisor Date Resource Liaison Officer Date District Parks Supervisor Date (ii) bJR. I B~ PREFACE The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA) Forest is owned by the Conservation Authority and managed under agreement by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). Since the MTRCA Forest provides a range of values and opportunities to the landowner and the public, its management must be planned in such a way as to recognize the requirements of other uses of the forest in addition to timber values. The management planning for the MTRCA Forest is the responsibility of the assigned Ministry professional forester. During the planning process a team of resource managers are called upon to provide input and review to ensure all resources and key interests are considered. Planning is done through the use of Forest Management Plans for twenty-year periods, with a five-year term of operation. The plan is renewed every five years to report the progress in management and to review and improve the twenty-year forecasts. The plan outlines the specific forest operations necessary to meet the stated goals for a five-year term only, this is redone at each five-year renewal of the plan. This provides continuity for the _ twenty-year period as well as the flexibility to accommodate changes in circumstances. Finally, Annual Work Schedules are produced that outline the actual yearly implementation of forest operations. These schedules provide the link between the work proposed in the plan for the five-year term and the financial resources that are allocated through the Ministry's annual budgeting process. Annual Reports are submitted to the MTRCA each year. They include a report on the past year's management activities, a financial statement showing expenditures, revenues and grants for that year and the planned management activities for the current and next years. The first Forest Management Plan for the MTRCA Forest was prepared for the 1963-1983 period. The current plan covers the period 1983-2003. The present agreement expires on March 31, 2000. If it is renewed, the current plan will be reviewed and revised as required at that time. Should the agreement expire without renewal this phin will be invalid at that date. (tii) {;JR. I Lf-O , TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE APPROVALS (0, (H) PREFACE (Hi) LIST OF TABLES, MAPS AND APPENDICES (v) I ADMINISTRATIVE AND PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION 1 II REPORT OF PAST OPERATIONS 5 III OBJECTIVE AND STRATEGIES 10 A. PREAMBLE 10 B. POLICIES 10 - C. OBJECTIVES 1. Forestry 13 2. Fisheries 14 3. Wildlife 14 4. Provincial Parks 15 5. General Recreation 15 6. Aggregates 16 D. STRATEGIES 16 1. Forestry 16 2. Fisheries 19 3. Wildlife 19 4. Provincial Parks 19 5. General Recreation 20 6. Aggregates 20 IV PROPOSED OPERATIONS 20 V PLAN MAINTENANCE AND RENEWAL 21 (iv) W(<./JfJ I MTRCA FOREST LIST OF TABLES PAGE Table 1 Property List 2 Table 2 Area Summary In Hectares 3 Table 3 Summary of Production Forest Area 4 Table 4 Summary of Cutting and Improvement Operations, 1973-1983 6 Table 5 Summary of Cutting and Improvement Operations, 1983-1988 7 Table 6 Cut Proposal for the Decade 1983-1993 8 Table 7 Thinning and Conversion Backlog to 1988 17 LIST OF MAPS - Map 1 Maple District (vi) Map 2 MTRCA Forest (vii) LIST OF APPENDICES A MTRCA Forest Ledger 22 B Glossary of Terms 31 C MTRCA Forest Brochure 37 D Environmentally Significant Areas 39 E Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest 49 F Wildlife Considerations for Forest Management 54 G MTRCA Forest Compartment Maps 60 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Silvicultural Prescription "Marking" Form 56 (v) Map 1 iNf<. J,+~ MAPLE DISTRICT LEGEND REGIONAL SETTING ....STAY 01 NATURAL RESOURCES REGIONAL BOUNDARY @ _ _ _ ..MSTRYof NATURAL RESOURCES 10 0 10 30 !IOml DISTRICT BOUNDARY 10 0 10 20 30. -40 11m D MAPLE DISTRICT N . ~. Giorgl.n Say " ~<~.\ Huronia I ~ :.~rt \ ",l . \ ..,a....JfP c/ . <- . c'._-t -~ " _,_ . ': Lindsay I . ,....',':;~""-\ ~ ." ~ .......... ~:;;:. \ " ~, ,.". . ,." , \ ,J ." -,'. \ Whitby .( Maple -. , / , , / , ,~ , , Br.~ton CANADA ~ ,,---------iiS'A-- ." , ".. ." Lake On,ario Cambridge Niagara Lake E,/e " " " " .,,~ '-" '. "" ' ".' -. " ,., ." (vi) ..... . ~ ~ i __!!--r-,l;;;.- '.. 1 ...- r. I!JI ' ~ V-.JR"~3 ~ / I-"" - ~..- II ~ ^~ jj/.;-- ~';~'t~~r~\'~~V-~k - .,~-= ~~ .' ~ \- !-, It' - :.....- "::L.<;:~ ,.-- _ ~;::--f-,I '":';~ y: ,,4 . ll. ~ ' _ _.=- ~..... " 12 '" - "' ~.... \ iN "--.:: · .... - n <!l ::," J......~ . h' , ' ,I :~' '" . '/..- --c Z' I . · W'~ JtLt:- It. ;r >-- I ~{!,~ ~ >-- ,~ --: I ~ · '-f ^ '-7 s- . .. .hi ~ I ~ ~ ol+to. _....-:- ~[1r iii _ . ~... ,~1.J~ J'I( __ ~ ~ t:LJtt.V . I ~ -. r~ ~~ ~,J' @ .. . . , ~p;~ e:;- ~. L---=- I .. ~ ~ ~~ { ( \~ ~_1. ~~ ~~~ [ ~ \) ~ t-( ,....>, ~ ~ _ ~ ~ 0 ~ ,~ -.A cl ~vo., .,. ~ ~ "t ~?; .... I ' ~- , I, · ~ " ~ v~ _ _ . I . ". 0, ',: '~~ "\ ''''.."".. _ I . -~ ~ ~:~-- .. '\ t:: - . ,.......- I \ ~ i' .~'')l vo \ t ~ I' .,,~ -" ,,' ftl'l~\ ~ ,JJ . ottL". .r, , 'I/\.) . , ~ I . .' . Ie ~""~J'. , .~ I . · " 'I"~ ,-- ~~~ '~ ':>t.r. ~ ~ ~.. . -'f, . r- . . . . ~ , I . './:: " ,'\'.-~!:-( 1 ,. -. .. ~ ~ ': "" - , ,'~ (: _ ~.;l "1~~ I '. --._"~ ' 1 ~ ' - --- .. j..Jl4- , - ~ ~~~,~,... I!I or' '-l - - r l~ LJ~ Peel Region '\ ' l\ ~~.~ ^, "6 " \ "q- ~ A n MTRCA FOREST TRACTS 1. RJWLEY 2. BAllYCR)y 3. MCNO 4. CAlEOON 5. KELLY e. l/~ 7. BO'ltE 8. MeAR~ - 9. VERI\ER n llUFFY 11. AAGENT 12. PEEl 13. CWBII'E w p. J 4-lf I I ADMINISTRATIVE AND PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION The MTRCA Forest was established under the Conservation Authorities Act and a Forestry Act Agreement, dated April 11, 1951 between the Minister of the then Department of Lands and Forests and the Humber Valley Conservation Autl?-ority. On February 1, 1957, the Humber Valley Conservation Authority was dissolved and consolidated together with four other Authorities to form the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA). The Department of Lands and Forests has since been reorganized and is now the Ministry of Natural Resources. The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority entered into the current Agreement with the Minister of Natural Resources on September 26, 1975, pursuant to the Forestry Act, R.S.O. 1970, c. 181. The twenty-five year Agreement covers the period from April 1, 1975 to March 31, 2000. The MTRCA Forest consists of 18 separate properties, known as Tracts, with a total area of 788.9 hectares (ha). Table 1 lists the Tracts, their location, area (ha), purchase date, and compartment number. Most Tracts are within the - MNR administrative District of Maple of the Central Region (Map 1). The Ballycroy, Rowley and Humber Tracts are in Huronia District but are managed by Maple District. It is practical that the MTRCA deal with only one District. The Tracts are located in the Townships of Mono and Adjala in County of Dufferin, The Township of Uxbridge in the Regional Municipality of Durham and in the reorganized Town of Caledon in the Regional Municipality of Peel (Map 2). The former geographic Townships of Albion and Caledon in the Town of Caledon will be cited in this plan to facilitate reference to past records. The MTRCA Forest lies within a watershed area that drains south to Lake Ontario. All but the Clubine tract, in the Township of Uxbridge, contain the headwaters of the Humber River system. The Clubine Tract lies within the headwaters of the Duffin Creek system. In 1980, an operational cruise determined the stand boundaries, working groups, calculated a volume by dominant species and made recommendations for si1vicultural treatments. Appendix A lists the stands by Tract summarizing information about species, age and treatments. Table 2 summaries the MTRCA Forest area, listing the productive forest area by working group. Table 3 breaks down the production forest area by species, age and site class. 1 Appendix B provides a glossary of terms used in this plan. -1- ._~R.I4-5 I TABLE 1 -- MTRCA FOREST PROPERTY LIST PURCHASE TRACT COMP # TOWNSHIP LOT CONC AREA(HA) DATE Rowley 1 Acljala N/23 6 20.03 1960 Ballycroy 2 Acljala W/22 5 38.04 1952 3-4 3 4 80.94 1958 Kelly 5-6 Albion W/2 28 6 40.47 1952 Pt W /2E/2 28 6 16.19 1955 Pt E/2E/2 28 6 23.07 1956 7-8 E/2 29 5 39.54 1951 W/2 29 5 40.06 1953 Boyce 9 Albion NE1J4 24 5 20.00 1951 Verner 10 Albion E/2 22 5 40.47 1953 McArthur 11 Albion W/2 24 3 39.66 1951 - Duffy 12-13 Albion W/2 19 5 40.47 1956 Argent 14 Albion E/2 18 4 33.65 1961 Peel 16 Albion Pt W/2 13 3 12.14 1955 Caledon , Caledon -Woods 16 E/2 20 5E 40.47 1959 -Church 17,18,20 E/2 18 5E 38.40 1956 E/2 17 5E 40.47 1963 -Rawn 19 Pt E/2 18 6E 2.74 1963 E/2 19 5E 40.06 1963 -Speers 21 NE1J4 16 5E 20.24 1964 -Hansford 24 Pt SE1J4 16 5E 18.90 1974 -Peelport 25 Pt W/2 19 5E 25.33 1982 Clubine 22 Uxbridge 14 4 37.64 1957 Little 23 Albion Pt E/2 25 5 37.28 1959 Humber 26 Mono Pt 1 7E 1.53 1982 787.79 The total area calculated from the Operational Cruise data (1981) does not match the total area shown here because of deletions/additions of property since the cruise and the rounding off of stand areas in the cruise. -2- WR./ y..~ , TABLE 2 MTRCA FOREST AREA SUMMARY IN HECTARES WATER 0.1 NON-FORESTED LAND 46.4 FORESTED LAND Non-productive 52.6 Productive Working Production Protection Group Forest Forest - White Pine 199.1 - Jack Pine 69.9 - Red Pine 65.0 - White Spruce 52.1 2.0 White Cedar 4.6 34.8 . Other Conifers 8.5 0.9 Hard Maple 79.4 - Poplar 33.3 42.0 White Birch 46.1 - Other Hardwoods 43.5 8.6 Totals 601.5 88.3 Total Productive Forested Land 689.8 Total Forested Land 742.4 TOTAL AREA 788.9 ------- ------- -3- ( r-~ ; i ~ - TABLE 3 "TRCA FOREST ~ SUM"ARY OF PRnDUCTIOH FOREST AREA B~ AGE CLASS AHD SPECIES (HA) (1~3) . A9'i' Class 8.& S. 1 - 20 21 - 10 11- 60 1;1-80 81 - 100 101 - 120 A/A ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTALS Si1.e Class 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 - 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pw 3.7 '9.1 8.7 108.'9 53.'9 13.8 1.0 1'3'9.1 " o Jp 1.0 53.1 15.5 6'9.'9 R K Pr 1.1 5.3 "1.6 3.1; 23.7 2"1.2 2.2 65.0 I H Sw 3.3 6.1 5.3 29.1 1.9 7.5 52.1 G CQ 1.0 3.6 1.1; G R OC 2.3 1.'3 1.3 9.5 O' U Hh 39.3 2"3.9 10.3 7"3.1 p Po 3.0 8.1; 2."1 1;.1; 7.... 1.9 1.2 2.2 33.3 I Bw 0.5 ~ 2.7 "1.7 7.0 1"1."1 "1.0 7.3 5.5 "11;.1 I OH 0.9 19.8 11.2 8.1; 13.5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To1.als 0.0 1;.7 1.0 23."1 20.1 '3. '3 191;.9 102.2 "1'3.1 '3.3 13.... 5.1 0.'3 7.0 15.1; 0.0 "1.0 '9.5 0.0 0.0 5.5 5'.1.1 11.0 18.'9 '01.5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ALL SI TES 7.7 53.... 3"18.1 27.8 23.5 13.5 5.5 122.0 Site Class - derived fr~ Plonski"s Yield rable$ JE A/A - All-aged or having trees of all age classes Si1.e class X included in Site class 1 Pw - whi t.e pi ne Jp - jack pi.,. Pr - red pine Sw - whi t.e spruce CQ - wh:i te cedar OC - other coni fers tth - hard "ap1e Po - poplar Bw - whi t.e bi rch OH - oth.... hardwoods t wR.J t+<b , II REPORT OF PAST OPERATIONS The delay in preparation and approval of this plan has led us into the second five-year (1988-1993) operating period of this twenty-year plan (1983-2000). Ten-year Operating Plans have been prepared for the periods 1973-1983 and 1983-1993. To bring us up to date, a report on the ten-year operating period, 1973-1983, is summarized in Table 4, and a report on the first five-year period (1983-1988) of this plan is summarized in Table 5. Discussions on each follow. A. 1973-1983 The previous planning period was from 1963-1983. The management objectives were: the continuous and full production of good-quality timber; general recreational uses that are compatible with timber production; and the protection of the soil and water resources. The Operating Plan was only descriptive, indicating a direction toward the conversion of stable jack and Scots pine stands to red pine stands and the eventual conversion of all conifer plantations to natural hardwoods where soil moisture conditions allowed. The swnmary of the 1973-1983 operations was obtained from old records of - sales and entries in the Permanent Record Book. The major activities reported during the 1973-1983 period were crop tree pruning of white and red pine, and thinning of conifer plantations and natural stands of tolerant hardwoods. The commercial conifer thinnings were sold to the Ontario Paper Company in Thorold for ptUp. A majority of the pruning and the non-commercial thinnings of conifer p~antation were accomplished through a special MNR funding project, Tending South. During this operating period the plantations were on average between 25 and 30 years of age, just approaching the stage where thinnings are required to improve spacing and create access for future thinning operations. Thinnings in the tolerant hardwoods were partly commercial (56 percent), the remainder being non-commercial thinnings. The commercial thinnings produced sawlog material for local sawmills and fuelwood as a byproduct. The non-commercial thinnings were completed prior to the fuelwood boom of the late 1970's and early 1980's. 'B. 1983-1988 A summary of the proposed cutting and improvement operations for the 1983- 1993 period is listed in Table 6. The 1983-1988 operating period saw an accelerated harvest in the jack and red pine working groups. This occurred in response to the announcement by the Quebec and Ontario Paper Company (formerly the Ontario Paper Company) that they wotUd be changing their raw material requirements from pine to spruce by 1987. A total of 23.4 ha of jack pine were clearcut and are to be converted to red and white pine in 1988-89, compared to the original ten-year forecast of 4.2 ha. Site preparation using btUldozers mounted with root rakes to pile the slash for burning was also completed on this area. First thinnings in the red pine working group totalling -5- , :'t; I 'A:> - -g Table .. SUMMARY OF CUTl'ING AND IMPROVEMENT OPERATIONS - FOR TIlE PERIOD 1973 TO 1983 (hectares) WORKING VOLUME TENDING TENDING RENEWAL RENEWAL RETREATMBNT GROUP CUT CD. m Thinning and SelectiOll New Reft1l Improvement Cut PlantiDg Planting Com Non-Com Pruning Clipping Com Non-Com Area Area I Red Pine 900 12.7 12.2 L6 0\ White Pine 900 12.8 63.0 10.9 L4 I Jack Pine 1400 4.7 15.4 2.0 White Spruce 2.0 0.4 Larch 0.9 White Cedar LO 1.2 Hard Maple 600 9.0 1L7 Poplar (hybrid) 8.6 · White Ash 3&0 6.0 TOTAL: 4150 32.2 16.8 76.1 12.5 15.0 1L7 12.0 1.2 I · Hybrid Poplar , Table 5 SUMMARY OF CUTl'ING AND IMPROVEMENT OPERATIONS - FOR THE PERIOD 1983 TO 1988 (hectares) . WORKING VOLUME TENDING TENDING RENEWAL RBNEWAL RBNBWAL GROUP CUT eo. m ~nn,iftg and Selection Site Improvement Cut Preparation CIearcut y.,.-hAftical Com Non-Com Pnming Cleaning Improve I ...., I Red Pine 4205 54.3 24.0 24.0 White Pine 51 6.0 17.5 4..0 Jack Pine 3134 6.3 6.3 Hard Maple 232 6.0 TOTAL: 7622 66.6 6.3 17.5 -'.0 6.0 24.0 24.0 I , C }t) . - ~ , r , , , I Z -;p - <n - - - TABLE 6 CUT PROPOSAL FOR THE DECADE 1983-1993 M'l'RCA FOREST WORItING AREA ESTIMATED NMV (CU.m) BY SPECIES TOTAL TREATMENT(ha) GROUP (ha) Pw Pr Pe Pj Sw Oc Mh Be Aw Bw Po Oh ALL EVEII-AGED UIIBVEN-AGED SPECIES HARYBST TEHDING REGENERATION (cu.m) CUT-SELECTION I 0) Whi t. Pin. 47.9 565 1.682 22 7 2.276 47.9 I Jack Pin. 4.2 6 475 481 3.1 1.1 Red Pin. 34.5 69 1 . 621 29 1.719 34.5 OC (Scot. Pin.) 4.9 333 J33 1.6 3.3 OC (Larch) 2.7 28 172 200 2.7 Whit. Spruce 16.7 170 170 16.7 Hard Maple 30.6 24 3 13 587 106 119 13 6 189 1.060 30.6 OH (Beech) 6.0 4 100 47 151 6.0 TO'I'AL 147.5 686 3.312 355 504 170 196 587 206 119 13 6 236 6.390 4.7 106.2 36.6 OC-other Conifer OH-other Hardwood. I , ,. wR.J5;2. I 44.6 ha were also sold for pulp, compared to the original ten-year forecast of 34.5 ha. The white pine working group ten-year cut forecast of 47.9 ha will not be met until a market for first thirmings is found. A moderate market for boltwood size pine exists at the present time. Brouwer Wood Products processes small dimension pine for use as pressure treated landscape stock. Second and third thinnings in pine are usually ready for this market. Only 6.0 ha of the tolerant hardwoods were harvested in the five-year period of 1983-1988 compared to the original ten-year forecast of 36.6 ha. Approximately 19.0 ha are scheduled for harvest in 1989. Also an improvement cut proposed for a 12.5 ha hard maple stand in the Verner Tract has not been sold to date. Pruning of white pine crop trees has been completed on only 17.5 ha of the forecasted 119.4 ha. The target for red pine will not be acknowledged because research has indicated that pruning does not significantly increase the value in red pine to justify the cost, while the benefits of white pine pruning is substantiated by such data. There has been a lack of base funding to support this improvement program through 1983-1988. Other alternatives such as Canada Employment and Immigration's Section 38 employment program have been unsuccessful in this district due to the low unemployment rate. The Uxbridge Junior Ranger program can be utilized only for a small portion of the- target because of the required travel distance to most Tracts. The White Pine Seed Production Area in the Kelly Tract was tended in 1985 with a mechanical brush cutter to discourage undesirable hardwood regeneration. In 1987 an improvement thinning operation was conducted on the entire area (5.2 ha) to remove blister rust infested trees and improve spacing for crown development and future cone crops. Also in 1987, the White Spruce Seed Production Area (2.4 ha) in the Ballycroy Tract was top pruned to facilitate future cone harvesting and bottom pruned to improve access. Access was improved in two Tracts, 0.8 kilometres (km) was constructed in the Caledon Tract in 1980 and 0.5 km was constructed in the Verner Tract in 1985. The parking lot at the Kelly Tract which is used by the MTRCA for cross-country skier parking was widened to increase parking capacity. There are approximately 40 km of roads and trails to maintain in the MTRCA Forest; brushing, grading and widening operations were conducted as required. In 1987 a brochure (Appendix C) was cooperatively produced by the MNR and the MTRCA which describes the location, history and management of the MTRCA Forest. This brochure was intended to increase the awareness of the public of the many benefits derived from the forest and to highlight the MTRCA Forest as a successful multiple use forest. -9- WR./53 , III OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES A. PREAMBLE An effective plan must have objectives, outline strategies that will direct activities in order to meet these objectives, and state quantitative targets that can be measured and evaluated. The Maple District Land Use Guidelines (DLUG) has indicated generally where the provincial program objectives will be achieved and has stated quantitative production targets. The Forestry Act Agreement states that the MTRCA Forest will be managed for forestry purposes: production of wood and wood products; provision of proper environmental conditions for wildlife; protection against floods and erosion; recreation; and protection and production of water supplies. It is the intent of this section to outline how the MTRCA Forest will be managed for these forestry purposes and contribute to the District objectives. B. POLICIES There are a number of agencies which have policies in place that affect the - way we manage the MTRCA Forest. Municipalities The Planning Act, as administered by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is the major provincial legislation dealing with urban and rural private land use phinning at the municipal leveL The plan input and review process gives us the opportunity to comment on proposed developments adjacent to the MTRCA Forest. With this process we can attempt to minimize negative impacts of proposed changes in land use adjacent to the MTRCA Forest. MTRCA The MTRCA has a mandate concerning natural resources in ita watershed, an excerpt from The Watershed Plan (1986) follows: "to establish and undertake ... a program designed to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources.. .. " With the increasing pressures of urbanization, the MTRCA has identified Environmentally Significant Areas (ESA) as a means of developing a more coordinated and comprehensive approach to land use planning and resource management in their region. The MTRCA completed the Environmentally Significant Area (ESA) Study in 1982. -10- : .IAR.15~ , - I Two ESAs have been identified within the MTRCA Forest boundaries: the '- Sleswick Complex and the Simcoe-Albion Forest. Study descriptions, maps and management considerations are referenced in Appendix D. The designation of such ESAs in the study area was based on one or more of the following criteria: 1. The area represents a distinctive and unusual landform feature within the MTRCA region, Ontario or Canada. 2. The ecological function of the area contributes significantly to the healthy maintenance of a natural system beyond its boundaries: (a) the area serves as a water storage area or high soil permeability area, and/or (b) the area helps to maintain or link significant natural biological systems, and/or (c) the area is essential for the healthy continuation of significant species and/or significant population or concentration of species. - 3. The habitats and/or biological communities are identified as exceptional and/or of high quality within the MTRCA region, Ontario or Canada. 4. I The area contains an ecosystem which has limited representation in the MTRCA region, Ontario or Canada and/or is a small remnant of particular habitat which has virtually disappeared within the MTRCA region. 5. The area has an unusually high diversity of biological communities and/or species. 6. The area provides natural habitat for indigenous species that are rare and/or endangered regionally (MTRCA), provincially and nationally. 7. The area is sufficiently large to afford habitat for species which require extensive blocks of suitable habitat." The type and degree of management must be determined for each ESA. The MTRCA addresses protection and preservation in their guideline for management. The MTRCA proposes that all ESAs be 'protected' to the extent possible, while those ESAs be 'preserved' where site specific conditions and potential uses warrant. Preservation is described in the ESA study as involving artificial maintenance of an ESA at a specific point in its successional history. The natural processes are interfered with to retain a desired state. Protection is described as --- -II- w e. ) 55 safeguarding the natural features, functions and processes of an ESA from external, artificial disturbances. The ESA study also outlines management techniques to be employed where applicable and feasible. Niagara Escarpment Commission The Niagara Escarpment includes a unique variety of topographic features and land uses extending 725 kilometres from Queenston on the Niagara River to the islands off Tobermory on the Bruce Peninsula. A significant portion is located in the Town of Caledon, within Maple District. The Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act established a planning process called the Niagara Escarpment Plan which provides the framework of objectives and policies to regulate land use and protect this important area. All forest management programs carried out on Tracts located within the Niagara Escarpment Plan area will be in conformity with the plan. The Mono Tract of the MTRCA Forest is in the Niagara Escarpment Plan land- use designation of Escarpment Natural Area. There are no plans for operations in this Tract. The Caledon Tract is outside the Plan area but within the Niagara Escarpment Commission Development Control Area. This designation will be eventually phased out. MNR , The general policies that give direction for ministry activities in Maple District deal with integrated resource management, public safety, environment and energy. A brief description of each as it relates to the MTRCA Forest follows: 1. Integrated Resource Management The MTRCA Forest will be managed to provide continuing multiple benefits consistent with its ability to sustain use. In order to do this, resource management programs will be coordinated to ensure there is an efficient use of land and water, with minimal conflicts between uses. Each program should contribute, to the extent possible, to the achievement of the other program objectives. 2. Public Safety The ministry will promote the safe pursuit of outdoor recreation and resource production activities on the MTRCA Forest. The maintenance of a vigorous forest cover will contribute to the prevention of property damage and community disruption resulting from floods and erosion. All forest activities will be conducted in a manner that reduces the risk of fire. The responsibility of forest fire management is shared with municipalities and the MTRCA. -12- -tu/<. l5b -- I ( 3. Environment - - The ministry will conduct its resource management activities in an environmentally responsible manner in the MTRCA Forest. This involves -.- managing renewable resources on a biologically sound basis and managing non- renewable resources to meet current demands and addressing anticipated future needs. Where ESA's are involved, MNR will take every precaution to safeguard the conditions that have contributed to the ESA designation. Ministry of Natural Resources staff will refer to MTRCA information to assist in accurately identifying the areas where rare and uncommon plant and animal species are found. MTRCA will be consulted before any forest management operation is undertaken in an ESA. 4. Energy The ministry will encourage fuelwood harvests as part of sound forest management practices to contribute to the provincial energy targets. - C. OBJECTIVES The MTRCA has in its goals and objectives the "conservation, restoration, development and management of the renewable resources" within its area of jurisdiction. Therefore, the management of the MTRCA Forest reflects the owner's maq,date and the policies of the MNR within the context of "forestry purposes" in the Forestry Act Agreement. The objectives described in this section are derived from the Maple District DLUG and are compatible with the goals and objectives of the MTRCA. Strategies and specific targets as they relate to the management of the MTRCA Forest are outlined. 1. Forestry The MNR objective for f9restry in southern Ontario is: - to provide for an optimum contribution to the economy by forest-based industries consistent with sound environmental practices and to provide for other uses of the forest. The Maple District targets for forestry are: - to produce an annual continuous supply of 39,600 cubic metres of wood for industrial purposes by the year 2020 while maintaining the present diversity of forest products; and -13- WR./57 I - to make the maximum contribution from forest production to the achievement of the provincial energy target. The MTRCA Forest production forest represents 2.7 percent of the 22,300 ha of District forest land that is potentially available to contribute to the above targets. A review of the MTRCA Forest harvests from 1973-1983 shows that, on average, 415 cubic metres were harvested annually or 1.0 percent of the district target. The 1983-1993 cut proposal plans for an annual average production of 639 cubic metres of wood or 1.6 percent of the district target. In reporting on the first five-year period (1983-1988), it should be noted that the cut was accelerated to a level equal to 3.9 percent of the annual target to utilize the pulp market that was available with Ontario Paper Company. 2. Fisheries The MNR objective for fisheries management in southern Ontario is to provide opportunities for recreation and economic benefits consistent with the maintenance of healthy fish communities. - A small portion of the Humber River flows through the Kelly Tract. The Maple District Fisheries Management Plan includes this area in the sub-zone identified for its brook and brown trout potential. Due to the small length of stream on the Kelly Tract traditional fishery targets, such as fishing opportunitie~, cannot be assigned. It should be noted that the MTRCA Forest does exist in the headwater areas of the Humber River and Duffin Creek and therefore provides an important contribution to the protection of surface and groundwater flows for these watersheds. A viable fisheries resource depends on year round stream flow and good water quality. The maintenance of a vigorous forest cover ensures that the forest will continue to provide these benefits for downstream fish habitat. 3. Wildlife The MNR objective for wildlife management in southern Ontario is to provide opportunities for social and economic benefits from wildlife recreation and fur harvest consistent with the maintenance of healthy wildlife populations. Specific objectives that include hunting and trapping opportunities, cannot be applied to the MTRCA Forest because it is contrary to MTRCA policy. The trapping of nuisance beavers is the only authorized wildlife harvest activity. The specific wildlife objectives which are applicable to the MTRCA Forest include the maintenance of populations of all wildlife species at levels that ensure opportunities for viewing, provide benefits from tourism, and ensure environmental quality and ecosystem integrity. Targets for wildlife viewing were not included in the DLUG, but it has been stated that public lands, such as the MTRCA Forest could withstand greater use for wildlife viewing. -14- '{I.)t< .15~ , 4. Provincial Parks . -. Within the MNR objectives for the provincial park system are targets for the protection of provincially significant representative earth science and life science features and historical resources. To assist in achieving these targets the ministry has iden~ified areas of land and water having values related to protection, natural heritage, scientific study or education. These areas, called Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) are publicly and privately owned areas of land and associated waters that have been selected by the MNR for their earth or life science features which have provincially important natural heritage, scientific or educational values. These sites are complementary to, but are not part of the provincial parks system. It is the MNR policy to encourage protection of these areas on public and private land. ANSI are placed under two broad categories: Earth Science areas which include significant rock and fossil locations, and landforms; and Life Science areas which include significant landscapes, environments, biotic communities and native flora and fauna. The Palgrave Moraine, an Earth Science area, is the - only ANSI within the MTRCA Forest. A description, technical report and . . management considerations for this ANSI are included in Appendix E. 5. General Recreation The 'tentative' Maple DLUG objective for recreation is in part to provide and to encourage a' wide variety of outdoor recreation opportunities ranging from intensive day use to back country experiences. Targets were not identified, but Agreement Forests were identified as important contributors to recreation opportunities. The Kelly Tract is used extensively as a part of the cross-country ski trail network that is organized and maintained by the MTRCA at the Palgrave Ski Area. On average, approximately 6,000 skiers use the trails each year. The plan for this area is to maintain-the user rate of this highly attractive ski area. Ski trails and parking areas will be maintained by the MTRCA. The MTRCA has a well developed Watershed Recreation Program for land owned by the Authority. Most organized recreational facilities are concentrated outside the MTRCA Forest area in conservation areas that have distinctive themes for recreation. For this reason, there is no plan to provide facilities for specific recreational uses in MTRCA Forest areas. MTRCA will be consulted in advance of any forest management operation; particularly when the Authority's recreational programs on the Kelly and Vemer Tracts will be affected. Copies of each forest management contract will be provided to MTRCA. -15- WR. 159 , The MTRCA Forest will be managed to provide educational opportunities for forest users. The multiple use character of the MTRCA Forest demonstrates the many benefits derived from the forest and demonstrates the philosophy of Integrated Resource Management. 6. Aggregates . - The MNR objective for mineral aggregate production in southern Ontario is to meet anticipated future demand with minimal disturbance to natural and cultural resources and the social environment. The Maple District target for mineral aggregate production is to ensure a total cumulative supply of 460 million tonnes for the period of 1982-2000. A significant secondary aggregate resource (sand deposits) has been identified in the MTRCA Forest. Although there is no plan to utilize this resource within the tenn of this plan, it is recognized that certain land use designations such as forestry purposes in the MTRCA Forest provide for ongoing use without eliminating the potential for future extraction. - D. STRATEGIES 1. Forestry The contribution of the MTRCA Forest to the Maple DLUG forestry target is discussed in the Objectives section of this plan. To meet the proposed average annual production of 639 cubic metres of wood, alternative markets for early thinnings in conifer plantations must be developed. The past pulp market for red, Scots and jack pine with the Quebec and Ontario Paper Company in Thorold assisted greatly to accomplish both early thinnings in red pine stands and clearcut conversions of Scots and jack pine stands. There is still a backlog of stands totalling 102 ha, that require first thinnings or conversion to a more productive species (Table 7). A viable market must be found to accomplish these treatments. The only other alternatives are non-commercial thinnings at cost to the owner. It is planned to use social work programs where practical until these markets are developed. A calculation of an Annual Allowable Cut or Maximum Allowable Depletion using the sustained yield concept is unimportant at this time in this small forest area. The area was almost entirely established within the same five-year period of 1953-1958. With its unbalanced age-class distribution, the MTRCA Forest cannot produce regular annual or periodic yields. A discussion of the silviculture systems that will be employed in the management of the MTRCA Forest follows. -16- : , f - ---; r-, . J G '"'b . - ~ ~ TABLE 7 I'1TRCA FOREST FOREST THINNING AND CONVERSIOI'~ BACKLOG TO 19B8 .L.e.:st Next Next Next Tr~ct SubComp H.e. Irm1 IrlG2 Age Tre.!)t Ye~r H.!lI Product Comonent:5 Tre.e.t 1 Year 1 Prod 1 Treo!llt 2 - Yeo!llr ::2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- B~ 11ycroy 3 b 6.1 S.., SPA 1969 pnJnoa 1'388 2.0 Kg 11y 6 b 4.5 S.., 1'350 thin 1980 pulP: B~ 11ycroy 2 d 1 . 6 P:s 1952 cleo!llrcut 1988 0.4 ruel 3.6 m3 clearcut 1982 pulp Durry 12 r 0.9 Le p.., thin 1983 pulp/pile Peel 15 e 1 . 3 Mh A,,, A/A improve 1967 non-camln thin 1983 ruel 8o!111 ycroy 2 o!I 10.5 Sw Sn 1953 thin 1'388 2.5 chip:5 stlJdy thin 1983 pulp CLubine 22 Q 1 . 3 Pw PI" 1'340 thin 1984 non-comm 8.e. 11 ycroy 3 Q 3.3 P:s 1955 clearcut 1985 pulp McArthur 11 b 2.0 Mh He 1'300 thin 1985 ruel/:5..!l1w Dufrl,j 13 d O. 13 PI" 195';) thin 1985 pulp CLubine 22 '" 1 . 6 PI" P,,, 1962 thin 1'386 pulp Kg lly 6 d 3.9 PI.' 1'356 prune 1'378 to 5.2on thin 1'386 pulp K...11y 5 '" 3.0 P,.. S.., 1 '356 prune to 5.2on th1n 1986 pulp 8o!111ycroy 4 k 2.1 P,.. 1'356 thin 1986 pulp prune 198 CLIJbine 22 c 1 . 6 PI" 1962 thin 1986 pulp Clubine 22 f 1 .6 PI" P,,, 1'360 thin 1996 pulp Kg lly 5 c 4.9 Pw Le 1'356 thin 1996 pulp Ke lly 5 b 2.4 Pw Sw 1 '356 prunQ to 5.2m thin 1986 pulp CLubine 22 d 2.0 PI" 1961 thin 1986 pulp KQ lly 7 c 3.0 S... 1'352 thin 1'386 pulp Kelly 5 i 2.1 p... SI.J 1956 thin 1986 pulp Cl'Jbine 22 m 2.1 PJ PI" 1'362 cl_rcut 1987 pulp Boyce, '3 c 2.8 Pj 1952 cl_rcut 1987 pulp BOI,jce 9 d 2.3 P,.. 1952 thin 1987 pulp prune - .. DufFy 13 a 3.2 Pw Oh 1952 prune L'380 to 3.7-5.2m thin 1'387 pulp I I,JgrnQr 10 d 5.3 S.., P,,, 1952 thin 1987 pulp prune .. BOI,jcQ '3 Q 5.3 PI" P... 1'352 thin 1'387 pulp prune .., I.JgrnQr 10 b 2.5 PI" S... 1'352 thin 1987 pulp I 1 . 5 PI" Mh 1'352 thin 1987 pulp '.Jgrner 10 a '-./grner 10 c 1 . '3 P... A.., 1'352 thin 1987 pulp 80yce 9 f 3.9 P,,, 1 '354 prunQ to 1.8m thin 1'387 pulp prune 3.7-5. 2m CLlJbinQ 22 h 3.7 PI.. P:s 1'363 thin 1987 pulp CL'Jbine 22 j 2.8 PI" Pj 1'360 thin 1987 pulp CLubine 22 i 1.6 PI" 1963 thin 1987 pulp CL'Jbine 22 1 1.8 P,,, Pj 1961 thin 1'387 pulp Cll.JbinQ 22 k 1 . 0 Pw P:s 1940 thin 1987 pulp .- f iUR./ bl Silviculture is the science and art of establishing, growing, tending and reproducing forest stands. There are several technical publications developed by the MNR that outline silvicultural guidelines for the major working groups present in the MTRCA Forest. These include Managing Red Pine Plantations (1986), Management of Tolerant Hardwoods in Algonquin Provincial Park (1983), Silviculture Guide to the White Pine Working Group (1983) and Silviculture Guide to the Hard Maple, Yellow Birch and Hemlock Working Group in Ontario (1974). These along with other numerous technical reports and handbooks from Ontario and the United States provide the foundation for decisions regarding silvicultural treatments. The conifer component of the MRTCA Forest includes natural stands of white cedar and plantations of red, white, jack and Scots pine, tamarack, European larch, and white spruce. The natural stands of cedar will be eventually regenerated by strip or block clearcuts using natural or artificial regeneration. There are no operations planned in this management planning period. Even-aged management will be used in the plantations, with periodic thinnings to maximize the growth potential of high quality stems of desirable species, while planning for the - eventual reproduction of the stand. Where suitable seed sources and site conditions are present, final removal cuts will be designed to encourage the establishment of natural hardwood or white pine regeneration. Otherwise conifer plantations will be re-established according to the species-site suitability criteria developed by the MNR and the Ontario Institute of Pedolo'gy. Jack and Scots pine stands will be converted to more desirable and productive conifer species. Establishment of new conifer stands generally will involve site preparation, cleaning and tending of young stands. Pruning of quality white pine crop trees to increase future wood value will be considered as special funding or social programs become available. The tolerant hardwood component includes natural stands of hard and red maple, white ash and beech. Uneven-aged management using the selection silvicultural system will be the management approach. This system regulates the cut to obtain residual stocking levels that are optimum for growth and the establishment of desirable regeneration. Improvement cuts will be scheduled in stands not previously managed to improve the species composition, structure and quality of the stand. Harvest cuts will then be scheduled at 10 to 15 year intervals depending on stand growth rates and other factors. The intolerant hardwoods include stands of poplar and white birch on the poorer sites. There are no operations planned for these stands. -18- lNt<. )b~ 2. Fisheries The Humber River flows through the eastern side of the Kelly Tract. The river, at this location, is within the sub-zone designated in the Maple District Fisheries Management Plan for its brook and brown trout fishery potential. Although the Tra~t does not contain a large section of the river, the watercourse is significant and will be protected. There are no operations planned adjacent to this watercourse. 3. Wildlife To manage a forest for wildlife habitat, the forest pattern must be regulated so that there is an acceptable diversity of habitats available. It is impossible to have all habitats available in one forest stand at all times because a forest stand's characteristics change over time. As the forest stand passes through stages in its development there are periods when it becomes suitable for various species and development stages of wildlife. An example is the ruffed grouse which use immature aspen stands for foraging, mid-stage aspen stands for nesting and breeding activities and mature stands for winter food supplies (Berner and Gysel, 1969)(1). Maintaining a variety of plant communities, - broken up in a series of patches or blocks will provide the diverse habitat required for wildlife. The MTRCA Forest contains a diverse pattern of small forest stands which is beneficial for wildlife but the age-class distribution is heavily balanced to the 21-40 year age class which cannot be easily manipulated to provide age-class diversity. When planning silvicultural treatments there are various considerations that can be given to improve habitat for wildlife. Appendix F provides a condensed summary of recommendations to improve habitat from A Paper On Wildlife Considerations For Forest Management In Maple district (Norman, 1984). These will be used as guidelines to maintain wildlife habitat in the MTRCA Forest. 4. Provincial Parks The Palgrave Moraine ANSI, located in part in the Duffy and Argent Tracts of the MTRCA Forest, is described in Appendix E. Management considerations are also included. 1 Berner, A. and Gysel, L. W. 1969. Habitat analysis and management considerations for ruffed grouse for a multiple use area in Michigan. J. wildlife Management. 33(4): 769-778 -19- wr<.'b3 5. General Recreation Almost 40 kilometres of trails, roads and fireguards are maintained by the MNR in the MTRCA Forest. They provide access for many recreational uses such as horseback riding, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing and nature appreciation. Mo~orized wheeled vehicles (e.g. ATVs, motorcycles), camping, hunting and camp fires are prohibited. Compatible uses are favoured to maximize the recreational opportunities available from the MTRCA Forest. A colour brochure (Appendix C), describing the MTRCA Forest, its history, location and management is available as a guide for forest users. Signs are maintained at all access points to mark the MTRCA Forest Tracts. In 1988 'yellow dot' signs were posted along the perimeter of all tracts in accordance to the Trespass to Property Act. These signs indicate that entry is prohibited except for certain activities. It is the entrant's responsibility to find out from signs or from the occupier, what activities are permitted. Signs that list the permitted uses are posted only on the Tracts which are more frequently used by the public. - 6. Aggregates As discussed in the Objectives section of this plan, aggregate extraction is not planned for this Forest. IV PROPOSED OPERATIONS AND OPERATING PLAN Table 6 provides a summary of the cutting operations proposed for the period 1983-1993 from the ten-year Operating Plan. Improvement operations proposed for the same period include 13.5 ha of regeneration by planting and 147.1 ha of pruning. Table 5 summarizes those operations completed in the first five-year period, 1983-1988. The proposed cut operations include a total of 4.7 ha of clearcut. To date 24.0 ha have been completed, which will be regenerated by planting in the second five-year period, 1988-1993. The proposed tending (thinning and improvement cuts) and selection cuts total 142.8 ha for the ten-year period. A total of 78.9 ha have been accomplished in the five-year period of 1983-1988. The remaining 63.9 ha will be completed in the next five-year period, 1988-1993. An effort will be made to accomplish the backlog of thinning and conversion areas listed in Table 7. Again, new markets must be developed or special work programs must be utilized to accomplish these operations. To date 17.5 ha of the pruning target has been accomplished. The target also includes 27.7 ha of red pine and white spruce pruning which will not be -20- l,0R./blf completed. As discussed earlier, there is no data to support that pruning in these working groups is cost effective. Pruning is not a priority for funding and generally, will be accomplished when special work programs are made available. No physical improvements are planned for this management period. The 40 km of access trails, roads and fire guards will be maintained in their present condition. Ten-year operating plan maps, scale 1:3,000 are maintained to record completed operations. New Tract maps, scale 1:10,000 have been developed for planning and operational purposes (Appendix G). The MTRCA Forest Ledger (Appendix A) is updated yearly to record completed operations. Detailed information is maintained in individual files as a pennanent record for each forest stand. V PLAN MAINTENANCE AND RENEWAL An important part of the planning process is the monitoring of implementation _ of the plan. It is necessary, on a regular basis, to compare the operations accomplished to the operations planned and to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatments. This is accomplished in part through the preparation of Annual Work Schedules which indicate operations planned for the coming year and Annual Reports which summarize operations completed for the past year. Program audits also evaluate the effectiveness of program delivery. A new twenty-year plan is prepared at the end of each five-year tenn. This ensures that we can be responsive to changes in the forest area, markets or other conditions. A performance review and analysis takes place at the end of the five-year term and a new twenty-year plan is produced with another five- year operating period. -21- wR./bs- APPENDIX A MTRCA FOREST LEDGER - -22- t;){< ./lP h APPENDIX A MTRCA FOREST LEDGER The MTRCA Forest has been summarized by sub-compartment numbers in the following ledgers. The information has been obtained from the operational cruise (1980). Past treatments have been updated to July 31, 1988. Recommendations for silviculture treatments have been revised from the original operational cruise (1980) to reflect current markets and management strategies. Maps showing compartments by Tract are included in Appendix G. Kev to Ledl?er Tract Tract Name Sub Comp Sub-compartment number (stand number) - Ha Area of stand in hectares WG1 Working Group WG2 Second major component in stand Age Date established (AlA - All-aged) Last Treat Last recorded si1vicultural treatment Year Year last treatment accomplished Ha Area in hectares treated Product Product from last treatment Comments Any other pertinent information, e.g. volume from last treatment Next Treat 1 Next proposed treatment, Year 1 Year and expected product Product 1 Next Treat 2 Any treatment proposed after the Year 2 next treatment 1 and year -23- La:st Next Next Next Ty<<:t SubCOlIlp Ha WG 1 WG2 Age . Treat Year Ha Product Comment:s Treat 1 Year 1 Prod 1 Treat 2 Year 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------. IGwl ey 1 a 5.2 Pr 1958 thin 1986 5.2 pulp thin 19~ pulp/bolt IGwley 1 b 1.3 Pw 1963 thin 1993 pulp prune 5.2m 199 lGurley 1 c 6.0 Be "h A/A thin 1988 6.0 f'uelh,.., 278 1Il3 thin 1997 f'uel/saw IGwley 1 d 3.0 Pr 1963 thin 1986 1. 0 pulp thin 1991 pulp IGUIley 1 e 1. 9 Pr 1971 thin 2001 pulp IGwley 1 f' 2.7 Pr 1970 thin 2001 pulp/bolt Bl11\lCl""O\tl 2 a 10.5 Sw Sn 1953 thin 1988 2.5 chips :study thin 1983 BIll ':IC""O\I 2 b 1.2 Pw Pr 1958 thin 1988 pulp/bolt Blll~ 2 c .of.8 ,., A/A harve:st 1968 .of.8 sawlog:s 192 1Il3 improve 1990 BIll 'JCI'"'O\I 2 d 1. 6 P:s 1952 clearcut 1988 O..of f'uel 3.6 1Il3 clearcut 1982 pulp, Billl~ 2 . .of.7 Pj 19~7 thin 197~ ~.8 pulp plt hdwd thin 1988 bolt/pole cleercut BilllycrO\l 2 f' 0.9 T. PF 1953 Blll~O\I 2 g .of.7 C. PF 1850 Billlycroy 2 h o. ~ UCL Billlycroy 2 i 7.0 Pw Pr 195.of thin 1986 7. 3 be 1 tloK)od 395 m3 thin 199~ bolt/pole Prune 3.7-5.2~ Billlycroy 2 j 2.2 Pj 19~7 a:S5e:S5 PF 1988 clearcut Blllycroy 2 k 1.6 Pr Pw 1982 plant 1982 0.8 Blllycroy 3 a O. 7 UCL [RM Blllycroy 3 b 6.1 Sw SPA 1969 prune 1988 2.0 Blllycroy 3 c 3.7 Pj 1960 clearcut 1990 pulp Blllycroy 3 d 1 . 7 Po PF 1956 Blllycroy 3 . 3.3 Ps 1955 clearcut 1985 pulp I Blllycroy 3 f' 2.2 Pr P:s 1955 thin 1995 pulp .J Blllycroy 3 9 0.6 Pw 1962 prune 1992 ... Billlycroy 3 h 1.1 Mh A/A i.-prove 1990 f'uel Blllycroy 3 i 0.7 Pr 1970 thin 2001 pulp Billlycroy 3 j 1 . 8 Pw 1965 prune 1985 1.8 prune 12- 1995 thin 199! Blllycroy 3 k .of.O Po PF 1921 plant 1967 1.6 [RM Billlycroy 3 1 1.of.~ Pr 1955 thin 1986 16.0 pulp :see 3m thin 19~ bolt Billlycroy 3 III 0.9 Pr 1966 thin 1986 pulp :see 31 thin 199~ bolt Blllycroy ~ a 1.2 I'Ih A/A improve 1990 f'uel Billlycroy ~ b 1.2 Pw 1958 prune 1982 1.2 to 5.2m thin 1988 pulp Blllycroy ~ c ~.O muskeg Billlycroy ~ d 3.0 Pj 195.of clearcut 1987 0.8 f'uel 7 m3 plant 1988 chem tdg 198' Bdlycroy ~ Q 11.7 Pr Pw 1957 thin 1986 11. 7 pulp thin 199~ bolt prune 198. Blllycroy ~ f' 1.2 I'th Oh A/A improve 1990 f'uel Bdlycroy ~ 9 3.3 Pr Pw 1957 thin 1986 3.3 pulp thin 199~ bolt Blllycroy ~ h 2.8 Pw 1957 prune 1982 2.8 to 5.2. Billlycroy ~ i 7.8 CQ PF 1921 thin 1981 7.8 po:sts Billlycroy ~ j 1 . 2 Po 1921 ni 1 Billlycroy ~ k 2.1 Pw 1956 thin 1986 pulp prune 1'381 , b 7V - (S'- -......l ~ ~ - ~ La~t. Next. Next. Next. ~ TTact. 5ubC~ Ha W61 W62 Age Treat. Year Ha Product. Comment.~ Treat. 1 Year 1 Prod 1 Treat. 2 Year 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kally 5 . 6.3 C. PF t.hin 1 '9'71 po~t.~ Kally 5 b 2." Pw Sw 1956 prune t.o 5.2m t.hin 1986 pulp Kally 5 c ".9 Pw L. 1956 t.hin 1986 pulp Kally 5 d 3." Cw PF 18'97 nil Kally 5 e 5." Pw Pr 1956 prune 1'985 6.5 t.o 5.2m t.hin 1996 Kall... 5 ~ 6.5 Pw Sw 1956 prune 1'973 6.5 t.o 3.7m t.hin 1'9'96 prune Kdly 5 9 3.0 Pw Sw 1956 prune t.o 5.2m t.hin 1'986 pulp Kally 5 h 1.2 Ce PF 1'957 Kally 5 i 2.1 Pw Sw 1956 t.hin 1'986 pulp Kally 6 . 3.0 Ce PF 18'97 Kall.., 6 b "".5 Sw 1'950 t.hin 1'980 pulp Kall.., 6 c 6.3 Pj 1'952 clearcut. 1'987 6.3 pulp plant. 1'988 chem.t.dg 1'989 Kall.., 6 d 3.9 Pw 1'956 prune 1'978 t.o 5.2m t.hin 1'986 pulp Kally 6 e 2."" Pw 1'952 t.hin 1'990 pulp Kally 6 ~ 8 . 5 I"Ih Aw A/A, t.hin 1'97'9 2.~ f'uelwood 6"" m3 t.hin 1'989 Kally 6 9 "".5 Pr Pw 1952 t.hin 1'979 4.5 Pr bolt. pruned t.h1n 1'990 pulp/bolt. Kally 6 h 5."" Pj 1952 clearcut. 1'987 5.~ pulp plant. 1'988 chem.t.dg 1'989 Kally 7 a 5.3 Pc Ab 1'923 Kally 7 b 0.5 Cw PF 1'952 Kally 7 c 3.0 Sw 1952 t.hin 1986 pulp Kally 7 d 5." Pw Pr 1952 t.hin 5."" Pr bolt. pruned t.hin 1'988 Kally 7 e 1.1 Pj 1952 clearcut. 1'987 1. 1 pulp plant. 1'988 chem.t.dg 1989 Kally 7 ~ 8.0 Aw ...h A/A t.hin 1'978 6.0 f'uelwood 90 m3 illprove 1988 f'uel/~aw Kally 7 9 1.0 ...h Aw A/A illprove 1993 f'uel I Kally 7 h 5.8 Pj 1952 clearcut. 1'987 5.8 pulp plant. 1988 chem.t.dg 1989 I Kally 7 i 2.7 Pj 1952 ~lope clearcut. 1990 pulp Kally 8 a 6.0 Pw Pr 1952 t.hin 1970 6.0 bolt. Pw prune t.hin 1989 pulp Kally 8 b 0.7 Pj 1951 t.hin 1988 pulp/bolt. Kally 8 c 2.6 Cw PF 1892 Kally 8 d 0.5 Sw 1'952 t.hin 1995 pulp Kally 8 e 7.3 Pw 195"" prune 1982 7.3 t.o 5.2m t.hin 1990 pulp Kally 8 ~ 2.8 Pj 195"" clearcut. 1990 pulp K.lly 8 9 0.8 UCL 1962 Kdly 8 h 5.9 Pw 1952 ~anit. 1987 4.0 bolt. 51 m3 Kdly 8 i 3.7 Pw 1952 t.hin 1990 pulp I<:JIlly 8 j 3.5 "h He A/A t.hin 1'981 "".0 f'uelwood t.hin 1996 f'uel/~aw Ka lly 8 k 1.2 Aw Cb 1920 thin 1990 f'uel Kally 8 1 2.5 Pc PF - I La~-t Nex-t Nex-t Nex-t Tr.-c-t SubCOlllp Ha WG 1 WG2 Age Treat. Year Ha Produc-t Commen-t~ Treat. 1 Year 1 Prod 1 Trea-t 2 Year 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bo.,ce 9 . 0.2 Pj 1952 BOIfC8 9 b 0.9 Sw 1955 t.hin 1990 pulp BoljC8 9 c 2.8 Pj 1952 clearcut. 1987 pulp Bo~ 9 d 2.3 Pw 1952 t.hin 1987 pulp prune Bo~ 9 e 5.3 Pr Pw 1952 t.hin 1987 pulp prune Bo~ 9 -f 3.9 Pw 1 ~ prune t.o l.8m t.hin 1987 pulp prune BO'JCe 9 g 1.7 Pj 19~ clearcut. 1989 pulp BCMjCe 9 h 2.1 Pr 1 '962 t.hin 1992 pulp BDfiC8 9 i 0.8 Pr 1968 -thin 1997 pulp Li'tt.le 2:3. 7.8 Pw Sw 1961 prune 1991 pulp Li'tt.le 2:3b 6.3 Pw Sw 1963 -thin 1993 pulp Li'tt.le 2:3c 3.3 Sw 196~ t.h1n 1991 pulp Li'tt.le 23d 1.0 Pj 1'963 nil Li'tt.le 23e 2.0 Sw 1962, t.hin 1991 pulp Li'tt.le 23-f 1.0 Pr 1961 t.hin 1991 Li'tt.le 239 l.~ 5101 1962 -thin 1991 pulp Li'tt.le 2:3h 0.6 Pj 1961 nil Li'tt.le 2:3 i 2.2 Pw 5101 1962 -thin 1991 pulp Li'tt.le 2:3j l.0 Pj Po 1962 nil Li'tt.le 2:3k 1. 3 Pr 1962 -thin 1991 pulp Li'tt.le 2:3 I I . 6 Ce PF 1935 Ve~ 10 . 1.5 Pr "h 1952 t.hin 1987 pulp Ve~ 10 b 2.5 Pw 5101 1952 t.hin 1987 pulp J Ve~ 10 c 1.9 Pw Aw 1952 t.hin 1987 pulp , Ve~ 10 d 5.3 Sw Pw 1952 -thin 1987 pulp prune V.mer 10 e 12.9 "h Be A/A -thin 1988 -fuel/saw Verner 10 -f 0.7 mu~keg V.rner 10 9 2.3 Po PF 195~ Verner 10 h 1 . 3 5101 1951 -thin 1996 pulp V.~ 10 i 3.2 Ce PF V.rner 10 j 2.3 Ce Po Verner 10 k 0.5 5101 -thin 1996 pulp I E ~ - () ~ , 0 "" --- - --.l 0 La5t Next Next Next Tr.-:t 5- It>(' Oftlp He we 1 WG2 Age Treat Vear HoI!I Product Comment5 Tr_t 1 Veol!lr 1 Prod 1 Treat 2 Veol!lr 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- McAr-thur 11 . 1.5 Pw Pr 1950 thin 1975 75 m3 thin 1988 pulp/bolt McAr-thur 11 b 2.0 rth He 1900 thin 1'98S -Fuel/5aw McRr-t.hu- 11 c 2.0 Pw 1 '9504 prune 19704 to 3.7m thin 1999 pulp prune ftcAr-thur 11 d 11.9 Pj 1'950 thin 1981 11.9 118 1113 cl_rcut 1989 pulp 1'tcAr-t.h.r 11 . 0.9 Or 8w 1'951 improve 1978 thin 1998 -Fuel/501!1w I'k:fIrt;huo- 11" 7.5 Sw 19048 thin 19704 0.5 thin 1'990 pulp I'tcArttlU"'" 11 tg 1.3 Pr 1970 thin 1999 pulp ftcArthur 11 h 5.9 Pw Pr 1950 thin 1975 thin 1988 pulp/bolt I'tcArthur 11 i L.5 Po Plh A/A I1cArthur 11 j 1.3 Plh Aw A/A improve L 978 thin 1993 -Fuel/~oI!Iw I'tcRrthur 11 k 0.9 Pj 19048 Duf-Fy 12 e 1.8 Pw 1955 prune 19704 to 3.7m thin 1990 pulp Duf-Fy 12 b 10.3 Plh Rw A/A thin L 97'9 0427 1113 thin 19904 501!1w/TueL Duf-Fy 12 c 1.7 Pw Sw 195011 prune L 978 to 3.7-5.2m thin 1989 pulp Duf-Fy 12 d 0.5 bru5h&oI!I1 der DufTY 12 e 3.2 Pw Po 19504 thin 1988 pulp Ouf-F.., 12 ., 0.9 Le Pw thin 1983 pulp/pi le Duf.,y 12 9 0.5 Ce PF Duf.,y 13 . 3.2 Pw Oh 1952 prune 1980 to 3.7-5.2m thin 1987 pulp Ouf.,y 13 b 1.7 bru5h&oI!Ilder OuHy 13 c 3.9 Po PF 1895 OuT".., 13 d 0.8 Pr 1953 thin 1985 pulp Quf"y 13 e 5.5 Pw Aw 1953 thin 1988 pulp ~ Duf.,y 13 T 0.8 Pw 1953 thin 1988 pulp ..... OufTY 13 9 O..q Ce 1957 I Argent 104 a 5.2 Pw Pr 1962 thin 1992 pulp Argent 104 b 3.2 Plh Oh A/A improve 1969 thin 1988 -Fuel/SoI!Iw Argent 104 c 8.9 Pw 1960 prune 1985 6.7 to 5.2m thin 1992 pulp Argent 104 d 1 .04 Po 1901 Argent 1... e 8.3 Pw Pr 1959 prune L985 4.3 thin 1992 pulp P_l 15 e 1.04 Te Pw 19048 thin 1988 bolt/pile pQel 15 b 6.0 Pj Pr 19...3 cl_rcut 1988 pulp Peel 15 c 2.2 Pr 1935 thin 1986 2.... 5alvage 1989 "uel thin 1992 Peel 15 d 1.3 Ta Pr 1936 thin 1988 bolt/pile P_I 15 e 1.3 Plh Rw A/R improve 1967 non-comm thin 1983 "uel , Last NQxt NQxt NQxt Tr~ct 5ubCOIIIp Ha WGl WG2 AgQ TrQat 'r'Qar Ha Product CommQnts Tr_t 1 'r'_r 1 Prod 1 TrQat 2 'r'Qar 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Woacb 16 a 5.7 Pw Po 1958 thin 1991 pulp prunQ3 Woacb 16 b 2.0 5101 PF 1958 Woacb 16 c 12.0 brush&aldQr Woacb 16 d 3.'"1 Pw Pr 1958 thin 1986 pulp 50? thin thin 1991 pulp/bolt prune1 Woacb 16 Q 10.3 Po PF 18"12 Woacb 16 f> 6.1 Pw Pr 1958 thin 1986 6.0 pulp thin Pr 1991 pulp prUl'lQ Woacb 16 9 1 . 0 Pw 1958 Church 17 a 7.0 Po PF 1931 Church 17 b 2.'"1 5101 1962 nil Church 17 c 1.7 Pw LQ 1958 clQan 1969 2."1-0 thin 1988 pulp prune6 Church 17 d 1.6 5w 1962 thin 1992 pulp Church 17 Q 0.5 Bioi 1958 nil Church 17 f> 1.'"1 Pw LQ 1958 c1Qan 1969 2.'"1-0 thin 1988 pulp prUrlQS Church 17 9 2.'"1 Po Pw 1958 ni 1 Church 18 a 5.5 Bioi OH A/A' ni 1 Church 18 b 3.3 brush&aldQr Church 18 c 0.9 CQ Sw 19"15 Church 18 d 1. 5 Pw 1958 thin 1992 pulp prung'"l Church 18 Q 1 . 9 Po Aw 192"1 ni 1 thin 1992 Church 18 f> "1.6 Aw Plh A/A illlprOVQ 1977 non-comm improvQ 1988 saw/f>UQl Rayn 19 a 17.8 rlh Bd A/A illlprovQ 1966 1988 f>uQ1/saw R.elIyn 19 b "1.1 Bioi Plr 1920 ni 1 R.elIyn 19 c 7.3 Bioi Po 1890 ni 1 I R.elIyn 19 d 5.0 brush&aldQr IV Rayn 19 Q 8.6 rlr PF 1862 nil 00 Church 20 a 1 . 3 Po Bioi 19"12 nil I Church 20 b 2.9 Bioi Po 1912 nil Church 20 c 2.2 Po "S 1889 ni 1 Church 20 d 1. 2 Po PF 191"1 ni 1 Church 20 Q 7."1 Po 1935 nil Church 20 f> "1.2 Po PF 1921 nil Church 20 9 2.1 brush&.elIldQr nil Church 20 h 2.0 Po PF nil Church 20 i 2.5 brush&.elIld&Pr nil Church 20 j 5.0 Bioi Po 1921 nil Church 20 k 0.6 Sw 1962 ni I Church 20 I 6.0 muskQg ni 1 Church 20 III 0.7 Sw 1962 nil 5pQt&lrs 21 a 2.9 Bw Plh 1920 Splat&lrS 21 b "1.7 Bioi PO 1923 5pQt&lrs 21 c 2.3 Plr Bioi A/A SPQt&lrS 21 d "1.0 Plr A/A 5pQt&lrs 21 Q 2.5 Plr Po A/A 5pQt&lrs 21 f> 0.'"1 Bioi "r 1927 SPQt&lrS 21 9 2.7 Aw Bioi thin 1990 f>uQl/saw Spet&lrs 21 h 0.7 brush&aldQr ~ ;J\) , . - ~ - , , ~ ^=' - Last. NQxt. NQxt. NQxt. ~ Treat. SolbComp He WG1 WG2 Age TrQet. VQar He Product. Co_nt.s TrQat. 1 V_r 1 Prod 1 TrQat. 2 VQer 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ClubimJ 22. '9.3 rth Or R/A t.hin 1 '9EM 6.0 f'uQl 232 ..3 t.hin 2000 Clubine 22b 5. 1 Pw clip 1 '973 WQQV i 1 t.hin 1'9'92 pulp Clubine 220 1.6 Pr 1'962 t.hin 1'986 pulp Clubine 22d 2.0 Pr 1'961 t.hin 1'986 pulp Clubine 22. 1.3 Pw Pr 1'9~0 t.hin 1'98~ non-comm Clubine 22f: 1.6 Pr Pw 1'960 t.hin 1'986 pulp Clubine 22V 1.6 Pr Pw 1'962 t.hin 1'986 pulp Clubine 22h 3.7 Pw Ps 1'963 t.hin 1'987 pulp Clubil'Ml 22 i 1.6 Pw 1'963 t.hin 1'987 pulp Clubil'Ml 22j 2.8 Pr Pj 1'960 t.hin 1'987 pulp Clubine 22k 1.0 Pw Ps 1'9~0 t.hin 1'987 pulp Clubine 22 1 1.8 Pw Pj 1961 t.hin 1'987 pulp ClubimJ 22_ 2.1 P j Pr 1962 clQercut. 1'987 pulp ClubinQ 22n 2.1 Pw 1~ cl ip 1972 WQQV i 1 t.hin 1'990 pulp I IV \0 I - , La5t Next Next Next Tract S.1bC--r .... W61 W62 Age Treat Year Ha Product Comment.:s Tr_t 1 Vear 1 Prod 1 Treat 2 Year 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- H.nsFOI"'d 2~ c 1. 0 ...... Bw fVR nil HansFOI"'d 2~ d 0.'9 Pr fVR nil ....nsF OI"'d 2"1. 9.6 HPo 1981 re!Search Pee lport 25. 6.5 Bw "5 fVA nil Peelpor-t 25b ~.O Bw Po 18'90 Peelport 25c 11.B brU5h8ralder PeelpOl"'t 25d a.o Pc B8rS HUl'lber 26b 0.5 UCL I W 0 I - , t: ~ - d WR.J71f APPENDIX B GLOSSARY OF TERMS - -31- , t-UA"7tO APPENDIX B GLOSSARY OF TERMS The purpose of this glossary is to define and to explain terms used in forestry or otherwise, which appear and are of importance in this plan. Definitions that have been taken fully modified or adapted from an already existing glossary are indicated. Sources for these entries are abbreviated as follows: BCFT British Commonwealth Forest Terminology, Part I (1953) CEA Class Environmental Assessment for Forest Management on Crown Lands in Ontario - Draft (September 1983) CFIT A Guide to Canadian Forest Inventory Terminology and Usage (1978) CTA The Crown Timber Act (1982) EAA The Environmental Assessment Act (1975) FMM Forest Management Manual for the Province of Ontario (1980) FRI Forest Inventory Procedure for Ontario (1978) MFM Manual of Forest Management Plan Requirements for the Province _ of Ontario (1977). URN Items from Terminology of Forest Science: Technology Practice and Products (1971) are listed by Universal Reference Number. \ Af!e Class: One of the intervals into which the age range of forest stands is divided for classification and use (Adapted URN 87). Allowable Cut: see Maximum Allowable Depletion. Clearcut (harvestinf! operation): The removal of the entire standing crop over a considerable area in one operation, with or without leaving seed-trees. In practice, may refer to exploitation that leaves much of unsalable material standing (Adapted URN .-. 1064 and URN 1065). Compartment: The basic territorial unit of a forest estate permanently defined for purposes of location, description, and record, and as a basis for forest management (URN 1164). Crop: The vegetation growing on a forest area, more particularly the trees forming stands (Adapted URN 1416). .. . -32- , . - wR. J7 b Cutting Cycle (management) The planned period within which all portions of a working group or forest unit should be partially cut over in orderly sequence under the selection system (Adapted BCFT). Establishment: The process of developing a crop to the stage at which the young trees may be considered established, i.e. safe from nonnal adverse influences (e.g., frost, drought, weeds, or browsing) and no longer in need of special protection or special tending, but only routine cleaning, thinning, and pruning (URN2185). Even-Aged: Applies to stands or forests in which relatively small age difference exist between individual trees. The maximum difference in age is usually twenty years (adapted BCFT). Forest (Ecology): A plant community predominantly of trees and other woody vegetation, growing more or less closely together (URN 2441); (Silvicultural management) An area managed for the production of timber and other forest products, or maintained under woody vegetation for such indirect benefits as protection of site or for - recreation (URN 2442). Forest Maintenance: Those operations that are undertaken to ensure the continuation and development of the established forest cover. Forest Management Plan: Written document containing pertinent information and prescriptions by means of which forest policy, aims, and objectives are translated into a continuity of specific treatments on a forest estate for a specified period of years (Modified MFM). Forest Products: Any raw material yielded by trees (Adapted URN 2484). Forest Stand: See Stand. Forestrv: Generally, a profession embracing the science, business, and art of creating, conserving, and managing forests (i.e. forest management) and forest lands (i.e. forest estate) for the continuing use of their resources, material, or other forest products (URN 2493). Harvest Cut: The cut(s) recorded as depletions from which yield is derived; it may be either a single (clearcut) or a series of cuts to produce regeneration (shelterwood, selection) (Modified MFM). -33- , WR.I r"J'7 Maximum Allowable Depletion (MAD) (management): The calculated amount of area from which timber may be depleted over the five-year term of a Timber Management Plan by any means, including harvesting, fire, insects, disease, inoperability, or because of the allocation of the area to other uses to fulfil the objectives of management. Net Merchantable'Volume: Volume of the main stem, excluding stump and top as well as defective and decayed wood, of trees or stands (CFIT). Non-Forest Land: Land withdrawn from timber production for at least the next rotation (FRI). Non-Productive Forest Land: Land within a forested area which is incapable of commercial timber production owing to very low productivity (Adapted FRI). Production Forest: All productive forest land managed primarily to growing timber for industry, unless otherwise reassigned (Modified FRI). - Regeneration: The renewal of a tree crop whether by natural (self-sown seed or by vegetative means) or artificial means (sowing and planting). This term may also be used to describe the young crop itself (Adapted URN 4843, 4844, 4846, 4848). Rotation Period: The planned number of years between the year of harvest of one crop to the harvest of the next crop to a specified condition at maturity (Modified MFM). Scarification: Mechanical loosening of the topsoil of open areas, or breaking up the forest floor, in preparation for regeneration by natural seeding. In Ontario, it is applied exclusively on recently harvested jack pine cutovers (Adapted URN 5134). Selection Cut (harvestimt operation): The removal of mature and/or undesirable trees individually or in small groups at relatively short intervals. Selection Svstem: An uneven-aged silvicuItural system where mature and/or undesirable trees are removed individually or in small groups over the whole area, usually in the course of a cutting cycle. Regeneration is generally natural (Adapted BCFT). Shelterwood Cut (harvesting operation): The removal of mature trees in series of two or more cuts (preparatory, seed, removal, final) whether by cutting uniformly over the entire stand or in strips. ,.- -34- I , . wR ./78' Shelterwood System: An even-aged silvicultural system where mature trees are harvested in a series of two or more cuts (preparatory, seed, removal, final) for the purpose of obtaining natural regeneration under shelter of the residual trees, whether by cutting uniformly over the entire stand area or in narrow strips. Regeneration is natural. Regeneration interval determines the degree of evenaged uniformity (Adapted MFM). Silvicul ture: Generally, the science and art of cultivating forest crops based on a knowledge of silvics (URN 5384). More particularly, the theory and practice of controlling the establishment composition, constitution, and growth of forests (URN 5385). Silviculture System: A process, following accepted silvicultural principles, whereby crops constituting forest are tended, harvested, and regenerated, resulting in the production of crops of distinctive form. Systems are conveniently classified according to the method of harvesting the mature stands with a view to regeneration and according to the type of crop produced thereby (Adapted URN 5383). - Silvicultural Treatment: The activities, whether biological or managerial, through which a silvicultural prescription is met. Sile: I An area considered in terms of environment, particularly as this determines the type and quality of the vegetation the area can carry (URN 54123). Site Preparation: Disturbance of the forest floor and the topsoil to create suitable conditions for natural or artificial regeneration by mechanical or chemical means, or by prescribed burning (Modified MFM). Stand (Svn.Forest Stand): A community of trees possessing sufficient uniformity in composition, constitution, age, arrangement, or condition to be distinguishable from adjacent communities, so forming a silvicultural or management entity (Adapted URN 5700). Sub-Compartment: A temporary subdivision of a compartment differentiated for separate treatment (Adapted URN 1165). Sustained Yield: The growth of timber that a forest can produce and that can be cut to achieve a continuous approximate balance between the growth of timber and timber cut (CT A). -35- I L0f<"71 , .. Tendine:: Generally, any operation carried out for the benefit of a forest crop at any stage of its life, e.g. cleaning, thinning, pruning, typically in an even-aged forest (BCFT). Thinnine:: A tending operation where a cut is made in a stand, usually past the sapling stage, for the purpose of stimulating the growth and improving the quality of the stand (Modified BCFT). Uneven-Ae:ed: Stands or forests in which trees marked differ in age (Adapted URN 6472). Volume: The amount of wood in a tree, stand, or other specified area, according to some unit of measurement or some standard of use (CFIT). See also Gross Merchantable Volume, Gross Total Volume, and Net Merchantable Volume. Water: Lakes, rivers, etc., taken to the high-water mark of generally flooded area - (FRI). Workine: Group (an inventory ae:e:ree:ation for manae:ement purposes): An aggregate of stands, including potential forest areas assigned to this category, having the same predominant species, and managed under the same rotation and broad silvicultural system (Modified FRI). Yield: The harvest, actual or estimated, howsoever measured, over a given period of time. . .- -- -36- , -- wR.J~o APPENDIX D ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS - -39- WR.I?>I APPENDIX D ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS 1. ESA No. 41 - Sleswick Complex Located in the Town of Caledon, the Sleswick Complex embodies a large portion of the Caledon Tract. The site is considered significant in part because of the diversity of community types and plant associations, such as the presence of Boreal tree species such as tamarack, balsam fir and white cedar and the presence of superior specimens of sugar maple and American beech. It is also significant for its water storage capacity within the Humber River headwaters region representation of the Singhampton Moraine, an important glacial feature. Management Considerations Almost 40 percent of the Caledon Tract is described as Protection Forest or Non-productive Forest. In both cases these areas will not support timber management activities and will remain undisturbed except for its use by - wildlife and the occasional recreationalist. The significant forest types will be managed to maintain their prominence in this Tract. An improvement cut is scheduled for 19.0 ha of the Maple working group in 1989. Logging will be scheduled for the winter months to minimize impact to resident orchids. The tamarack component is limited in size and unfortunately has been'the target of damage by porcupine. There are no operations planned in the forest stands containing white cedar and balsam fir. The marsh area in the north section of the Caledon Tract is presently being considered by Ducks Unlimited for water fowl habitat improvement. The aim is to regulate water levels which will not deter from the water storage nature of the site. -40- ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS STUDY .Ihe metro~htan toronto and region con5lrv't1on authority lJJ R./~.l -- ESA No. 41 " Sleswick Complex - GENERAL DESCRIPTION The Sleswick Complex located in the Town of Caledon, consists of an extensiv~ tract of forests and swamps. It is situated within a source area of the Humber River in the Oak Ridges Moraine. The portion of the Complex south of the plantation consists of an extensive, Sugar Maple (~ saccharum)/White Birch (Betula papyrlfera)/Eastern White Cedar (Thuja occidental is) forest containing 9 Boreal tree and shrub spec ies. Contained within this mature-mixed forest is a healthy population of 4 orchid species: Helleborine (Epipactis helleborine), Early Coral-Root (Corallorhiza trifida), Yellow Lady's-slipper (Cypripedium calceolus) and Downy Rattlesnake Plantain (Goodyera pubescens). A treed swamp dominated by Red Maple (~ rubrum) borders the forest to the west. The portion of the Sleswick Complex north of thv plantation contains a variety of forest types dominated by Sugar Maple, Red Maple, Eastern White Cedar, Speckled Alder (~ rugosa) and White Ash (Fraxinus americana). Two swamp. occupy the northern edge of the complex, one with Eastern White Cedar/Speckled Alder dOMinant and the other dominated by willows (!!!!! spp.), Red-osier Dogw9Qd (Cornus 8tolonifera), White Spruce (Picea glauca) and Tamarack (~ laricina). -41- !0R.(C03 CRITERIA FULFILLED Critedon I ~hi. area, exhibiting pleiltocene featurel, il a repre8entat~v. lample of th, Singhampton Horalne, vhlch I. on i.portant glacial feature In the area (Griffin, 'perl. coma. 1982). Thll lite lie. just vest of the aeltwater channel which .arks the related activities of 2 ice lobes (HNR 1982). Criterion 2(a) The Slesvlck Coaplex i. a lignificant vater storage area within the headvaters region of the Humber River and il vithin a high soil permeability area. Criterion 3 The Sleswick Complex il considered high quality for 3 reasons. First, the area contains a ligniflcant number of species with Boreal affinities, sucl\ .1 Tamarack, Balsam Fir (~ balsamea), Eastern White Cedar and Speckled Alder. The Willow/Red-osier Dogwood swamp contains .uch Boreal bog speci!!s as Speckled Alder and Sphagnum Hoss. Second, extensive regenp.ratlon of dominant species is evident In the forested ar!!as. Third, .any superior Ipecimens of Sugar Haple and American Beech (DBH exceeding I m) occur in the large Sugar Haple foreat to the south. Criterion 4 The dense stands of Balsam Fir and Eastern White Cedar are of limited representaton in the region due to their distinct Boreal nature. This area ia .ore typical of forest regions to the north. Cr !terion 5 The Slesvick Coaplex has a high diversity of community type. including mature forest, mature-mixed forest, i~ature forest, marsh and swamp.. Variationa in the height of the water table, soil compoaltion and aspect, have contributed to the varied plant associationa. Over 120 plant specie. and 47 avian speciea vere observed in the complex. . -42- tv R. } g'l.f crt ter ion , ~ a.glonllly rare pllnt .pecl.. Include. tong-hllred Sedge (f!!!! crlnlta. Downy Rattl.lnake-plantaln (Goodyerl pubeacen.. . ~round-cedar (Lycopodium co.planatu. L. Ylr. rllbelli ~ rern.. COMMENTS - aeglonally uncommon plant speciel Identified include Smooth Gooseberry (~ ~irtellu.), Black Alder (ll!! verticlllata yare vertlcillata), Long Beech ,ern (Thelypteri. phegopteri.), Lake Sedge (f!!!! lacu.tria) and Large Yellow Lady's-slipper (Cypripediu. calceolua var. pubescen.). fhe regionally rare aYian Ipecies observed, but not yet determined to nest In the area was the White-throated Sparrow (Zonotrlchia 11bicollll) - Deer trackl were found In numerous location. In the .outhern portion of the eo.plex. fhe watercour8~ within the Sleswlck Complex 1. within one of 3 co~dw.ter river systems of the MTRCA jurisdiction and i. therefore likely to contain coldwater fish specie.. , . I -43- I I ~NVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS STUDY ., ~R. J~S" ) &he metrqpolilln toronto Ind region con..",..ion luthority -- ISA No. 41 J , c8 ~ c::::::::::::, - , C .p ~ ~ MTRCA FO~. ~ CALEDON TRACT ,,~ 6IJ E.S.A. 51 TE ~ 0 1000 ........ ..... .... ..... .... METRES - -44- /'uR.J~b 2. ESA No.45 - Simcoe-Albion Forest The Simcoe-Albion Forest borders the Humber River from Palgrave north to the southern portion of Adjala Township in the County of Dufferin. Near Palgrave it borders on the eastern portion of the Kelly Tract. This site is significant as a water source ar~a for the Humber River and its forest cover provides travel corridors for fauna and protection of the stream habitat for cold water fish species. Management Considerations The forest stands within the Kelly Tract that are within this ESA are described as Protection Forest. White cedar predominates in these stands which provides excellent winter habitat for the white-tailed deer. No operations are planned or required to maintain the integrity of this area at this time. - -45- l0R '}~I ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS STUDY )Ih. ",.Iropohlan 'oron'o and regIon conseNallon aulhorlly -- ESA No. 45 , . . . . . '-' ": ," i .' '. . ~. i- . ," .' .~.~ 'W .... - - Simcoe-Albion Forest - GENERAL DESCRIPTION The Simcoe-Albion Forest stretches from the Palgrave Hill Pond in a northwesterly direction along the Humber River, to a point north of Highway 9 and west of Adjala Township 5th Line. Highways 50 and 9, as well as the 30th Side Road and 5th Line pass through the area. Eastern White Cedar (Thuja occidentalis) is the most common species throughout this forested area. It is found in almost every forest community in varying abundance and in association with a variety of species, i nc I ud i n9 Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum), Yellow Birch (Betula luteal, White Birch (Betula papyrifera), Eastern Hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) and White Ash (Fraxinus americana). Scrub areas and wetlands, also populated by cedar, are foun~ along the river's edge and flood plain, while the majority of the forest communities occupy the dryer valley walls and slopes. Thi. .ection of the area south of Highway SO from the Mill Pond to the 30th Side Road, lie. directly adjacent to the MTRCA'. palgrave Forest and Wildlife Area. . -46- . tAJf<.1 g~ CRITERIA FULFILLED Criterion 2(.) The Simcoe-Albion Forest i. a high quality source area of the Humber River. It i. loeated within a high permeable'soils area and i. characterized by forests and wetlands. Criterion 2(b) Cedar scrub and forested areas are found between communities of significance, formi09 links which act as important corridors for the movement of fauna. Criterion ] The area is considered high quality since the streams In this area sustain populations of Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) and Brook Trout (Salvelinus - font ina11s) \ Imhoff 1979). These species require high quality, cold water streams. Cr iter ion 4 Several forest communities in the area have significant numbers of Boreal species (some as dominants) indicating remnants of Boreal-type forests, which are of limited representation in the MTMCA jurisdiction. Such specie! are yellow Birch as the second and third dominant species, in Cedar dominated and Cedar/Sugar Maple dominated forests, and Mountain Maple (~ spicatum) as the dominant understorey species in a Cedar/Sugar Maple/Yellow Birch forest. Cedar itself is considered a Boreal specie.. Cold water .trea~s, capable of supporting trout populations are also. of li.ited representation In the MTRCA's jurisdiction. This area (upper Humber River) represents one of 3 suitable coldwater habitats In the region (Imhoff 1979) . COMMENTS Diversity of plant species throughout the entire area was fairly high with total numbers approaching 100 In some communities, and bird life vaa abundant. White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus vir~lnlanus) were sighted on numerous occasions In the arca. -47- ENVIRUNMENTAllY SIGNIFICANT AREAS STUDY lNR.I~~ ) .... "'''opoIitan ........ .nd 'egion con_..... euthority - ISA No. 4S \ 50 .. ~ - dl ~ 11- fS.'SSIl1TR.CA FOREST KELLY TRACT {?ZZJ E.S.A. SITE I 0 0 1000 I 1-1 1-1 H 1-1 111 METRES -48- //.JR., ~ () APPENDIX E AREAS OF NATURAL AND SCIENTIFIC INTEREST - -49- l,0 R .19 J APPENDIX E AREAS OF NATURAL AND SCIENTIFIC INTEREST Pal grave Moraine The Palgrave Moraine is the only ANSI present in the MTRCA Forest. This Earth Science ANSI is located in part in the Duffy and Argent Tracts. It was selected for its provincially significant representation of the typical rugged topography of an end moraine and is proposed as a candidate nature reserve site. A detailed technical report in included in this Appendix. Management Considerations In 1978 2.8 hectares were removed from Agreement in the Argent Tract for a sanitary landfill site. Forest operations and current land use in the MTRCA Forest area will not have an impact on the character of this ANSI. - -50- Palgrave Moraine 30M/13W 95-62- SURFICIAL GEOLOGY wR ./q:2- Major glacial advances and retreats in the Great Lakes region have been assigned to three substages - Early, Middle and Late Wisconsinan (Oreimanis and Karrow, 1972). Early Wisconsinan tills occur at depth throughout southern Ontario representing advances by the Erie, Huron and Georgian Bay ice lobes. Middle Wisconsinan sediments consist of lacustrine silts and sands with minor organic deposits indicating that glacial activity was not extensive during this substage. Events during the Late Wisconsinan generated the most varied and complex tills in southern Ontario produced by oscillating ice lobes. The following is a summerized version of White's (1975) Quaternary geological history of the Bolton map area (see also . figure 1)_ About 30,000 years ago, the Late Wisconsinan ice advanced over the Bolton area producing a series of retreats with a sequence of . frontal retreats, advances and standstills. The Bolton area was not free of ice until about '13,500 years B.P. _ - - The last ice advance during the Port Huron Stadial (13,000- 12,000 yr. B.P.) moved as three independant lobes: the Lake Huron lobe, the Georgian Bay lobe with the Lake Si~coe sublobe and the Ontario-Erie lobe. The Ontario lobe advanced across the Bolton area and deposited the Wentworth Till in the form of drumlins on top of the Niagara Escarpment and halted at the Orangeville interlobate moraine position. After depositing the Orangeville Moraine, the Ontario lobe receded which resulted in the Lake Simcoe sublobe.advancing and overriding the drumlins depositing the Singhampton Moraine. As . the Lake Simcoe sublobe receded, the Ontario ice readvanced depositing the Paris Moraine. This ice remained in the Paris and Singhampton moraine position for some time releasing vast quantieies of melt- water and outwash that produced meltwater channels. Stagnation of the ice behind the moraines in the Bolton-area released debris that is believed to have produced hummocky topography. . The Gibraltar Moraine in the Bolton area is very close behind the inner strand of the Singhampton Moraine. Thus, the front of the Simcoe sublobe is considered to have either melted back a short distance so that similar till was deposited in both the Singhampton'and Gibraltar advances or the ice receded slightly behind the Singhampton position and constructed the Gibraltar Moraine. Behind the moraine, the ice stagnated in the west and produced the hummocky ice contact deposits but in the east, silts and. clay were deposited in Early Lake Schomberg- Meanwhile, the Ontario lobe was advancing again over a wide front depositing the Halton Till and the Palgrave Mor~ine. West and east of Mt. Wolfe, the Ontario lobe did not advance beyond a line.between the villages of palgrave and L1oydtown. -51- pa~grClVC: I"IVl.a~nlC "OI'l{~JW lI:)-ti2- L0R.I~3 The disappearance of the Halton ice was followed by minor advances of the Simcoe sublobe and Ontario lobe. The Simcoe sub- lobe advanced over the early Lake Schomberg deposits and laid down the Kettleby Till. As the ice front receded and the lake levels droppe4, the deposits of Lake Schomberg were formed. At this time, the Ontario ice lobe advanced over glacio- lacustrine sediments up to the Gooseville Moraine position deposit~ ing the Wildfield Till and constructing a low morainal ridge. The ice did not remain long in this position. Glacial Lake Peel appears to have had an almost constantly changing level. About 12,000 yr. B.P., the proglacial waters fell to the level of Glacial Lake Iroquois that occupied the Lake Ontario basin. SIGNIFICANCE The palgrave Moraine has been redefined by White (1975) to a 4.8 to 6.4 km (3 to 4 mile) strip of hummocky topography extending northeast from Caledon East to the vicinity of palgrave - and Mt. wolfe then east across King Township to Xing City beyond' which it merges within the Maple spur of the Oak Ridges Moraine- just east of the Bolton map area. According to White (1975) I the local relief in concession IV and V of Albion Township exceeds 15.3 m (50 feet) in places and . produces the most rugged topography in the ma~, area. The moraine boundary has been drawn at the limit of the hummocky topography. White (1975) has noted "that ~he ~ore hummocky areas within the moraine are foun~ where the moraine is obviously constructural whereas the less hummocky areas are frequently related to palimpsest terrain-. Part of the area chosen to represent the Palgrave Moraine is currently being used as a landfi~l site - the Albion Sanitary Land- fill Site. RECOMMENDATIONS , Moraines clearly indicate glacial processes and are excellent examples of. glacial landforms. The Palgrave Moraine is bes~ I displayed at this site producing "perhaps the most rugged topography \ in the map area- (White, 1975). Scientifically, .this site is very I important for interpreting part of the deglaciation of the area. White (1975) maintains that. his theories concerning moraine forma- tion (see Significance Section) need further investigation. The Palgrave Moraine site should be designated as a candidate nature reserve based upon its scientific and interpretive values. I The Argent Tract and Duffy Tract found in the Metro Toronto and Region Conservation Authority~orest are within the designate~' candidate nature reserve (see map). A liaison betwee~ Parks Branch and the Conservation Authority should be established in order to explain the significance of th~ site and the objectives of the Earth Science Framework. - "i'" . SO" 94 SS 96 98 )1lf 7,..S' f,7 061 I. I 6~ 64 55' 63, 52 f.l i ;9 =:7 LEGEND 4 Halton' Till ---boundary of site 3 .Meltwater sand --- approx. geological boundary 2 Ice contact materials ... .. hummocky topoqrapl)y 1 Newmarket Till . . . . . . . - .. licenced property . unlicenced pit Palgrave Moraine NTS 30M/l3W,. Bolton UTM 95-62- -53- lNR.19tr" APPENDIX F WILDLIFE CONSIDERATIONS FOR FOREST MANAGEMENT - -54- (.))R.lq~ APPENDIX F WILDLIFE CONSIDERATIONS FOR FOREST MANAGEMENT The following summary and recommendations are condensed from, A Paper on Wildlife Considerations for Forest Management in Maple District, (1984) by Angus Norman, Extension Biologist, Maple District. There will be close communication between the forest manager and biologist to ensure wildlife habitat is properly identified and management techniques are successfully employed. These considerations are identified when a detailed silvicuItural prescription is prepared for each stand prior to cutting. Marking trees with yellow paint for removal serves to control cutting according to a prescribed management objective. See Figure 1 for an example of the form that is used to guide tree marking. In the section of the form titled, "IRM Considerations" other resource management considerations are addressed, such as set-backs from water courses, leaving den trees, operating periods to minimize site disturbance, etc. 1. Wildlife use riparian zones disproportionately more than any other type of habitat. It is recommended to use uneven-aged management in - riparian zones. 2. Edges and their ecotones are usually richer in wildlife than the adjoining plant communities or successional stages. Edges can be created by logging, planting and seeding practices. The amount of edge habitat or ecotone in an area is a function of the width of the edge, the length of the edge and its configuration. 3. Species richness for birds will probably increase with stand size to about 34 ha. Smaller stands increase the edge effect that accommodate species adapted to edge. Diversity cannot be increased indefinitely by making more and smaller island of habitat and hence more edges. 4. Hard and soft snags provide food (invertebrates), nesting cavities and roosts for many species of wildlife. Each stage in the decay process of a snag is valuable to certain species of wildlife. The size and height of snags determine which species can use a snag for nesting. If enough snags are provided for primary excavators (mainly woodpeckers), then the cavities they leave should provide adequate nesting sites for secondary cavity nesters. Snags deteriorate over time and hence planning is required for regular placement. Snags can be left in areas more difficult to log. Snags must be well distributed throughout the forest to provide for territorial requirements of primary excavators. However, snags can be clumped to some degree throughout the forest. -55- FHiUIU; 1 MAK~~~u YK~~~K~YTLUn rvnn SILVICULTURAL OWNERSHIP: ~Jq7 ~ DISTRICT : o CROWN PRESCRIPTION MANAGEMENT o AG. FOR. UNIT : o WIA Ontario IIMARKINGII I UNIQUE IDENTIFIER # : I ~ : 00. LANDOWNER INFORMATION OWNER'S NAME : PROPERlY NAME : ADDRESS : AREA/COMP. #: TOWNSHIP: LOT:_ CONC.:_ PHONE : (HOME) (BUS) AERIAL PHOTO #: ACCESS DIRECTIONS : OBJECTIVES LONG TERM: SHORT TERM: OWNER CONSIDERATIONS: STAND INFORMATION - SPECIES COMPOSITION: REGENERATION NOTES: STAND AREA (he): _ SPACING (m): AGE: _ HEIGHT (m): _ STOCKING: STAND QUALITY NOTES: DIAMETERS: SITE: BASAL AREA DISTRIBUTION m 7fha) TREE SIZE (em) 4-10 12-24 26-36 38-48 50-60 62+ TOTAL ACTUAL BA m2/ho TOPOGRAPHY: STAND PRESCRIPTION IRM CONSIDERATIONS: WORK SCHEDULE : SILVICULTURAL CODE: RECOMMENDED BASAL AREA DISTRIBUTION OF CUT TREATMENT GUIDEUNES : TREE ACTUAl.. BA m 2/ha BA TO BE CUT 7~~~ AGS UGS TOTAL AGS UGS TOTAl. 4-10 12-24 26-36 38-48 50-60 62+ TOTAl PREPARED BY APPROVED BY : -56- RFCm.AMFNI1FO YEAR OF NFXT r.IIT : DATI=' . I1ATF ~ ()JR.lqct Use the following guideline to determine the number and size of snags required to maintain each species at the desired population level: For a 40 ha area to provide for maximum potential woodpecker populations, retain the following numbers and sizes of snags for each species: - for downy woodpecker - 300 snags 15 cm dbh - for hairy woodpecker - 180 snags 25 cm dbh - for common flicker - 38 snags 30 cm dbh - for pileated woodpecker - 14 snags 50 cm dbh Larger snags can be substituted for smaller snags. The larger the snag the fewer are required. In general, 7 snags per ha are required for maximum woodpecker populations, and should range from 15 to 50 cm dbh. 5. Down and dead woody material (logs, stumps, root wads, bark, piles of limbs) provides habitat for wildlife. The larger the downed log the longer_ it takes to decompose and the longer it provides habitat. Logs are most effective when well distributed throughout the forest. When oriented along the contours of a slope they help check soil erosion. Attempt to satisfy requirements for wildlife logs by using logs with little or no commercial value. A guideline to use is to leave at least 5 logs per hectare. 6. Where deer are known to concentrate in winter, maintain a conifer cover for shelter and any mast producing tree species that are nearby (oak, beech). Plots from 0.5 to 2.0 ha in sizes cut throughout a deer wintering area will provide winter browse. 7. For ruffed grouse, aspen should be managed on a 40 year rotation. An aspen stand can be divided into 4 ha parcels. One quarter (1 ha) of each of these parcels could be cut every ten years. Retain hawthorn, crab apple, ironwood and hazel trees for food for grouse. 8. Aspen dominated forests are very important to wildlife. To benefit wildlife, aspen requires even-aged management. In moist sites containing aspen, poplar, alder or dogwood openings of approximately 0.5 ha in size will benefit woodcock. Openings should be about 175 metres apart. 9. Retention of a patchwork of woodlots will favour coyotes, foxes and raccoons. Requirements for maximum raccoon populations will be satisfied if one hollow tree 50 cm dbh per 10 hectares of woodland is maintained. -57- toR./ qt 10. The key to benefitting nongame birds is to plan for their range of habitat requirements. A diverse habitat for birds is largely equated with diverse vegetative structure, that is; (a) vertical habitat diversity, (b) horizontal habitat diversity, (c) patchiness of habitats and (d) size of forest habitats. Vertical structure is increased by increasing the number of strata present in a stand. The strata include herbaceous, shrub, sapling, pole and mature layers. For example, in hardwood coniferous forest, the development of seedlings and saplings along with the growth of shrubs in canopy openings created by selective cuts, creates a forest which is vertically diverse. In mixed hardwood coniferous forests, the natural clumping of coniferous and deciduous trees that occurs can be used to take advantage of the inherent diversity of vegetation structure. The high bird species diversity of mixed hardwood coniferous forests can be explained by the patchiness _ of forest vegetation and the selection of discrete habitat patches by birds. When using even-aged management in mixed hardwood coniferous forests, maintain patches of conifer cover of about 3 ha in size. Even-aged management ensures the presence of a mix of successional stages. Uneven-aged forest management promotes an increase in the vertical structure of a forest stand. However, if uneven-aged management is practised over too large an area, the heterogeneity due to different vertical strata within the stands tends to homogeneity due to elimination of other types of forest stands. Horizontal diversity in vegetation is also important in influencing bird use. If patches or blocks of vegetation are managed so that there is an interspersion of early, intermediate and mature successional stages adjacent to each other, diversity of bird species throughout the area should be maintained. This patchiness of vegetation structure can be produced through even-aged management. Openings also increase the vertical and horizontal structure of the forest and therefore, increase the species of wildlife present. It would be beneficial to maintain from 1 to 5 percent of the forest in openings that range in size from 0.4 to 1.0 ha. From a practical sense, the distribution of openings can be planned to take advantage of existing openings. -58- tDR. ;;(00 11. The size of the habitat block has a direct effect on the number of wildlife species in that area up to a point, the larger the habitat blocks, the greater the number of species that will be associated with them. This is due to (1) the addition of new species as their minimum habitat size requirements are met, (2) the inclusion of specific habitat components in sufficient quantity and (3) the presence of specialized conditions in the interior of forest stands. The best option with respect to wildlife is to manage blocks of habitat for a range of sizes. It is probably best to manage forests to produce a patchwork arrangement of stands that range from 1 ha to 100 ha. The largest portion of these stands should range from 4 to 30 ha in size. Where practical smaller plots 1 ha in size can be managed to benefit ruffed grouse and woodcock. For some bird species, stand sizes of 4 to 8 ha are both economically feasible and appropriate for avian management. Even larger blocks of habitat for reasons cited above, will mean that species richness for birds will increase significantly with size of forest stand. Also, some species - require very large unbroken tracts of forested habitat and a relative lack of disturbance. A minimum of 100 ha of forested habitat seems to be necessary to sustain viable breeding populations of some species. 12. Retention of forested corridors along streams and connecting' corridors of standing trees between forest stands aids species that require large unbroken tracts for travel. 13. Maintaining rotations that are as long as possible in some areas meets requirements of some species. 14. For wildlife purposes, lowland conifer forests of tamarack, black spruce and white cedar are best managed so that large blocks of mature forests are maintained. -59- t.VR.~ot APPENDIX G MTRCA FOREST COMPARTMENT MAPS - -60- lNR.;2. D~ , it MTRCA FOR EST Rowley Tract ~.~ Compo # 1 - Adjala Township Lot 4 I Cone. VI, Lot 3 . - Area: 20.2 hectares Scale 1: 10,000 Compo 11 Foot 1--------- -... Entrance , ~ I ~ I ..... r" 0 / d "'.. C : "I L___-_?"..... _ ~ - 7 Lot 3 I ,-7"', "t-~~--; ", '1 I ~ ......J 1 : b "~} I I '-". d ,-,/ 0 SUB- WORKING Ie \...: - f t I -_~L_______... COMP GROUP Ha - a Pr 5.2 b Pw 1.3 . c H 6.0 d Pr 3.0 Lot 2 e Pr 1.9 f . Pr 2.7 "U 0:: ,..... . LEGEND u c 0 Access Trails --:"----- () Compo Boundary Subcomp. Boundary ------- Lot 1 ~ CONC. VI CONC. VII Highway #9 ~ HighWa~50 ~ ALBION TOWNSHIP (to Bolton) - 1'( MTRCA FOR EST Ballycroy Tract -..- Compo #2 Page 1 of 2 Adjala Township , Cone. V, Lot 2 0 Area: 120.6 hectares (entire tract) Scale 1: 10,000 CONC. IV CONC. V Lot 3 SUB- WORKING Ha COMP GROUP Comp. 13 Compo 12 a Sw 10.5 ,. b Pw 1.2 I c ~' ~ c Mh 4.8 ~--7' a" ~--=----==--~' b " d Ps 1.6 , " ' Pj 4.7 "'-. d ~ ,,/ " e ........... " a f Le 0.9 .... ......, -,\ '- \ Ce 4.7 Foot Entrance l'" _ e : I r _ 9 k ..... \.." h U.C.L. 0.4 ~'7i"'~ 7 a .,' , 'I '~-- I 0 I Pw 7.0 --- '~ 0 , ~ Pj 2.2 f \ -. L t 2 !1 ----=---~-.:: - U.C.L. 106 o . ---- ..~ - -" ~ - \ J i /'1 \...... ......'-.JJ It) \..--" ---' , I LEGEND g 'J' " /' . .Ct; l./ I , u , , Compo Boundary c 0 Subcomp. Boundary ------ () Access Trails --- Lot 1 , ,t: :::t:> ).) t> W ~ "'E: A> '~ Q 1'( MTRCA FOREST -v- _. Ballycroy Tract Comp.IJ - Compo #3,4 SUB- WORKING H Page 2 of 2 COMP GROUP a I Adjala Township a Mh 1.2 Cone. IV, Lot 3 CONC V b Pw 1.2 Area: 120.6 hectares (entire tract) . c Y.. 4.0 Scale 1: 10,000 d Pj 3 0 CONC. III . CONC. rv e Pr 1 ;.7 Compo 13 0 f M h 1 2 - -- ""C . Comp. 14 _ _ - - - - - 0:: 9 P j 3.3 - -- I I _ _ 1 - ( ~ I I b L() h Pw 2.8 - _1- - .~. , b' '. 0 ". f' · III . . C r - ~-~--.(c:i \--~I ',..::.-!- " ,,' 1 ,III , u I e 7.8 V \ ~l, d \ · ) f .. I I I '----j ,-- c . P Lot 3 I k j f \ ' '-i~-~ ~: a h \\(~ ~ t,j '~t ..~-\-: '\ 8 ~ P~ ~:~ I :-"--' . ~---........ -'''7t) J't-... \ c ..----...L.\ I '. · "\ I ' -........ '/ Foot I \, d '..... \'j -- r"-~-~~ .,:-. Entrance Compo 14 Foot I 1\ \ I I J I - - ~ m'\ Entranc. J-'- ,,: ~ _ b 1''''- ------~ ~ SUB- WORKING H ........ ~ - - - - - ~.:.:~ }1' - -:.r COMP GROUP a ........ r, ,.--.._r\ '""-' If J b J ./ " ) ',' · .... ~ v' '" , I ., 1 0 A---- \ if \ ',I a U.C.L. 0.7 'S' ....-':- - - -~, b -u ----~-::::.-:...-.,,- '. i ~ k : Sw 6. 1 0:: ~..!l oJ ' I ,) J I C P j 3.7 ~ - -::;:I I d P 15 -.~ ",-_._-~~ 0 . u h..-.-.. e P s 3.3 5 f Pr 2.2 () 9 Pw 0.6 LEGEND h Mh 1. 1 I Pr 0.7 Lot 2 Compo Boundary j Pw 1.8 Subcomp. Boundary ----.. k Po 4.0 Access Trails - - - I Pr 15.3 Muskeg ~, m Pr 0.4 , 1. MTRCA FOR EST Kelly Tract II Compo #5,6 , , Page 1 of 2 Town of Caledon (formerly Albion Township) Cone. IV, Lot 28 Area: 159 hectares (entire tract) Scale 1: 10,000 Lot 29 Compo 15 Comp. 16 , \ Com. 5 Comp. " .z~" d' \ a SUB- WORKING Ha .. r a ' C 0 ,: \ \ b '..-., .---..-< '\ /. \ Lt) COMP GROUP \ c, \..._/..... \ ,A e ~ )rr=:- \ ~ a P.F. 6.3 ...~ C ) ~ ... I J' b Pw 2.4 ... "" " J ) ).:~_ , '-... b ~, I C Pw 4.9 d ''''~ -/ 'J h I '\' ) ---.. - -1---,' I 'I I ~ >-_- d P.F. 3.4 "U 1-~ .. c:1 ' Ie' -{ - 0:: l .." "''-l..~ ...... J \'_ ~'q ~._uy\ 'h ... ~ e Pr 5.4 (0 /.,' f ..----y -"1 ...... '" \f ,,,{,, y--- Foot f Pw 6.5 / - -' III t' .. g Pw 3.0 Lot 28 h ~ e ..(~-" 1 III Entrance . /,,'. 1/ \\ '-=--.-.. \:7 \ I h P.F. 1.2 u c -' e' III "1"" - - I 1 i Pw 2. 1 0 - ,."- : / f \ f () ,,'- I \ III ~ h I : ,\ Comp. 16 I SUB- WORKING Ha COMP GROUP CONe. v CONC. VI a P.F. 3.0 b Sw 4.5 lEGEND c p. 6.3 Compo Boundary d P~ 3.9 Subcomp. Boundary -------- e Pw 2.4 Lot 27 Open f H 8.5 III 9 Pr 4.5 Access Trails ----. h Pj 5.4 ~ , . )J 0 V\ ,c ~ MTRCA FOR EST . , 'If )J ~ II Kelly Tract ,~ I Compo # 7,8 I, ~ , Page 2 of 2 Town of Caledon (formerly Albion Township) Comp. 17 Cone. V, Lot 29 SUB- WORKING Ha Area: 159 hectares (entire tract) COMP GROUP . Scale 1: 10,000 "'U a Po 5.3 0::: . b Pf 0.5 "'0 to Sw 3.0 0::: C Comp. 17 . d Pr l() u 5.4 -......,.... c e Pj 1. 1 . Comp.I8 ,'"',.\ ,~\ 8 u f H 8.0 c -- k , \ I \~ j \ a 0 , '... r;..~, 0 ,..--~\ \ I c~... \ g Mh 1.0 () '> c \' \' '~.j , ~ I h Pj 5.8 b """', \i \." , P.F.,... , , -- . I I '-.... ' "',- ~ "d ' ~...~ . Pj 2.7 Feat "\ ~ '\... f - "'- , a I ~ .. : 1/1' ... /" \\". -~ C ]_'~_ . . H 3.3 f '\ \ '-, \ '... a \ k '\'" d -' '... I '... ( J ~ - ~,--.., " \ I ' /1/ ... k Pr 1.4 - ~ -.l ./ Ld .> j , d \ " }.-~ .- ) III /' 9 _.........- \ )'--.:.; 1 \: \ ~ 9 _, (-- Lot 29 1 r ,'. · ; i - _ - _\ - __../- I Feat , ~ f:. .:'1 ,- Comp. 18 \...~'-. ... \--t).-,r,. . "> --''7 · : \ h;" EImn:e ... "'", -- f (-,/,,/ ~ f J" ".. - SUB- WORKING Ha ' ... ' ~l. 1 a ......" COMP GROUP '... f \ 'r 11 \. j : : h ... I g '- l.. a Pr 6.0 h ".. ~; I '... ..... Comp. 16 .. \ V,' P.F.' b p. 0.7 \..1 ~\;" - . C P.~. 2.6 d Sw 0.5 CONC. VI e Pw 7.3 LEGEND f Pj 2.8 g o~~n 0.8 Lot 28 CONC. V Compo Boundary h 5.9 Subcomp. Boundary --------- I o~~n 3.7 Open 1/1 J 3.5 Access Trails ----- k H 1.2 I P.F. 2.5 , , t MTRCA FOR EST Boyce Tract II Compo #9 Town of Caledon (formerly Albion Township) '" . , Cone. V, Lot 24 Area: 20.2 hectares Scale 1: 10,000 -- CONC. V ,,- I CONC. VI ---- 25th Sideroad -- - " -' ,- " " , " " SUB- WORKING " Ha " , COMP GROUP " Lot 25 " , Pj 0.2 " a " Ol b Sw 0.9 " 1"+ , ::r , C Pj 2.8 , , r , d Pw 2.3 , -. , :J , e Pr 5.3 " (b " f Pw 3.9 "" compo 19 Pj 1.7 I 9 , " \ " . ~' d, 0 h, Pr 2. 1 " . Pr 0.8 l f J- - \l~ I , .", " -1,J \ b I ,,' '- " , Lot 24 .--.- I ---, \~.. \, '\ LEGEND ,,' ~'",..g")?:I' \ l e "'1 c') d "1 '" hi' ) C ~ ,,/ I - Compo Boundary o / I I ., . , Subcomp. Boundary --~---- Railway ----------- Access Trails ---- ~ , ~ )J 0 '..J I E' ~ MTRCA FOR EST . , t ~ ~ Verner Tract ~ ,- Compo # 10 , Albion Township Cone. V, Lot 22 Area: 40.4 hectares Scale 1: 10,000 To Highway I&J (Entrance to Albion HIlls Con..-vatlon Nea) CONC. V Comp. '10 . ~--\ (a ,/'1 SUB- WORKING Ha '\. " /' I h ,a, \.... I f'- ' ) " COMP GROUP , n ) III '-', .. Foot " I t' -"lIC.~ ~ a Pr 1.5 /-..1 , l....,---; (""'.....A -.... - Entrance Lot 22 I I '- t - / f.."" b _- b Pw 2.5 ' , , ,,/'\ f{ '\ \ ;-',' \\ ,.-:;,..... c Pw 1.9 '" .. '. J \f' ^, ''::j,-' ..,~, J d Sw 5.3 , '\ I ' Y " \~ e Mh 12.9 ed'l g ~\ \~" db (:;: LEGEND f muskeg 0.7 : f \ "'\-" \ I k Compo Boundary 9 alder 2.3 .1: \ \ ~ Subcomp. Boundary _____u h Sw 1.3 Alder db I P.F. 3.2 Open III . Ce 2.3 River J Access Trails - - - k Sw 0.5 WR,;<01 ... MTRCA FOREST , ?( McArthur Tract - 1M, Comp. # 11 T own of Caledon (formerly Albion Township) Conco III, Lot 24 , Area: 39.7 hectares Scale 1: 10,000 j 25th Sideroad - CONe. II CONC. III - Lot 25 Compo 111 d Foot ~ Entrance SUB- WORKING Ha COMP GROUP a Pw 1.5 b Mh 2.0 Lot 24 c Pw 2.0 d Pj 11.9 e Or 0.9 Foot f Sw 7.5 9 Pr 1.3 Entrance~ h Pr 5.9 . P.F. 1.5 I j Mh 1.3 () 0 ::J LEGEND n Vol Access Trails ------ ::u Compo Boundary a. Lot 23 Subcomp. Boundary c; ?t> . MTRCA FOR EST , It ~ - Q Duffy Tract CONC. v CONC. VI .... ,II, Compo # 12, 13 .. ...... .... .... Town of Caledon .. .. .. (formerly Albion Township) Lot 20 .. .. .. .. Cone. V, Lot 19 .. .. , .. Area: 40.4Ha Comp. 113 , , Scale 1: 10,000 e Lot 19 b WORKING Comp. , 12 SUB-:- Ha COMP GROUP 3.2 0 a Pw 0 ::J n b Alder 1.7 . (Jl c P.F. 3.9 ::u LEGEND Q.. d Alder 0.5 Lot 18 Access Trails -----~~~----------------~-_. e Pw 5.5 Compo Boundary f Pw 0.8 Subcomp. Boundary 9 Ce 0.4 Railway --------------------------------------- , MTR CA FOR EST , It Argent Tract II Compo # 14 " , Town of Caledon (formerly Albion Township) Cone. N, Lot 18 CONC. V CONC. VI Area: 33.6 hectares Scale 1: 10,000 Lot 19 Comp. , 14- ~, I b / a I I " Lot 18 SUB- WORKING Ha COMP GROUP (") 0 a Pw 5.2 :J LEGEND (') b Mh 3.2 . Access Trails - - - - - - - - - (]l 8.9 :::0 c Pw Compo coundary 0.. d P.F. 1.4 . Subcomp. Boundary e Pw 8.3 ~ /b ~ - - wRo~'~ .... MTRCA FOREST , t Peel Tract -- Compo # 15 Town of Caledon (formerly Albion Township) '" , - . Cone. III, Lot 13 Area: 12.2 Ha Scale 1: 10,000 ~I Boston Mills Rd. - CONC. II CONe. III " u ~ ., Q: 0- eD c: 0 - ::J ::J eD 0 ., . , Compo I 15 ~\--,l -j , - ~Q Lot 13 T--, / b .....~ c I : SUB- WORKING :) r" COMP GROUP Ha -~ ~~ Foot Entronce ....J >~/ , .. a Le 1.4 ~ / d \ e. b Pj 6.0 c Pr 2.2 d Le 1.3 e Mh 1.3 -- LEGEND -- .........- Access Trails - - - - - - - - - - "- -"- .........-... Compo Boundary ...._--.... Lot 12 .........-..... -.. Subcompo Boundary ---_________0 ..... ........ .... Railway -------------------------------- ""''''', .... .... ................ , WR~~13 , t MTRCA FOREST ~ Caledon Tract )l~Y( CONC. v L~NC. VI Camp. #16.17.18.19 . - . Page 1 of 2 20th Side Road Caledon Township I \.c, l) Conc. V, Lot 18, 19,20 __ \ b "/: \ ~ Area: 197.3 hectares (entire tract) -....7'-=.::-_..:....~__/..,-~.. : ~ Scale 1: 10,000 d ) 9 ~ c l:J Comp '1"- " 1 I ~ . u /..-- ~'a +I ..~.. l I It) SUB WORKING ~..~.. /..-........... ,....--\ "I COUP GROUP Ha ....: /) I I Compo 116 a Pw 5.7 · \ ",, I Woods "tract b Sw 2.0 LA . P F. I / / .., ( I (I" , ,/) c muskeg 12.0 --/ \--/' ,': I d Pr 3.4 ---------, / ,,1 I Foot e PF. 10.3 _ .... ---...__~:J : Entrance f Pr 6. 1 l f ..-;._' - J,....J ~ g Pw 1.0 , I : J Comp. 119 , b \, a I a ro--- ~H~p W8tf~~G Ha ) 1,1 a Mh 17.8 - I ,..... /"\ " d " b H 4. 1 \ I ,I ..,I Comp. 119 C Bw 7.3 LA · '... I i /' d alder 5.0 '.. \" e P.F. 806 ", : / c ....i- ,/,' · ".......... I / PF. ( ,..\.......1' " Compo 117 Compo 118 : I SUB- WORKING Ha SUB- WORKING H I COMP GROUP COUP GROUP a I I' a P F. 7.0 a Bw 5.5 a /1 \ /,1 ~ b Sw 2.. b alder 3.3 ,J l,. ~ a I a c Pw 1.7 c Ce 0.9 '-I .. b ~ , "I d Sw 1.6 d Pw 1.9 "_ ! ) \ ): e Bw 005 e Po 1.5 ....y-----, ------.. b J f Pw 1.4 f H 4.6 LA. c'.. 25 e,f --~-----~- g Po . r---;;t1 ". 1 I ., it- - f I"~ .,.-t..' /' d 1'1 f ' 9 I \ ' LEGEND , J l ' Compo 1 17 (j J, d, I d Chlrch Troct Compo Boundary --~\ ----- : I' i: Subcomp. Boundary____. . 'ai 0 I Access Trails - - - - ~der.. Compo 118 Muskeg x Chlrch Tract wf<. ~)'+ 'at MTRCA FOR EST Caledon Tract Compo #20,21,24 - .- , Page 2 of 2 Caledon Township Cone. V, Lot 16,17 Area: 197.3 hectares (entire tract) ~I>> Scale 1: 10,000 SUB- WORKING Ha CO"'P GROUP a Po 1.3 b Bw 2.9 c Ce 2.2 d P.F. 1.2 e Bw 7.4 f P.F. 4.2 g alder 2.1 h P.F. 2.0 CONC. V CONCo VI I alder 2.5 j Bw 5.0 k Sw 0.6 i. _ \ k I muskeg 6.0 b - , ;" ..'; ") ~ m Sw 0.7 ...._-... '---....L.' I 0 I 1 c -),r...---J ~l2t \ .,.-", -- SUB- WORKING Ha ~ r.. ........-, /1 ----I' CO"'P GROUP --.. \ d : · Comp. 120 \ -... " f \ a Bw 2.9 I I........ b Bw 4.7 Lot 17 \. J ." : r--~ C H 2.3 ' , h ')l I I -.----',' - d H 4.0 I~ ---- en ~--', ,(,...~", 0 H 2.5 ~ g J f ,'.J \ w e r ..,,, \ ( j Q) f Pw 0.4 c: H 2.7 ,. /''', l, : I ~ :J g - _J, I .c , , - h ..",' It) ~124 ... .. /' -/ ' 0 SUB- WORKING Ha ...r....' ',- COMP GROUP -... d ' ----- Compo '21 c ( b ,.. , \', { Speen Troct a "'r 6.1 .... g \ } I ~ e b Bw 2.3 \ ), ) 1.0 , c Ur , .... , Ur 0.9 Lot 16 d e D.A.L. 8.6 . Comp. 12... D.A.L. 0 Hansford Tract LEGEND Comp. Boundary . Subcomp. Boundary ---- ~ 15th Side Rdoli Access Trans -- - Foot , Alder .. Entrance "'uskeg -x WR4~1~ 1( MTRCA FOR EST -.- Clubine Tract Compo #22 Uxbridge Township' , Cone. IV, Lot 14 Area: 37.6 hectares Scale 1: 10,000 CONC. III J I CONC. IV Durham Reg. Rd. 21 Lot 15 - Compo 122. 'J - ": -I r - - '1 ~ - - r- I".-/,' I I " I I Lot 14 m \ r-- I I 0 I~_----/' I .... k \1 J : I \ , 1 I \' l, n I ,=-:a I .-/" ' - - - - - - -.- ~ - - ~.. - ~_-:- ~" '. t:-t ~"~,----.\T--- ~ Foot '- ' 'P'''r eel I Entrance . I h \... II f, ...._'~...___)I b I I ~ i d ,\ b I ",--=-=---=' I ~... _ _ _ I , 9 , ...f.-- -- : ,- ~~~p WORKING H Lot 13 GROUP a () a Mh 9.3 0 b Pw 5.1 :J C Pr- 1.6 n . d Pr 2.0 ~ e Pw 103 ;0 f Pr 1.6 a. . 9 Pr 1.6 h Pw 307 i Pw 1.6 j Pr .2.8 LEGEND k Pw 1.0 Access Trails --------- I Pw 1.8 Subcomp. Boundary -------------------- m Pj 2.1 Compo Boundary n Pw 2. 1 e ~ MTRCA FOR EST . )\) , t -- L ittl e Tract ~ ,- Compo #23 Cone. V, Lot 25 , Town of Caledon (formerly Albion Township) Area: 37.2- hectares Scale 1: 10,000 ....... ..... .' , 25th Sideroad ,... CONC. V I CONC. VI () 0 I ~ n " . Lot 25 ()) :::0 SUB- WORKING Ha a.. COMP GROUP . c a Pw 7.8 Foot b Pw 6.3 Entrance C Sw 3.3 b d Pj 1.0 e Sw 2.0 f Pr 1.0 LEGEND Lot 24 9 Sw 1.4 Access Trails - - - - - - - _ h Pj 0.6 Compo Boundary i Pw 2.2 Subcomp. Boundary j Pj 1.0 Railway ------------------------------ k Pr 1.3 Open III I P.F. 1.6 0)R.';).)7 THE METROPOLITAN TORORTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY SAIl SMITH WATERFRONT PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting #2/90 May 25, 1990 t0R. ~}B' EXEClITlVE SUMMARY In 1970, the Metropolitan Toronto an Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA) was designated as the agency responsible to implement the 1967 Waterfront Plan, for those sectors within its jurfsdiction. As part of the 1977 to 1981 Waterfront projects, the Colonel Samuel Smith site was slated for development as a regional waterfront park. In 1977-1978 a Sam Smith Waterfront Park master plan (Moffat, Moffat, and Kinoshita, 1978) was prepared and in part detailed environmental considerations and concerns within the master plan area. This master plan was submitted to the Ontario Ministry of Environment (OMOE) in 1978 under the Environmental Assessment Act. The Sam Smith Waterfront Park proposal became the subject of environmental assessment hearingso The final decision on the proposal was rendered on March 31, 1981,' granting approval the minister subject to a number of conditions. One of these conditions included: 'The MTRCA shall establish a water quality monitoring survey in the vicinity of the lakefill operation. Should OMOE, in reviewing the data, indicate a violation of the Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO) other than turbidity or suspended solids, the MTRCA shall carry out such corrective measures as the OMOE may t direct." In response, a program was established by the MTRCA and OMOE commencing in 1981. The pre-construction phase monitoring program was implemented in 1981, and the initial year of monitoring was summarized in the Sam Smith Waterfront Environmental Monitoring Study, MTRCA (1982). Actual park construction started in 1983 with the beginning of active lakefillingo A project summary of the Sam Smith pre-construction phase (1981 - 1982) and- the constmction phase (1983 -1987) was prepared by Beak Consultants (1988)0 The Sam Smith Monitoring Program includes water quality collections, sediment, and 1 ~}r<, :;(1 ~ benthic invertebrate collections, SCUBA reconnaissance sUIVeys in the vicinity of the Sam Smith Park, and studies of the intake water quality at the R.L Clark Water Filtration Plant. In 1988 a biomonitoring project consisting of a caged clam bioaccumulation survey was impl.emented. Water quality results indicate that the nearshore Lake Ontario conditions adjacent to the Sam Smith Waterfront Park influenced the integrity of the water quality more so than the active park construction during 1988. Infrequent violations of the PWQO for total phosphorus occurred within the boat basin, off shore control station and most commonly at the R. L Clark Plant outfall pipe. Violations of PWQO for Total Cadmium were recorded twice at all stations and three times at stations 8 and 11. Statistical analysis preformed on total phosphorus and total cadmium concentrations established that levels are reflective of near shore conditions rather than any association with park construction. . . . . Bacterial levels adjacent to Sam Smith were considered typical of Lake Ontario Densities with the exception of elevated Pseudomonas aemginosa densities within the boat basino Park construction during 1988 locally elevated turbidity levels at stations directly adjacent to and in close proximity (less than 150 ft.) to the lake filling activities. Infrequent and sporadic detections of organochlorine pesticides compounds occurred during the 1988 sampling program. From these detections PWQO violations were recorded once for lindane (r-BHC), Chlordane, 2,4-DDT, and Endosulphan. The single detection of total PCB's in the water quality sample collections was above the PWQO. Park construction activities in the past and in 1988, have not affected the integrity of the raw water intake at the Ro L Clark water filtration plant. SCUBA reconnaissance during 1988 identified the substrate adjacent to the Sam Smith Park as primarily coarSe material (broken bedrock) with interstitial silts and clays. Apparent depositional areas were identified at some offshore stations, the active fill face and within the boat basin. Prolific' growths of algae (cladophora sp.) were noted during the spring sUIVey but were greatly reduced in the fall due in part to the mechanical harvesting 2 (J:jR.~o efforts of the City of Etobicoke. , , The biomonitoring study initial results suggest that the local storm sewer on the east side of the park has more frequent and elevated levels of bioavailable compounds than the - active fill face. Biomonitc5ring efforts should continue and incorporate stations at the storm sewer within the boat basin and a near shore control siteo Sediment quality results from 1988 indicate that the quality of near shore sediments were not influenced by active park constructiono The benthic faunal diversity, abundance, and community structure of the Sam Smith area reflects the effects of many biotic and abiotic factorso Faunistically, Sam Smith is composed of taxa that exist in a variety of environmental conditions. The park configuration in 1988 provided thermal protection, and with the silt substrate, within the enclosed boat basin . (Station 10) allowed for greater invertebrate densitieso Otherwise, construction during 1988 had minimal impact on the benthic invertebrate communityo In general, results of the 1988 Sam Smith monitoring program determined that there is minimal environmental impact on the adjacent aquatic environment due to park construction. 3 wr<. ~:; ( METRO TORONTO REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN DRAFT DISCUSSION PAPER ON REMEDIAL OPTIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY April 1990 wQ.;2~~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Discussion Paoer on Remedial Ootions INTRODUCTION Environment Ontario and Environment Canada are working with the public to jointly develop a clean up or Remedial Action Plan (RAP) that will take an ecosystem approach to restore water quality and protect the aquatic environment of the Metro Toronto waterfront and watersheds, As pan of the ongoing consultation process a Draft Discussion Paoer on Remedial Ootions is being circulated for public comment. Additional information on the RAP is available in the Stage 1 Report: Existing Conditions and Problem Definition. Executive Summary, and through the RAP Goals as established by the Public Advisory Comminee (PAC). These two documents also should be consulted during the selection of preferred options. Release of the draft options paper is intended to provide information on options, stimulate debate, and generate suggestions on how to improve or supplement the options. Discussions relating to option selection, prioritization, scheduling and financing will continue during the entire RAP process so that the remedial options selected meet the RAP goals established by the PAC. FORMAT This Executive Summary describes the seven remedial intents outlined in detail in the Draft Options Paper, and briefly discusses their remedial actions and component actions. The remedial intents have been drawn from the work of the Public Advisory Committee (PAC) and the Technical Advisory Committee (T AC). Each remedial intent contains a number of broad remedial actions expected to be necessary to accomplish the intent. Each component action represents a program which can be undertaken to achieve the remedial action. The component action sections contain an introduction, description of existing programs, potential program improvements with costs where available, description of potential benefits and dependent projects, monitoring and reporting requirements, discussion of implementation considerations, and potential delays. The integration of the intents, remedial actions and component actions provide for an ecosystem solution to cleaning up the Toronto watershed. . 1 fiJR,~~3 The Seven Remedial Intents are: Implement Specific Plans to Correct Localized Use Impairments Reduce the Impacts qf Treated and Untreated Sanitary Sewage Reduce the Impacts of Dry Weather Sources Reduce the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff Increase Public Awareness and Public Involvement in Environmental Programs Foster Ecosystem Thinking Both Within and Outside the Metro Toronto RAP Conduct Research in Support of Short and Long Term RAP Implementation It is anticipated that a balance of actions will be required in order for the RAP to produce an ecosystem approach. Just how far the RAP pursues each intent is a subject for discussion during the option selection process. Over the next several months the PAC and TAC will discuss the options paper and consider option selection and prioritization. There will be numerous opportunities for you to become involved in this process. The options paper is approximately 350 pages long. While the RAP must be an integration of all seven intents, each section can be made available for those who wish to focus their comments, Comments on the entire document or any remedial intent are welcome. Everyone is encouraged to participate in the RAP process. If you are interested in receiving the RAP Goals, the Stage I report, the draft options paper, or wish to submit comments on any of these, please contact: Doug Andrews Metro Toronto RAP Coordinator Environment Ontario Central Region 7 Overlea Boulevard Toronto, Ontario M4H 1A8 For information on the Public Advisory Committee or participation in the consultation process contact: Public Advisory Committee Chair c\o Jim Martin, Facilitator 112 Newbridge Crescent Brampton, Ontario L6S 4B3 TELEPHONE: (416) 453-7422 2 tNR.~~'1-- SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL INTENTS The seven Remedial Intents and the actions included in each are discussed briefly below. - #1 IMPLEMENT SPECIFIC PLANS TO CORRECT LOCALIZED USE IMPAIRMENTS OBJECTIVE: To identify for special consideration, projects or programs that can produce measurable improvements rapidly or that affect a well-defined geographic area. Summary of Problem: There are many sources of contaminants affecting the Metro Toronto waterfront. They include: local point sources such as discharges from water pollution control plants and sewers; non-point sources such as lakefilling activities, sediment resuspension, and the air, and discharges to Lake Ontario from non-local sources such as the Niagara River. Remedial Intent: This Remedial Intent addresses specific pollution problems that have been identified, as well as their causes, It includes remedial measures under way or ready for implementation, that are aimed at improving water quality in specific geographic areas where a limited number of pollution sources have reduced people's ability to use the water, such as the beaches, Because these projects focus on limited geographic areas they have the potential to restore use in the short -term. Remedial Actions: Remedial actions necessary to achieve this remedial intent include: Continue Implementation of Projects Under Way (1.1); Implementation of Projects which have been Previously Recommended (1.2); Continue Special Provincial Funding Programs to Encourage Implementation of Water Quality Improvement Projects (1.3); and Continue Enforcement and Development of Lakefilling Controls (1.4). Component Actions: The following chan details the component actions for remedial actions (1.1) - (1.4)0 Understanding how certain options relate to other options is critical to providing an effective ecosystem program. In this intent, certain options depend upon the selection of component actions in another remedial intent. For example. remedial actions (1.1) and (1.2) contain component actions that would require expansion of the Sewage Treatment Plants which is addressed in remedial action (2.1). Specifically. [0 provide improvement to the entire Eastern Beaches waterfront, phase 2 of the Eastern Beaches tanks (1.1.1) is required, which in turn requires expansion at the Main Treatment Plant so the contents of the tank can be discharged to the plant. If combined sewer overflow (CSO) is to be treated to improve water quality along the western beaches (1.201), expansion of the Humber plant is required. Since lakefilling is needed for certain processes at the Main plant to be expanded, the form of the Lakefill Policy (1.4,2.) will affect certain projects at that plant. 3 DRAJ.T C Rem.,dlal Intent # I ~ Implemenl Specific Plans to Correct l.ocahzed Use ImpainneJlls ~ Component Descriptiun Responsibility Current Status I'otentia! Improvements Cos1s Comments ~\ Action # Implementor Funding Programs Costs Remedial Action # 1.1 : Conllnue Implementallon of Projects Under Way 11.1 Eastern Toronto Toronto Phase I (2250 $ 4 4 million Phase 2 (16,00) 1113 I,mk) sLheduled $ 10 "ulhon - SuhJe"l 10 Cia" EA (pll 1-3) Beaches T..nks MOE m3 l,ulk) fOl !<Jl)2 - P,ojel'1 dependenl upon Mam S'Il' underw..y C~p..1n~lurl 1.1.2 Slaged Diffuser Toronto Toronto un hold --- Phase I (staged dIffuser) $ 1.0 Imllion - SuhJecI 10 C1..ss I,A (pll. 1-6) MOE Ph..se 2 (II: clfwlalion) $ 0.6 nulhon - MOE h..s withdr..wn fuudmg :.upport Remedial Action # 1.2 : Initiate Implemenution of Projects Which Have Been Previously Recommended 0 Western ' ToronlO Toronto Prehmmary --- see olher componcnl aLlIUIlS --- . rcmcJldllUll fe'lUHCS large scale "" '-9) _ Beaches Metro Metro SlI.dies dl.1h,)n Rernediallon MOE Completed scaling break well and Irc..tmelll $ 30-75 ,mlhon - cOIlLep! u..1 prol""..1 onl y CSO and slorm rclenllun see Cumpunem - dependellt UPUIl' STP C.tpaCIl Y and AChon # 22.1 ('SO I",hcy Rem.>dial Action 1.3 : Continue Special Pruvincial Funding Programs to Encourage Implementatlun of Water Quality Improvemenl I'rujects 1.3 I WWQIP MOE MOE E~ishng vanable E~p"nd Scope to Regions not cosled - 50/50 fundmg pmgr.tlll apphcahle (pg. 1-16) Mun. Mun. (Melro mun. S 50 M 10 Metro mUIllLlpahues ollly only) (1<J84-1988) - e~panslOn to regiuns may reduce funds ava,lable to Metro 1.3.2 lifelmes MOE MOE E~lsung van able Deferred pendmg oomplenon of --- - pr<>gr..m applicable 10 enure (pg. 1-24) Mun. MUll. Component Acllon # 7, I 5 provmce Remedial Action 1.4 : Continue Enfurcement and Development of Lakel"dllng Coolrols 1.4.1 Lakdill Quality MfRCA Self E~isting (new $ 415 K ReVISe Fee Strucwre 0 - New programs mlllaled in 1989 (pg. 1-31) MOE Supporting program (1989) Increase Inspecuon 0 begun in Improve Operational EffiCIency nol cosled - Progmm deslgnaJ to be self- 1989) Increase Education no( cosled supporting; COSIS provided do nO! Operational Research $ 100 K include increased costs to usen Upgrade F.quipment $ 50 K 1.4.2 Lakcfill Policy MOE MOE Under -- Deferred pendmg release of on - pohcy development to receive (pg. 1-39) Development daswssion paper <II policy publ ic input 1.4.3 Dredge Spoil MOE MOE Gwdelines -- Update lIandbook -- - revised handboulr. expeaed in 1990 (pg. 1-44) Disposal e~ist (1976 version) 1.44 Contaminated MOE MOE Underway no RemedULI measures w be developed -- dralt sedmlent Quality GUIdelines m (pg I -47) Sedirnems after sediment quality gUldelmes 1990 fmished, EmphasiS for now on control of sources. WR.~~' #2 REDUCE IMPACTS OF TREATED AND UNTREATED SANITARY SEWAGE OBJECTIVE: To reduce impacts of raw or diluted sewage from combined sewer overflows or storm sewers and treated sewage from the sewage treatment plants. Summary of Problem: The Metro Toronto region rivers and Lake Ontario receive discharges of treated sanitary sewage from sewage treatment plants, diluted or panially treated discharges from treatment plant by-passes and combined sewer overflows, and raw sewage from storm sewers containing sanitary cross connections. In addition, in wet weather treatment plant and sewer capacities can be exceeded, resulting in basement flooding which causes a health hazard. Remedial Intent: This Remedial Intent concentrates on problems related to the sanitary sewage system. Three main problem areas are addressed: elimination of residential sources of bacterial contamination; sewage treatment plant improvements; and reduction of indusoial sources of chemicals discharged to the sewage treatment plants, The projects or programs will reduce the amount of untreated human waste entering our water and reduce the amount of chemicals released to Lake Ontario. The programs take a long time to implement. Remedial Actions: Remedial actions in this intent include: Expand and Improve Sewage Treatment Plants (2.1); Reduce Sanitary Discharge from Storm Sewer Outfalls and Overflow Points (2,2); and Implement the Municipal Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MIS A) Regulations (2,3)0 Component Actions: The following chan details the component actions for remedial actions (2.1) - (2.2). In this intent, two of the three remedial actions are closely related and will require some level of joint implementation to achieve the objective of this intent. How far each component action is taken is open to discussion, but it should be understood that as in remedial intent #1, selection of certain options in this intent are dependent upon selection of other options. Remedial action (201) contains four components (2.101 )-(2,1.4) addressing sewage treatment plant improvements at Metro's four treatment plants. Plant expansions will be required if combined sewer overflow treatment, ie. remedial action (2.2), is to be implemented. Expansion of the Main treatment plant (2.1) requires lakefilling, and retirement of the North Toronto Treatment plant (2.1.4) would require expansion of trunk sewers and the Main plant. All plant expansions are subject to class environmental assessment (EA) and projected budgets and schedules are dependent upon completion of these EAs. The magnitude of costs associated with this intent are substantial and will effect agency's ability to undertake other actions. 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ Remedial Intent # 2 Reduce the Impacts of Treated and Untreated Sanitary Sewage -.....l Component Description Responsibility Current Status Potential Improvements Costs Comments Action # Implementor Funding Programs Costs Remedial Action # 2.1 : Expand and Improve Sewage Treatment Plants 2.1.1 Main S11' Me~ro Metro Five year plan (1989-1993) Future Plans beyond 1994 Gass EA for expansion underway (pg. 2-2) Improvements Province -Efficiency $ 44.6 milL -Capacity Completion of projects $ 93.5 mill. ExpanSIOn re<jum:s lake.filhng reserve $ 73.9 mill. Secondary trealment expansion $ 325 mill. development $ 41.6 mill. Tertiary lreatment (if reqUired) $ 474 mill. ExpanSIOn necessary if trealrnent of -Regulatory $ 86.4 mill. Other $ 238 mill. CSO or retirement of North -Other $ 43.8 mill. Toronto 51P to be coosidered TOTAL $ 290 mill. TOTAL $ 1.13 billion Metro has assumed 33% provincial grant 10 budgeting (all STPs) 2.1.2 Humber 511' Metro Metro Five year plan (1989-1993) Futu re plans beyond 1994 expansion subject to Class EA (pg. 2-21) Improvements Province -Efficiency $ 26.8 mill. -Capacity Completion of projects $ 82 mill. expansion does not n:qulre Reserve $ 21.4 mill. Tertiary Treatment(if n:quired) $ 89 mill. lakefilling -Other $ 7.0 mill. TOTAL $ 55.2 mill. TOTAL $171 mill. expansion required if CSO lreatment is to be considered 2.1.3 Highland Creek Metro Metro Five year plan (1989-1993) Future plans beyond 1994 expansion subject to Class EA (pg. 2-27) STP Province -Efficiency $ 0.5 mill. Improvements -Capacity Completion of projl:(."lS $ 35_6 mill. expansion does not require lakefill reserve $ 34.9 mill. Secondary trealment expansion $ 34.3 mill. -Other $ 31.8 mLlL Tertiary lreatment (if required) $ 38.8 mill. no CSO lreatmenl Issue TOTAL $ 67.3 mill. Other $ 27.1 mill. TOTAL $ 135_2 mill. 2.1.4 North Toronto Metro Metro Physical audit average of Oose plant and divert to Main SlP $ 50.0 mill. retmng plant would require (pg. 2-34) S11' Province Underway $500Klyr for (under study)' expansion of trunk sewers and Improvements equipment MaID 51P replacement Upgrade to tertiary lreabnent(if not not costed taken 0U1 ol service)' Impact of plant on Don River IS significant in dry weather, but not in wet weather (when runoff dominates) DRAFf Remedial Intent # 2 Reduce !he Impacls of Trealed and Unlleated Sanilary Sewage Component Desa-Iptlon Responsibility Current Status Potential Improvements Clbts Comments Action # Implementor Funding Programs Costs Remedial Action # 2.2 : Reduce Sanitary DIscharges from Stonn Sewer Oullalls and Overflow Points (CSO) 221 Vinual Mello Mello Ongoing CIlY of Toronlo Implemenl Melro's draft C50 MO~ has designaled sewer (pg 2-40) Eliminllion of Toronto Province sewer (1966-1983). Policy (over 20 years) separation a .Iow priorily for CSO East Y od. TOrolllo, East separation $182 million enhanccd foodmg Oow waler York York, Yorlc, Humber syslem $ 60.1 mlllioo quallly benefil) Scarborough Scarborough All Ciues (1984-1989): Doo syslem (includes lakefrol1l) $ 319.5 million lanks subJecl 10 Class EA $ 29 millioo TOTAL $ 390 million implemental10n requires $65 mill. ellpansion al Humber and $89 mill. ellpansioo al Main 51" m addil10n 10 !h<:se COSlS assumes average conlrol of I overflow per year CSO oonlrol alone will nOl be sufflclellllo open most beaches; Tollic load quanlificatioo WKIerway 2.2.2 illegal Sanital)' Local Mun. Local Mun. Ongoing MellO mun. Complete and Ienninate ellisting $ 9.6 mil1. ellislmg programs have low cost (pg. 2-50) Connections Province programs $ 285 K program inside Melro (over 34 years) effecllveness ($ 19,OOO/connecuon since 1984 (1988) remedied in 1988) (inside Melro) Exlend 10 Regions (I cycle only)' $ 21.8 mill. (over 20 years) programs will 1m10ve sources of EXlend (colllmuing 10 year cycle)' $ 21.8 mill. human pa!hogens, but lJl mosl (over 10 years) cases will be insufficient to open All Properties checked (20 yr cycle)' $ 63.1 mill. beaches (over 20 years) Inspection as condition of sale 0 $ 17.2 mill. Enhanced fundlJlg (wwQIP: 50/50) (over 10 years) applies only to Melro at presenl 2.2.3 Sewer Use Reg. Mun. Reg. Moo. Revised By- 1988 Increase Regional Enforcement ). $ 907 Klyr inlenm measure pending MISA (pg 2-M) By-Laws Local Moo. Local Moo. law being Durham: 158 K Increase Local Mun. Enforcemel1l) $ 450 K/yr sewer use regulauons MOE adopted MellO: 863 K ~ Peel: 860 K Full By-Law Enforcemel1l S 4.9 milllyr source conlrol aimed at redUClJlg York: 60 K load of IOllICS 10 envirumnent 10 see also Componenl Actions 1# ~ 3.1.1,3.12. and 3.1.3 ~ wR. ~b<~ #3 REDUCE THE IMPACTS OF DRY WEATHER SOURCES OBJECTIVE: To reduce ihe'discharge of contaminants to water courses and Lake Ontario under dry weather conditions. Summary of the Problem: Dry weather discharges are primarily associated with stonn sewers within urban areas. Many stonn sewers discharge continuously because of ground water seeping into the pipes (infiltration). The water is often contaminated by accidental or intentional discharges from other sources as a result of cross connections, spills or because people pour chemicals down catchbasins or sinks and toilets. Outside of urban areas, agricultural activities contribute to dry weather loadings of bacteria, nutrients, herbicides and pesticides. Remedial Intent: This remedial intent concentrates on problems related to dry weather discharges from industrial, residential, and agricultural sources. With the exception of agricultural programs, this section focuses on chemical rather that bacteriological contamination. Bacterial contamination from residential sources under dry weather conditions is discussed under Remedial Intent #2 which addresses contamination involving sanitary waste. Remedial actions: Remedial actions in this intent include: Reduce Loads from Industrial Dry Weather Sources (3,1); Reduce Loads from Residential Dry Weather Sources (3,2); Reduce Loads from Agricultural Dry Weather Sources (3.3). Component Actions: The following chart details the component actions for remedial actions (3.1) - (3.3). In this intent there are few dependent projects, but it should be noted that a variety of projects are related, for example dry weather agriculture (3.1.2) relates to wet weather agriculture (4,1.5) and spills response (3,1.2) and industrial best management practices (3.1.3) are related to the sewer use by-law (2,2.3). For the most part. the component actions in this intent are not alternatives. in that each addresses a different source of dry weather contamination. These sources should be prioritized in order to make decisions if resources are limited. There are alternative actions within component actions (3,1.1.) and (3.1.2). These are marked by an asterisk on the following chart. T!1e costs associated with each of these are not additive. as only one alternative would likely be undertaken. 8 DRAFT Remedial InteDt # 3 Reduce the Impacts ot Dry Wealher Sources COOlponent Description Responsibility Current Status Potential Improvements Costs COOlments Action' Implementor Funding Programs Costs Remedial Action # 3.1 : Reduce Loads From Indusbial Dry Weather Sources 3.1.1 Wega! Reg. Mun. Reg. Mun. Underway in $ 266 K (Metro Priorize remaining sewer outfalls see Component $1.3 million nOled under (pg. 3-1) Industrial MOE Metro 1990 budget) Action II 2.2.2 Improvemall C CormectiOlll EXlend Trace & DisCOlUlect $700 Kover 5 includes curratt Metro spending Programs to the Regions . . years End-ot-Pipe Audit Sampling . $258 Klyear AUlomauc Sampling . $235 Klyear 3.1.2 Spills Response Reg. Mun. Reg. Mun. Existing but Estimates : Designated Response Staff $0 Existing Slatt used; training (pg 3-9) Local Mun. Local Mun. variable Dwtaam: 90KJyr increased Ihrough MOE programs MOE MOE (Spills capabill)' Metro: 600KJyr Implement Model Sewer Use By- see Component Action Peel: 160Klyr Law Action /I 2.2.3 Cenlre ) York: 96KJyr Develop Spills Response Program $ lOOK Consullant slUdy under way 3.1.3 Industrial Reg. Mun. Reg. Mun. Existing by- not available PiIO! Project (1990) $ 150K jomt MetrolMISA project (pg. 3-16) BMPs MOE la ws being coosullant sllldy revised most mun. are adopting revised by- law requiring indwtrial BMPs Remedial Ac:tIon # 3.2 : Reduce Loads from Residential Dry Weather Sources 3.21 Household Reg. Mun. Reg. Mun. Existing (1989 Dwham:60K Expand programs in Durham and Durham:$315K1yr Programs expanding in Peel and (pg 3-23) Hazardous programs) Metro: 1200K Yad Regions Yark: $390KJyr Metro; emphasis 00 permanent Con1amimnu Peel: 500K drop-off taciliiies and residattial York: 0 pidc-up service (in Metro) Remedial Action 3.3 : Reduce Loads From Agricultural Dry Weather Sources 3.3.1 Agricullllnl MTRCA OMAF OSCEPAP IT - no estimatc tor Farm Remedial Action Plans $ 70 Klyear tor 5 proposed increase in subsidy to (pg. 3-30) Dry Wealher OMAF MOE (OMAF) RAP area yean 90% tor a five year period; Conlrols MOE Reg. Mun. Conservation Improve Financial Assislance $ 635-800 K tollowed by mforced compliance Local Mun. Land - variable (over 5 yean) through new legislatioo Management Increase Educanoo $ 70 Klyear (MTRCA) Develop Leg,s1auon $ 200Klyear' ~ Rural Beaches - $ 225K Abatanent $ 2cnJyear (MOE) (1986-1989) 70 N w ..... WR,23/ #4 REDUCE THE IMPACTS OF STORMWATER RUNOFF OBJECTIVE: To reduce the amount of contamination that occurs as a result of runoff from urban and rural lands. Summary of the Problem: Wet weather discharges from storm sewers and overland flow contain high levels of contaminants which cause exceedences of Ontario's Provincial Water Quality Objectives and contribute to the contaminated sediment problems, Contaminated discharge is a primary source of bacteria to near shore waters and can adversely impact beaches and fisheries, Remedial Intent: This intent focuses on contaminants that are mobilized during rainstorms or spring runoff. The best management practices seek to reduce the availability of these contaminants. Development of a program for stormwater quality control will supplement the best management practices by providing end-of-pipe control. The Basin Plans are in effect sub-RAPs, on a watershed scale, and provide overall integration of source control measures with stream enhancements, Since this intent focuses mainly on implementation or continued development of plans and policies also addressing whole ecosystems, it will require some level of actions in all of the remedial intents. Remedial actions: Remedial actions in this intent include: Upgrade Municipal and Conservation Authority Best Management Practices (4.1); Implement River Basin Plans for Water Quality (4.2); Continue to Develop and Implement Policies and Guidelines for Stormwater Quality Control (4.3). Component Actions: The following chan details component actions for remedial actions (4.1) - (4.3). Storrnwater quality control has not been practised historically and the costs of implementing controls in existing development will be very high, both in terms of dollars and in the potential loss of recreational areas. Existing technology can reduce the loads of contaminants delivered to our rivers. The contaminants do not disappear however and they must be disposed of, There is concern that stormwater quality ponds could become a source of contaminants to birds and animals. Any system of sto!1l1water control should be multi-faceted, seeking to reduce runoff on specific properties, as well as providing end-of-plpe treatment. Facilities should be multi-use and should seek to provide benefits beyond the simple removal of contaminantso Stormwater controls must be integrated with stream improvements and fisheries management in order to achieve maximum benefits. There are many ideas on how to accomplish all of this and there are some limited examples of applications in other jurisdictions. Implementation of storrnwater quality control and basin management of water resources will require careful monitoring and continuing refinement in order to prevent errors and ensure maximum improvement and protection of our water, 10 DRAFT Remedial Intent # .. Reduce the Impacu of Stormwaler RWlOff Component DescrIption Responsibility Current Status Potential Improvements Costs Comments ActJoa # Implementor Funding Programs Costs Remedial Action # 4.1 : Upgrade Munldpal and C_tJoo Authority Best Management Prac:t1ces 4.1.1 Improved Loc:a1 MUD. Loc:a1 MUD. ExUting $ 1. 4 mi1l/yr Amlual Oeaning of all CBs 0 $ 241 KJyr cost a~ over and above (pg. 4-2) , CalChbasin ,Regiooal MIDI. Reg. Moo. Mainlenance existing program cosu Oeaning Programs Amlual... SeICCled Semi- S 750 KJyr Amlual Oeaning . goal is to maintain sump volume below 60% full; req'd Semi-Annual Oeaning . $ 2.1 milllyr frequency will be variable 4,1.2 Pet Conu-ol By- Loc:a1 Moo. Loc:a1 Moo. Existing direa oosu BrochurelPublic Information DO( cosled programs ineffective in Ierms (pg. 4-10) Law Enforcement By-laws lUlavailable of Waler qualil}' because of Stonger Legislation feasibility uncertain W1conlOllcd animal population 4.1.3 Sedimenl Control: Loc:a1 Moo. Loc:a1 Moo. Guidelines --- Improve Enforcement $ 200 KJyr enforcement is inadcquale and (pg. 4-14) ContlUCtion MfRCA Exist Toughen Legislation -- is the key required action; Activities Province Indusuy Education --- mWlicipal responsibilil}' for Improved Melhods --- enforcement IS imponant 4.1.4 Erosion Conu-ol MfRCA Province Existing $ 6.9 mill. Inause funding for current $ 500-700 KJyr Currem program is aimed at (pg.4-19) Mooicipalil}' Program ( 1979-1989) prioriI}' siles hazard/damage reduction - not sedimenl reduction Target sed1ffient generating $ 700-1000 Klyr siles Prioritization 10 target sediment conu-ol requires a new program Eliminate privale contributions $ 25-30 Kiyr Small scale sediment conu-ol Use Iechniques which are more project specific also addressed under enviromnentall y sensitive Component Action 5.4.1 4.1.5 Improve OMAF OMAF see see Component BamyardlManure Storage $ 2.14.3 mill. see Component Action 3.3.1 (pg. 4-25) Agricu1tunl MfRCA MTRCA Component Action 3.3.1 System Improvements over 5 years for additional improvements Controls MOE . Action 3.3.1 and costs Barnyard Waler Divenion S 1.1-2.1 mill. over S years Cosu are over and above eXISting subsidy programs and t: assume proposed 90% funding /t) . ).) W }..) E ^' . co ~ ~ Remedial Intent # 4 Reduce the Impacts of Stonnwater Runoff Component DescriptIon Re.ponslbIllty Current Status I'utentilll Improvements C~1s Comments Action # Implementor Funding Programs Costs RemedIal ActJon # 4.2 : Implement River Basin Plans for Water Quality 4.2.1 Hwnber River Local Mun. Local Mun. Plan released refer to specific lJpgrdde plan to ensure no cost tmprovemems and costs are (pg. 4-36) Reg. Mon. Reg. Mon. in 1986; Component COllslstency With other plam Ilsled under Component MfRCA MfRCA programs Actions ACUon9 , Province Province ongoing Resolve proponency, resolved for HWllbcr ownership Issues pilot site Metru-chdlled commluee funclll.,s as a sUOconllllce of MURlClpal-challed Metro-{;haired the RAP Implementation Commlllee Commluee fonned Costs provided for basm Illre Individual River Basm S 325 Klyr for 5 coonhnalors are for enllre RAP Coordmators basm coordmalors area 4.2.2 Don River Local Mun. Local Mun. Stralegy refer to specifiC Prepare management plan --- Don strdtegy contains a range (pg. 4-47) Reg. Mun. Reg. Mun released Sept. Componenl of acuons based on desired MTRCA MTRCA 1989 Actions Resolve Issues as per Humber no \evel of pruteclJon; costs could ProVince Province range up to S I btlhon over ImplemenLiuon Committee --- 10-20 years for highest level River Basm Coordmator see Humber R,ver Selection of desired level of protcctl...1 referred to RAP 4.2.3 Rouge River Local Mun. Local Mun. Draft SlJ'lltegy nOl detennmed Detennme Costs 8I1d Seek --- Rouge approach represents (pg. 4'('(}) Reg. Mun. Reg. Mon. released 1989 as yet Commitments "slale-of-the-an" in basin MTRCA MfRCA strategy development; slnltegy province province Implementation Committee --- needs to be convened into a interest groups plan wllh COSIS, schedules, and RIver Basin Coordmdtor See Ilwnber RIver conllllllmenlS Remedial Action # 4.3 : Continue to ))evetopment and Implement Policies and Guidelines for Stonnwater Quality Control 4.3.1 Storrnwater Policy, Province Province No Pohcy for --- Develop a 1'0hcyIRegulation internal resources See a1.o Compo ActIon II 4.3 4 (pg. 4-71) Guideline, Manual stonnwater /Strategy for stonnwater Development quaIJt y qUaIJty maIO issue IS re<jUlred staff resources for unplemenlation of Develop CSO gUldehnes intemal resources any pohcy developed DRAFT Remedial Intent # 4 Reduce Ihe Impacts of Stonnwater RlDlOff Component Desaipdon Responsibility Current Status PotendaJ Improvements Costs Comments Action # Implementor Funding Programs Costs 4.3.2 Pilot Stonnwater MOE MOE Emery Cr. S 1.4 mill. FWld up to six pilot projects S II mill demonstration/research pl'ojecu (pg. 4-80) Ponds Program Local MWl. Local MWl. Recanmended (1985 doUan) OYer next 3 yean (over 3 ycan) In different mWlicipalities Reg. MWl. Reg. MWl. by TAWMS Federal Establish multi-agency pilot no cost possible fedenll fWlding to be (possible) I!Ol yet project implementation teams detennined based m research iniriated (NGO participation proposed) orientation of projects 4.3.3 Leaded Fuel Federal Federal Reductim in h_ Elimination of most leaded _n may significantly reduce lead (pg. 4-88) Regulatims use is fuel by Dec. 1990 (one of Ihe main ccntamiIwtts) occurring in stonnwater nmoff 4.3.4 Long Range ProVince LocaJ Mun Urban n_ Apply mteron Stonnwater staff resources to be cum:ntly no commitment by (pg. 4-92) Stonnwater Quallly Local Mun Reg. Mun. Drainage Quality Guidelines to new dev. detennined; capital any agency to fuU scale Slrategy Reg MUll Provmce Managemenl costs - developer stonnwater quality program MTRCA Program Condua PCP studies to Pnonl1Le "retro-fit" sites S 2 mill major new staff resource conunilment required Apply Stonnwater Quahty capital costs borne conuol to redevelopment by developer Projected costs for "retofu" sites is in the billims of S Reuo-fit existing problem sites to be detennined Reconunended thrust: new development & redevelopment C ,A) l) \AI ~ ~R.~~{ #S INCREASE PUBLIC AWARENESS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN ENVIRONMENT AL PROGRAMS OBJECTIVE: To keep people infonned of environmental conditions and problems, develop a basis for ongoing broad community support for RAP implementation, and promote public participation in environmental programs. Summary of the Problem: Remedial action plans should be community based and involve the public in both the development and implementation of the plan. This is particularly important to the Metro Toronto RAP because the majority of the problems are caused more by people than by industry, Efforts have been made to involve concerned citizens, interest groups, and agency officials. To ensure that additional ideas and potential actions will be generated for selection of options and inclusion in the RAP, continued effort is requiredo Remedial Intent: This intent focuses on increasing public involvement and participation in programs and public access to infonnation available on the environment and the RAP. Remedial actions: Remedial actions in this section include Increase Public Access to Studies and Reports on the Environment and the Metro Toronto RAP (5.1); Establish a Foundation to Fund Local Initiatives (5.2); Encourage Public Use of the Waterfront and Valleys and Increase Public Involvement in Aesthetic Clean-up Programs (5.3); and Implement Stream Improvement and Rehabilitation Projects Which Will Encourage Greater Public Pride in Their Rivers and the Waterfront (5.4). Component Actions: The following chart details the component actions for remedial actions (5.1) - (5.3), Public awareness and use of our aquatic resources are critical to the successful implementation of the RAP. The greater the value placed on these resources, the stronger the support for remediation. There are a variety of methods available to promote this, ranging from providing infonnation to making river valleys a more pleasant place to visit and learn from both government agencies and public groups are active in helping to restore our watersheds. The RAP seeks to promote the growing cooperation between established agencies and non-governmental organizations so that the public can become a stronger resource in the clean-up effon. Continued discussion of the means of accomplishing this working relationship is sought. 14 DRAFT Remedial Intent # 5 Increase Public Awareness and Public Involvement in Envuorunental Pr-ograms Component De9c:rlption Responsibility Current Status Potential bnprovements Costs Comments ActJon # Implementor Fueling Programs Costs Remedial Action # 5.1 : locreae Public Access 10 Studies aad RIpOI'tS on the Envirooment and the Metro Torooto RAP S.U RAP Province Province RAP $ ISO Klyr Development of a Cominuing RAP $ 75 K/yr annual prdgrcss report (pg. 5-2) Comnumicatioo consultation CommlDUcationS Plan newslell.en P1111 ongoing news releases S.1.2 RAP library Province Province RAP office, --- Establish a Metro Toronto RAP $ 110 Klyr stand alooe facility willt staff (pg. 5-7) Federal Federal Royal library . (poIsible ) (poIsible ) Commission RAP Resource Facility in existing $ 60 Klyr "piggy-back" onto existing facility; facility' staff required but space donated Remedial Action # 5.2 : Establish a Means of Providing Support 10 NGOs anel MunlclpaUties for Projects which Encourage Publk Involvement 5.2.1 Foundation for Province all federal and --- Foundation for Grants $ 150Klyr base anns-Iengllt fOlDl(iation operated by (pg 5-12) Grants implementing provincial budget provided a board drawn from RAP agencies and programs exist by agencies and implementen and lite public mlDlicipalities but none arc mlDlicipalities specific to the aim would be to fund citizen Toronto RAP additional funds sponsored projects or agency based on fund projects which arc multi-use raising and innovative funher devdopment of the funding Component Action IS required mechanisms Remedial Action # 5.3 : Encourage Publk Use 01 tbe Waterfront and Valleys and Increase Public Involvement In Aestbetic CIeaa-up Programs S.3.1 Agency MIRCA Province Summer variable Improve existing program funded no additional cost stream ..d river clean -up program (pg. S-16) Oean-up program $ 40-150 Klyr under lite Envirorunental Y wilt operated volunlanly by MlRCA Programs operated since Corps . (SCOUR) 1985 new program would rcquiIC Establish separately funded $ 100 Klyr designation of an agency willt a program ffillldate for SlIeam clean -up ~ 12 NGO Oean-up Public Public OccaSIonal .-- Deferred pending further --- Non government organizations L (Pt: 522) Prograrn s Groups Groups L1ean-up days consultanon conduct voluntary valley clean-up 7D )J OJ .- c ~ . }.) Q.3 ~ ~ Remedial Intent # 5 Increase Public Awareness and Public Involvement m Environmenlal Programs Component De8crlptJon ResponsIbllhy Curreat Status Potential Improvements Costs Comments Action # I......eetor FuDCIlng Programs Costs Remedial Action' 5." : ImplelDmt Stream ImprovemCllt aDd RebabWtatlon Projects Wblcb Will Eac:ouuge Greater Public: Pride In Their Rivers and Waterfront 5.4.1 Agency SIlCam MTRCA. province, MfRCA/Mun. $100 Klyr Upgrade existing programs $ 380 K in year I Stream improvement include. small (pg. 5-24) Improvement MNR mllllicipalitCl. MNR not available sediment control works, in-.tream Program. pivate Doo R. (1989) $185 K $2S0 Klyr habitat wot:k, and tree plantings. bndownen thaeafta 5.4.2 NGO Programs Public Gnnu, Conservation $ 325 K Encourage NGOs with project not cosled seek to establish NGO groups with (pg. 5-31) Group. Pri\lllte Council OnL approved from orientaloo project orientaion on other donatiOlll Environmental watersheds Black Cr. Panners FlDld Project Involve NGOs on projea no cosl/voluntecr further discussion required implementation committees time by NGOs regarding NGO resource. Suppon NGO sponsored initiatives to be detennincd NGOs in process of negotiating matching fund. w R. ')..3 g ~ FOSTER ECOSYSTEM THINKING BOTH WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE METRO TORONTO RAP OBJECTIVE: To provide opportunities for the public to participate in clean-up programs outside of the Metro Toronto RAP area and to encourage ecosystem management locally. Summary of Problem: The Metro Toronto RAP requires an ecosystem approach to the management of aquatic resources, Pollution problems in the Metro Toronto area are not just the result of local sources. Therefore, the remedial efforts in other areas of concern are of interest Remedial Intent: This intent focuses on promoting opportunities which will foster "ecosystem thinking" both on a local basis, and in the broader context of the Great Lakes. Remedial Action: Remedial actions in this intent are to: Encourage Public Awareness and Communication with Other RAPS (6.1); Ensure Toronto Public is Kept informed of Progress on Initiatives Outside the Toronto RAP Area (6.2); Upgrade the Level of Environmental Input to Planning Processes (6,3); and Ensure Greater Coordination of Planning on a Watershed Basis (6.4). Component Actions: The following chart details component actions for remedial actions (6.1) - (6.4). The component actions contained in this intent, more than any other, are conceptual in their content. Efforts have been made to initiate action but there is a continuing need for review and improvement of existing efforts. It is important to seek additional consultation in order to detennine if there are other component actions that could be included. A unique opportunity presents itself for addressing the inter-governmental aspects which are so important in the successful attainment of an ecosystem approach to environmental management. The Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront (Crombie Commission) has a joint mandate from both the Canadian and Ontario governments to address the separate land use and environmental issues along the waterfront. This gives the Commission an unprecedented ability to promote its' objective so The Commission has strongly endorsed an ecosystem approach to resource management. This augers well for the attainment of the RAP goals, to the extent that they reflect those of the Commission. 17 'E" ~ ~ Remedial Intent # 6 N Foster Ecosystem ThinkmJ( BOIh Within and Outside !he Metro Toronto RAP \).) ---.Q Component Desa-Iption Responsibility Current Status Potential Improvemenls Costs Comments Actloo # Implementor Funding Programs Costs Remedial Action # 6.1 : Encourage Public Awareness and Communications with Other RAPs 6.1.1 Communication RAP Program RAP Program Conference Approx. Continue curran RAP program - PAC "1's expenses paId to attend (pg. 6-2) wi!h o!her RAPs PACs PAC Budget Participation SIOKJyr RAP relaled COIJerenccs (RAP, PAC or (all RAPs) UC Encourage PAC Subnussioos volunteer ume PACs can make suhrmssions sponsored) PAC budgels also fund expenses 6.1.2 PAC Network RAP program RAP Program NGO _n Funher dIScussion required _n <"'urrellllY,non governmelll (pg 6-~) PACs PAC budgets networks, organiJ.lIllOnS opaate networks, newsletters provide newslellers, reports; RAP iniuatlve should not duphCllte Remedial Action # 6.2 : Ensure Toronto Public Is Kept Informed of Progress on Initiatives Outside the Toronto RAP 0 Lake Ontario Canada, US, Canada, US, Feb. 1989 --- Continue current rese8lCh On a presentation was made to PAC in (pg. 6-7) l' oxics Ontario, Ontario, report 1989 Managemelll Plan New York New York Ongoing pcmxhc bnefmgs on progress are Program to be provided in future Remedial Action # 6.3 : Upgrade the Level of Environmental Input to Planning Processes 6.3.1 Royal federal Federal Intenm Report --- Support efforts of !he Royal --- CAlnunue lilllSOlI wl!h Royal (pg. 6-13) Cornmissioo on Provincial Provincial (Aug. 1989) OxnmisslOn and the Kanter Commission !he Future of the ConumsslOn to funher ecosystem Toronto Hearings managemelll among all levels of Seck to incrca.e Joilll efforts to Watefront Ongoing government promote ecosystem mangaement AppendiX A Seminar Summary Two day _n Coruinue to prrwide a forum for _n encourage dtsQJssion and action by on input to seminar disQJssion agencies wi!h a planning mandate planning Feb189 processes Remedial Action # 6.4 : Ensure Greater Coordination of Planalng on . Watershed Sallis 6.4.1 MrRCA MTRCA Province, GJecnspace -- Oak Ridges Moraine SlOmill/yr Costs lire for programs throughout (pg. 6-17) Glcenspace Municipal Plan Watershed Managemmt $0.3 milJJyr MTRCA junsdtcuOll Strategy (Jani89) Waterfront S3.1 mill/yr Outdoor Recreation S 1.9 mill/yr Many dements of Gn:enspace strategies are outsIde RAP mandate Plan n:presents an example of a single agency taking a lead in coordination on a wlltershed bIIsi. --- INf<.::2 'f0 #7 CONDUCT RESEARCH IN SUPPORT OF SHORT AND LONG TERM RAP IMPLEMENT A TION OBJECTIVE: To continue to increase knowledge of the local ecosystem and pollution sources in order to allow (uture improvements to the RAP and its implementation. Summary of Problem: The RAP is intended to be a continuing process and it is necessary to continue research in order to improve the basis for future decision-making. Additional baseline data and the development of the tools necessary to conduct comprehensive monitoring also are needed in order to document future progress and gauge the effectiveness of any actions undertaken. Remedial Intent: This remedial intent is intended to provide additional knowledge to improve the basis for future decision-making, as the RAP continues. While there is sufficient knowledge to begin remediation of many sources, information deficiencies remain. The research being conducted seeks to provide information which will be used to keep the RAP current and provide the most comprehensive basis for restoration possible. Remedial Actions: Remedial actions include: Complete Studies Initiated Through the RAP in Order to Complete Information Base (7,1); and Complete Studies Initiated as a Result of Other Programs Whieh Will Be of Assistance to Rap Implementation or Decision-Making (7.2). Component Actions: The following chan details component actions for remedial actions (7.1) - (7.2), The studies listed under 7.2 have all been initiated during the development of the RAP because of information gaps. There is a need to establish the importance of storm sewers, combined sewer overflows and the atmosphere as sources of toxic chemicals. Without this information, needed resources might be committed to the clean-up of lesser pollution sources, simply because they are well documented. There is a need for additional information on the fate of toxies, on sediment and uptake by aquatic life. Only with this information can realistic restoration targets and time frames be established. Finally, there is a need for study of alternate methods of paying for clean-up so that implementation is not delayed through a lack of resources. Ongoing studies have been initiated by the province in support of its broader mandate for environmental protection. These studies will provide needed information in the future. The timing of continued resear~h is important to the option selection process. Some studies need to be completed before commitment is made to long range remedial efforts. Many actions are needed to effect restoration. The process of remediation should begin immediately, but in some cases it may be necessary to defer decisions on specific actions until, more information becomes available. 19 b ~ DRAFf . Remedial Intent # 7 ~ Conduct Research in Support of Short and Long Tenn RAP ImplemOltation ~ - Component Desalptlon Re5pODSibllity Current Status Potential Improvements Costs Comments Action # Implemeotor ....uDdlng Programs Costs Remedial Action # 7.1 : Complete Studies initiated Through the RAP In Order to Complete the information Base 7.1.1 Toxic Contaminants MOE RAP Under way $ 470 K sample additional pnority S260K lOuc loads from storm sewen (pg. 7-4) Study (1988-89) outfalls and tributary loads (1990) and CSO (due 1991) 7.1.2 Fate and Transpon Federal RAP Existing model for --- upgl1l(le model and improve S 85 K dependent upon Toxic (pg. 7-8) Modelling Mam S11> loading estimates (1990) Contaminants Study 7.1.3 Sediment Study MOE RAP Preliminuy Studies n_ electromagnetic wnductivity S 68 K likely to be deferred becaule << (pg.7-11) Completed monitoring budget constraints 7.1.4 Biomonitoring MOE RAP Ongoing _n exposW'e regimes for PCB's _n combmed with It 7.1.1 (pg. 7-14) Research (1989) report due 1991 7.1.5 Fundmg Mechanisms RAP Steering COA RAP Under Development _n modtficattons and additions to to be report due July 1990; detennine (pg 7-16) Study Conunince (study on) y) existing funding mechanisms detennined alternate funding options 7.1.6 !'ish Communlly & MNR RAP (1989) Year I field wort S 93 K Continue 5 year program 1990-93 continuation depends on MNR (pg. 7-19) lIahlUlt Monllonng MI'R('A MNR (fulUre) complete S50K/yr funding (status uncertain) 1994 : S95K 7.1.7 ~l'''III"nng/Allhoume MOl: RAP Ongoung ..- Contmue program; Station S 50 Klyr Toxic loads from atmosphere (pg. 7-22) roue LnenucaJs purchased m 1989 needed for fate and IJansport modelling Remedial Action # 7.2 : Complete Studies initiated as a Result at Other Programs Whlda Will be of Asslstanc:e to RAP implementation or Dedslon Making 7.21 MISA (diJect MOE MOE Ongoing variable by _h --- provincial program 10 reduce (pg. 7-25) dischargers) Industry sector discharge of toxic substances 7.2.2 MISA Pilot Site MOE MOE Preliminuy Studies --- h_ _h MISA pilot site rqx>rt expected (pg. 7-26) Toronto Main S1P Completed in 1990 7.2.3 Comaminant Residue MOE MOE Ongoing $IOK --- n_ draft of procedures by alllumn (pg. 7-27) in Aquatic Biota FYI I 990-91 1990 (CRAB) Guidelines 7.2.4 PWQO Revisions MOE MOE Underway S 429 K 94 substances - FY 1989-90 --- ProVIncial Water Quality (pg. 7-29) 10 man yean 46 substances - FY 1990-91 Objectives (pWQO) /A)R ,~ Lr:< CONSUL T A TION NEEDS In determining the contents of the Draft remedial action plan, the RAP team and its' committees are seeking answers to many questions. The more people who respond. the more likelihood the Draft RAP not only will be a complete document, but can reflect a community consensus, as well. This gection poses questions that the RAP team would like answers to. Your responses and comments need not be restricted to answering these questions. OVERALL APPROACH In the forward to the Draft Discussion Paper on Remedial Options, the following questions are posed: 1. Do you agree with the Remedial Intent? 2. Do you agree that the Remedial Actions are necessary to achieve the Intent? 3. What is the relative importance of each Component Action? 4. Are there other actions which need to be considered? The first three questions are posed to assist the reader in detennining whether an ecosystem approach has been adequately applied. The last question provides the reader the opponunity to recommend specific additions or changes to each Intent so as to ensure that the RAP contains actions that provide an ecosystem answer to restoring and protecting water quality in the watershed. The answer to the question of whether there are other actions to consider is crucial. Identification of additional actions early in the process will allow for all actions to be considered during the discussion of preferred options. GENERAL QUESTIONS AND PRINCIPLES 1) One of the goals of the RAP is to ensure source control of pollution (ego RAP Goal #6). Most of the remedial intents are based on this philosophy. Some "bandaid" type solutions are contemplated. however. - Is the funding of "bandaid" type projects (for example, component action 1.1.2.. which only deflects pollution instead of eliminating it at the source) warranted as a shoo-term solution if it restores a water use; or - Should only the projects that provide fmal solutions be funded, even though it may take years for a water use to be restored? 2) Many practices that result in pollution are soon to be regulated by law. Should interim programs proceed before these regulations clearly define what practices are required and standard must be attained? (for example, MISA will require many actions proposed in the Sewer Use By-law section 2.203). 21 ff)~.~ ~:; 3. The RAP is developing under the philosophy of: - prevention and protection fIrst; - remediation of active sources second; - restoration of historic problems third; - then improvements beyond restoration. Do you agree with this approach? Is there another way to approach the clean up of the waterfront and watersheds? 4) Are there any proposed actions that you feel should!lQ! be taken? Your answers to the questions in this section and any other comments you may wish to make are welcomed and will become pan of the information used in the discussion of preferred options, If you wish to take pan in these discussions, let us know, A process for incorporation of comment is to be developed in conjunction with the Public Advisory Committee in May, Please send your responses and comments to Doug Andrews at the address shown on the second page of this document. FUTURE CONSULTATION NEEDS: CONSIDERATIONS FOR OPTION IMPLEMENT A TION The Metro Toronto RAP soon will require "option selection". In most cases there is only one component action for addressing a specific problem or source of pollution. If no new action is taken, the problem remains, and is addressed by existing programs only. Therefore, the selection process for these options should viewed in terms of priority and timing. This is especially relevant to the actions under Intents 2,3, and 4 which require large resource commitments. a) In most cases, timing of implementation will be targeted according to the following: - initiate within 1 year - initiate within 5 years - initiate within 10 years - defer pending completion of studies - do not implement b) Priorities should be established for addressing the main types of contamination (bacterial, toxic or conventional pollutants such as phosphorous) and corresponding use impairments (beach closures, fIsheries, and aesthetics). c) For Intent #7, the research identified is already under way. In some cases, the component actions recommended for achieving the other Intents (for example, contaminated sediment removal) should not be undenaken until the research is completed so that sound environmental management is ensured and a greater problem is not created. The need to fInish research will affect whim an action can be implemented. 22 fA) R. d Lf-lj- THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ROUGE VALLEY PARK PROVINCIAL PROPOSAL MARCH 1990 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting 112/90 May 25, 1990 wR. F;)LfS March 1990 Summary Proposed Terms of Reference R~uge Valley Park Planning Project The following summarizes a proposed Tenns of Reference for the Rouge Valley Park Planning Project. Specific elements of the planning process may be modified by agreement between the advisory committee and the Minister of Natural Resources, Policy Framework The Province has established the following policy framework for the proposed park: ~ With the exception of existing uses, the vaUeylands will be managed primarily to I protect natural, historical and archaeological values, and to permit compatible low intensity recreation. . Subject to the protection of natural, historical and archaeological values, the tablelands can be considered for a variety of recreational and open space uses. All recreational devetopment must be compatible with the maintenance of general open space. . Throughout the entire park there will be a major emphasis on the appreciation and interpretation of, natural, historical, architectural and archaeological values. . The plan should maximize the opportunities for the involvement of a wide variety of groups and agencies in the management of the area. . The plan should facilitate cost-sharing among the participating agencies and groups. . The policies for the park should ensure that the plan itself and subsequent park operations demonstrate high environmental standards. The committee will be responsible for preparing a recommended management plan which will include recommendations on which agency or combination of agencies should manage the park, and whi,ch privately owned lands should be acquired. The committee will also direct an extensive public consultation programo The committee will be asked to submit a recommended plan within one year. over... Lv R,;{1flo I I .2- . Content of Park Plan The Park Plan will, at a minimum, cover the following topics: . Goal and Objectives . Land Acquisition . Zoning . Management Policies (including management of flora, fauna, water, fisheries, landforms, historical resources, etc.) . Operations Policies (including information, interpretation, recreation, research, marketing, visitor services, public safety, etc.) . Proposed Development . Implementation Strategy Public Consultation It is anticipated that formal opportunities for public consultation wi)) occur at four stages in the planning process: . Background Information . Planning Principles and Options . Draft Plan . Recommended Plan A wide range of communication and consultation techniques \Yill probably be used, such as newsletters, questionnaires, displays, workshops, open houses and puhlic meetings. Meetings of the advisory committee wi)) norma))y be open for anyone to attend as an observer. . 30 - wR'~lf7 ,~ .' " " " .' " " " .' " .' " " Steeles " Avenue .' SCARBOROUGH Avenue Finch Avenue Proposed Rouge Valley Park Pare propose - Rouge Valley ., Proposed Park ":~ Parc propose . Conservation Area Zone de protection de fa nature Lake Ontario Lac Ontario __ _ Watershed Boundary 0 2 4 Limite du bassin hydrographlque I I I K1lometres Kllomf)fres wR'~'-rf( J PICKERING Avenue 1-'.........' Metro Toronto's Proposed Landfill Site Decharge proposee dans la comlT}. urb. de Toronto 3:: 0 0 3 S- IC CoO 0: ~ Avenue Sheppard Avenue SeA RBOROUGH Proposed Rouge Valley Park (southern portion) 't:I t1l 0 Pare propose - Rouge Valley a: c: 0 .c (partie sud) :J 1:: 0 . Proposed Park/Pare prop~ ~ ~4 Lake Ontario ~ . G Lac Ontario 54 . Phase 1 Park Planning Ar~ s 0 1 2 .' ,1!; Zone de planification - ph~ 1 ,.x- I I , Kllometres Kllomlltres W R. 24q ECOSYSTEM PLANNING GUIDELINES: AN INNOVATIVE APPROACH TO WATERSHED MANAGEMENT . Metropolitan Toronto & Region Conservation Authority May 28 ,1990 DRAFT lAJ~ ~so ~ PURPOSE: To promote environmental planning on a watershed ecosystem basiso . To develop a common approach to watershed management that transcends inte~urisdictional boundaries and mandates . To provide a framework to facilitate decision-making by governmental and non' governmental stakeholders within each watershed. . To ensure the implementation of the management guidelines within each watershed through stakeholder commitment and endorsement " w.t ~ S I VISION STATEMENT To strive for the highest ecological potential and quality of human environment through cooperative and adaptive management using a sustainable (hu~an) ecosystem approach. ~\JK 252 PRINCIPLES Ecosystem Approach (Total Human Ecosystem Approach) Understanding and managing the processes, relationships and Interactions of the ecological and human components of each ecosystem to perpetuate Its unique characteristics. Sustainable The delicate balance between economic development and ecological health In each ecosystem achieved through Innovation, stability, selt sufficiency, and Intergeneratlonal equity. Cooperative Informed decision-making by stakeholders through an open process that strengthens stakeh~er commitment, builds partnerships, and promotes stewardship. Adaptive An Innovative approach that anticipates the unexpected through actions that Include conservative safety margins, feedback mechanisms and long term monitoring to compensate for lack of certainty and to augment the knowledge base. Wf< :t53 GOAL 1 A wholesome physical environment in which the land, water, and air are of a quality and quantity that support healthy and dynamic communities. Objectives 101. Maintain the productive capacity of the land to support people, plants, and animals. 1.2. Use of water should leave it undiminished in quality (swimmable, drinkable, fishable) and preserve its life support characteristics in all its forms: underground, surface, atmosphereo 103. Keep air free of harmful substances. 1 .4. Keep the natural character of land, water, and air resources as an aesthetic benefit (aesthetically, pleasing to the human senses)o lIUl< ~4 GOAL 2 A thriving biological community that has a variety of habitats, diversity of species, with a dynamic (robust) trophic structure. Objectives 201. Keep the maximum possible diversity of communities (species and habitats) on a scale sufficient to be self sustaining. 2,2 Protect ecological processes and (life support systems) that support plant and animal communities on a self sustaining scale. GOAL 3 A safe, healthy human environment that meets essential human needs by providing a diversity of lifestyles and human experiences while exercising society's responsibility as stewards of the ecosystem. Objectives 3.1. Keep people safe from water related hazards. 302. Keep people safe from exposure to harmful substanceso 3.3. Provide people with a sense of place (identity, and a stake) within the ecosystem. 3.4. Provide aesthetics that enhance the human experience within the ecosystem. 3.5. Develop a conserver society to ensure that human needs are met without compromising the sustainability of the ecosystem. 3.6. Foster (exercise) society's responsibility as stewards of the ecosystem. w~ ~ 5.s-- 2. A thriving biological community that has a variety of habitats, a diversity of species, with a dynamic (robust) trophic structure. 3. A safe, healthy human environment that meets essential human needs by providing a diversity of lifestyles and human experiences while exercising society's responsibility as stewards of the ecosystem. GOAL 1 A wholesome physical environment in which the land, water, and air are of a quality and quantity that support healthy and dynamic communities. Objectives 1.1. Maintain the productive capacity of the land to support people, plants, and animals. Guidelines 1.1.1. Retain opportunities for successional (sequential) uses of lands by: preventing inappropriate (wasteful) uses minimizing soil losses 1.1.2. Reduce consumption of nonrenewable resources by: discontinuing (or recycling) use of products that require them 101.3. Keep renewable resources in a self sustaining state by: limiting human uses to the (natural) rate of renewal rehabilitating over exploited resources 1.1.4. Reduce the use of land for waste disposal by: reduction, recycling and reuse of wastes using best available technology for landfill pretreatment of waste products (compaction) prior to landfilling 1.1.5. Allocate lands for use by plants and animals by: protecting important biophysical resources (ESA's, wetlands) providing corridors for animal movement 1.106. Eliminate the application of persistent harmful substances on the land by: providing alternative products eliminating overapplication and application on nontargetted lands 1.1.7. Protect areas defined by the interface between land and water by: wJe 26<,0 establishing development limits and permissible uses adjacent to valle' features, shorelines, wetlands, recharge/discharge areas 1.2. Use of water should leave it undiminished in quality (swimmable, drinkable, fishable) anc preserve its life support characteristics in all its forms: underground, surface, atmosphere Guidelines 1.2.2. Minimize consumptive uses of water by: Control the discharge of nutrients to water to assimilative quantities. minimizing evaporative losses growing crops with lower moisture requirements 1.2.3. Protect water supplies for drinking and for sustaining plant and animal communitieE by: Eliminate the discharge of persistent, harmful substances to water. Protect watercourses and associated features by controlling direct an[ indirect human impacts on these areas. Protect critical components of the groundwater regime. 1.2.4. Protect areas defined by the interface between land and water. 1.2.5. Water's physical properties/regimes - clarity, temperature 1.2.6. Maintain the integrity and functions of the hydrologic cycle by: maintain the infiltration regime of the landscape maintaining and enhancing the natural characteristics of watercourses protect features of the landscape that provide water storage protect and rehabilitate natural vegetation areas 1.3. Keep air free of harmful substances. Guidelines 1,3.1. Eliminate the discharge of persistent, harmful substances to air. (Clean Air Program, Reg 308) 103.2. Eliminate the discharge of substances that result in objectionable colour, taste, odour to the air. 1.3.3. Reduce noise pollution. ()()~ 2~7 1.3.4. Reduce obstructions to air movement. 1.4. Keep the natural character of land, water, and air resources as an aesthetic benefit (aesthetically pleasing to the human senses). Guidelines 1.4,1. Structures built on the land and water should be in harmony with their natural surroundings. 1.4.2. Landform conservation. . wi< '2~ GOAL 2 A thriving biological community that has a variety of habitats, diversity of species, with a dynamic (robust) trophic structure. Objectives 2.1. Keep the maximum possible diversity of communities (species and habitats) on a scale sufficient to be self sustaining. Guidelines 2.1.1. Prevent the disappearance of indigenous plants, animals, and their habitats from the ecosystem as a result of human activities by: providing buffers/filters between incompatible human uses integrating plant and animal community needs with human needs Build neighbourhoods that integrate human and natural diversity. manage ecosystems using biomonitors as the measure of success (coldwater streams) Provide for access, movement, and dispersion of plants and animals throughout the ecosystem by providing natural corridors with (buffered/filtered) controlled human use. 2.1.2. Reestablish existing communities to a self sustaining state. Create representative habitats suitable for plants and animals that have disappeared as a result of human activities. incorporate habitat creation as a component of capital works 2.1.3. Minimize the exposure of 'plants, animals, and their habitats to the effects of persistent, harmful substances. 2.1.4. Limit harvest of plant and animal communities by humans to the natural surplus. 2.2 Protect ecological processes and (life support systems) that support plant and animal communities on a self sustaining scale. Guidelines 2.2,1. Keep the trophic structure of plant and animals communities intact by: 2.2.2. Provide the land and water base necessary for plant and animal communities to be self sustaining. L0tt ~~q 2.2.3. Provide buffers/filters between the human and natural components of the ecosyster to allow life cycles (essential functions) to be completed, 2.2.4. Protect components and functions of plant and animal communities that exter. beyond the ecosystem (e.g. migrators). 2.2.5. Reestablish the ecological processes in degraded plant and animal communities. GOAL 3 A safe, healthy human environment that meets essential human needs by providing a diversity c lifestyles and human experiences while exercising society's responsibility as stewards of th; ecosystem. Objectives 3,1. Keep people safe from water related hazards. Guidelines 3.1.1, Prevent development in areas subject to flooding and erosion. 3,1.2. Protect existing development from flooding and erosion without compromising plan and animal communities. 3.1.3. Plan human activities on a subcatchment basis to prevent an increase in the risk c flooding and erosion to downstream residents (Master Drainage Plans). 3.20 Keep people safe from exposure to harmful substances. Guidelines 3.201. People should be able to breathe the air without development illness or disease. 3.2.2. People should be able to contact soils (and dust) without developing disease Or illness. Soils (and dust) should be free of contamination such t~at human activitie~ are not restricted, 3.2.3. People should be able to consume food products (plants, animals) without an] restrictions resulting from contaminants of human origin. wl2 ~&;O 3.2.4. Sources of drinking water shall be free from substances harmful to public health. 3.2.5. People should be able to swim and engage in water related activities without developing illness or disease. 3.3. Provide people with a sense of place (identity, and a stake) within the ecosystem. Guidelines 3.3.1. Develop self sufficient communities (education, employment, land use, recreations, entertainment) . 3.3.2. Provide a high quality and diversity of human lifestyles and experiences. 3.3.3. Identify and maintain the characteristics of the natural landscape. 3.3.4. Protect places, structures, and objects of historical and cultural importance. 3.3.5. Protect the needs of plants and animals, along with human needs. 3,3.6. Build neighbourhoods that integrate human and natural diversity. 3.3.7. Educate the public about the importance of plant and animal communities as part of the ecosystem. 3.3,8. Plan communities on the basis of a hierarchy of ecological not socio-political planning units to protect environmental features and foster a sense of local action, global thinking. 3.3.9, Ensure that decisions affeGting the ecosystem are based on informed decision- making by stakeholders through an open process that strengthens commitment, partnerships, and stewardship. 3.4. Provide aesthetics that enhance the human experience within the ecosystem. Guidelines 3.4.1. Protect vistas, natural landscapes, greenspaces. 3.4.2. Street scaping. 3.4,3. Features pleasing to human senses (refreshing, clear, cool, babbling, brooks). 3.4.4. Structure communities that complement the landscape. ~R 'J.. (0 I 3.5. Develop a conserver society to ensure that human needs are met without compromisinl the sustainability of the ecosystem. Guidelines 3.5.1. Reduce dependency on non renewable resources by discontinuing the use c products that use them and optimizing their use. 3.5.2. Develop compact communities to preserve the land and water base. 3.5,3. Develop products/processes that are water and energy efficient and are recyclabk after use with minimum wasteo 3,5.4, Provide the infrastructure necessary to reduce waste through t he three R's. 3.5.5. Keep renewable resources in a self sustaining state (live off interest not capital). 3.5.6. Provide public transit to reduce the impacts of transportation on the ecosystem. 3,5.7. Use the real economic, social, and ecological values of the use of natural resources in the ecosystem and internalize the externalities - to avoid mortgaging the future. 3.5.8. Provide opportunities for nature appreciation, passive recreation, and an appreciation of cultural identity within the ecosystem. 3.3.9. Allocate resources according to conservation criteria (best uses not first uses). 3.6. Foster (exercise) society's responsibility as stewards of the ecosystem. 0 Guidelines 3.6.1. Educate the public about the need to protect plant and animal communities within the ecosystem. 3.6.2. Develop an environmental (stewardship) ethic in people to ensure that the natural ecosystem components are preserved. 3.6,3. Monitor the health of the ecosystem to ensure that human activities do not degrade it. 3.6.4. Contribute to the knowledge base by conducting research into technologies and techniques that enhance both the human and ecological components of the ecosystems. wte 2~z.. 3.6,5. Reestablish degraded environments (communities) through opportunities provided by economic development. 3.6.6. Ensure that decisions affecting the ecosystem are based on informed decision- making by stakeholders through an open process that builds commitment, partnerships, and stewardship. 3.6.7. Regularly audit the compliance and effectiveness of actions that protect the ecosystem to improved ecosystem management. . Wi< :2k>3 THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ATARATIRI PROJECT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT ENTITLED "ATARATIRI: PRINCIPLES, DIRECTIONS AND STRATEGIES" Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting #3/90 June 29, 1990 "ATARATIRI PROJECT . , \ 4 LuY< '2. (04- City of Toronto Executive Report No. 14 Executive Summary: Ataratiri is a mixed-use community jointly proposed by the City of Toronto and the Province of Ontario. Its primary objective is to increase the supply of affordable housing in Toronto. It will offer a full spectrum of services geared to the present and future needs of its residents. In addition to housing, Ataratiri will create a stable industrial and commercial employment base in the area. Its development will result in the rehabilitation of an environmentally degraded area of the City. Ataratiri is located on the eastern edge of downtown Toronto, stretching almost to the Don River. The redevelopment site is approximately 32 hectares (80 acres) in size. It is bounded by Parliament Street on the west; Front Street, Eastern Avenue, St. Lawrence Street and King Street on the north; Dayview Avenue on the east; and the rail corridor on the south. It does not include the Gooderham & Worts distillery complex on Mill Street, west of Cherry Street. A number of industrial activities occupy the area at present, including railway yards, warehouses, factories and scrap yards. Ataratiri was announced on July 13, 1988, at which time the City entered into a Housing Develop- ment Agreement (HDA) with the Province. The HDA assigns responsibilities between the two levels of government and establishes criteria and conditions for the Ataratiri undertaking. Essentially, the City is acting as the planner and developer, and the Province is guaranteeing the loans necessary to acquire and redevelop the site. The Province is also committed to funding a proportion of the total number of residential units in accordance with its social housing programmes. Approximately two- thirds of the site was assembled through expropriation by the City, while the remainder of the site is being purchased from C.P. Rail and Canadian National Realty. The HDA housing target for Ataratiri is 7,000 residential units. The HDA specifies that no more than 400/0 of the total number of units shall be market housing. It is expected that the population of Ataratiri upon project completion will be in the order of 14,000. The employment target for the development is 1,500 stable industrial and commercial jobs. The Principles, Directions and Strategies report describes work to date on Ataratiri and lays the foundation for a Part II Official Plan Proposals report, which will be developed over the coming months as the results of the final planning studies emerge. The Part II Plan for Ataratiri will recommend amendments to the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-Law to permit the site's orderly redevelopment. In addition to the Part II planning process, two parallel approval streams are neces- sary due to environmental conditions affecting the site. The HDA contains an Order, exempting Ataratiri from the Environmental Assessment Act. The Exemption Order contains eleven terms and conditions to ensure Ataratiri becomes and remains a safe and healthy place to live and work. These c,onditions, including a requirement for a comprehen- sive environmental study, must be met to the satisfaction of the Ministry of the Environment before redevelopment of the site can proceed. This involves a detailed approval process with a public review component. Ataratiri is located in the nood plain of the lower Don River. In order for development to be permitted in the flood plain (subject to various conditions), the site must be designated a Special Policy Area, in accordance with provincial nood plain planning policies and guidelines. This requires the development of nood protection policies and strategies based on technical studies; public review of the proposed policies; and final approval by City Council, the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. and the Province. The Principles, Directions and Strategies report recommends Council approval of four fundamental planning principles that have guided the Ataratiri work programme to date. These principles were developed collaboratively among staff and members of the Ataratiri Neighbourhood Advisory Coun- cil, and renect input from a series of public meetings. II Ataratiri should be a safe and healthy community. It ;hould be protected from nooding; cleaned-up in an appropriate manner; and designed to promote safety and discourage public violence. Ataratiri should be an integrated community. It should be woven into the fabric of the larger city and not be perceived as an isolated development. Internally, it should be a community that is inclusive in physical, social and economic.terms. we X1J5 5 City or Toronto Executive !{eport No. 14 Ataratiri should be a diverse community. il should include a variety of building forms and accommo- date a range of hou~eholds lypes. There should be a selection of different employment opportunities. Ataratiri should be an accessible community. It should be well connected to the rest of the City and its buildings and open spaces should be designed to be physically accessible to people with varying levels of mobility. In terms of social accessibility, all residents of Ataratiri should be able to partici- pate fully and equally in community life. When analyzed in light of the above principles, the study results to date suggest certain directions for resolving the planning issues that remain. The Principles, Directions and Strategies report recom- mends Council approval of the directions summarized below: - The existing buildings at 281 and 409 Front Street East should be retained. The form and layout \ of the new community should be sensitive to the site's historical and architectural context. - Provision should be made for centralized neighbourhood heating and cooling if it is determined to be cost effective and environmentally appropriate, and if it can be brought onstream in a timely fashion. - The existing City street grid should be extended into Ata<atiri as much as possible. Noeth-south *' connections should be promoted where practical, including extensions of River Street and Bayview Avenue. - Road and intersection design and traffic control measures should direct commuter traffic around the periphery of the site and discourage penetration through local streets. - Public transit service should be provided along Front Street east of Parliament and planned to be in effect for the occupants Of the first phase of development. - Front Street East should be developed as Ataratiri's "Main Street", concentrating at the Front/Cherry node. Businesses and community services should be planned to reinforce Front Street as the neighbourhood's social and retail focus. Its design and physical treatment should enhance this role. - The final site plan should be based generally on the urban design strategy drawing shown in the Principles, Directions and Strategies report. - The zoned heights and densities should be based generally on the preliminary massing scheme shown in the Principle~, Directions and Strategies report. - The open space system should be based .on a hierarchy of spaces serving a full range of users and accommodating various activities. The most significant feature of this system should be a park near the Don River edge that has a strong natural habitat theme, with more active programming in appropriate areas. Pedestrian and bicycle connections to link this park to other open space opportunities north and south of Ataratiri should be encouraged. Public promenade space should Occur along Front Street. A number of smaller parks should be located throughout the site to serve local residents. - In addition to retail uses to serve the local population, light industrial activities and ancillary office uses should be allowed. These should be located generally as shown in the Principles, Directions and Strategies report. - The location of an appropriate post-secondary educational institution within or adjacent to . Ataratiri should be encouraged. - An arts and culture theme for the non-residential component of Ataratiri should be explored further and the needs of Toronto's artist community taken into account. - As much as practical, and recognizing health and safety concerns, the integration of residential uses and appropriate non-residential uses should be allowed. - A strategy to promote local job creation and support for the job disadvantaged should be pursued. Uj({ 1 b<o ..- 6 City of Toronto Executive Report No. 14 - The housing mix target for Ataratiri should provide for 600/0 social housing and 40% market housing. - Ataratiri should be designed to be capable of accommodating a range of special needs groups. A strategy for planning and delivering community and social services should be developed to ensure, as much as possible, that the appropriate services are in place when needed. - The community and social services plan should encourage, as much as practical, the coordinated delivery of servic~s and their integration with other activities. - The development should be phased in an orderly fashion with each stage proceeding in a recog- nizable cluster that is complete in itself. Contents Page Executive Summary I. Introduction ....................... ........................... .................................. ...... ............ 8 1.1 Background ............................................................................................... 8 1.2 Approval Process ....................................................................................... 9 (a) Part II Official Plan Process .........................................................:...... 9 (b) Environmental Evaluation Study Process ................................................ 9 (c) Flood Plain Planning Process ............................................................... 9 1.3 Report Purpose and Organization ................................................................. 10 2. Planning Context ............................................................................................... 11 2.1 King-Parliament .. ........................................................................ .............. ..11 2.2 Gooderham & Worts/Triangle Lands ............................................................. 12 2.3 Central Waterfront ... . . . . ... ..... . .. . .. . . . . ... . .... .. . .... .. .. . .. .. .. .. . . .... . . .. ... .. .... ..... . . .. .. 12 (a) The Central Waterfront Plan ................................................................12 (b) The Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto 13 Waterfront ... ................................... ............................... ....... ............. 2.4 Cityplan '91 0 14 .............................................................................................. 2.5 The Gardiner Lakeshore Task Force ............................................................. 14 2.6 The Lower Don River Task Force ................................................................ 15 3. Public Participation ............................................................................................ 15 3.1 The Neighbourhood Advisory Council........................................................... 16 3.2 Public Meetings .......................................................................................... 17 3.3 Printed Material ......................................................................................... 18 3.4 Future Outreach ...... ................... ................................................................ 19 4. Principles .......................................................................................................... 19 4.1 A Safe and Healthy Community.................................................................. 20 4.2 An Integrated Community ............................................. ..... ..... ....... ............. 20 4.3 A Diverse Community ........................................ ............... ......... ......... ........ 21 4.4 An Accessible Community ........................................................................... 21 5. Environmental Planning .............................. .... ............ .............. .......................... 22 5.1 Progress to Date ........................................................................................ 22 (a) Environmental Evaluation Study ............................................................ 22 (b) Flood Plain Planning .............. ............. .............................................. 23 5.2 Issues and Emerging Directions .................................................................... 23 (a) Soil and Water Management ................................................................ 23 (b) Air Quality ........................................................................................ 2S (c) Assessment of Health Risk ...................................................................25 lAJR. '.~61 7 City of Toronto Executive Report No. 14 (d) Noise and Vibration .............................................................................. 25 (e) Transportation and Fixed Facility Risk .................................................... 26 5.3 (f) Flood Plain Planning ............................................................................ 27 Areas of Ongoing Study ................................................................................ 29 6. Physical Planning ................................................................................................. 30 6.1 Progress to Date .......................................................................................... 30 6.2 Issues and Emerging Directions ...................................................................... 3 I (a) Retention of Existing Buildings and Physical . In f rast ruct 1I re . . . . . . . . ... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . .. . . .. . . ... . . . . . . . .... .. . . . .. . . .. .. . . . . . .. . ... . .. . .. 3 I (b) The Street Grid .................................................................................... 32 (c) Transportaton Connections ..................................................................... 33 (d) Bayview Avenue and Commuter Traffic ................................................... 34 (e) Main Street ............................................ .............................. ... .:........... 35 (f) Travel Modes ..................................................................... .................. 35 (g) Blocks and Development Parcels .............................................................. 36 (h) Massing ............................................................................................... 37 (i) Open Space Strategy ............ ................................... ............. .... .... ..........38 U) The Don River ....... .............. ................................. ...............................,39 6.3 Areas of Ongoing Study ................................................................................ 40 7. Economic and Land Use Planning .......................................................................... 41 7.1 Progress to Date ...........................................................................................41 7.2 Issues and Emerging Directions .......................................................................41 (a) Mix 0 fUses ................ . . .. . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . .. .. . . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 4 I (b) Location of Uses .... ......... ...... .... ..... ............. ..... ............... ........ ..... ......... 43 (c) Main Street ................. .......... ...... .............. .............. ....... ....................... 43 (d) Combined Live/Work Space .. ............................ ........ ......, ......... .............. 44 (e) Local Employment Opportuni ties .............................................................. 44 (f) Implementation ...................................................................................... 45 7.3 Areas of Ongoing Study ................................................................................. 46 8. Social Planning ................. ........... ........ ......... .......................... ....... ....................... 46 . 8.1 Progress to Date ........................................................................................... 46 8.2 Issues and Emerging Directions ....................................................................... 47 (a) Housing Mix .......................................................................................... 47 (b) Population Profile .................................................................................. 48 (c) Special Needs Groups ............................................................................. 50 (d) I ntegrated Service Provision ........................................................:............ 50 (e) Phasing of Services ......................................................... .......... ............. 51 8.3 Areas of Ongoing Study ...........................,...............,................,.................... 5 I 9. Strategies .. ........................... ............ ........... ......... ................ ........... .......... ........... 5 I 9.1 Identify Goals and Targets .............................................................................52 9.2 Create Streets. Blocks and Development Parcels ................................................ 52 9.3 Determine Appropriate Land Uses and Built-Form ............................................. 53 9.4 Provide for Adequate Servicing ....................................................................... 53 9.5 Ensure Appropriate Environmental Remediation and Flood Protection ..... ......... ....................... ............ ....... ..... ........................ S4 9.6 'd f P I D' . . S4 Provl e or arce ISposIllon........................................................................ 9.7 . O' M . . 55 Ensure Orderly PhaSing and ngolng oOltormg ............................~................. 10. Conclusions . ............ ....... .................... ......... ........... ........ ..... ...... .......... ................. 56 Recommendations .......................... .................................. ........ ............. ....... ................ 57 WR ~g 8 City of Toronto Executive Report No. 14 Appendix A: ATARATIRI Research Programme (20 April 1990) ................................... 58 Appendix B: Membership of AT ARA TIRI Neighbourhood Advisory Council ........ ........ ..... ................................. ..... ......... .... .... '" ............... 59 Appendix C: AT ARA TI RI Public Consultation Chronology .......................................... 63 Appendix D: Repositories for ATARATIRI Information ...............................................64 List of Figures I. Location of Ataratiri Within the City of Toronto 2. Existing Structures 3. Planning Approval Process 4. Planning Context 5. Existing Official Plan Designations King-Parliament Part II 6. Existing Zoning Designations 7. Soil Quality 8. Classification of Soil 9. Areas Requiring Groundwater Remediation 10. Noise and Vibration (existing conditions) II. Flood Levels Under Different Storm Conditions 12. Fill Flood Protection Option 13. Urban Design Strategy 14. Proposed Road and Transit Improvements IS. Possible Perspective View North from Cherry and Front Streets 16. Possible Perspective View East Along Front Street 17. Possible Perspective View of Typical Local Street 18. Preliminary Massing Scheme 19. Possible Perspective View West from the Don River 20. Generalized Locations of Non-Residential Uses 21. Unit Distribution by Provider 22. Unit Distribution by Level of Need 23. Ataratiri Projected Population 24. Household Composition 25. Comparison of Income Between Ataratiri (estimated) and the Central Area (1989) 0 26. Existing Community Services - ~. Introduction 11.1 Background In the final decade of the millennium, Toronto is confronted with challenges that will test its ability to remain a livable, accessible place for many residents and workers in the coming years. Rapid changes in the City's social structure and political economy have strained society's collective ability to ensure a supply of affordable rental housing, to care properly for the needy and vulnerable, to provide well-paying jobs to less skilled workers, and to protect the natural environment. Ataratiri was conceived in July 1988 in response to these challenges. Ataratiri is a mixed-use community jointly proposed by the City of Toronto and the Province of Ontario. Its primary objective is to increase the supply of affordable housing 'in Toronto. It will offer a full spectrum of services geared to the present and future needs of its residents. In addition to housing, Ataratiri will create a stable industrial and commercial employment base in the area. Its development will result in the rehabilitation of an environmentally degraded area of the City. Figure I shows the location of Ataratiri on the eastern edge of downtown Toronto, stretching almost to the Don River. The redevelopment site is approximately 32 hectares (80 acres) in size. As indicated w~,.'A,~9 9 City of Toronto Executive Report No. 14 in Figure 2, it is bounded by Parliament Street on the west; Front Street, Eastern Avenue, Sl. Lawrence Street and King Street on the north; Bayview Avenue on the east; and the rail corridor on the south. It does not include the Gooderham & Worts distillery complex on Mill Street, west of Cherry Street. A number of industrial activities occupy the area at present, inclUding railway yards, warehouses, factories and scrap yards. At the time of the joint announcement of 13 July 198R, the City entered into a Housing Development Agreement (HDA) with the Province. The HDA assigns responsibilities between the two levels of government and establishes criteria and conditions for the Ataratiri undertaking. Essentially, the City is acting as the planner and developer, and the Province is guaranteeing the loans necessary to acquire and redevelop the site. The Province is also committed to funding a proportion of the total number of residential units in accordance with its social housing programmes. Approximately two- thirds of the site was assembled through expropriation by the City, while the remainder of the site is being purchased from C.P. Rail and Canadian National Realty. V 1.2 Approval Process . ....-( a) Part II Official Plan Process As discussed in more detail in section 2 below, the land use regulations that currently apply to Ataratiri prohibit residential and most commercial activities. To develop a mixed-use community will require changes to the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law. For an undertaking of the size and complexity of Ataratiri, the planning approval process usually takes the form of a Part II Official Plan document, which is publicly discussed at a proposals stage before the final recommendations are adopted by Council. The shaded boxes shown in Figure 3 illustrate the main steps in this process, starting with Council approval of the present report. The planning process for Ataratiri involves two additional approval streams due to conditions con- tained in the HDA and the site's location within the flood plain of the lower Don River. These are described in Figure 3 as parallel processes that will merge with Council's approval of the Part II Final Recommendations report. The Province has final approval authority and an Ontario Municipal Board hearing may be required if there are any objections to the proposed Zoning By-Law changes or requests for referral of the proposed Official Plan amendments. V (b) Environmentai Evaluation Study Process Schedule C of the HDA is the Order exempting Ataratiri from the Environmental Assessment Act. The Exemption Order contains eleven terms and conditions to ensure Ataratiri becomes and remains a safe and healthy place to live and work.. Condition 2 of the Order requires that a comprehensive environmental study be undertaken to identify environmental and human health and safety concerns associated with redeveloping the site. The study report is to be made available for public review and submitted to the Minister of the Environment for approval before other development approvals can proceed. The main stages of the Environmental Evaluation Study process are outlined in Figure 3, The results of six background environmental studies, described in detail in section 5 of this report, will be incorporated in the Environmental Evaluation Study report which will be submitted to the Ministry of the Environment for an eight week technical review. Once any outstanding issues raised by the Ministry have been addressed, the report will be released for public review and become the subject of a public meeting. The final Environmental Evaluation Study report, together with a summary of public comments and responses to the comments, will be submitted to Council for approval before being transmitted to the Minister of the Environment. Future detailed studies, including area-specific soil and groundwater quality management plans, will be carried out after the Environmental Evaluation Study is completed. These studies will be made available for public review and submitted for approval by the Ministry of the Environment before development on a particular part of the site is permitted. ./" (c) Flood Plain Planning Process t()~ f);,'7D 10 City of Toronto Executive Report No. 14 All of Ataratiri lies within an area subject to flooding by the Don River. Figure II indicates the extent of the regulatory flood as defined by the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA). Under the authority of the provincial policy statement on f-Iood Plain Planning (forming part of section 3 of the Planning Act), development in this area normally would be prohibited or restricted unless the conditions of the policy statement are satisfied. ) Designation as a Special Policy Area (SPA) is one of the approaches prescribed in the provincial policy statement to permit new development in a flood prone area, subject to various conditions. A SP A designation for Ataratiri would recognize the historical development of the area, acknowledge the community-related benefits of the proposed undertaking, and acknowledge a higher degree of flood risk than would normally be acceptable under provincial policy. At its 09 February 1989 meeting, Council approved the recommendation of a planning report to request from the Province and the MTRCA, approval-in-principle for SP A status for the entire lower Don River flood plain. The request stipulated that the necessary Official Plan policies be developed and approved in two phases, commencing with that portion of the SP ^ covering Ataratiri, and followed by the balance of the SP A (that is, east of the Don and south of the rail corridor) within two years of the date of preliminary approval. On 04 December 1989, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs granted SPA approval-in-principle based on conditions recommended by the MTRCA and affirmed by the Ministry of Natural Resources. Following provincial procedure, an inter-agency SPA Technical Committee was established by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs after the City was granted approval-in-principle. The Committee is chaired by a senior planner from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and has as its members staff representatives from the City Housing and Planning and Development Departments, the Metropoli- tan Toronto Planning Department, the MTRCA and the Ministry of Natural Resources. Additional resource staff attend meetings as required, and include representatives from the City Parks and Recreation and Public Works Departments; the Metro Transportation, Works and Parks and Propert y Departments; the Ministry of the Environment; and Marshall Macklin Monaghan, the engineering consultants hired by the City to conduct the relevant flood studies. The role of the Technical Committee is to advise the City and its consultants on necessary flood- related research and to assist in the development of acceptable flood mitigation strategies and policies based on the research results. Once the Committee members are satisfied with a draft set of policies and strategies, these will be submitted for public review and Council approval (perhaps as part of the Part II Proposals Report). They will also be considered by the MTRCA before being finalized and submitted to the Province for approval. In final form, the flood protection strategies and policy statements may be contained in the Part II Final Recommendations Report, as indicated in Figure 3. j 1.3 Report Purpose and Organization The present report describes work to date on Ataratiri and lays the foundation for the Part II Proposals report, which will be developed over the coming months as the results of the final planning studies emerge. The Principles, Directions and Strategies report identifies four fundamental planning principles. These have been developed with much public input and have guided the work programme to this point. The report is being presented at this juncture in order to evoke public discussion of the proposed principles and current study findingso and to affirm ahe directions being assumed by staff based on these prindples and findings. The first three sections of the report establish the general background of the Ataratiri undertaking, describe the planning context, and discuss the public's involvement in the planning process. Section 4 identifies the four planning principles that are being proposed for Council's approval. Sections 5 through 8 describe the main workstreams within the overall study programme. Current study results are discussed in terms of the issues that have been identified and the directions that are now emerging. Each section concludes with a description of the areas of ongoing study. Section 9 deals with a number of strategies that may be pursued in order to implement the Ataratiri plan. These will take the form of various legislative mechanisms to ensure appropriate and orderly development. 'LN~'. ~1' II City of Toronto Execul ive Keport No. 14 Section 10 summarizes the salient directions which were di:;cussed in the earlier sections and that are being recommended for Council's endorsement. 2. Planning Context The concept of Ataratiri is generally consistent with the principles and policies embodied in the City's ~fficial Plan. Most significantly, Ataratiri furthers Council's goal of increasing the supply of a ~able housing: II developed i." th, man~er suggested in this report, Ataratid. will also reinlorce oth broad OffIcial Plan polIcIes, Including support for Industry, recogOltlOn of traditional shop ~reets, and heritage eonsmation. At the n . hbourhood scale, however, the redevelopment of Ataratiri will mark a radical departure from the panning policies that currently apply to this part of the City. Despite the proposed changes for Ataratin, it is generally recognized that the policies that apply to areas surrounding the site are sound and, in ost cases, will continue to be in effect in their present form. Figure 1 indicate "taratiri's location within the Central Area. The existing Central Area Plan (as contained in section\IA of the Part I Official Plan) applies to Ataratiri, as will the new policies being developed in CitYPla\'91. Figure 4 delineates the boundaries of the planning districts abutting Ataratiri. The site curr ntly falls within the King-Parliament area and is subject to the King-Parlia- ment Neighbourhood PI1tn. The Gooderham & Worts and "Triangle" lands to the southwest of Ataratiri are also included\n King-Parliament. The planning policies here are under review at the moment. The lands to the SQuth of Ataratiri, across the rail corridor, are subject to the Central Waterfront Plan. Currently, bQth the federal and provincial governments are reviewing planning policies in this area. A number of issues related to features surrounding Ataratiri are being studied by City-sponsored Task Forces, including the Don River and the Gardiner Lakeshore Corridor. , .. The planning context briefly outlined'above will be described in more detail below. The point to be stressed is that Ataratiri is not being planned in isolation; the new Plan for Ataratiri will mesh with the policies of adjacent areas and be consis!ent with broader City goals. 2.1 King-Parliament \ \ The King-Parliament Neighbourhood Plan was published in 1978 and approved by Council in 1979. It applies to the area demarcated in Figure'-, 4, including Ataratiri and the Gooderham & Worts/Triangle Lands (to be discussed separately\elow). The new Plan for Ataratiri will represent an amendment to this earlier Plan. \ \ The King-Parliament Plan recognizes the area as preaominantIy industrial in use, but with some concentrations of commercial and residential uses. Its....general thrust is to reinforce the primary industrial character of the area; restrict commercial intrusions unless necessary for the improvement of the industrial base; strengthen the residential neighbourhbod in its present location; and minimize the potential conflict among industrial, commercial and residential activities. Three sub-areas, to which different policies apply, are identif'i'ed. Ataratiri lies within the "South- East Sub-Area", This sub-area is intended to continue as a stable'industrial area, with light, medium and heavy industries located across most of it. Recognizing the est~blished pockets of housing to the north, the Plan proposes a buffer zone of light industry along the'~outh side of Eastern A venue. Figure 5 shows the resulting Official Plan designations that currently pply to Ataratiri. Most of the site (and the neighbouring GOOderham & Worts/Triangle Lands) is deSi~nated a General Industrial Area. The northern margin, along Eastern Avenueo is designated a Restricted Industrial Area. The present Zoning By-Law designations are indicated in Figure 6. The are~designated a Restricted Industrial Area in the Official Plan is zoned 12 05; the General Industrial Are~ zoned 13 07. The sub-area to the immediate north of Atarutiri, called the "North-East Sub-Area", is recognized as eontaining a mixture 01 industrial and residential uses. The Plan seeks to streng~ the residential component of this area while not prejudicing the continued operation of compatibl industrial uses. Limited commercial activities at grade are permitted in new development along poa~ns of Front Street, Eastern Avenue and King Street to serve the residential population and to act as uffers from the heavy trallie along these arlerials. ~ wR ~1~ 13 City of Toronto Executive Report No. 14 designates this area as a Ileavy Industrial Area. It is i'ollctll4 ))2, as indicatcd in Figure 6. The area is entirely in public ownership, most of it ownctllly the City. No. 480 Lake Shore Boulevard E3st was rchased by the City in 1978 for the purpose of constructing a refuse-fired steam plant to replace the Pe I Street steam plant. Thc adjacent Gordon Young rcndering plant at 554 Lake Shore Boulevard East s expropriated by thc City at the timc of [hc Alaratiri expropriation (13 July 1988) in order to eliminal ventllally an on.-site sourcc of noxiom cmissions. East BaYfront-..~es immediately to the west of thc lands described above. It is designated a Restricted Industrial Area I~he Ccntral Watcrfront Plan and the portion of East I3ayfront south of Ataratiri is zoned 13 03. The ~tral Waterfront Plan provides for this area to remain in industrial use and encourages the intensl .cation of industrial activities, including ancillary commercial and institu- tional uses, as appropria . It prohibits residentialllses and limits the amount of density for ancillary commercial or institutional 'e~. In general, the Central Water~~Plan aims to make the Port Industrial District more attractive to the public and to a wide range of I dustries, particularly high employment industries. Consequently, it reduces the areas formerly designated for heavy industry, for the most part concentrating these uses along the north side of the Ship ChahQ.;1. The properties across the rail corridor from Ataratiri, which are described above, remain designated and zoned for heavy industry primarily because of the former plans to establish a refuse-fired steam-plant there. The 23 February 1989 decision of City Counc~however, was to abandon plans to construct such a facility and to withdraw the attendant Environm'ental Assessment (Clause No. 47 of City Services Committee Report No.4). At Council's request, th~~mmissioners of Planning and Development and City Property are undertaking a joint study of the uture of these lands. At this point, they are considering a number of alternative municipal uses, som~of which (such as an "open storage of raw materials yard") may require heavy industrial zoning. It is q'lli~ possible, therefore, that the outcome of the joint study of 480 Lake Shore Boulevard East will not call, for any changes to the current land use policies embodied in the Central Waterfront Plan. In any even~he possible effect of any change in use of properties in this area on Ataratiri (with the exception of ~ elimination of the rendering plant) will be muted by the intervening presence of the Don sorting :)ds. Consequently, it is not anticipated that Central Waterfront Plan policies will connict with plans r Ataratiri, nor should the new Plan for Ataratiri directly affect the Port Industrial District or East Ba ront. ~/ (b) The Royal Commissi~n on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront On 30 March 1988, the federal government appointed the Honourable David Crombie to act as a one-person Royal Commission to study the. Toronto waterfront. Commissioner Crombie's mandate is farreaching, but focuses mainly on issues related to the Toronto Harbour Commission; the future of the Toronto Island Airport; the effective management of federal lands within the Toronto water- front area (particularly lands controlled by the Harbourfront Corporation); and the protection and renewal of the natural environment. The Royal Commission has published several background reports, held a series of public meetings and, on 30 August 1989, released an Interim Report. On 17 October 1989, Ontario Premier David Peterson announced broad provincial measures directed towards the planning and development of Toronto's waterfront. These took the form of four actions: a formal declaration of provincial interest, under the Planning Act, in the waterfront area lying between Yonge Street and Ashbridges Bay, preventing major development until the area has been thoroughly studied; a provincial Order in Council giving David Crombie a mandate to report to the Province on waterfront issues along the western basin of Lake Ontario and to recommend ways of integrating the waterfront with upstream watersheds; support for an environmental audit of East Bayfront and the Port Industrial District, to be carried out by the Royal Commission; and appoint- ment of MPP Ron Kanter to develop a Greater Toronto Greenlands Strategy to proteclthe upstream watersheds of rivers entering Lake Ontario in the Toronto area. With an expanded federal-provincial mandate, Commissioner Crombie has continued researching waterfront issues, including environmental concerns and the relationships between the lake and the watercourses that enter it. Public hearings have recently resumed. During Spring 1990, hearings are scheduled for: a Green Strategy for the Greater Toronto Waterfront; waterfront transportation in a wf( ~13 14 City of Toronto Executive Report No. 14 regional context; and environment and health issues. The subject area most closely related to Ataratiri is the Green Strategy since it will be considering the Don River. The Don borders Ataratiri and poses both constraints and opportunities for the site's development. A strong theme that is emerging from the Commission's work to date is the need for inter-agency and \\ inter-governmental cooperation in dealing comprehensively with waterfront and watershed issues. This message is particularly relevant to Ataratiri because of the scale and complexity of the undertak- ing and the myriad of approval authorities that are involved in the planning process. The Royal Commission may represent an important means of securing the level of cooperation that will be necess~r~ to deal effectivel~ ~h envirnn~1 :l~ri f]o~d i:~II:t~nQ~,~.tially ~ct upon Ataratln,~~ beyond It a~eY~(!.!.I~lty'S JmmedJ~~. _ .4 Cityplan '91 Tn 15 year term for the targets and monitoring benchmarks in the 1976 Central Area Plan will be compl~ed next year. Work has been underway for over a year on Cityplan '91 to provide new Officia ~an policies and targets to guide development into the next millennium. Early in 1989, City Council a ~nted the Cityplan '91 Task Force, which is made up of over 40 people representing a broad range f interests and constituencies. The Task Force has recently completed a draft report on "Goals and Pri~ciples for a New Official Plan" and will be holding a series of public meeting in May 1990 to discuss the draft report's findings. Planning staff are working on detailed studies that respond to the prihciples being formulated by the Task Force. An Official Plan Proposals Report is being prepared for P'll~ic release in Fall 1990. The work on Cityplan ''9,1 is timely since it will provide an overall policy context for Ataratiri. Any targets or guidelines reco1nmended by Cityplan '91 that apply to the Central Area will potentially affect Ataratiri. In additio~\there are a number of general policy areas being pursued by the Task Force and Cityplan '91 staft'that will be relevant to Ataratiri. Cityplan '91 wilI include policies related to the environment, heritage protection, arts and culture, and the provision of community services and facilities. In many caks, the topic areas represent new or greatly expanded territory for City policy development. Studies thit-.are underway for Ataratiri touch upon all of these policy areas. Cityplan '91 wilI also deal with transpbrtation and urban design issues. Again, this provides overlap with work being conducted in a more\~irected way for Ataratiri. With the similarity in report scheduling, Cityplan '91 and the Ata<atiri 1'~lan should emerge as parallel and complementary documents. . 2.5 The Gardiner Lakeshore Task Force Council established the Gardiner Lakeshore Task Force in 1987 to examine a broad range of urban design and planning issues related to the Gardiner b.akeshore Corridor. The principal goal of the Task Force is to develop a long range civic design strat'e~ and urban design guidelines which can be implemented together with physical rehabilitation mea ures to improve the relationship of the Co rridor to Toronto's water f ron t. Many 0 f t he issues bel ng \m i ned by the Task Force deal with the visual character of the Corridor. Work to date has stressed t need to develop a cohesive image of the Corridor and to promote its integration with surrounding areas. A consultant study was published in September 1988. Public me~~tere held during the Summer 1989 to discuss its findings on an area-specific basis. In Fall 1989, co sultants were hired for a Civic Design Study in the Area of the'lower Don River to follow up on som.e of the issues raised in the September 1988 report. One of the ideas being investigated by the Lower Don study is shifting the weep of the Gardiner Expressway. This notion would have the Gardiner moved north against the rai ay corridor between Cherry Street and its intersection with the Don Valley Parkway. The suggeste ealignment has a potential impact on Ataratiri since it brings a major source of noise, dust and ve cular emissions much closer to the new community. The preliminary findings of the consultants i icate that the proposed realignment would be very expensive and pose several operational and aesthetl difficulties. Consistent with the Task Force theme of integration, the consultants are currently explor g means of connecting the waterfront areas south of the Corridor to open space opportunities upstrea along . . W~ 274- 19 City of Toronto Executive Report No. 14 - tees. The newsletters are hand-delivered to over 5000 households in neighbouring Corktown, Sl. Lawrence and South Riverdalc, and sent to everyone on the growing Ataratiri mailing lisl. ~ other Ataratiri publications have been widely circulated. The first Business Plan was published in J ouary 1989. The Business Plan is a reporting requirement of the Province; a second is in prepar'a,.~ and will be published imminently. The Housing Development Agreement between the City and t ~rovince also requires an annual report to the Ministry of the Environment on progress related to en ironmental planning. The first was published in November 1989 and has had broad public exposurNh~ next environmental annual report will be prepared over the coming Summer. All of the printed ~~al cited above, the minutes from NAC meetings, the minutes and transcripts from tapes of the publi ~rums, and the final reports by consultants are accessible to the public at a number of locations. The repositories are listed in Appendix D and include public libraries and universities. Due to limited nu bers and expense, the consultant studies and meeting records must be viewed at these locations; other ocuments such as the July 1988 Preliminary Concept Plan, the Business Plan and the Ministry ot t~ Environment Annual Report, can be purchased from the Resource Centre at City Hall. The news et~ are free upon requesl. The outcome of the extensive public particip<nion process to date has been a mailing list of over one thousand names. It is still growing. All of the f1sl~ individuals receive newsletters, NAC meeting agendas, and announcements of public forums and 0 r Ataratiri-related events. 3.4 Future Outreach The community relations programme for Ataratiri anticipates continuation of the public processes outlined above. NAC meetings open to the public will be held in May and August O. The draft Environmental Evaluation Study will be made available near the end of the coming mer and a major public meet ing held in lhe Fall 1990 '0 discuss it. Also in' he Fall, pu blic mee'i"S be held to invite comments on the Part II Official Plan Proposals Report. . The second Ataratiri Business Plan and the third newsletter will be published sh ~. The second ~nnual report to the Ministry of the Environment will be available during the Summer f:..{990. 4. Principles In the early stages of the Ataratiri planning process, staff and NAC members spent a good deal of time coming to grips with what kind of community should be developed. Who will live and work there? What will it look like? How will it actually work? The final plan for Ataratiri will attempt to answer these questions, based on the research that is underway. It is important to have some general . goals in mind, however, in directing this research and in evaluating the study results as they come forward. The process of identifying planning goals for the new community was initiated in December 1988 at a full day brainstorming session that involved several invited experts coming from a range of back- grounds and having varied perspectives. The outcome was a rich assortment of notions about what elements of a community seem to work well and should be replicated, if possible, in the planning of new neighbourhoods. These ideas were shared with NAC and had a catalytic effect on the NAC subcommittees, which then sought to develop more specific planning objectives from their own individual perspectives. The public forums that were held in June and July of 1989 were in part intended to evoke public feedback on the goals and objectives then being discussed by staff and the NAC subcommittee members. The process culminated in an all day NAC retreat on 29 July 1989, when all of the ideas generated to date were viewed together and participants attempted to make some sense of an emerging vision of what Ataratiri should be. As the number of individual objectives for Ataratiri burgeoned with each new iteration of the goal- setting exercise, certain threads began repeating themselves to form a discernible pattern. To make this pattern more legible and to emphasize the common elements that have developed, the following discussion will be organized according to four salient planning principles: health and safety, integra- tion, diversity, and accessibility. These principles accord well with the three basic themes proposed .'W~ 1-75 20 City of Toronto Executive Report No. 14 for Cityplan '91: managing growth, improving the quality of life, and promoting social equity. As noted below, the planning objectives for Ataratiri also reinforce Council's goals for a Safe City and f for the Healthy City Initiative. 4.1 A Safe and Healthy Community First and foremost, Ataratiri should be a safe place for residents and workers. Its development should promote good health. The most immediate !=oncern is the local environment. Over a century and an half of industrial activity has left its legacy in terms of a contaminated and physically degraded site. Changing the use of these lands from heavy industry to a mixture of residential, commercial and light industry will have a direct positive impact on the local environment. Beyond this, a thorough research programme is underway to determine the extent of on-site contamination as well as the impact of off-site sources of noise and air pollution. Appropriate remediation strategies will have to be developed on the basis of the study results. Policies and procedures should then be recommended to ensure that adequate site clean-up occurs. The lower Don River presents a health and safety risk because it is subject to flooding. The full extent of the flood risk is being studied and a set of policies and practices must eventually be agreed upon with the approving authorities to provide the site with a reasonable level of protection. Remediation of the physical environment alone will not ensure a safe community, The design of the new neighbourhood should promote safety and discourage public violence. The street layout, organi- zation of traffic, design of open space and basic site planning should ail serve a protective function for future residents and workers, especially for those who are most vulnerable _ women, young children, and the elderly. The health and well being of Ataratiri's population will also be strongly affected by the adequate provision of community services and facilities. The City must see that the appropriate social supports are in place to serve the new community. As the neighbourhood is developed and occupied, the residents should be involved in planning these services to ensure they will be suitable and brought onstream in a timely manner. The Healthy Toronto 2000 report recommends that the City work towards creating physical and social environments that are supportive of health and that the City advocate a community-based health services system. Further, the City should be committed to reducing inequities in health opportunities in Toronto. The objectives for Ataratiri outlined above and those encompassed by the other planning principles to folIow are consistent with the goals of the Healthy City Initiative and aim J to promote a healthy community within Ataratiri. 4.2 An Integrated Community The concept of integration applies equally to Ataratiri's position within the larger urban community and its internal development and organization. Externally, the new neighbourhood needs to be woven into the fabric of the larger city. It should be neither socially nor physically isolated. One practical requirement to ensure the physical intcgration of Ataratiri with the City is to develop the necessary automobile, pedestrian, bicycle and transit links. Ataratiri should be both a destination and a through route for citizens of Toronto; in other words, it should be convenient to visit Ataratiri as a legitimate destination in its own right as well as to traverse the community to nearby regional attractions, su'ch as the Don Valley. In economic terms, Ataratiri will be part of the greater regional economy. This provides an exciting opportunity for Ataratiri to develop products and services that serve regional needs and contribute to the City's overall vitality and economic stability. It also requires, however, that newly established businesses recognize the continuing and future role of businesses already existing in the area. From an environmental viewpoint, integration refers to a recognition of Ataratiri's position within a larger ecosystem. At a minimum, the development should not degrade the surrounding physical environment; no one should be worse off because of its construction and occupation and the possible WrL /}"'70 21 City of Toronto Executive Report No. 14 impact that this will have on noise, vibration and the quality of soil, air and water. Optimally, the development of Ataratiri should go beyond these minimum standards and result in a net positive ,contribution to the surrounding physical environment. Internally, integration should be reOected in a community that is cohesive physically, socially and economically. The building forms should II fit" together (but not necessarily be the same), open spaces should relate well to the structures that frame them, and variety in design, scale and detail should be stimulating but never discordant. A commitment to excellence in the design and construc- tion of public spaces will ensure that Ataratiri's streets, squares and parks serve an integrative function, with residents taking pride in their neighbourhood and city. Similarly, social integration should bring together a mix of household types, income levels, special needs groups and forms of tenure in an harmonious relationship. Opportunities should exist to integrate work and living space, if not in the same unit or same building, at least within the same neighbourhood. Ataratiri should be an "inclusive" community in all senses of the word. Finally, integration within the local economy should be promoted by a blend of non-residential uses that responds to the local demand for goods and services and creates a stable employment base for the local work force. To the extent that new businesses reflect a common theme, synergies may develop that have broad ranging benefits. Public institutions can contribute to this collective image and reinforce private industrial and commercial activity. J 4.3 A Diverse Community Diversity celebrates the richness of variety and suggests a 'certain intimacy of scale and detail that is sensitive to the level of the individual. In terms of physical design, these notions can be manifested in a finely textured grain of streets and blocks. Massive monoliths should be avoided; rather, building facades should relate to a human scale, blocks should be seen as comprising smaller components, and architectural detailing should convey an appearance of diversity and character. In moving through the community, one should visually experience surprise events as breaks in the regular pattern are encountered. A number of developers and architects should be involved (though working under the guidance of good urban design standards). A variety of open spaces serving different needs and purposes is preferred over a single, large, undifferentiated park. In terms of land uses, there should be a mixture of activities occurring across the site; even within individual buildings, a variety of compatible uses and users should be encouraged to co-exist. In social terms, Ataratiri should contain a broad spectrum of household types: young and old, families and singles, poor and not-so-poor, renters and owners. Various special needs groups should be accommodated, including, for example, the frail elderly, the disabled, refugees, the chronically homeless, disadvantaged youth and abused women, Again, smallness is important. The mammoth "projects" of the past are eschewed. Diversity also extends to the provision of community services. A number of different facilities are needed and various providers should have roles to play in their development. Multi.use estab- lishments are favoured over single purpose, stand-alone institutions. A variety of industrial and commercial activities is necessary to ensure a range of services and a selection of job opportunities. Encouraging a number of smaller businesses will also reduce the community's dependence on a few large enterprises, This in turn may lead to more community control and economic autonomy. A diverse community is one that responds more readily to change. In planning Ataratiri, flexibility is of paramount importance. The ncighbourhood being planned must be capable of adjusting through- out its development as the greater social and economic context evolves and as physical changes in the environment occur. Most significantly, the planning and development of Ataratiri should be a ~namic process that involves the new residents and workers as they occupy the area, 4.4 An Accessible Community w~ 'ACt 22 City of Toronto Executive Report No. 14 One aspect of accessibility has been discussed in terms of the physical integration of Ataratiri with the larger urban context through improved automobile, pedestrian, bicycle and transit links. Physical accessibility within the new community will also require that the block layout, site planning, and design of buildings and open space accommodate people with varying levels of mobility, especially young children, the elderly and those with physical disabilities. Planning a truly accessible community is more than an exercise in physical design, however. Acces- sibility also connotes social equity, the ability of all members of society to participate fully and equally in community life. In creating a diverse and integrated community, a range of housing and employment options should be generated. Choices must be available for all social groups, particu- larly those who are disadvantaged. Indeed, to the extent that many groups face limited alternatives in the current housing and job markets, these part,ies should, to the practical extent possible, be given priority. Accessible community facilities will be critical to the success of the new neighbourhood. If Ataratiri is to welcome the participation of a broad range of residents and workers, many of them with special needs, the social supports must be available to facilitate their effective functioning within the com- J munity. 5. Environmental Planning J 5.1 Progress to Date (a) Environmental Evaluation Study As described in section I of this report, one of the main conditions of the Environmental Assessment Act Exemption Order is the requirement for an Environmental Evaluation Study. The results of this study will determine what measures are needed to make the site suitable for redevelopment. It will provide a thorough and in-depth analysis of environmental conditions at Ataratiri. SENES Consultants has been hired to prepare the final report, which will synthesize the results of a number of separate studies. Six sub-studies are underway to identify environmental, human health and safety concerns associated with redeveloping the site. Each study will propose solutions to ensure that development proceeds in an environmentally sound manner and will identify additional research that may be required. The Exemption Order requkes that the Environmental Evaluation Study include a risk analysis of injury or damage from flooding. As described separately below, a flood protection study is underway to satisfy the requirements of a Special Policj( Area (SP A) designation for the lower Don River. The terms of reference of this study were broadened to include a risk analysis, Thus, the final flood protection report will satisfy requirements associated with both the City's SPA application and the Exemption Order. The SPA Technical Committee includes, as an observer, a representative of the Ministry of the Environment. Trow, Dames & Moore has been hired to carry out the Soil and Water Management Study. The consultants are building upon the results of preliminary investigations carried out in 1988 by three other firms. The current research programme is testing for contaminants that were not analyzed previously, collecting additional .samples to refine the estimated extent of contaminated soil, and sampling ground and stormwater. The results of these investigations, and of the Health Risk Study, will be used to prepare a comprehensive soil and water management plan. The plan will define areas requiring remediation, identify alternative strategies and recommend a preferred approach for clean- up. A draft report has been received. Discussions arc ongoing with Ministry of the Environment staff in order to establish an appropriate process to review the study results and to agree upon suitable decommissioning standards and procedures. The results of these negotiations will be contained in the recommendations of the Environmental Evaluation Study. An Air Quality Study is being conducted by Rowan Williams Davies & Irwin Inc. The study will characterize present and future ambient air quality in the vicinity of the site on the basis of existing monitoring data and numerical modelling. It will identify sources of emissions that may adversely affect air quality at the site and will recommend measures to reduce or eliminate their effect. A draft report has been received and, based 011 an initial staff review, the consultant is following up with additional work prior to submitting a final report. w~ 1...78 23 Cily of ToronlO Executive Report No. 14 A Health Risk Study is being conducted in order to develop a health-based rationale for the soil management plan and for any measures that are needed to improve local air quality conditions. The study is being done jointly by CanTox Inc. and SENES Consultants Ltd. The consultants are working with the data generated by the Soil and Water Management Study and the Air Quality Study. They will assist in identifying soil quality guidelines for those compounds that have been found in Ataratiri, but for which Province-wide guidelines do not exist. They will then suggest how guidelines should be applied to contaminants at depth. Further, the consultants will determine whether or not protective measures will need to be incorporated into building designs to reduce the exposure of future residents to airborne contaminants. Due to its dependence on the results of other studies that are not complete, the draft Health Risk Study report has not yet been submitted. The Noise and Vibration Study conducted by Vibron Limited has been completed. It assesses present noise and vibration conditions across the site. It projects likely future changes due, primarily, to road and rail traffic, in order to assess their potential impact on the proposed development. The study recommends ways of ameliorating or preventing adverse noise and vibration impacts. The consult- ants will be requested to comment later, from a noise and vibration perspective, on the site plan that is now at an incipient stage of development. Concord Scientific Corporation is undertaking the Transportation and Fixed Facility Risk Study. The consultants are identifying and estimating risks to future residents and recommending ways of minimizing or eliminating such risks. They have focused their analysis of risk exposure on potential accidents involving hazardous goods on adjacent transportation systems and at facilities in and around the development site. This study has not been completed yet, but some preliminary findings ~ave been submitted. (b) Flood Plain Planning The Special Policy Area approval process and role of the SPA Technical Committee were described in section 1 of this report. The City had engaged Marshall Macklin Monaghan to conduct a flood study for Ataratiri in January 1989 and an informal working group comprising basically the same membership as the Technical Committee began meeting at that time in anticipation of eventual SPA approval-in-princi pie. The conditions attached to approval-in-principle required further work by the consultants. These conditions called for the City to examine a range of flood protection approaches, to investigate the impact of flood mitigatioll on surrounding lands, and to take into consideration any related environ- t mental issues. After completing the additional work, the consultants submitted a draft report that has been reviewed by the Technical Committee members. In response to comments by the other agencies, the consultants are currently undertaking research of specific issues that require elaboration or clarification. In addition, Marshall Macklin Monaghan has been hired by the City to commence a study of the balance of the lower Don River flood plain outside of Ataratiri in order to fulfill the second phase of the SP A research stipulated in the approval-in-principle request. Test results ost recent soil sampling programme confirm that large areas of the site contain soils that do not existing guidelines for residential land use. However, contamination in most instances is confined to' [ rficial fill layer which is generally in the order of one to three metres thick across most of the site. '~Oi! beneath the fill generally meets residential guidelines, except at the Parliament/Front/TrinitY/Mi bl~ in isolated pockets noted below. The contaminants of concern in Ataratiri can be gr p,ed into the categories of metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and polychlorinated biphe~ (PCBs). Elevated metal concen- trations are widely distributed across the site, which is not une e.cted, given the area's history of industrial use. The majority of the metal contamination can be attribt:rt~o scrap yards, foundries, tanneries, coal yards and rail yard operations that have existed at various locations over the past one hundred years. Metal contamination may also have been brought to the site irt-i~orted fill. The results of the most recent sampling programme strongly suggest that metal contamtna 'on in large areas of the site is limited to the top 1.0 to 1.5 metres of fill. . VJtt '. 'L1q 27 Ciry of Toronto Exccutive Rcport No. 14 -1 vm Flood Plain Planning The regulatory flood for Ihe Toronfo area is bascd on !lows that would result from thc recurrence of a storm of the severity or Hurricane /Iazel (1954), centred on the watershed of the river in question (Hurricane Hazel occurred over the Humber River watershed). In the case of the Don River, the projected flood levels would be so extreme for a storm of this magnitude that the consultants conclude that it would be neither technically nor economically feasible to protect the Ataratiri site. In these circumstances, the SPA policies and guidelines provide for the consideration of floodproofing to less than the regul'!tory flood level. The minimum level of flood protection permilled in an SPA under current MTRCA policy is the 350 year flood. A flood of this severity has a hypothetical return period of 350 years On average, based on an analysis of precipitation and snow melt records. The implication of having this level of flood protection is acceptance of an approximate 25 percent risk of flooding of buildings over the course of their economic lifetime (assumed to be 100 years). Figure II shows the extent of the 350 year flood under existing conditions in Ataratiri. The consultants have determined that it is feasible to protect the site from the 350 year flood by either constructing a dyke running parallel to Bayview A venue between Front and Queen Streets, or by filling the site to a similar elevation along its eastern limit and grading westward to existing grade. The fill option is shown in Figure 12. It requires approximately 50,000 _ 60,000 eubie metres of fill, placed at a maximum depth of about 1.8 metres along the eastern perimeter. The consultants suggest this might cost between $250,000 and $500,000, depending on the availability of suitable clean fill material from ongoing excavations in the downtown area. The fill option would redirect site drainage (surface and in sewers) towards Lake Ontario via Cherry Street. This would allow abandonment of four storm sewer outlets that currently drain into the Don River, which are substandard and surcharge in times of high river levels. This would improve overall site drainage and could also lead to an enhancement of the quality of surface runoff across Ataratiri. Various stormwater management techniques appear to be practical for the development, including infiltration trenches and underground retention tanks. These will have to be examined further before physical servicing decisions are made. Staff are currently preparing the terms of reference for a study of stormwater management options. Thc consultants recommend the site filling option over the dyking option as the primary means of flood protection for the site. The 350 year level of flood protection is premised on continuous dredging of the Keating Channel. If the Channel is allowed to silt up, upstream water levels would be raised considerably. The flood works suggested for Ataratiri would be effective only for levels up to the 20 year flood. An additional I 0.7 metres of height added to the fill or dyke, would provide protection for the 100 year nood. Construction beyond this level would not be feasible due to topographic constraints. To provide protection beyond the design level of the proposed earthworks, the roads could be designed to act as overland flow routes in the case of overtopping. A swale constructed adjacent to . the CNR tracks along the southern perimeter of the site could carry additional overflow. The preliminary study has raised a number of issues in the context of the provincial policies and implementation guidelines. Currently, these are being sorted out through the SPA approval process, via regular Technical Committee meetings. Some concerns have been largely resolved while others require more research and discussion. The most significant issue is the minimum level of flood protection that is acceptable for Ataratiri. Protection to the 350 year storm has been accepted as a minimum standard in other municipalities ~ within the MTRCA's jurisdiction. Thc difference elsewhere between the regulatory flood level and the design standard typically has been less than one metre, a depth not posing much risk of property damage or loss of life. In Ataratiri, however, the regulatory storm would result in extensive residual flood levels throughout the spill zone. The deepest flooding under regulatory flood conditions would OCcur in the southern portion of the site, near the Cherry Street underpass, where ponding would begin once the capacity of the outlet was exceeded. Levels here would be in the order of 5 metres, gradually lessening in a northward direction to around 3.5 metres in the vicinity of Front Street and 1.5 metres at the northeastern extremity of the site. W~ ~gO 28 City of Toronto Executive Report No. 14 It must be emphasized that the probable return frequency of a storm as severe as the regulatory event is unknown. This is due to the lack of historical data and the tremendous difference between recorded discharge rates and the nows projected for the regulatory storm. At the Queen Street bridgeo the predicted discharge associated with the 350 year storm is estimated to be 425 cubic metres per second. This calculation is based on records kept since 1963. The most severe storm produced nows that were less than half this now (207 m3/sec, recorded in August 1986). Computer models project a peak now of 2016 m3/sec for the regulatory nood at this location. With nows of this magnitude, the channel capacity east and south of the site becomes the primary deter- minant of nood levels across Ataratiri and beyond. The back-up of water behind a number of constrictions would cause a significant rise in upstream levels. One possible means of lowering the nood levels under regulatory storm conditions is to widen the entire channel from Queen Street to the lake. On "the basis of a coarse cost-benefit analysis, the consultants dismiss this option as not feasible due to the enormous capital costs entailed (estimated to exceed $ I 30 million, excluding land acquisition and environmental clean-up costs). Nevertheless, the external agencies on the SPA Technical Committee have requested that the implications of a channel widening be explored further. The consultants have investigated this at a general level of analysis in the context of the Ataratiri nood study. A more thorough analysis will occur in the study about to commence which addresses the other spill zones. This would appear to be the more appropriate place to study the issue since it potentially impacts (both negatively and positively) a much broader area than Ataratiri. It appears that channel widening will reduce nood levels, but at great cost and disruption. Another approach may be to improve the drainage of the site in order to reduce residual water depths if the nood works are overtopped. More work needs to be done to assess the impact on residual nood levels of widening existing underpasses, such as Cherry Street. Raising the level of fill on the site will also provide greater nood protection for Ataratiri. The depth of fill proposed 'by the consultants would give 350 year nood protection. It is physically possible, however, to increase the amount of fill to around 2.5 metres before the limit of existing tie-off points is reached. This may have off-site implications, however, by raising water levels across the Don or upstream under storm conditions. The consultants are studying this problem further. The level of nood protection proposed by the current study is premised on the continued dredging of the Keating Channel. The Keating Channel was regularly dredged for navigational reasons by the Toronto Harbour Commission (THC) from its initial construction in 1920 until 1974. Owing to concern over the environmental consequences of dumping contaminated dredgate in open lake waters, this dredging programme was temporarily suspended. The Keating Channel Environmental Assessment prepared by the MTRCA in 1981 demonstrates the important impact that dredging has on lowering upstream nood levels and produces an environmentally acceptable solution to disposing of the accumulated sediments. The Keating Channel EA conditions of approval permit the deposition of the dredged material within containment cells on the Leslie Street Spit that were constructed by the THC for this purpose. Dredging has since resumed under a funding agreement among the THC, the MTRCA and Transport Canada. It is safe to assume, based on history and the dual requirements of nood mitigation and retaining navigable depths in the Inner Harbour, that there is every intention among the parties concerned to maintain the current dredging programmc. Members of the SPA Technical Committee gcneralIy agree with this aim. Problems arise, however, when the issues of financial responsibility and future disposal sites are broached. The current containment cells approved under the EA have an estimated capacity for about 40 ycars of dredgate. Technical Committee members have generalIy conceded that 40 years is a reasonable limit to forward planning, given the uncertainty inherent in predicting future conditions. This alIows sufficient time to find or construct alternative disposal sites, if necessary. IdealIy. water quality improvement measures wiII have had their effect by then, to the extent that sediments may meet Lakefill Quality criteria and disposal in open water may not be an issue. The issue of financial responsibility remains. City staff maintain that the commitment to dredging far preceded (by 70 years) the inception of Ataratiri and the benefits extend well beyond Ataratiri or even iA~ 1-81 29 City of Toronto Executive Report No. 14 the City. Indeed, the Keating Channel is not even within the City's direct jurisdiction. Consequently, City staff have asserted that the Province, the MTRCA, and possibly the Federal government have primary responsibility for funding the dredging programme (estimated to average approximately $3 J 5,000 per year, in 1984 dollars). Staff from the other agencies on the Technical Committee do not entirely agree and the question of funding arrangements must be resolved. The City Solicitor is investigating some of the legal implications of the dredging programme in light of the Environmental Assessment Act and the Conservation Authorities Act. The placement of buildings and an orthogonal road pattern may impede flows across the site in the event of a flood that overtops the proposed earthworks. The consultants have been instructed to research this further based on the preliminary street pattern and massing scenario described in section 6 of this report. Generally speaking, SPA policies are more restrictive with respect to residential uses than non- residential uses. The overall land use pattern for Ataratiri, therefore, may be influenced by flood considerations. Depending on the permitted uses, some areas may be subject to more stringent built form and siting controls than others. Provincial flood plain planning policies prohibit the location of certain "sensitive" uses in a flood plain where this would pose a significant threat to the safety of the inhabitants. Included are hospitals, nursing homes and primary schools. Uses associated with emergency services such as fire, police and ambulance stations and electrical substations must also be located so that services are not impaired during a flood event. In response to these policies, the /lood consultants recommend that sensitive uses and emergency services be located on higher ground in Ataratiri, generally north of Front Street, where the predicted residual/lood levels are the least. This is still being discussed within the Technical Committee. The provincial floodproofing policy requires that entrances and exits for new buildings located in a flood plain be such that vehicular and pedestrian movement is not prevented during times of flooding. Under regulatory storm conditions, access at grade, according to provincial criteria, could not be provided anywhere on the site. However, a built form consisting of multi-storey buildings of concrete construction could provide for dry areas above /loodwater levels. The concept of "safe havens" within the development needs to be explored further with the SP A Technical Committee. The depths of /looding that may result from a regulatory storm necessitate special consideration of the manner in which buildings are designed and constructed. Requirements may need to be developed regarding the location of habitable space and electrical and mechanical equipment if the design of buildings allows water to flow through their lower portions. The consultant has been asked to review structural floodproofing requirements to establish guidelines for building design. Provincial policy discourages the use of underground parking garages where they may be susceptible to flooding. Flooded garages could result in extensive property damage and pose a threat to life for motorists who attempt to remove their vehicles during serious flood conditions. Site planning for Ataratiri has assumed that required parking will be below grade. The entrances to underground garages may be designed to be above flood levels associated with all but the most severe storms. The consultants recommend that an improved system of forecasting and monitoring water levels on the Don be investigated and implemented by the appropriate authorities. A system of communica- tions should be designed and put in place by the City to disseminate flood warnings to the affected population and agencies. A flood emergency plan should be prepared that covers a number of important elements: who is responsible for flood warnings; who is responsible for flood evacuation procedures; what means of communication will be used; the emergency procedures to be followed; /nd where safe locations are situated. 5.3 Areas of Ongoing Study Research is continuing in several of the environmental study areas. A limited amount of additional soil testing is underway. More investigations into off-site sources of industrial emissions are being conducted. The road traffic and accident data is being refined further. The results of this work will be incorporated into the Environmental Evaluation Study report. In addition, staff and key consultants W( ~~~ 30 City of Toronto Executive Report No. 14 - are meeting regularly with Ministry of the Environment staff to develop an acceptable soil and groundwater management plan. As the final site planning exercise gets underway, some of the environmental consultants will be asked to comment on various schemes while they are in preparation. In particular, the noise and vibration consultants, air quality consultants, and risk analysis consultants will make suggestions for possible improvements based on their respective areas of expertise. The City's flood planning consultants are now conducting more extensive research in three areas: - the impact of the preliminary street pattern and building layout on spill flow through Ataratiri, and structural flood proofing requirements for new buildings; - consideration of the effect on flood levels of more or larger underpasses through the rail corridor, and an analysis in more detail of the effect on regulatory flood levels of downstream channel and bridge widenings; and - the effect of an increase in fill elevations on areas along the Don River outside Ataratiri. The consultant soon will be commencing research on the other spill zones east and south of Ataratiri. The study results may help build a case for a comprehensive look at flood protection options. Since a much larger area is involved, it might be possible to engage the cooperation of a greater number of affected parties and agencies in contributing to major nood mitigation programmes. Some of the groups that are currently studying the waterfront and Don watershed were identified in section 2 above. It would properly fall within the purview of the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront, for example, to consider roles and responsibilities with respect to major under- takings such as dredging, river mouth restoration and channel improvements. 6. Physical Planning ~~progress to Date - The ~ and planning of Ataratiri's physical form and servicing began with a thorough inventory of what rrently exists on (and under) the site. The first step in this exercise was a detailed survey of existing gr~ations and street locations. The survey firm of J.T. Barnes was hired for this purpose. Concu ntly, the various public agencies and utility companies responsible for the physical " infrastructure conce~ submitted plans indicating the location and (where possible) condition of below grade services. taratiri staff compiled this information in the form of a composite utilities plan. Finally, Anrep Assdciates in association with Lambur Scott Architects was retained for the Survey of Existing Buildings ~~Structures, which provides a property-by-property description and assessment of all City owned struCtures across the site. The report also makes suggestions regarding the possibilities of reuse. ~ Marshall Macklin Monaghan was retained o..conduct a Commercial Vehicle Study to determine the nature and extent of truck traffic through th'e"s~. The main objective here was to differentiate between through and destination movements in r.der to assess how much external commercial vehicle traffic will remain after redevelopment has occ~ed. The physical design process for the future community w~a')Zhed with the General Urban Design Issues Studies. Four architectural firms, Baird/Sampson, A. . Diamond, Donald Schmitt & Co., Ferguson Ferguson, and Jurecka Lobko Tregebov, produced t~Sign probes each. These are based on a number of general assumptions regarding the existing 'Iuation and recognizing the physical planning objectives that had been formulated to date by staff a'n~Ac. The result is eight illustrative concepts of how the site may be approached from an urban design erspective. The general urban design issues studies focused on a broad range of site PI~~itons to be debated and tested further by staff, NAC and the general public. The ideas that appe ed to bear the most promise were selected to be systematically and rigourously tested for their imp .. tions and feasibility in three, more detailed urban design investigations: a lJuilding and Block Study; Open Space Study; and a Road Configuration and Transportation Impact Study. Nit' .1tg 6 39 ~ City of Toronto Executive Report No. 14 fairly near to the Cherry Street underpass would allow for the construction of an underground ormwater retention tank, which is one of the storm water quality enhancement measures identified by e Oood consultants. Smalle ublic open space areas should be distributed throughout Ataratiri to provide relief and amenity to local residents and workers. Responding to unique conditions in different parts of the site, neighbourho -scale parks can promote a sense of local identity. The public boulevards, walkways and bicycle route hould be planned to supplement and link the various open space components. The design and siting 0 .hese public areas could also promote connections with significant landmarks and spaces outside of ~tiri. Examples of possible connections are illustrated in the urban design strategy drawing: a park \the west side of Cherry Street reinforcing a visual link between the former Palace Street Public ~001 and Sackville Public School; and a triangular park on Trinity Street, south of Front, creating ~cus on the historic Gooderham & Worts properties immediately south of Ataratiri. The latter parI< suggestion, if developed in the manner shown, would result in closing a portion of Trinity Street, ailicould be designed as a more fonnal, urban space, reOecting the special treatment that Trinity curren~its at its termination within the Gooderham & WOrts complex. Open space will also be provided on a block by lock basis within the various housing developments. The Building and Block Study has investigated a riumber of ways this space might be arranged. In all likelihood, it will involve a blend of private space, iIit~ded to serve specific units or groups of units, and common space to be enjoyed by everyone within a p-I.oject and, perhaps, the public at large. Environmental considerations pose certain limitations t~he provision of open space in Ataratiri. The Air Quality Study consultants have determined that traffic emissions will have the greatest impact at lower elevations close to the perimeter of the site adjcicent to the Gardiner Expressway and railway lines to the south; the Don Valley Parkway and railway'lines to the east; and the Eastern Avenue Diversion to the north. Consequently, the consultants recorrimend that sensitive uses, includ- ing schoolyards and day care play areas, should be avoided in these lociltions, The Noise and Vibration Study consultants have found that the highest ~e levels exist around the perimeter of the site and adjacent to the Eastern Avenue/Eastern Avenu~Diversion expressway ramps, primarily due to road and rail traffic. The most serious impacts are 'f{om the expressway ramps to the north; the Don Valley Parkway to the east; and the rail line, Don~rting Yards and Gardiner Expressway to th~ south. Park space could be used in these areas to inc ase the setback distances to dwellings, but depending on its purpose, may have to be protected by gra ng, berms or barriers to reduce noise levels within activity areas. Certainly, the noise environment hould be a consideration in planning the use of different open space areas, If unprotected by sp ial noise mitigation measures, areas intended for quiet enjoyment would be more appropriately IOcat,,\:ser to the centre of the site. ~/U) The Don River The significance of the Don on the eastern perimeter of Ataratiri is such that it should be singled out in the site planning exercise. While it potentially affords recreational opportunities of regional signif- icance, its current contaminated state and propensity to Oood present very real health and safety concerns. Design work for Ataratiri is faced with the challenge of seizing the possible advantages of a location near the river while ameliorating any negative implications. Section 5 of this report described how the Oood risk posed by the Don River strongly inOuences site planning in Ataratiri. Considerations include the placement of fill, construction of a perimeter drainage swale, location of sensitive uses, and specific building design requirements. In a more positive light, the Don River offers significant recreational opportunities. At the moment, a natural woodlands park along the eastern edge of the site is favoured. This type of feature could impact positively on the neighbourhood's environment by distancing the development from major sources of noise (the Don VaHey Parkway and CNR line) and by having a natural cleansing effect on airborne pollutants (again, largely related to the road and rail traffic). It is also consistent with growing public sentiment that advocates restoring the Don to a cleaner, more natural condition. Although a fairly passive, natural theme should be promoted for the Don park, in carefully designed wt ~84- 40 City of Toronto Executive Report No. 14 areas adjacent to the built up portion of the site, more active programming could occur. Figure 19 shows one possible view of a Don park. Current thinking has the Don park located at existing grade. Bayview Avenue, as illustrated in Figures 12 and 13, would then be on a raised edge above the park (in the order of two metres in height), to provide the necessary nood protection for the remainder of the site. This change in topography might also contribute modestly to an enhanced view of the river valley and assist in noise amelioration. A key consideration in designing the Don park would be promoting north-south connections. Atthe north end, the urban design strategy drawing suggests a realignment of existing Bayview Avenue westward to allow for a wider open space strip closer to the river and hence improved pedestrian and bicycle movement parallel to the rail tracks. The railway line unfortunately blocks direct acces~ to the river's edge. At the south end of Ataratiri where the rail corridor swings to the west away from the Don, it may be possible to penetrate this barrier with a pedestrian underpass, as shown schematically in Figure 13. At this point, the tracks are raised about 2 metres above grade, which would facilitate a tunnel connection. The land on the opposite side of the tracks at the rail bend is mostly in public ownership, although not owned by the City. Land further to the south, accessible by a path under the CNR rail bridge, is also publicly owned. The opportunity existso therefore, to continue the open space corridor alongside the Don almost to the Keating Channel (where the Gardiner Expressway and Lakeshore Boulevard intervene). These possibilities are outside the jurisdiction of Ataratiri, however, and are being considered by other planning studies (as described in section 2 above). The July 1988 preliminary concept plan supported the idea 'of a large focal park for the community. Within an hierarchy of open spaces, the proposed Don park could serve as the neighbourhood's most significant space (and also serve people outside Ataratiri). It would be primarily a natural park, but J include other activities in appropriate locations. 6.3 Areas of Ongoing Study At present, the Building and Block Study is completed and the Road Configuration and Transporta- tion Impact Study and Open Space Study are near completion. Their findings to date have been incorporated into the preceding discussion. Anticipating the conclusion of these studies, a site planning consultant recently has been engaged whose primary task will be working with staff to create the final site plan. The present report suggests certain approaches to the physical design of Ataratiri that will have to be tested further and refined. In addition, crucial information from the environmental and nood investigations, also in progress, will have to be factored into the final site plan. Decisions around the provision of cQmmunity and social services and the likely range of industrial and commercial uses (discussed below) will have urban design and site planning impacts as well. Finally, the Residential Parking Demand Study and Centralized Neighbourhood Heating/Cooling Study will examine important servicing issues that will affect the site's physical development. A number of other physical planning issues are being addressed in-house through the cooperation of City staff and staff from Metro and outside agencies. Most matters related to physical infrastructure and servicing will be resolved through this collaborative proces~. The fate of the Eastern Avenue low level interceptor sanitary sewer and the choice of public transit routes are two examples under consideration at present. Another servicing i~sue somewhat peripheral to Ataratiri is the future of the Ontario Hydro transmission line that currently follows Bayview Avenuc. Hydro intends to bury these wires, but is awaiting decisions on the final alignment of Bayview before proceeding with its plans. A substantial amount of lead time is needed in order to implement some of the major works discussed in this section, such as the realignment of Bayview and Eastern A venues and the relocation of the Ontario Hydro transmission lincs. Because other jurisdictions and agencies are involved, matters related to property transfers, detailed design and the ordering of materials (in the case of hydro wires) should be planned and negotiated as soon as possible. Otherwise, the development of Ataratiri, once the final plan is approved, may be delayed by infrastructure disruptions. Consequently, this report will recommend that staff be authorizcd to bcgin ncgotiations with Metro and Ontario Hydro on lhe~c mallcrs. WR. ~~~ 54 City of Toronto Executive Report No. 14 '-aA<lle:l&es. TRg PlaA, tkudor" toy ill illdddc A laOnd'T'H::nd6lieA ts llxcmpt d tlPfiri fnmto BY"IA~ No. ..117 \19 J 9.5 Ensure Appropriate Environmental Remediation and Flood Protection A condition of the environmental Exemption Order for Ataratiri is that the Official Plan Amend- ment for the undertaking (which will be contained in the Part II Plan) shall provide for an appropri- ate environmental planning and approvals process; ensure that future residents are made aware of the nature of any ongoing environmental concerns; require that the agreed upon environmental mitiga- tion measures recommended by the City's studies be carried out and be binding on successive owners; and ensure that suitable plan examination and on-site environmental inspection and supervision occurs in order to enforce compliance with the environmental terms and conditions. The preferred mechanism for securing environmental conditions like those contemplated in the Exemption Order a section 50 subdivision agreement. The conditions may be broad ranging as long as they reasonably relate to the safe and orderly development of land. They are registered on title and binding on subsequent owners. The Exemption Order also requires that the site be the subject of a holding symbol under section 35 of the Planning Act. The Plan for Ataratiri would specify what environmental criteria would have to be satisfied before the "H" is removed and development permilled to proceed. The provincial flood plain planning policy statement requires policies in the Official Plan indicating, for flood prone areas, the circumstances under which new development may be permilled and identifying the minimum level of protection required. In tlie case of Ataratiri, these policies could either form part of the Part II Plan (as suggested in section 2) or be submilled earlier as a separate amendment to the City's Part I Official Plan. The provincial implementation guidelines that accompany the flood plain planning policy statement outline in more detail the range of other planning controls that may be relevant in regulating develop- ment in flood plains. These include zoning by-law amendments, holding by-laws, interim control by- laws, subdivision control, and site plan control (development review). It is likely that a number of these mechanisms will be used to ensure adequate flood protection for Ataratiri. 9.6 Provide for Parcel Disposition s anticipated that a numboer of different parties, public and private, will be involved in the actual dev lQ.pment of Ataratiri. It is important that a process be established for the City to allocate sites efficie~nd equitably among various developers and housing producers, and that the appropriate 0 legal mec nisms are in place to permit the City to act accordingly. Through th~ Dmlopment Agreement, the Province has assigned responsibility to the City to coordinate the anning and development of the non-profit housing units within Ataratiri and to recommend the allo ation of funding commitments among the various social housing producers. Consistent with curre~~ncil policy, it is expected that recommendations on site allocations to social housing providers ( ~home, Metro Toronto Housing Company, private non-profits and non-profit co-operatives) wll~e made by tile Land Disposition Subcommittee of the Neighbourhoods Committee. It is xl?ected that these recommendations will be based on staff advice and the results of public proposal ca~aving regard for any overall targets contained in the Plan for Ataratiri. These targets will n;flect inpu~ NAC and the general public. Up to 40 percent of the dwelling units in Atara 'u-i will be market housing. A similar process to the one just described will have to be established to disp~ of land for private residential development. Policy decisions will have to be developed on whet he la,nd is sold or leased. The current Council policy with respect to social housing providers allocated Cit'y~and is that sites are leased for 40 year terms. Special legislation will have to be sought if the City wiSh~s to entertain the prospect of joint ventures with private developers on expropriated land, as has be'?n...the case with some partnership developments in the St. Lawrence Neighbourhood. There may also b<:--Ie~l impediments to condo- minium development on leased properties. These legal questions are currently being reviewed by staff. If it is determined that some form of speCial legislation is required to gt" the City sufficient nexibility in disposing of development site~, an appropriate application to the Pr ince should be made soon in order to avoid delays at the point when construction is about to begin. W~ :Z&;0 56 City of Toronto Executive Report No. 14 e, due to unforeseen circumstances, after the removal of the holding symbol on a particular deve 0 ck or precinct. A section 37 interim control by-law could be applied in such instances to prohibit developm e completion of more detailed planning or environmental studies. Similarly, the City may wish to permIt a emporary use of a property that, in the fullness J of time, will be cedmloped for another use. If the temp . considered undesirable in the long term. it could be allowed for a specified period only through a section r use by-law. 10. Conclusions The recommendations to follow ask for Council's endorsement of the planning principles that NAC and staff have developed and which have guided work to date on Ataratiri. The recommendations also ask for Council's affirmation of the directions currently being taken with the Ataratiri work programme. As described in preceding sections of this report, many planning issues are still being sorted out with other agencies and a clear sense of how to proceed must await their concurrence. This applies in particular to the environmental planning workstream because of the involvement of the Ministries of the Environment, Natural Resources and Municipal Affairs and the Metro Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. At this point, therefore, it is possible only to assert a commitment to the principle of a safe and healthy community; the precise means of achieving this goal will emerge in the coming months. Many of the other planning issues are more directly within the control of the City to resolve, however. Study results to date have allowed NAC and staff to reach preliminary conclusions as to how best to approach these matters. The emerging directions are identified in the previous sections of this report and are summarized below. This report recommends Council's approval of these planning directions in order that staff can continue working with confidence on a Part II Official Plan proposal for Ataratiri. - The existing buildings at 281 and 409 Front Street East should be retained. The form and layout of the new community should be sensitive to the site's historical and architectural context. - Provision should be made for centralized neighbourhood heating and cooling if it is determined to be cost effective and environmentally appropriate, and if it can be brought on-stream in a timely fashion. - The existing City street grid should be extended into Ataratiri as much as possible, generally as shown in Figure 14. North-south connections should be promoted where practical, including extensions of River Street and Bayview A venue. - Road and intersection design and traffic conlrol measures should direct commuter Iraffic around the periphery of Ihe site and discourage penetration Ihrough local street. - Public transit service should be provided along Front Street east of Parliament and planned 10 be in effect for the occupanlS of the first phase of development. Front Slreet East should be developed as Ataratiri's "Main Slreet", concentrating at the Front/Cherry node. Businesses and community services should be planned to reinforce Front Street as Ihe neighbourhood's social and retail focus. lIs design and physical treatment should enhance this role. - The final site plan should be based generally on the framework shown in Figure 13. - The zoned heights and densities should be based generally on the massing emphasis shown in Figure 18. - The open space system should be based on a hierarchy of spaces serving a full range of users and accommodating various activities. The most significant fealure of this system should be a park near the Don River edge that has a strong natural habitat theme, with more active programming in appropriate areas. Pedestrian and bicycle connections 10 link this park 10 other open space opportunities north and south of Ataratiri should be encouraged. Public promenade space should Occur along Front Street. A number of smaller parks should be located throughout the site to serve local residents. :w~ Actq 57 City of ToronlO Executjve Report No. 14 In addition to retail uses to serve the local population, light industrial activities and ancillary office uses should be allowed. These should be located generally as shown in Figure 20. The location of an appropriate post-secondary education institution within or adjacent to Ataratiri should be encouraged. An arts and culture theme for the non-residential component or Ataratiri should be explored further and the needs of Toronto's artist community taken into account. - As much as practical, and recognizing health and safety concerns, the integration of residential uses and appropriate non-residential uses should be allowed. A strategy 10 promote local job creation and \UPport for the joh disadvantaged ~huuld be pursued. - The housing mix target for Ataratiri should provide for 601T/o social housing and 40% market housing. - Ataratiri should be designed to be capable of accommodating a range of special needs groups. - A strategy for planning and delivering community and social services should be developed to ensure, as much as possible, that the appropriate services arc in place when needed. - The community and social services plan should encourage, as much as practical, the coordinated delivery of services and their integration with other activities. - The development should be phased in an orderly fashion with each stage proceeding in a recog- ~ nizable cluster that is complete in itsel f. Recommendations: 1. That Council approve the planning principles for Ataratiri that are contained in section 4 of this report. 2. That Council instruct the Commissioner of Planning and Development to proceed with prepar- ing a Part II Official Plan Proposals Report based on the directions indicated in this report (as summarized in section 10) and on the results of the proposed work programme. 3. That Council authoriz<! the appropriate City staff to begin discussions with Metro Toronto and Ontario Hydro staff regarding the re-alignments of Bayview and Eastern A venues, as described in section 6 of this report. . 4. That the City Solicitor be requested to report in consultation with the Commissioners of Planning and Development and Housing on any special provincial legislation that may be required to implement the strategies described in section 9.6 of this report, with a view to drafting the necessary application to the Province, if required. 5. That a copy of this report be forwarded to the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront with a request by Council that the Royal Commission give special consideration to the possible roles of the federal and provincial governments and other appropriate agencies in addressing the flooding problems associated with the lower Don River, as described in section 5. 6. That copies of this report be forwarded to the following parties for their information, with a request that any possible comments be submitted directly to the Commissioner of Planning and Development: the Fire Chief, the Board of Health, the Planning Advisory Committee, the Housing Action Committee, the Alternative Housing Subcommittee, the Safe City Committee, the City Cycling Committee, the Cityplan '91 Tas.k Force, the lower Don River Clean-Up Task Force, the Gardiner Lakeshore Task Force, the Toronto Historical Board, the Toronto Arts Council, the Toronto Board of Education, the Metropolitan Separate School Board, the Metro Toronto Chief of Police, lhe Metro Toronto Commissioner of Planning, the Melro Toronto Commissioner of Transportation, the Metro Toront!? Commisssioner of Parks and Property, the Metro Toronto Commissioner of Community Services, the Toronto Transit Commission, the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Ontario Hydro, the Minister of .. ,.' , 58 Wi A8~ City of Toronto Executive Report No. 14 Housing, the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of the Environmento the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Minister of Education, the Minister of Community and Social Services, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and the federal Ministcr responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Appendix A Ataratiri Rcscarch Programme (20 April 1990) Workstream Study Status Base Data Vehicle Study completed ~'sting Buildings (Anrep) , , Lc I Surveys (Barnes) , , Infra ~ucture (Public compiled in-house, Works and utility complcted com pan \s) Environment Overall (S~NES) underway Air Quality\R WDI) draft report received Noise & Vib~tion (Vibron) \\ final report received Soil & Ground \\(ater (Trow, Dames & ~oore) draft report received Risk Analysis \ incomplete draft report (Concord) \ received Flood/SPA (MMM) final draft report received Health Risk Assessment underway (CanTox) Social Social Structure Analysis completed Structure and (Daly, Helfand, Thornley) Community Services Existing Community I I Services Inventory and Needs Projection New Community incomplete draft report Services (Peat, Marwick rec'cived Stevenson & Kellogg) Land Use and Urban Design Issues Physical Studies (Baird/Sampson; Planning A.J. Diamond; Ferguson & Ferguson; Jurecka, Lobko & Tregebov) W~ 'AY>, 76 City of Toronto Executive Report No. 14 ?U- ~ ~ ......- ~ .c u ... C ;0 c: ~ ~ e ~ 41 .. :: a c 0 l! l/ [ ~ ... a 41 '" H i "0 III ~ ~'~ c:C N .., :J.2 .., ..,~ ~ " .... .8 C/l- ~ ,~ c3 .c -"0 10 ~ . ,\!, 41c .. 0 ." z >0 oi:~ ~O z '2' i g.. . -cE ~~ l:- E o . e ..w ~ sl 0'- e -t: 00 0> ~~ - ... .;; '-;f u.cn < u~ c3 I Qj; >. Q)' ...J: '0' 0' .2: Ll.: " J a: ~ '. ~ .. < - (,.jl( "-90 77 City of To roo to Executive Report No. 14 ~ :f. ~ {; c: ;; ~ J; .. a. ~ 0 c: C 0 . 0; s. ~ '" ~~c: N ~.2 ~ '" O:.c '" ~~ ~ o. M M '2 c3 ~ I lD :;j . i , ci _ '0 Z Z ~ i 1? c c -= lW co e::< l:' E ~w 5 c - - ~ '" 0- u: .;;; ~~ 0 .( ua: u z 0 ~ u w I- 0 a: 0- 0 0 0 ..J U. a: ; a: '" c ;:: .co'3 iO ~ ~ 0( ~'j. ilL,. .... I 0( . w,e ~ql 78 City of Toronto Executive Report No. 14 ~ ~ ~ ~ c ;0 ~ ~ ~ . ~ 0 .S C 41 [ ~ .. ,2..0 C! 01 El" .. N o. ~ CJ) CD CD .~ € E! .. " c: a r~ t C'I en 41 d d: l Z , ~ c z g I! J c; cIS:'" c: 0 e:l: ~ E ~uJ 5 "'I. ta c ,Q CI - t: ~ ... 7i o,! :) .. ~cl! <3 <( ;J ~ ~ . .g c co ],. '.. ;; l! e .>( e 'Z. .. ! f - l!. o u c !! " \: <3 ~ ~ !. ~ ',. 0 1 BI~Will ....... n.: .:.:.:. ~'''.'' ....... ....... ;; f 2' : . ~ : ~ ~ & ,~;g~-i :E ~ ~ ..A [JJ~OO[TI a: ;:: 0( cr 0( .... 0( -- . wI(, ~92 83 City of Toronto Executive Report No. 14 CO f.. :;: ~ ""-Q) c u C ;; E ~ ~ Q) ;; J:; " .. 0 o c (/) C g C'l i ~ C .2 ;; ': .- '" III ~ : ~ ~ III '" (II ~ o ~ c ~ ~ ... ~ :; M ?,3 ~ t::' '" c '" c . 4i ~ -e z (II 0 lL .. '0 c: :z 9 J c E ~ c::: . e::! 1:- _ E ~w ~ - C Q) S!' ;;! ~ ... .. a. .( ~ 0 0 ua: u '" c :!j 5 IJ ... ,.. ~ .. '0 (; C ~ en .. . :;; N :: 0 0 a. ~;mTITIl ~ I li:ml . illiili i'i ;: <( IX <( >- <( wit ~qa 84 . 0 14 C fToronto Executive Report N . lty 0 c::r:t ~ c ...... u I c ;0 ~ ~ I ~ ~ C1I '- .. I :; C1I 0 C I > C a - "?i ~a: .. a 0 at 0 ~ ., I ;::c .,.Co;! o 0 N'! ~ .s ~ C1I Q ~ a ~ 'E " I a.C1I e" e'E.8 ': ~.c g ~'<3~ 41'" (0 '0 ~.. 0. E ci cl! I!:'l! Z C1I e z ~ S11 ~ r - - ~ ~~ ;eo I .0_ io OuJl: -.. Eg'''''' f III III C _ -.: ~ III C1I ~ 9 ;.a ~ ~ -< ~ 0& <3 I , i I I I~ ~- R I~ I I I I I , I I 0 I ) I / iC ;::: ~ ~ ~ WR ~q4- THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY BUDGET PREPARATION 1991 PROJECT FILES Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting #3/90 June 29, 1990 "ATARATIRI PROJECT - 1991 PROJECT FILE LISTS FLOOD CONTROL - MAJOR MAINTENANCE Benefiting Local Estimated Municipality proiect File Title Watershed Municipality Cost All Claireville D,-m - Rehabilitation Humber River Brampton $200,000 All Stouffville Dam Duffin Creek Whitchurch- $ 86,000 Stouffville All York Mills Channel Don River North York $ 41,000 All Black Ck. Chan. II Access Ramp Humber River North York $ 19,000 All Don Mills & York Mills Ch. . East Don River North York $ 30,000 FLOOD FORECASTING AND WARNING proiect File Title All Flood Warning Computer Update $ 10,000 All G.I.S. Based Flood Forecasting & Warning System $ 30,000 FLOOD CONTROL - SURVEYS & STUDIES Benefiting Local Estimated Municipality proiect File Title Watershed Municipality Cost York Elgin Retirement Home Rouge River $ 25,000 All Review of Don River Reg.Flood Don River $ 35,000 All Mapping Update Program $ 20,000 All Deed Plot Mapping $ 40,000 All SPA Review & Update $ 40,000 ~ ~ :4 CJ\ - 3 - t FLOOD CONTROL - CAPITAL ~ Benefiting Local Estimated Municipality proiect 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 Etobicoke Creek Etobicoke Ck. Mississauga $175,000 Tyndall Nursing Home All Hazard Land & Valley Land Acquisition All $200,000 . Metro Black Creek Black Creek North York $900,000 - Jane to Weston . COMPREHENSIVE WATER BASIN STUDIES Benefiting Estimated Municipality Proiect File Title Cost All Duffin Creek Watershed Phase II * $150,000 All Watershed Management Guidelines * $ 50,000 All Oak Ridges Moraine Resource Management Plan * $ 60,000 All Don River Watershed study * $ 50,000 All Phase 1 Humber River, Urban Drainage study * $150,000 . All Photoflex Data Base $ 25,000 Rouge strategy Implementation Committee * $ 10,000 Rouge River Hydrologic model update * $ 20,000 F.D.R.P. - FLOODPLAIN MAPPING Benefiting . Estimated Municipality Proiect File Title Cost All MTRCA Mapping Extension Program $100,000 FILL LINE MAPPING All Fill Regulation Extension Program * $ 40,000 ~ ~ N ~ ~ ... - 5 - -- C EROSION CONTROL - CAPITAL l' BENEFITING WATERSHED/ ESTIMATELt- MUNICIPALITY PROJECT FILE TITLE LAKE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY COST -- t' ~ ~PECIAL PROJECTS Bellamy Ravine - Meadowcliffe Storm Sewer Outfall Lake Ontario City of Scarborough $ 40,000 METRO - LAKESHORE Kingsbury Crescent Lake Ontario City of Scarborough $350,000 South Marine Drive Lake Ontario City of Scarborough $100,000 Fishleigh Drive . Lake Ontario City of Scarborough $300,000 Guildwood Parkway Lake Ontario City of Scarborough $300.000 $1,000,000 Sylvan (Phase II) Lake Ontario City of Scarborough $200,000 39-41 Springbank Lake Ontario City of Scarborough $100,000 Sunnypoint Berm Lake Ontario City of Scarbrough $100,000 #1 Fenwood Hts. - (Property Acq.) Lake Ontario City of Scarbrough $ 75,000 85 Fishleigh Dr. - (Property Acq.) Lake ontario City of Scarborough $350,000 METRO - VALLEY LANDS Burgandy Court - Phase II Humber River City of North York $ 91,000 Carmel Court Don River City of North York $350.000 $500,000 3030-3068 Weston Road Humber River City of North York $300,000 Slope Stability Parkview Hill Crescent East Don River East York $100,000 31-33 Cherryhill Avenue Centennial Ck. City of Scarborough $ 44,000 Humber Valley Yacht Club Humber River City of Etobicoke $ 49,000 Forest Grove Drive Don River city of NorthYork $ 92,500 40 - 42 Royal Rouge Trail Rouge River City of Scarborough $ 50,000 PEEL King Street - Bolton Humber River Town of Caledon $ 23,000 YORK R.R. #3 - Woodbridge Humber River Town of Vaughan $ 30,000 DURHAM Greenwood Conservation Duffin Creek Town of Ajax $ 43,000 Benefiting Local Estimated Municipalitv proiect File Title Watershed Municipalitv Cost EROSION CONTROL-SURVEY & STUDIES Erosion Control Update and Environmental Inventories $ 18,000 1220 Access Road. East Don River North York $ 15,000 Erosion Monitoring Stations $ 50,000 and BM Practices * . EROSION CONTROL-MAJOR MAINTENANCE Highland Creek - Col. Danforth Park Highland Creek City of Scarborough $ 40,000 3056 Grovetree Road West Humber River Etobicoke $ 20,000 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLANS-STUDIES Shoreline Staffing $ 93,900 Shoreline Master Plan-Data Base $ 35,000 ~ ~ N -D ~ flVR, 300 - 7 - 1991 CONSERVATION SERVICES PRO,JECT FI LE 1991 1991 1991 Expend. Revenue Net Expend. --------------------------------------------------------------- CONSERVATION PLANNING TREE PLANTING/REFORESTATION Conservation Plannin~ 215000 215000 Private Land StewRrdship * 113000 113000 Plant Propagation 180000 110000 10000 Tree Moving 3200 3200 0 Reforestat.ion 19500 3500 16000 Trt"le &. Shrub 11000 17000 0 Hyd:rogeedin~ 15000 15000 0 Allt.hori.t.v LRnd MRintenance * 200000 200000 Resource Management Tract 19000 19000 Forest Managemt"lnt 106000 15000 91000 TOTAL 881100 223700 664000 SOIL CONSERVATION/ SEDIMENT CONTROL Sediment Control 81000 30000 51000 Environmental Services 64000 64000 Riparian Habitat * 100000 100000 TOTAL 251000 30000 221000 FISH/WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT . Rouge Fish Management 50000 50000 Hllmht"lr R. Fi. s h Mn.e:t. 50000 50000 TOTAL 100000 0 100000 OUTDOOR RECREATION Benefiting Local Estimated Municipalitv proiect File Title Municipality Cost Metro Col. Sam smith - site servicing City of Etobicoke $300,000 Metro Tommy Thompson Park - E.A. hearing City of Toronto $ 50,000 Metro East Point - E.A. approval/hearing City of Scarborough $ 50,000 Metro Tommy Thompson Park - interim management City of Toronto $138,000 Metro Waterfront General - L.Ont. Waterfront City of Toronto, Environmental monitoring Etobicoke and Scarborough $ 87,000 . Metro Col. Sam Smith - interior shoreline treatment City of Etobicoke $103.000 Metro Etobicoke Motel Strip - public amenity scheme implementation City of Etobicoke $ 50,000 Metro Humber Bay West - pathways City of Etobicoke $ 40,000 Metro Humber Bay East - Seaquarium concept evaluation City of Etobicoke $ 10,000 Durham Frenchman's Bay - parking lot Town of Pickering $ 90,000 Metro Bluffers Park - electrical - Phase II City of Scarborough $115,000 Metro Col. Sam Smith - final grading City of Etobicoke $ 75,000 Metro AShbridge's Bay - shoreline improvements City of Toronto $200,000 Metro Etobicoke Motel Strip - legal and survey City of Etobicoke $ 10,000 Metro Bluffers Park - Fish Weigh-In/Cleaning Station City of Scarborough $ 30,000 Durham Ajax - tree and shrub planting Town of Ajax $ 52,000 Studies - ESA Management $ 50,000 Metro Chesterton Shores - Property Acquisition City of Scarborough $200,000 Durham Frenchman's Bay - Property Acquisition Town of Pickering $200,000 Durham Ajax Waterfront - Pickering Beach Rd. Property Acquisition Town of Ajax $200,000 ~ Metro Humber Bay West - final armouring HP - Phase I City of Etobicoke $150,000 ~ Metro Etobicoke Waterfront - Royal York Rd. Concept Plan Study City of Etobicoke $ 15,000 (,I Metro Western Beaches - Rowing Course - 1996 Olympics City of Toronto $100,000 () - - 9 - E Metro Bluffers Park - Brimley Road Access City of Scarborough $ 50,000 A) Metro Bluffers Park - toplands parking lot design City of Scarborough $ 30,000 t5 Metro East Point - Site servicing design City of Scarborough $ 40,000 Metro Bluffers Park - Brimley Road Sidewalk City of Scarborough $225,000 Metro Col. Sam Smith - landscaping - Phase I City of Etobicoke $ 60,000 ~ Metro East Point Park - launching ramp basin design City of Scarborough $ 30,000 Durham Ajax Waterfront - park lighting pathways Town of Ajax $ 37,000 Metro Bluffers Park - Boardwalk - easterly wetlands City of Scarborough $103,000 Durham Ajax Waterfront - pathways Town of Ajax $ 41,000 Metro Humber Bay West - Pedestrian bridge City of Etobicoke $300,000 Durham Ajax Waterfront - parking lot design and construction Town of Ajax $ 45,000 Metro Humber Bay West - Mimico Creek channelization City of Etobicoke $150,000 tvR 30~ THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY FILL REGULATION EXTENSION PROJECT, 1990 Letter from The Honourable Lyn McLeod Ontario Minister of Natural Resources June 8, 1990 ) Water and Related Land Manaqement Advisory Board - / June 29, 1990 ~tj Ministry of Minister Ministere des M,nlstre Queen sPark Natural Richesses Toronto, Ontario l..o~ M7A lW3 Resources naturelles 416/965-1301 '1--~ Ontario wR ~O4- JUN 0 7 1990 RE.CE1ViD2-MIN Mr. W. A. McLean .JlJN .8 .,- General Manager Metropolitan Toronto and Region M.T,.R.CA Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 Dear Mr. McL~an: Thank you for your letter of February 8, 1990, regarding the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's Fill Regulation Extension Project. I have noted the Authority's concerns and its request for my support for the completion of the Project. Once the Authority's Fill Regulation is submitted to us, we will expedite its registration through the Regulations Committee of Cabinet. We continue to encourage conservation authorities to develop guidelines for the establishment of Fill Regulations. The Ministry of Natural Resources recently released the Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulation Manual, January, 1990, to assist in the completion and registration of regulations. . The Ministry is also assisting in the completion of studies and mapping projects through the Canada/Ontario Flood Damage Reduction Program. In 1989, we funded a Regional Headwater Hydrology study for the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority which will assist the Authority in determining priority headwater areas for mapping. Again, thank you for informing me of the Authority's recommendations. Yours truly, 'J ~~(4~ Lyn McLeod Minister cc: Mr. Ron Kanter, MPP st. Andrew-St. Patrick w~. ~O5 ADDENDUM TO THE PROJECT FOR FLOOD PROTECTION WORKS 16TH AVENUE, GERMAN MILLS CREEK DON RIVER, TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL ~ The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority SEPl'EMBER 1990 2 wR. ?Db 1- PURPOSE The purpose of this project is to permit the Authority to raise the funds necessary to increase the capacity of the proposed culverts at 16th Avenue and the German Mills Creek to accommodate the regional flow. The culverts are part of a larger flood control scheme south of 16th Avenue to Bayview Avenue which is being implemented by a developer. The purpose of the addendum to this project is to increase the total cost of the project to account for a significant increase in the scope of the work. ". 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. 3. BACKGROUND At meeting #2/89 resolution #32 was passed: "THAT Project for Flood Protection, German Mills Creek at 16th Avenue, Town of Richmond Hill, Appendix WR.1 herewith, be adopted; THAT the Minister of Natural Resources be requested to approve the Project and provide a grant of 55% on the total estimated cost of $150,000; \)J (l... 'bOt 3 AND FURTHER THAT the Region of York be designated as the benefiting municipality and asked to approve the Project and accept a levy of 45% of the total project cost." This project was originally intended to raise $150,000 but the cost of the Authority's share of the proposed works is now estimated to be $330,000. The increase in cost is primarily the result of the decision by the Region of York to proceed with the construction of a grade separation at 16th Avenue and the CNR tracks east of Yonge street. As a result, the culverts proposed as part of the flood control scheme will now be approximately 100m long instead of 65m as originally proposed. ~ The Authority was aware of the proposal for the future grade separation but at the time, the Region of York was not planning to proceed with construction until federal funding was secured. It was unlikely that federal funding would be available and as a result the Authority proceeded to adopt a Project to raise sufficient funds to pay for the Authority's share of the cost of the first phase of the work. The Region of York subsequently decided, late in 1989, to proceed with the grade separation without the benefit of federal funds because of the rapid increases in traffic volumes and concerns for the safety of the crossing. The Authority's agreement with the Region of York contains the following clause: "If the Region determines that a grade separation railway crossing will be installed at or near the culvert and as a result it is necessary to extend the culvert northerly, the Authority shall attempt to obtain the necessary approvals to permit it to contribute to the costs of such extension on the same basis and on the same terms 4 W~ · ~t)g contained in this Agreement after deducting that portion of the costs contributed by third parties." 4. COST ESTIMATES AND FUNDING The cost of the Project as originally proposed was $150,000 to be funded as follows: Ministry of Natural Resources $ 82,500 55% The Regional Municipality of York 67.500 45% $150.000 The Regional Municipality of York is passing its share of the cos~ to the Town of Richmond Hill. The revised cost of the Project is now $330,000 which is proposed to be funded as follows: Ministry of Natural Resources $181,500 55% The Regional Municipality of York 148.500 45% $330.000 5. TIMING The Region of York awarded a contract for construction of the culverts in June, 1990. It is anticipated that the work will be complete in the spring of 1991. It is proposed that the Authority's share of the project costs be paid as follows: 1990 $150,000 1991 180.000 $330.000 ~~~g~69.10 ~ - WR.309 THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY PROJECT FOR EROSION CONTROL & SLOPE STABILIZATION IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES OF PEEL, YORK AND DURHAM: 1987-1991 PROGRESS REPORT AND POOL OF EROSION SITES Water , Related Land Manaqement Advisory Board Meetinq #5/90 September 21, 1990 W~. 5(0 THE PROJECT FOR EROSION CONTROL AND SLOPE STABILIZATION IN METROPOLITAN TORONTO 1987-1991 THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY SEPTEMBER, 1990 ~ -~-- PROGRESS REPORT wR, ~II The following is a list at which major or minor remedial work was carried out between the inception of Project W.C.-60 _ IErosion 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 four 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 River 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 WR.312 LOCATION WATERSHED WORK YEAR 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 I Development Newtonbrook Creek 1981 9 & 11 Sulkara Court Don River 1981 Denison Road Vicini.ty 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 II 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 Burgandy Court Humber River In Progress 6-10 Saddletree East Don River In Progress (German Mills Ck.) wlt.3a3 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 Shoreham 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 West~eigh 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 Riy.er 1979 Glen Rouge Trailer Camp Rouge River 1979 Beechgrove Drive - I I Highland Creek 1980 ""R,.31'f- LOCATION 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 Wilket 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 Waulron 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 63 Minor Works 53 Total Expenditure $7,300,000 wll. ~1S- The following table lists the top fourteen ( 14 ) valley land erosion si tes in order of their technical pri ori ty. The current pool of priorities will be reviewed regularly during 1991 to accommodate any significant changes and the possible inclusion of new sites. ..g - ro ~ 3 METROPOLITAN TORONTO PRIORITY LIST - 1991 PRIORITY LOCATION WATERSHED MUNICIPALITY COMMENTS 1 90-92 CARMEL COURT EAST DON RIVER NORTH YORK PROBLEM: RIVERBANK EROSION STRUCTURES AFFECTED: 5 HOMES HEIGHT OF BANK: 17M LENGTH OF BANK: 80M 2 3030-3068 WESTON RD. HUMBER RIVER NORTH YORK PROBLEM: SLOPE FAILURE & RIVER BANK EROSION STRUCTURES AFFECTED: 2 HOMES HEIGHT OF BANK: 14M LENGTH OF BANK: 210M 3 180-188 PARKVIEW DON RIVER EAST YORK PROBLEM: SLOPE FAILURE & RIVERBANK HILL CRESCENT EROSION STRUCTURES AFFECTED: 4 RESIDENTIAL HOUSE LOTS HEIGHT OF BANK: 35M LENGTH OF BANK: 100M 4 1220 ACCESS RD. AT EAST DON RIVER NORTH YORK PROBLEM: SLOPE FAILURE & RIVERBANK SHEPPARD AVE. EAST EROSION STRUCTURES AFFECTED: OFFICE BUILDING HEIGHT OF .BANK: 17M LENGTH OF BANK: 50M 5 31-33 CHERRYHILL AVE CENTENNIAL CRK. SCARBOROUGH PROBLEM: VALLEYWALL EROSION STRUCTURES AFFECTED: 2 HOMES HEIGHT OF BANK: 9M LENGTH OF BANK: 20M METROPOLITAN TORONTO PRIORITY LIST - 1991 PRIORITY LOCATION WATERSHED MUNICIP1\LITY COMMENTS 6 8 ALDER ROAD MASSEY CREEK EAST YORK PROBLEM: SLOPE FAILURE STRUCTURES AFFECTED: ONE ROADWAY & SERVICES HEIGHT OF BANK: 20M LENGTH OF BANK: 16M 7 42-44 ROYAL ROUGE ROUGE SCARBOROUGH PROBLEM: VALLEY WALL FAILURE TRAIL STRUCTURES AFFECTED: ONE HOME & ONE POOL HEIGHT OF BANK: 30M LENGTH OF BANK: 20M 8 BURNHAMTHORPE ROAD MIMI CO CREEK ETOBICOKE PROBLEM: RIVERBANK EROSION AT MATTICE ROAD STRUCTURES AFFECTED: ROADWAY (SOUTH OF ISLINGTON HEIGHT OF BANK: 11M GOLF CLUB) LENGTH OF BANK: 50M 9 91 FOREST GROVE DON RIVER NORTH YORK PROBLEM: SLOPE FAILURE & RIVERBANK DRIVE EROSION STRUCTURES AFFECTED: ONE HOME HEIGHT OF BANK: 8M LENGTH OF BANK: 23M 10 HUMBER VALLEY YACHT HUMBER RIVER ETOBICOKE PROBLEM: RIVERBANK EROSION CLUB STRUCTURES AFFECTED: YACHT CLUB, GAS PUMPS, HYDRO & WATER SERVICES, DOCKS HEIGHT OF BANK: 1. 5M LENGTH OF BANK: 300M l' - ('A . ~ 00 .... ~ . ~ METROPOLITAN TORONTO PRIORITY LIST - 1991 PRIORITY LOCATION WATERSHED MUNICIPALITY COMMENTS *11 93-113 WEIR CESCENT 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 12 221 MARTIN GROVE MIMI CO CREEK ETOBICOKE PROBLEM: SLOPE FAILURE & RIVERBANK ROAD EROSION STRUCTURES AFFECTED: ONE RESIDENCE HEIGHT OF BANK: 12M LENGTH OF BANK: 24M *13 14-21 STANWOOD HUMBER RIVER NORTH YORK PROBLEM: SLOPE FAILURE CRESCENT STRUCTURES AFFECTED: FOUR RESIDENCES HEIGHT OF BANK: 21M LENGTH OF BANK: 60M 14 SEWELL'S ROAD AT ROUGE RIVER SCARBOROUGH PROBLEM: SLOPE FAILURE & RIVERBANK FINCH 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). wR~ 1> ley THE PROJECT FOR EROSION CONTROL AND SLOPE STABILIZATION IN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL 1987-1991 THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY SEPTEMBER, 1990 PROGRESS REPORT WR. ~:lC 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 four years of the 1987-1991 Project for Erosion Control and Slope Stabilization. LOCATION WATERSHED WORK YEAR 138 King Street Vicinity - Bolton Humber River 1979 (Caledon) Sherway Drive, (Mi ssi ssauga) Etobicoke Creek 1979 Wildwood Park, (Mi ssi ssauga) Mimico Creek 1979 Mill Street, (Brampton) Etobicoke Creek 1980 Pony trail Drive & Steepbank Cres. Etobicoke Creek 1980-1981 (Mississauga) 10 Beamish, Wildfield (Brampton) West Humber River 1980 (Lindsay Creek) Centennial Road - Bolton Humber River 1981 (Caledon) Legion Street near Derry Road Mimico Creek 1982 (Mississauga) Charolais Blvd., (Brampton) Etobicoke Creek 1982 Glasgow Road (Caledon) 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 .. wit. ~~\ The following table lists the top seven ( 7 ) erosion sites i n order of their technical priority. The current pool of priorities will be reviewed regularly during 1991 to accommodate any significant changes and the possible inclusion of new sites. " ~ M . at 3 POOL OF EROSION PRIORITY SITES 1991 - PEEL REGION PRIORITY LOCATION WATERSHED MUNICIPALITY COMMENTS ,I 302 KING ST. EAST- HUMBER RIVER CALEDON PROBLEM: RIVERBANK EROSION BOLTON STRUCTURES AFFECTED: TWO HOMES HEIGHT OF BANK: 7M LENGTH OF BANK: 80M 2 1726 LINCOLNSHIRE ETOBICOKE CREEK MISSISSAUGA PROBLEM: RIVER BANK EROSION BLVD. STRUCTURES AFFECTED: ONE HOME HEIGHT OF BANK: 20M LENGTH OF BANK: 30M 3 4424-4434 PALISADES ETOBICOKE CREEK MISSISSAUGA PROBLEM: VALLEY WALL EROSION LANE & BEECHKNOLL STRUCTURES AFFECTED: THREE HOMES COURT HEIGHT OF BANK: 16M LENGTH OF BANK: 70M 4 6469 NETHERHART ROAD ETOBICOKE CREEK MISSISSAUGA PROBLEM: SLOPE FAILURE & RIVERBANK EROSION STRUCTURES AFFECTED: STORAGE AREA BEHIND INDUSTRIAL BUILDING HEIGHT OF BANK: 12M LENGTH OF BANK: 40M 5 12 BEAMISH COURT WEST HUMBER BRAMPTON PROBLEM: SLOPE FAILURE & RIVERBANK (W.H.-142) RIVER EROSION STRUCTURES AFFECTED: PRIVATE PROPERTY HEIGHT OF BANK: 6M LENGTH OF BANK: 20M POOL OF EROSION PRIORITY SITES 1991 - PEEL REGION PRIORITY LOCATION WATERSHED MUNICIPALITY COMMENTS 6 RIVERS PRAY CRES. LITTLE ETOBICOKE MISSISSAUGA PROBLEM: MINOR RIVERBANK EROSION (SITE #1) CREEK STRUCTURES AFFECTED: PUBLIC PARKLAND & PRIVATE PROPERTY HEIGHT OF BANK: 5M LENGTH OF BANK: 30M 7 RIVERS PRAY CRES. LITTLE ETOBICOKE MISSISSAUGA PROBLEM: MINOR RIVERBANK EROSION (SITE #2) CREEK STRUCTURES AFFECTED: PUBLIC PARKLAND HEIGHT OF BANK: 4M LENGTH OF BANK: 35M fO ~ M ti ~ 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, 1990 WR. ~~S" 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 four 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 Farm) 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 1989 Summary: Major Sites Completed 21 Total Expenditure $280,500.00 w~ .~AIo 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 1991 to accommodate any significant changes and the possible inclusion of new sites. , .-. \'-( N) . ~ .3 YORK REGION EROSION PRIORITY - 1991 PRIORITY LOCATION WATERSHED MUNICIPALITY COMMENTS 1 73 BIRCH AVE. LITTLE DON RIVER RICHMOND PROBLEM: SLOPE FAILURE & RIVERBANK RICHMOND HILL HILL EROSION STRUCTURES AFFECTED: ONE RESIDENCE & ONE ROADWAY HEIGHT OF BANK: 7M LENGTH OF BANK: 50M 2 R.R.#3 WOODBRIDGE HUMBER RIVER VAUGHAN PROBLEM: RIVERBANK EROSION STRUCTURES AFFECTED: ONE POOL, ONE TENNIS COURT HEIGHT OF BANK: 3M LENGTH OF BANK: 180M 3 IBM GOLF COURSE ROUGE RIVER MARKHAM PROBLEM: SLOPE FAILURE & RIVERBANK EROSION STRUCTURES AFFECTED: THREE HOMES HEIGHT OF BANK: 16M LENGTH OF BANK: 70M 4 16 RAVENCLIFFE ROAD DON RIVER MARKHAM PROBLEM: SLOPE FAILURE STRUCTURES AFFECTED: ONE RESIDENCE & ONE POOL HEIGHT OF BANK: IBM LENGTH OF BANK: 10.5M 5 21-25 CAROLWOOD ROUGE RIVER MARKHAM PROBLEM: SLOPE FAILURE & RIVERBANK CRESCENT EROSION STRUCTURES AFFECTED: PRIVATE PROPERTY, POOL & SHED HEIGHT OF BANK: IBM LENGTH OF BANK: 250M POOL OF EROSION PRIORITY SITES 1991 - YORK REGION PRIORITY LOCATION WATERSHED MUNICIPALITY COMMENTS 6 20 DEANBANK EAST DON RIVER MARKHAM PROBLEM: TOE EROSION AND SLUMPING OF SLOPE STRUCTURES AFFECTED: ONE RESIDENCE HEIGHT OF BANK: 13M LENGTH OF BANK: 40M 7 9854 HWY. #27 HUMBER RIVER VAUGHAN PROBLEM: RIVERBANK EROSION KLEINBURG STRUCTURES AFFECTED: ONE RESIDENCE HEIGHT OF BANK: 2M LENGTH OF BANK: 37M 8 9961 WARDEN AVE. ROUGE RIVER MARKHAM PROBLEM: SLOPE FAILURE (BERCZY CREEK) STRUCTURES AFFECTED: ONE RESIDENCE HEIGHT OF BANK: 3M LENGTH OF BANK: 75M 9 22 FRAMINGHAM DR. DON RIVER MARKHAM PROBLEM: UNDERCUTTING OF SLOPE 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 & SLUMPING STRUCTURES AFFECTED: PRIVATE PROPERTY HEIGHT OF BANK: 10M LENGTH OF BANK: 30M ~ cO ~ 3 W~. ~Z'l THE PROJECT FOR EROSION CONTROL AND SLOPE STABILIZATION IN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM 1987-1991 THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY SEPTEMBER 1990 .. W~. a60. 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 four 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 To ta 1 Expenditures $82,200 I,Ut.~1 The following table lists the top eight ( 8 ) valley land erosion sites i n order of their technical priority. The current pool of priorities will be reviewed regularly during 1991 to accommodate any significant changes and the possible inclusion of new sites. ~ c-t) . at 3 POOL' OF EROSION PRIORITY SITES 1991 - DURHAM REGION PRIORITY LOCATION WATERSHED MUNICIPALITY COMMENTS 1 GREENWOOD C.A. DUFFIN CREEK AJAX PROBLEM: SLOPE FAILURE & VALLEYWALL (LOOKOUT TOWER SITE) EROSION STRUCTURES AFFECTED: LOOKOUT TOWER - BASE STRUCTURE HEIGHT OF BANK: 23M LENGTH OF BANK: 50M 2 5TH CONCESSION - DUFFIN CREEK PICKERING/ PROBLEM: RIVERBANK EROSION GREENWOOD C.A. AJAX STRUCTURES AFFECTED: BRIDGE ABUTMENT HEIGHT OF BANK: 3M LENGTH OF BANK: 50M 3 1789 ALTONA ROAD PETTICOAT CREEK PICKERING PROBLEM: RIVERBANK EROSION STRUCTURES AFFECTED: GARAGE & PRIVATE PROPERTY HEIGHT OF BANK: 7M LENGTH OF BANK: 15M 4 ALTONA ROAD, R-5 PETTICOAT CREEK PICKERING PROBLEM: RIVERBANK EROSION (WEST SIDE, ACROSS STRUCTURES AFFECTED: ROADWAY & HYDRO FROM #1800 ALTONA POLE ROAD) HEIGHT OF BANK: 1.5M LENGTH OF BANK: 30M 5 1840 ALTONA ROAD PETTICOAT CREEK PICKERING PROBLEM: RIVERBANK EROSION STRUCTURES AFFECTED: HOUSE & PRIVATE PROPERTY HEIGHT OF BANK: 3M LENGTH OF BANK: 40M POOL OF EROSION PRIORITY SITES 1991 - DURHAM REGION PRIORITY LOCATION WATERSHED MUNICIPALITY COMMENTS 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 STRUCTURES AFFECTED: GARAGE HEIGHT OF BANK: 6M LENGTH OF BANK: 16M 8 RAVENSCROFT ROAD DUFFIN CREEK AJAX PROBLEM: RIVERBANK EROSION STRUCTURES AFFECTED: MTRCA LAND HEIGHT OF BANK: 2M LENGTH OF BANK: 133M N\ ~ . ~ 3 . W~.~?>4 Ring-billed Gull Control Program Tommy Thompson Park, 1990 .. '. For: The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority BY: Ulrich Watermann and Gwynneth Cunningham OF: Bird Control International IN: July, 1990 BIRD CONTROL INTERNATIONAL HUMANE SOLUTIONS 348 Broote Street South Milton, Ontario Canada L'1fSB6 Tel: (416)878-8468 ~ .. --- . ~~.~~( i Acknowledgements I would like to thank the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA) for its support of this program. In particular, I would like to thank: Mr. Dave Dyce, Manager, and Mr. J.e. Mather, Director, who gave their support to the project; and Mr. Scott Jarvie, Park Services Coordinator of Tommy Thompson Park, who supervised MTRCA staff on the site. In addition, I would like to thank Mr. Greg Sadowski and Ms. Sheila Johnson (the two MTRCA contract biologists) who were responsible for general Ring-billed Gull control work. Both Biologist's previous ornithological experience was of help in identifying birds and constructing the checklist. .~ Mr. Tim Dyson of Bird Control International worked for two days per week from the beginning of May until the program ended relieving Mr. Watermann. Mr. Dyson's skill in handling the raptors and his knowledge of general ornithology was an asset to the program. Gwynneth Cunningham of Bird Control International helped write the report. It should be pointed out that good co-operation between the MTRCA staff, the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS), and myself, led to the overall success of the program. . iI w~ .~~Io Summary Since 1973 the numbers of breeding pairs of Ring-billed Gulls (Larus delawarensis) at Tommy Thompson Park increased from ten (to) pairs to approximately eighty thousand (80,000) plus pairs in 1983. The 1984 program was undertaken by the MTRCA to prevent the existing population of gulls from expanding 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 again contracted to discourage gull nesting in specific areas at Tommy Thompson Park. These areas were the new Endikement, areas south of the main road, and area D (See Figure 1). The program used the same scare methods as were used ~ in 1984 and was again successful in the following years. In 1988 the program was again tendered to a number of wildlife control agencies and Ulrich Watermann, now of Bird Control International Incorporated (Bel) was awarded the contract for the 1988 season. Bird Control International Incorporated was 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, maintain .all options for the master plan and to allow for continued construction of the site. TOl\11\.1Y TH01\IPSON PARK 7 FIGURE 1 1990 STUDY AREA nmm CONTROLLED AREAS (:~:\::'.::::] UNCONTROLLED GULL COLONIES .~ IWAAD' .~ OureR HARBOUR I I I I I I / I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4 I I "0~ ~ I I I lAKE ONTARIO I V the metropolitan toronto and region '--... I conservation authonty I -..... - -'J 0 ~oo III ( T.(S L I , , . I , '(( t I 1 I 1 0 1000 lQOO - ----- jv wR. i5t Table of Contents Page Acknowledgements I Summary 11 Table of Contents IV List of Figures V List of Tables V .... 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Purpose 2 3.0 Study Objectives 2 4.0 Methodology 3 5.0 Results 5 6.0 Observations 11 7.0 Recommendations 17 References 18 Appendices 19 ~, ~3' y List of Figures Page 1. 1989 Study Area III 2. Peak Egg-Laying Period on the Endikement Tip and Finger 2 8 3. Peak Egg-Laying Periods on the Causeway, Hardpoint 5 and the Lighthouse 9 ~ List of Tables Page 1. Location and Number of Eggs on the Endikement During the Egg-Laying Period 7 2. Comparison of Total Number of Eggs Collected From 1985 - 1989 10 3. Nest Counts For Ring-billed Gulls in the Uncontrolled Areas 10 4. Comparison of Ring-billed Gull and Black-crowned Heron Nest #'s in Area C, 1985-1990 13 1 LAIR. 34-f) 1.0 Introduction Tommy Thompson Park, also referred to as Aquatic Park and the Leslie Street Spit, extends five (5) km. into Lake Ontario 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 facilities. By 1972 the Toronto Harbour Commissioners determined that a large portion of the headland was no longer required for port expansion, and thougbt was directed toward developing a public park. In 1973 the province of Ontario appointed tbe 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 (Larus 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 un-managed. The presence of eighty thousand (80,000) pairs of gulls in close proximity 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 V.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. ~~~ 11L-1 2 2.0 Purpose The purpose of the 1990 program was to restrict Ring-billed Gull nesting from the Endikement, areas south of the main 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 growing 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. -~ -~ w~. ~/I.~ J 4.0 Methodology The program commenced on the 26th of March 1990 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) staff; Ulrich Watermann of BCI, Greg Sadowski and Sheila Johnson of the MTRCA. Ulrich Watermann and Greg Sadowski shared the falconry aspect of the program. Sheila Johnson did general control work and was responsible for record keeping with the exception of the egg count which was done by Mr. ~adowski. Mr. Tim Dyson of BCI joined the program when it was extended to 7 days per week and relieved Mr. Watermann two days per week. 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 who reported to Mr. Jarvie. 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 in such a manner as to refrain from disturbing other birdlife and nesting gulls in the wtt. Dtta 4 uncontrolled areas A, B, C, and the Blokpoel Islands. Pyrotechnical devices were used much less than in previous years due to the sharp decline in loafing gulls. 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 into the air to achieve the scare effect. 4.4 Distress Calls Taped distress calls of Ring-billed Gulls and Herring Gulls, tape recorder and loudhaler were available however it was not necessary to use them. It was found that the raptors ~ were doing a sufficient job keeping the gulls under control. 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. 5 W_ . 3 II- If 5.0 Results The Ring-billed Gull (RBG) Control Program started on March 26, 1990 with a staff of three (3). Mr. Ulrich Watermann, of Bird Control International Incorporated, (the contracted bird control firm), was responsible for the general supervision of the control program. He also handled the falconry aspect of the program, working from early afternoon until dusk. Mr. Greg Sadowski and Ms. Sheila John~;on were the two persons hired by the MTRCA, responsible for general Gull control work. While Mr. Sadowski was responsible for scaring gulls from the endikement, Ms. Johnson controlled the gulls south of the spine road on the main part of the Park. They shared duties on the causeway and in area D. Both Mr.... Sadowski and Ms. Johnson were responsible for record keeping. Mr. Tim Dyson of BCI relieved Mr. Watermann for two days per week once egg laying had commenced and the program was extended to seven days a week. The initial census showed about 42,270 RBG's on the entire Spit. Less than a thousand (1000) gulls wer~ present in the specified control areas, while the rest were starting courtship in the uncontrolled areas A, B, C and the Blokpoel Islands. A number of scrapes were seen in areas A and B and several herring gull nests had been completed. A Harris Hawk, a Saker Falcon and a Hybrid Falcon were used in the initial control work. The Hybrid Falcon was the one used for flying in different areas while the other two birds were perched in alternating fashion from area to area as the situation demanded. Gull activity. in the controlled areas was unusually light. Sub-adult and immature RBG's were not present as in other years, and, as it turned out, never came back to the Spit at all except for the odd individual. Ring-bills started laying eggs in the uncontrolled areas on April 17, 1990. -~ --~ .,u(L.l a,,~ 6 The first two RBG eggs in the control areas were collected on April 24, 1990 on the Tip of the Endikement. BCI was approached by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners and hired to control the flock of some 5000 adult RBG's that had established a colony on the tip of the Outer Harbour Marina. The expulsion of the gulls from this area increased the gull activity on the endikement and at the causeway to some degree, but since the overall gull activity was at an all time low, we were quite capable of handling the extra pressure. Sheila Johnson and Greg Sadowski spent ~ lot of time helping the CWS in the construction and implementation of the artificial nesting rafts for the common terns during the first part of May. The Gull nest count was conducted by Gaston Tessier from the CWS with the help of Sheila and Greg. The total number for areas A, B, and C was 46,799 RBG nests. The.. nests located on the Blokpoel Islands were estimated but not included in the count. Some 200 newly established nests on the old barges in Embayement A were also not included in the count. The egg-laying in the controlled areas peaked during the third week of May when the RBG's tried frantically to colonize the new landmass at the causeway. This situation was probably caused by rising water levels which actually washed out over 90% of the nesting gulls at Blokpoel's Islands. The overall objective to prevent RBG's from nesting in the controlled areas was met, except for the fact that seven (7) eggs were collected by MTRCA staff after the BCI part of the program had come to an end on June 8, 1990. -- ~ - Wtt:S4-fc TABLE 1 LOCATION AND NUMBER OF EGGS ON THE ENDIKEMENT DURING THE EGG LAYING PERIOD DATE Finl!er 1 Finl!er 2 Causewav IiQ Lil!hthouse Area D Total April 24 2 2 2S 1 1 26 0 27 0 28 0 ']!) 0 0 30 11 11 May 1 2 1 3 2 1 11 12 3 21 2 23 4 18 5 23 5 0 6 9 15 24 7 -6 6 8 2 2 4 9 2 2 10 0 11 0 12 1 1 3 5 13 2 .~ 2 14 1 8 1 10 15 5 5 16 0 17 0 18 15 15 19 0 20 33 33 21 21 1 22 22 4 2 1 7 23 24 24 24 3 3 2S 4 4 26 4 4 27 4 4 28 7 7 ']!) 2 1 3 30 3 3 31 0 June 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 7 7 6 5 5 7 0 8 1 1 2 9 0 10 0 11 0 12 0 13 0 14 7 7 15 0 - - - - - - - TOTAL 0 7 193 69 13 1 283 Note: Finger 3 and hardpoints 5 & 6 are combined as the .Causeway. ~ ~ . PEAK EGG-LAYING PERIOD ON THE ENDIKEMENT u-a TIP AND FINGER 2 ~ .-J 35 31 30 N 25 0 . o 20 F E 15 G G 10 S 7 5 0 22-28 29-5 6-12 13-19 20-26 27-2 3-9 10-12 DATE (WEEKS) APRIL 24 TO JUNE 15 FIGURE 2 .' PEAK EGG-LAYING PERIODS ON THE CAUSEWAY, HARDPOINT 6 AND THE LIGHTHOUSE 120 100 94 N 0 80 . 0 F 60 E G 40 G S 20 0 22-28 29-5 6-12 13-19 20-26 27-2 3-9 10-17 DATE (WEEKS) APRIL 24 TO JUNE 15 ~ FIGURE 3 i\) . .' al ~ 06 ~R.~4~ TABLE 2 COMPARISON OF TOTAL NUMBER OF EGGS COLLECTED FROM 1985 - 1990 HP so l.JTII AREA D FINGER 1 FINGER 2 FINGER 3 TIP LI G mtlO USE HP 5 & 6 FINGER 1 1985 62 60 128 2529 1986 10 2 7 144 85 299 1987 86 0 45 70 12 10 420 1988 6 0 14 32 90 15 30 1989 4 0 88 53 373 52 34 49 1990 1 0 7 . 69 13 . . From 1990 onwards, finger 3 and Hardpoint 5 are incorporated into the .causeway" as are no longer distinguishable as separate locations. 193 eggs collected on causeway in 1990. TOTALS 1985 2T79 1986 547 ~ 1987 643 1988 187 1989 653 1990 283 TABLE 3 NEST COUNTS FOR RING-BILLED GULLS IN THE UNCONTROLLED AREAS No. of Nests Peninsula ~ 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 13, ()()() 11,550 13,944 24,414 28,491 19,044 A 20,590 19,957 22,706 31,264 30,621 26,185 B 14,305 13,134 8,705 6,726 2,833 1,570 C Blokpoel NA NA NA 1,161 NA NA Island Complex w~. !$O 11 6.0 Observations 6.1 Ring-billed Gulls A census on March 26, 1990 revealed 42,270 RBG's on the Spit. All the gulls with the rare exception were mature birds involved in the early stages of courtship. A few scrapes were found on peninsula A and B. Less than 1000 RBG's were found in the control areas. Almost all of these birds were adults as well. The first eggs appeared on April 17, 1990 in the uncontrolled areas, while the first eggs in the controlled areas were collected on_ April 24. Pressure by the gulls was down considerably from the previous years in the controlled areas. The immature and sub-adult RBG's simply never came back for the duration of- the program. A count of nesting gulls revealed a figure of 46,799 RBG's in the uncontrolled areas. This is some 12,000 less than in 1989. Blokpoel's Islands and the small colony nesting on the barges in Embayment A were not taken into consideration. A strong storm on May 10, 1990 wiped out several thousand of the RBG nests on Peninsula A. Gull Control work was also undertaken for the Toronto Harbour Commissioners at the Outer harbour Marina, where approximately 2500 pairs of RBG's were in early courtship. The expulsion of these gulls created more pressure on the Causeway but since the overall pressure of gulls was down, we were capable of handling the situation. The trend of the RBG numbers decreasing while the Black-crowned Night Herons increased in Peninsula C continued this year. See Table 4. 6.2 Other Gulls Herring Gulls were slightly lower in numbers than in previous years with a total of 96 nests altogether. The Author noticed that several RBG nests in Peninsula A contained one or two Herring Gull eggs. . vJtt. ~$' u A few Greater Black-backed Gulls were present during the early part of the program. The same is true for Glaucous and Iceland Gulls. Bonapart's Gulls were first seen on April 14, with some flocks up to 20 individuals being observed. 6.3 Caspian Terns The first Caspian Tern was sighted on April 11, 1990. Their numbers never went above 6 individuals at one time. Nesting by this species did not occur at the Spit in 1990. 6.4 Common Terns The first Common Terns were spotted on April 19,1990. Their numbers were down from previous years, however the CWS and MTRCA constructed some Artificial Nesting Rafts to provide additional nesting habitat for the Common Terns. These rafts were launched on May 4, 1990. In spite of the overall lower Common Tern Numbers, the reproduction'~ rate, thanks to the rafts was sharply up from the previous years. Mr. Sadowski banded 169 young Common Terns on the Rafts. The overall success was highly encouraging and it is the Author's opinion that the CWS and the MTRCA are to be congratulated for the implementation of this raft program. Tern activity was low otherwise. The few nests that were established on the Tip of the Endikement were predated upon, and it can not be substantiated that nest anywhere else but on the rafts were successful. 6.5 Black-crowned Night Herons These birds returned about one week later than last year. Their numbers increased overall with a nest count undertaken on May 31 revealing the following figures: Area A 2 Area B 182 Area C ~ Total 989 W~. ~5".2. 13 The trend of increasing Black-crowned Night Heron nesting activity in conjunction with decreasing RBG nesting activity in the control areas continued. See Table 4. Table 4 Comparison of Ring-billed Gull and Black-crowned Night Heron Nest #~s in Area C, 1985-1990 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 "- BCNH 0 0 516 621 765 989 RBG 14,305 13,134 8,705 6,726 2,833 1,570 f1J~. l> 5a 14 6.5 Double-crested Cormorants The first Double-crested Cormorants were seen on April 11, 1990. Their numbers increased to about 300 individuals by the third week of May. They were observed carrying nest material on Peninsula A and B, and during the third week of May two nests were constructed on the western tip of peninsula B and several others were started. Birds involved in copulation were observed on the two finished nests on May 28, however, the nests were destroyed during a storm a few days later and the bulk of the cormorants left the Spit with only a few non-nesting individuals remaining. 6.6 Waterfowl ~ Canada Goose reproduction seemed to be normal with 15 nests counted, of which 9 were successful. Two Snow Geese came to stay on May 10, and it is believed that they are the same two that were present on the Spit for the past 4 years. A flock of about 250 Brant Geese was observed on May 21, 1990. One Ruddy Shelduck was observed on May 28 and is believed to be an escapee. In general, duck activity was somewhat less than in previous years, and holds especially true for diving ducks. ~ IS wQ~ ?>~q. 6.7 Shorebirds Shorebird migration was one large disappointment. Their numbers were unusually low with the only exception being a flock of about 50 Red Knot observed on May 20. The largest number of Whimbrel seen at one time was a mere 20. 6.8 Birds of Prey What was said about the shorebirds holds true for the birds of prey as well. Only one Peregrine Falcon was seen (April 3). This trend continued with only one Snowy Owl and one Red-tailed Hawk observed during ~ the entire program. One Rough-legged Hawk was spotted on April 12, 1990. Even Kestrels were rarely seen and Great Horned Owls were not observed at all. 6.9 Passerines A massive migration of small birds was observed during the third week of May. The author observed in one instance, 28 Scarlet Tanagers in one tree in Peninsula D. In another case, some 17 American Redstarts were seen among other warblers in one tree in Peninsula D. 6.10 Common Loons Common Loons congregated on April 19 all along the Spit. Some 400 birds were observed by Sheila Johnson during the afternoon. By evening of that day more than 2000 Common Loons were seen by the author. ~A.-aG~ 16 6.11 Mammals The only outstanding sighting was that of a Beaver swimming around the Tip of the Endikement on April 26. The author found some fresh Beaver sign in Peninsula B about a week later (some small poplars had been cut). 6.12 Reptiles and Amphibians Garter snakes appeared by mid-April in usual numbers. Only one painted turtle was observed near the lookout. One large Milk snake was seen on the road just West of the Bridge on May 22. ~ 1J1t. 35(0 17 7.0 Recommendations The 1990 Ring-billed Gull Control Program ran very smoothly and the desired results were achieved. A major reason was the lower number of Ring-billed Gulls on the entire Spit, especially the absence of immature and sub-adult birds. Another reason was the good co- operation between the different parties involved, namely the MTRCA, the CWS and BCI. It can not be anticipated that the Ring-billed Gull numbers will stay at this years low level, therefore it is recommended that the program be continued in its proven form with the suggestion that it be continued about 14 days longer since the ovulation period for Ring.... billed Gulls is not quite over by the beginning of June. IUR.11'; 18 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- 82, MTRCA, 1983. Fetterolf, P., 1983 In Aquatic Park Environmental Study. 1978- -. 82, 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 Program at North Bay, 1978. 19 wR. l5~ APPENDIX I Checklist of Birds Observed at Tommy Thompson Park This list comprises bird species observed at Tommy Thompson Park on the Endikement, areas south of the main road, and in area D, in 1990. Species marked with an asterisk (*) have been known to nest at the site (Aquatic Park Study, 1982). Species marked with an exclamation (!) are new species for the park in 1990. The nomenclature and sequence of species follows that. of t~e American Ornithologist's Union Checklist of North American Birds (6th Edition, 1983). .~ Species Date GA V1IDAE: WONS Common Loon April 12 PODICIPEDIDAE: GREBES Pied-billed Grebe April 19 Horned Grebe March 28 Red-necked Grebe May 6 PHAlACROCORACIDAE: CORMORANTS Double-crested Cormorant April 11 ARDEIDAE: HERONS, EGRETS AND BITIERNS Great Blue Heron March 26 Green-backed Heron June 5 Black-crowned Night Heron · April 3 w~.. ?>Sq 20 ANATIDAE: SWANS, GEESE AND DUCKS Mute Swan · March 26 Snow Goose May 10 Brant Goose May 15 Canada Goose · March 26 Ruddy SheUduck ! May 29 Wood Duck March 29 Green-winged Teal April 30 American Black Duck · March 26 Mallard · March 26 Blue-winged Teal · April 9 Northern Shoveler April 2 Gadwall · March 26 American Wigeon March 29 Canvasback March 30 ... Redhead · April 2 Ring-necked Duck March 28 Greater Scaup March 26 Lesser Scaup March 26 Oldsquaw March 26 Black Scoter May 14 White-winged Scoter May 14 Common Goldeneye March 26 Bufflehead March 26 Hooded Merganser March 27 Common Merganser March 26 Red-breasted Merganser March 26 Ruddy Duck April 9 CATHARTIDAE: AMERICAN VULTURES Turkey Vulture April 18 ACCIPITRINAE: OSPREYS, EAGLES, HARRIERS AND HAWKS Northern Harrier April 3 Sharp-shinned Hawk April 3 Cooper's Hawk April 11 Red-tailed Hawk May 29 Rough-legged Hawk April 12 --------- WR. l>Co 21 American Kestrel · March 27 Peregrine Falcon April 3 PHASIANlDAE: PHEASANTS AND QUAIL Ring-necked Pheasant · March 30 RALLIDAE: RAILS, GALLINULES AND COOTS American Coot April 20 CHARADRIIDAE: PLOVERS Black-bellied Plover May 14 Lesser Golden Plover May 23 Semipalmated Plover May 14 Killdeer · March 26 .~ SCOLOPACIDAE: SANDPIPERS, GODWITS, TURNSTONES, SNIPES AND DOWITCHERS Greater Yellowlegs May 28 Spotted Sandpiper · April 30 Upland Sandpiper April 25 Whimbrel May 21 Marbled Godwit May 6 Ruddy Turnstone May 14 Red Knot May 18 Semipalmated Sandpiper May 17 Least Sandpiper May 16 White-rumped Sandpiper May 15 Dunlin April 23 Short-billed Dowitcher May 15 Common Snipe April 20 American Woodcock March 26 Wilson's Phalarope May 16 LARIDAE: JAEGERS, GULLS, TERNS AND SKIMMERS Bonapart's Gull April 14 Ring-billed Gull · March 26 Herring Gull · March 26 Glaucous Gull . March 27 Iceland Gull March 28 ~ ~lo' 22 Greater Black-backed GulJ · ~farch 26 Caspian Tern · April 11 Common Tern · April 19 Black Tern May 22 COLUMBIDAE: PIGEONS AND DOVES Rock Dove · March 28 Mourning Dove · March 26 STRIGIDAE: OWLS Snowy Owl March 28 Short-eared Owl April 18 CAPRIMULGIDAE: GOA TSUCKERS Whip-poor-wilJ May 9 ... APODIDAE: SWIFfS Chimney Swift May 15 TROCHILIDAE: HUMMINGBIRDS . Ruby-throated Hummingbird May 2 ALCEDINIDAE: KINGFISHERS Belted KingfISher April 2 PICIDAE: WOODPECKERS Red-headed Woodpecker May 10 Red-bellied Woodpecker May 16 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker April 17 Downy Woodpecker April 6 Hairy Woodpecker March 26 Northern Flicker March 27 TYRANNIDAE: TYRANT FL YCA TCHERS Olive-sided Flycatcher May 15 Eastern Wood Pewee May 16 Yellow-belIied Flycatcher May 16 Willow Flycatcher May 28 23 wfl. 3(Q2. Least F1ycatcher April 26 Eastern Phoebe March 28 Great Crested F1ycatcher May 16 Eastern Kingbird · May 18 AlAUDIDAE: LARKS Horned Lark March 28 HIRUNDINIDAE: SWALLOWS Purple Martin April 27 Tree Swallow · April 11 Northern Rough-winged Swallow May 23 Bank Swallow · April 25 .. Cliff Swallow May 10 Barn Swallow April 12 CORVIDAE: JAYS, MAGPIES AND CROWS Blue Jay April 23 American crow March 26 P ARIDAE: CHICKADEES Black-capped Chickadee March 30 SITTIDAE: NUTHATCHES Red-breasted Nuthatch April 10 White-breasted Nuthatch April 5 CERTHIIDAE: CREEPERS Brown Creeper March 30 TROGWDYTIDAE: WRENS House Wren May 1 Winter Wren April 19 Marsh Wren May 16 I}l(l. Db1> 24 MUSCICAPIDAE: KINGLETS, GNATCATCHERS, THRUSHES AND MIMIDS Golden-crowned Kinglet March 26 Ruby-crowned Kinglet April 3 Blue-gray Gnatcatcher April 30 Eastern Bluebird April 2 Veery May 1 Hermit Thrush April 17 American Robin March 26 Gray Catbird May 9 Northern Mockingbird May 10 Brown Thrasher April 20 MOTACILLIDAE: PIPITS ~ Water Pipit April 26 BOMBYCILLIDAE: WAXWINGS Cedar Waxwing June 12 LANIIDAE: SHRIKES Northern Shrike March 26 STURNIDAE: STARLINGS European Starling · March 26 VIREONIDAE: VIREOS Solitary Vireo May 15 Warbling Vireo May 15 Philadelphia Vireo May 23 Red-eyed Vireo May 15 EMBERIZIDAE: WOOD WARBLERS, TANAGERS. GROSBEAKS, BUNTINGS, TOWHEES, SPARROWS, LONGSPURS, BlACKBIRDS, MEADOWlARKS AND ORIOLES Blue-winged Warbler May 16 Golden-winged Warbler May 11 Tennessee Warbler May 16 Nashville Warbler May 16 WR 51s'f 2S Northern Parula May 23 Yellow Warbler May 2 Chestnut-sided Warbler May 14 Magnolia Warbler May 15 Cape May Warbler May 15 Black-throated Blue Warbler May 16 Yellow-rumped Warbler April 17 Black-throated Green Warbler May 15 Blackburnian Warbler May 16 Prairie Warbler May 16 Palm Warbler April 25 Bay-breasted Warbler May 16 Black-and-White Warbler April 25 American Redstart May 15 Ovenbird May 16 '. Northern Waterthrush May 23 Mourning Warbler May 16 Common Yellowthroat May 10 Wilson's Warbler May 16 Canada Warbler May 16 Scarlet Tanager May 11 Northern Cardinal April 2 Rose-breasted Grosbeak May 6 Rufous-sided Towhee April 24 American Tree Sparrow March 26 Chipping Sparrow April 10 Clay-coloured Sparrow May 15 Field Sparrow March 28 Vesper Sparrow April 9 Savannah Sparrow · April 19 Grasshopper Sparrow April 19 Fox Sparrow May 16 Song Sparrow · March 26 Lincoln's Sparrow May 17 Swamp Sparrow April 20 White-throated Sparrow April 5 White-crowned Sparrow April 5 Dark.-eyed Junco March 29 !Nfl. ?J 1,'5' 26 Lapland Longspur March 30 Snow Bunting April 2 Bobolink May 2 Red-winged Blackbird · March 26 Eastern Meadowlark April 1 Common Grackle · March 28 Brown-headed Cowbird · March 28 Northern Oriole May 17 FRINGILLIDAE: FINCHES Purple Finch May 1 House Finch April 2 Pine Siskin April 23 American goldfinch April 5 . ... PASSERIDAE: WEAVER FINCHES House Sparrow March 26 ~ IN fl.. ~"" THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY TOMMY THOMPSON PARK 1990 INTERIM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Water , Related Land Manaqement Advisory Board Meetinq #5/90 September 21, 1990 TOMMY THOMPSON PARK WR.3~7 INTERIM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STAFF REPORT - SEPTEMBER 21, 1990 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 6 - December 31, 1990 - Tommy Thompson Park open on weekends and holidays from 9~00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. for public use January 7, 1990 - Lake Ontario Waterfowl Inventory March 26 - July 6, 1990 - Gull Control Program - achieved 100% reduction in the control areas March 13 - September 30, 1990 - Joint Canadian wildlife Service/MTRCA Common Tern Nesting Raft Program June 4 - 8, 1990 - Tommy Thompson Park Interim Management Display at the Sportsmen Show April 28 - May 27, 1990 - Spring van shuttle service April 29, 1990 - Variety Club of Ontario Bike-a-thon .. . . ./2 \i><J.. ~~ - 2 - June 2 - September 3, 1990 - Special Summer Bus Service - Toronto Transit Commission on June 2 - Se~tember 3, 1990 - Nature Interpretive Program June 3, 1990 - World Environment Day Activities - Friends of the Spit June 4 - 8, 1990 - Federation of Ontario Naturalists "Seniors for Nature Program" June 17 - September 23, 1990 - Yacht Races - Lake Ontario Racing Council September 8 - October 8, 1990 - Fall van shuttle service September 16, 1990 - Annual Terry Fox Run wR.. 3bq THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY VISION 2020 - A PLAN FOR THE MISSISSAUGA WATERFRONT Draft, June, 1990 . Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting #4/90 September 21, 1990 ~ w~ ~iO VISION 2020 - A PLAN FOR THE MISSISSAUGA WATERFRONT Draft, June, 1990 XEY ISSUE To report to the Board on the "Vision 2020 - A Plan for the Mississauga Waterfront - Draft, June 1990." BACKGROUND The city of Mississauga Council in April 1984, instructed staff to "prepare a new, comprehensive plan for the Mississauga Waterfront in full consultation with the Credit Valley Conservation Authority staff, other agencies, and the private sector." Due to delays with site-specific waterfront studies, preparation of the waterfront plan actually commenced in March 1988. The 1967 Waterfront Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto Planning area included proposals for the Mississauga Sector to enhance the waterfcont recreation opportunities by acquisition and/or development of specific waterfront properties. To implement the 1967 Waterfront Plan, the Province of Ontario designated the Credit Valley Conservation Authority as the implementing agency. The draft Vision 2020 Plan, proposes to build on an opportunity to create a major waterfront park of regional significance on the MTRCA's western boundary - Marie Curtis Park. This would be accomplished through the acquisition by the City or MTRCA of the Canada Post 15 ha site and agreements for public access to portions of the Lakeview Sewage Treatment Plant (MOE) . The draft plan also proposes the creation of a small craft harbour. The Authority staff have had discussions with Mississauga and Metropolitan Toronto on the acquisition of the Canada Post property to expand the public use of Marie Curtis. These discussions are consistent with the "Watershed" report released by the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront on September 12, 1990. The draft Vision 2020 Plan proposed that the foregoing sites should be developed as an Activity Centre with the following principal attractions (figure 22): . a civic facility or tourist attraction, to be determined, on site 1; . lakefill at Marie Curtis Park to create a public marina. . wrt. a 7' -2- Possible elements of site development are portrayed on Sketch , A' : . relocate the existing Marie Curtis Park access road to the Dixie Road intersection; . undertake landscaping, including tree planting, to establish a naturalistic edge along the west side of Etobicoke Creek; . preserve the forested corridor along Applewood Creek and establish a pedestrian/bicycle system through this natural feature; . until a use for (for attraction at) site 1 is determined, and provided the building is safe and suitable for public use, convert the former armaments factory to an interim use such as workshops for artisans and other community functions; . by means of lakefill, construct headlands to create a protected basin which will accommodate a basic-service marina with capacity for approximately 500 boats; . since the lakefill will eliminate a natural beach used by sunbathers and boardsailors, re-creation of beaches will be a component of construction of the outer breakwater; . construct the western headland as a "natural landform"; . create a shoreline wetland at the mouth of Applewood Creek; . erect a landmark at the terminus of the western headland to mark the visual extension of Dixie Road; . approximately two-fifths of boats moored at the Marina can be stored on-site during winter; the balance will be stored on the Texaco property (site 23). . wR. '3.72.. -3- Although the marina will be an extension of Marie Curtis Park in Etobicoke, its development as part of a larger open space complex incorporating sites 1, 2-a, and 2-b in Mississauga will create a regionally significant Activity Centre with no discernible municipal boundaries (Plate 3). Accordingly, the marina is considered to contribute to accommodation of the estimated demand for boating-"-elated recreation facilities at the Mississauga Waterfront (Table 27, Page 73). The draft plan proposes to complete the "Implementation" section after the public review of "Vision 2020". Implementation will address. a range of topics pertaining to administration of the Plan, including the following: . federal jurisdictions cQncerning federal lands, provision of small craft harbours, and navigation; . provincial jurisdictions concerning shoreline management; environmental assessment, water quality, and lakefilling; . City policies concerning land-use and development; . respective roles and responsibilities of the City, Region, and Credit Valley Conservation Authority; . possible contribution and participation by public agencies, including the federal and provincial governments, the Credit Valley Conservation Authority, and the Region of Peel; . fiscal constraints in the context of City financial resources; . opportunities for the private sector to participate in waterfront development and contribute to provision of public facilities and amenities; . design guidelines for waterfront development; . land acquisition priorities, source of funding, alternatives to acquisition, and acquisition of water lots and hazard lands; . ~~.~7~ -4- . lakefill: priorities; environmental assessment requirements; construction methods; estimates of quantities of fill required; sources of acceptable fill materials; design; rehabilitation; . project cost estimates to be incorporated in the City capital planning process; . scheduling and priorities within the anticipated 3D-year time-frame of the Plan. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Authority staff will work with Mississauga to ensure the Implementation document reflects the jurisdictional relationship between the City of Mississaqga, Metropolitan Toronto and the MTRCA for the Marie Curtis Park area. The development of the Marie Curtis area as an Activity Centre to indicate 1) a civic facility or tourist attraction and 2) lakefill to create a public marina, will be reviewed in the context of the interim report of the Royal Commission on the Future of Toronto's Waterfront (watershed), The Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront Plan review and the MTRCA's Greenspace Strategy including the preparation of the 1992-1996 Lake Ontario Waterfront Project. In addition, any proposal for a small craft harbour at Marie Curtis Park by this Authority will require a full environmental assessment study, public participation and approval of the project by the ,Minister of the Environment. . - - - - The Plan . - . 4 , . , i . , . . j 3 ..... I' ....', .. ..- . Legend- : ~ Proposed Lake"" - t::'E::n:I PedestJ1enlBlcycl~ System LAKe GNTAI2-l0 ...... Footpath , 1 'Canada Post Property 2 Lakevlew Sewage Treatm4!nt Plant ~ 3 Lakevfew Thermal Generating Statton .. Dlxle-Shorefront Industrial Dlstrtct t-- (2) ~ 1 Scale 1:10,000 . <::t FIgure 22 The Plan ~ j I I'i~ The Plan )e. JL - JU LJ L_____---------- cI) . - I ~ ,L I. 3 I ,1 : I S I I Y. I < , J; I ~ I 1 I ! I d I -- / / - ~1 !'. f/ .'/ JI JI .J=" -..... ; / .......~ : , ; / j 1- .1 r , 'j I JoU.~ i <EW""~r:. I lrt'.Al ~J..IT F'LUlT 1 . ! . 0 . r'-t~ . - - ~~~ . I Sketch · A' I Development Concept. Marie Curtis Park (illustration for discussion only) , . : " 94/ --.--- ~- - WR.~I" THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY FISHERIES SURVEY OF THE EAST BAY FRONT PORT INDUSTRIAL AREA MTRCA Report for the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront Executive Summary Draft, June, 1990 Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting #4/90 September 21, 1990 ... -- ~- --- WR . 317 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Me~ropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority on behalf of the Royal Commission on the future of the Toronto Waterfront conducted a fisheries survey of the East Bayfront and Port Industrial Area. This area is also defined as a provincial area of interest by the province of Ontario under the jurisdiction of the planning act. The Royal Commission is presently undertaking a two phased environmental audit designed to develop the best possible description and understanding of the environmental conditions of the East Bayfront Port Industrial Area. This survey was conducted in order to augment the current knowledge and understanding of the fisheries resource of the area. The fisheries survey effort was concentrated within the designated area, and included the Keating Channel, Ship Channel, Turning Basin, the north shore of the Outer Harbour, and Coatsworth's Cut (Ashbridge's Bay Park). The survey was concerned with assessing the following environmental conditions: 1) Fish Habitat Document the substrate types along lhe north shore of the Outer Harbour and determine the extent of physical and spawning habitat present. Assess the significance of the available habitat by delineating the size and quality of habitat. 2) Fish Community Document the fish communities present within the wave zone and near shore areas, along the north shore of the Outer Harbour and the near shore areas of the Turning Basin, Keating Channel and Coatsworth's Cut. 3) Creel Census Document the human use of the fishery resource within the study area. Determine angler effort, harvest, catch rates and fish consumption levels of the anglers present. Physical and spawning habitat was assessed along the north shore of the Outer Harbour by means of a scuba reconnaissance survey. Overall, the substrate documented was predominantly silt and sand with areas of gravel, with sporadic coverings of attached algae and aquatic macrophytes. Areas of boulder, cobble and gravel were found adjacent to the eastern gap. The eastern portion of the north shore has well developed -~~ -~ --. '" W~. ?,7~ aquatic macrophyte communities consisting mainly of various Potomageton species. Overall, the fish habitat available along the north shore of the Outer Harbour was considered to be poor. The homogenous substrate provides minimal spawning or structural habitat, and the exposed nature of the shoreline prevents the establishment of any thermal habitat for resident fish. The fish community associated with the near shore wave zone area of Lake Ontario is typically inventoried with seine nets. The north shore of the Outer Harbour was a suitable location within the study area for this methodology. Electrofishing collections of the nearshore zone were conducted at all the sample locations using the MNR (SR20) Smith Root electrofishing boat. The 1990 survey recorded the presence of 20 of species within the study area. The wave zone north shore of the Outer Harbour was determined to be the best fish community within the study area. The fish communities sampled within the Keating Channel and the turning basin represent the most degraded and limited fish communities along the waterfront. It is doubtful that many species of fish utilize these areas permanently and most are probably transient inhabitants of these areas. Coatsworth's Cut is an area that suffers greatly from the influences of stormwater discharges from the Main STP. Angler interviews were conducted at Ashbridge's Bay Park and the north shore of the Outer Harbour from July 10, to July 28, 1990. Due to timing considerations the creel census survey lacked the sampling duration and intensity required to estimate certain parameters. Because of these considerations and the relatively low catch and effort; angling effort estimations could not be made with a high degree of confidence. Therefore, results were based on actual observations of angling effort. In total, 50 angler interviews were conducted during the study period. Interviews were evenly distributed within the study area with 25 'parties of anglers being contacted at each location. In total 88 people were contacted, 71 of which were actively angling. During the entire survey 122.98 man hours were expended to catch five fish. The total catch per unit effort (CPUE) for the entire census was calculated to be 0.04 fish per hour. - --_.~- ~~- ~---- w~. 379 The north shore of the Outer Harbour in total had 31 anglers interviewed with 63.21 man hours of fishing effort. Four common carp were the only fish and species observed harveste~ from this area. The calculated CPUE for this area is 0.07 fish per hour of angling effort. Twenty one (67%) of the fishing parties interviewed had fished previously in this location. At Ashbridge's Bay, 40 people were observed angling for a total of 63.67 man hours of fishing effort. In total one common carp was harvested resulting in CPUE of 0.025 fish per hour. The majority of anglers had no preference in the fish species that they caught. Seventy two percent of the anglers interviewed could be considered local residents. In total 56 percent of the anglers interviewed indicated that they were aware of consumption guidelines, and 46 percent of the. anglers were aware of the Guide to Eating Ontario Sportsfish. Anglers were also asked if they were familiar with the Royal Commission on the Future of the Waterfront, 11 percent responded positively. Overall this area is used quite extensively by anglers, the convince of the location and the seasonal availability of fish make this an attractive area to fish. The East Bayfront Port Industrial Area is a unique combination of environmental conditions. The channels and docks associated with the port facilities represent the most degraded fish habitat and fish communities found along the Toronto waterfront. Fish communities within these areas lack the stable environment necessary for the development of stable resident fish populations. Human utilization of the fishery resource of this area is quite extensive, considering the aesthetics of the area and that it is prone to periods of poor angling success. , FIGURE 1: DESIGNATED AREA , I @ TORONTO INNER HARBOUR LA K E ONTAR 10 TORONTO OUTER HARBOUR--.- .--- LEGEND - Prl"et. Lenda o Public Lenda i [. J P,o"lncle' In'.rea' _ Boundery V . _Ie 1:23.000 :z: - - 3 ~ W~. ~~( , SAM SMITH BOATERS FEDERATION CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN FOR THE COLONEL SAMUEL SMITH WATERFRONT AREA November 8, 1990 w~. 3tfS'2 ACKNOWLEDGMENT The Sam Smith Boaters Federation wishes to express its gratitude to the members and staff of the Metr~politan Toronto and Region ConseIVatio!l Authority, ~e ~unicipality of Metropolitan Toronto (parks & Property Department), and The Corporation of the City of Etobicoke for the opportunity to make ~ Proposal and take part in the development of the Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront Area. - - - - - - - - wf. 3~3 PROPOSAL SANcrIONED BY FEDERATION This Proposal including all available details of the Master Plan and financial estimates, was presented as a Conceptual Master Plan to the membership of the Sam Smith Boaters Federation at a general membership meeting held for those purposes on October 30th, 1990 at Lakeshore Collegiate Institute in Etobicoke, Ontario. At that time, the Proposal received the sanction and approval of the membership. II . ()J It. o~4- . , , OWNERSHIP AND JURISDICTION , The Proponent is aware that the lands created at Colonel Samuel Sinith Waterfront Area will be held in the title of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (the "Authority") and will form part of the lands managed for the Authority by The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto ("Metro"). - - '- -- We understand that jurisdiction for this project rests with both the Authority and Metro; and that at Metro, it is the Parks and Property Department which will be involved. -- We are aware that various Divisions of that Department will have successive roles to play as the Proposal moves through each of the: planning, rental negotiation, and operating - phases. - The Proponent is also aware that in relation to Metro's management of the lands, various portions of The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act and the Public Parks Act --- pertain; and, generally, that any leasing or development of same is subject to the Authority's approval. We have also reviewed Metropolitan By-law No. 103-78, as amended and are - aware that it is Metro's general Parks Management By-law. .. - wR.. '5~5 OBJECI'lVES OF 'DIE SAM SMI11I BOATERS FEDERATION As outlined in the original submission made to the Development Committee of The Corporation of the City of Etobicoke in June 1988, the Federation's objectives are to provide a community-run boating facility at Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront Area. Specific objectives are as follows: (1) to protect and preserve the environmental surroundings; (2) to keep the shoreline as accessible as effectively possible to the general public; (3) to encourage and promote boating skills and safety through education; (4) to encourage community participation by offering low-cost facilities and programmes; and (5) to achieve low-cost operations through self-help member participation and admini~tration. . --- - - ~ wit · -oS>b -- - ~ I BASIS OF FEDERATION'S CHARTER . I The Federation Executive will eventually be an. elected body- drawn from the Humber College Sailing School and the two boating clubs operating within the Colonel Samuel Smith --- . Waterfront Basin, and will act as the umbrella organization administering common facilities ~ - such as pump-out; haul-out; access routes; parking and storage areas; as well as overall site - ----- security, lease negotiations, and liaison with the relevant authorities, including Metro and - --- the Authority. It is anticipated that the present Board of Directors of the Federation will -- also become the founding Executive of the initial Cub in the basin. The Federation will . - seek, as required, legal advice on the charters, bylaws, leases, and liability from qualified . - members of the legal profession licensed to practise in Ontario who are also members of --- -- the Federation, wherever possible. - - - - - - - - - - ~- ~ Lull. ~~7 STATUS OF FEDERATION MEMBERSHIP The Boaters Waiting Ust provided to the Federation by the MTRCA consisted of 587 names. However, it was indicated that 81 people had moved. The Federation's survey was consequently sent to 506 people originating from the waiting list accumulated by the Authority. A response t~ the survey has be~n receive4 from 256 of those pe~ple. The survey results indicate that of those who own boats, 113 people (57.7%) have sail boats and 83 people (42.3%) have power boats. A number of other respondents advise~ that they intend to purchase boats when mooring _ is available, but did not stipulate whether same would be power or sail. c The Federation's l1'19iHng list currently consists of 318 names of which 201 are residents of the City of Etobicoke. The remainder primarily live in Mississauga, Toronto or Brampton. A total of 229 members have paid the basic membership fee. Of the total of 256, 189 respondents to the SUIVey stated that they would be willing to commit financially for the 1992 boating season. Consequently, the Federation recently made its first request for members to make their first financial commitment and, as a result, 55 members have paid the full $100.00 deposit to secure mooring space in 1992. Plans for expanding the number of "founding members" of the club include advertising in boating magazines, newspapers, and on the cable television community channel. . . {)Jr(. ~~cf . -- INCORPORATION OF BOATING FEDERATION AND INDMDUAL YACHT CLUBS . . The Federation was initially registered with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations as a non-profit boating organization on September 12, 1988. It is proposed that the Sam Smith Boaters Federation for the Colonel Samuel Smith Waterfront . Area be incorporated by Letters Patent as a Corporation Without Share Capital registered with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the proposed documents of the Federation's Charter being annexed hereto as Appendix I. We are in the process of having - the requisite name search conducted which is one of the prerequisites. to making the - application for incorporation. - --- - Each of the two boat/yachting clubs are also to be separately incorporated by Letters --- Patent as Corporations Without Share Capital registered with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the proposed documents of incorporation for the first of the two - clubs being annexed hereto as Appendix ll. We are anticipating holding a "Name the Cub" -- event with our membership such that we will be conducting the professional name search once the intended name has been finalized. - - -- It is anticipated that the Humber College Sailing School will be constituted as an entity under the auspices of Humber College of Applied Arts and Technology. --- --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. -- ~-- -- - -- --~- l1" ({ · 58>~ BOARD OF DIRECfORS OF FEDERATION It was resolved at the general membership meeting of October 30th, 1990, that the following members continue in their role as Board of Directors of the Federation until such time as the Federation and Qub Charters are finali7.ed, at which time elections will be held: (1) Chairperson: Keith Woolford 13 Lakeshore Drive Etobicoke, Ontario M8V lY9 1983-84 - Vice-Commodore, St. James Town Sailing Club 1985-86 - Commodore, St. James Town Sailing Qub 1987 - Past Commodore, St. James Town Sailing Qub 1984-85 - Outer Harbour Sailing Federation Executive Occupation: General contractor and custom home builder Certificates of Qualification: Electrician - Construction & Maintenance, Interprovincial Electrician - Industrial, Province of Ontario (2) Director - Operations: Gord Agar 129 Lakeshore Drive Etobicoke, Ontario M8V 2Al Oakville Yacht Squadron: Member since 1973 Secretary: 1976 - 1978 Property Director: 1980 Occupation: Engineer Other Qualification: Adjunct Professor, U of T. ~ -- - ----~ . W R . ~ 90 (3) Director - Finance: Andrew Papierz 3451 Lincove Terrace Mississauga, Ontario UY 3N4 Member: Oakville Yacht Squadron (1988 to present) OcCupation:' Director~ SeCurities Operations, Royal Trust Company (4) Director - Membership: Susan F. Ross 13 Lakeshore Drive I Etobicoke, Ontario M8V 1Y9 Member, St. James Town Sailing Club (1984 - 1990) . Occupation: Administrative Assistant (5) Director - Site Planning: Paul Sandiford 7 Royal York Road Etobicoke, Ontario . M8V 2S9 Current: Associate II Design Quorum Incorporated, Etobicoke JI Formerly: Co-ordinator of Physical & Data Security Computer and Information Systems Division Toronto II Education: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute Business Management Certificate II Computerized Business Systems Certificate Architectural Technology Other Studies: -- IIi ~ ~--~-- wt< .3Q, (6) Director . Site Planning: Jonathan Sprawson, BES. B. ARCH 29 Heman Street, Etobicoke, Ontario M8Y 1X4 Current: President/Designer . Design Quorum Incorporated, Etobicoke Residential/Commercial Design Formerly: Associate, Glen Piotrowski Architects, Mississauga; and Designer: Mekinda Snyder & Weis Inc. Architects, Oakville (7) Director . Docking Facilities: Marcello Pires 234 Albion Road, :# 1803 Etobicoke, Ontario M9W 6AS Occupation: Senior Systems Analyst. Ontario Hydro Membership Director. Ontario Boat Builders Co-op (8) Secretary . Treasurer Barbara Crowshaw 13 Lakeshore Drive Etobicoke, Ontario M8Y 1 Y9 Occupation: Consultant. Health Care Certification in Health Records: Technician and Administration III fJJ It. ~q2. ~ FEDERATION ORGANIZATION --- . COMMITfEES . L OPERATIONS .- . . ~ DUTIES: l. Prepare the Federation Charter; 2. Prepare a preliminary operating budget; and - 3. Negotiate lease arrangeme.nts. . The committee members have done - extensive research into other boating clubs in the Metropolitan Toronto Area. Where available, copies of charters, leasing arrangements, and --..... financial statements of the other clubs have been obtained. A preliminary operating budget has been prepared, and the Federation Charter is in the process of being drawn up. ~ 2. SITE PLANNING - - DUTIES: l. Prepare the conceptual site plan and phasing proposal; and -,. 2. Provide quotations for capital expenses. - - The conceptual Site Master Plan has been prepared, based on guidelines provided by the -- MTRCA in conjunction with Metro, and was approved by the Federation members who ~ attended the general meeting on October 30th. Refinements to the site plan are ongoing. ~ Estimates of costs have been provided, with actual quotations forthcoming. - 3. DOCKS ..... - DUTIES: 1. Investigate various dock systems; 2. Determine the feasibility of members building the docks; - 3. Provide costs for docks; and -- 4. Recommend appropriate docking system. - The committee has reviewed a number of types of docks. The consensus is that a high- - quality, durable, dock system is a necessity. Quotations have been received from a number ~ of manufacturers and presentations have been made. All quotations are presently being collated. - - - - - ~ W~. ~q~ 4. FINANCIAL DUTIES: 1. Prepare operating and capital budgets; 2. Investigate financing; and 3. Determine the amount of debentures and fees required from members. Based on quotations provided by the other committees, a budget has been assembled. Discussions with financial institutions have taken place to determine requirements for a loan to assist with start-up costs. A debenture figure has been estimated to provide for the initial capital exPenses, and annual fees will be se't to- cover operating costs inCluding rep-ayment of any necessary outside financing. ~ . vu~. ~ 4--- BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF LEASE . The Proponent has investigated the standard terms and conditions of the tripartite Lease Indentures entered into among: Metro, the Authority and various boat/yachting clubs . on lands owned by the Authority and managed by Metro. , 1. The Proponent would be agreeable to all of the standard lease provisions including: . (1) covenant to pay rent (as set by Metro Council or otherwise negotiated), plus all taxes; , (2) obllgations to proceed- with site development work according to the development phasing schedule of the Master Plan, a copy of which - would be appended to ~e Lease; - . (3) covenant to use leased area only for purposes of a boating and - yachting club and ancillary boating uses; --- (4) covenant in relation to no buildings or other structure to be erected without consent in writing of the Commissioner of Parks and Property; ~ (5) covenant in relation to no felling of trees (if any) in existence at date - of occupation except with the consent of the Commissioner; - ~ (6) covenant to conduct all activities in compliance with all applicable laws; ~ - (7) prohIbition against assignment or subletting without consent of --- Commkliioner except, of course, for licences of berthing/mooring - space; -- (8) provision of requisite insurance (see details below); - - (9) in the event that buildings are damaged/destroyed by fire, lessee would have option either to rebuild to replacement value, or to terminate ~ lease in which case there would be no compensation; - (10) lessee may terminate lease on one year's notice and, as long as lease - not in default, would be entitled to remove buildings or other - structures, provided restoration of Leased Area affected to satisfaction of Commissioner; and - - (11) provision of full indemnity to Metro and the Authority in relation to all activities of the Lessee or its occupation of the Leased Area - (excluding any negligence of Metro or the Authority). - 2. The Proponent would also be suggesting that the Lease Indenture include provisions -- "-=>' - """ --~ ~ --- WR... 3'1 '0 prohibiting: (1) winter liveaboards (perhaps tied into the spring launch and fall haul- out dates); (2) charter-boats for hire of any sort, including: fishing, party or bare-boat; and (3) the mass release of balloons from the leased area (ie. due to environmental concerns, especially in such proximity to the Great Lakes system). 3. ' Lease Particulars yet to be -negotiated include: (1) The Lease Rate, Phase-In Period and Term of Lease: We see these terms to be inter-related. Although it is recognized that the standard recreational land rental rate for Yacht Oubs (which would eventually be applicable to this lease) is set by Metropolitan Council on an annual, 5 - year, or other periodic basis, we are proposing and anticipating that during the phase - in period while the Master Plan is being developed (approximately 5 - 6 years), there be a rental forgiveness and/or a phasing-in of rental payments, the rationale being that initially, site services are not fully available; and the start up and development costs for design, construction and landscaping are very onerous in the early years of operation. (2) The Lease Area: (i) for each of the two boat clubs, the lease area is to encompass the relevant portion of the mooring basin to the extent necessary to accommodate Oub's improvements and docks, area for the clubhouse, and adjacent parking/winter storage areas all in accordance with the Master Plan once approved. It is suggested that the area for the joint pump-out and haul-out initially be included in the Lease Area for Oub A; and, at the time Oub B becomes operational, a Shared Facilities Agreement could be entered into between Oubs A and B providing for shared: usage, maintenance, liability, costs, etc. (ii) for the Humber College Sailing school, the designated area on the peninsula in accordance with the Master Plan, along with a right of access thereto. Given that the requirement for full public access to the water's edge has been stipulated to the Proponent by the public authorities, it is' our view that the Leased Area should exclude the public pedestrian walkway (also thereby excluding the pedestrian bridge over the weir), such that responsibility for construction, repair and liability for the pedestrian walkway and bridge, along with lighting features and fixtures, should be with Metro and/or the Authority, rather than with the Proponent. - II wt, "3qb II The Leased Area will necessarily have attendant to it an easement over the . public walkway for the purpose of persons, vehicles, and vessels to gain access to the pump-out/haul-out area from the winter storage area, and vice-versa. Preliminary discussions with Metro's Risk Manager suggests that if the haul- . out/launch activities are to take place over the public pedestrian walkway, provision should be made to close same off during those periods. Consequently, co-incident to this easement will be the necessary right to close , off the public walkway at all times necessary to safeguard members of the public from persons, vehicles and vessels utilizing the easement area for the aforementioned purposes. . The Lease Area should also have excluded the drainage stormwater pond and weir. Accordingly, obligation for any development or maintenance costs, . along with liability for the weir's structure, spills or otherwise should not be the obligation of the Le~ee. - (3) Visitors Dock: if the dock is to be provided by Metro or the Authority, ~ collection of mooring fees by the Lessee is to be done on what basis? Presumably, there should be some financial or other consideration flowing to the Qubs if this service is negotiated into the Lessee's obligations under the ~ Lease. . . ,. -, ~ ~ --y- - -...- - ~ - ...- - w:- - w:- - ...- lJJl<... 3CJ 7 INSURANCE The following types and coverages of insurance will be provided by each Lessee: 1. Fire and Extended Coverage Insurance. for full replacement value of any buildings, along with Plate Glass Insurance (if design of Oubhouse includes plate glass); 2. liability Insurance: - in the amount of $1,000,000.00; - per occurrence; - reflecting Metro and the Authority as Additional .Named Insureds; and - containing a cross. liability clause. The Proponent acknowledges that the Lessee's Insurer must meet the reasonable approval of the Metropolitan Treasurer and the approving officer of the Authority. It is also understood that the Metropolitan Treasurer will also have the right frC?m time to time throughout the lease term to increase (or decrease) the required amount of insurance coverage. - WI2... oq~ --- - ~--- INVESTIGATION OF DOCKS ~ - .---- Federation Members have visited various boating clubs in the area and have interviewed the . members of those clubs who were involved in the original dock installation. We have concluded that the quality of materials are of utmost importance, both for ease of maintenance as well as for longevity. The additional cost is well worth the expenditure to . achieve long term quality. There is a tendency, specially in self-help clubs to have the initial docks created locally (do- I it-yourself). -Whatever costs are saved in so doing at the outSet, are disbursed in relatively short order as wear, tear and deterioration begins to age and affect the docks. . CRI1ERIA The following is the selection criteria for the Sam Smith Boaters Federation docking system: - - Quality: ---- - - Premium quality pressure treated wood. ~ Hardware: - - All metals and hardware including nails, bolts and screws are to be of corrosion --- resistant metals in the following order of preference: Stainless Steel, Aluminum or II hot-dip galvanized. -- Appearance: ~ - The docks should provide a pleasing appearance to contribute to the co-ordinated -- aesthetic appearance in and around the Basin. ~ -- Workmanship: ~ - The workmanship should be of the highest quality. - REQUIREMENTS ~ - Phase I of the Master Plan development will require a total of 250 finger docks attached to 3 main walkways, each walkway extending for (5701) feet. The length of the finger docks ~ are to be distributed as follows: - - 80 docks each 30 feet in length (boats up to 40 feet); - - 80 docks each 25 feet in length (boats up to 34 feet); and - 90 docks each 20 feet in length (boats up to 27 feet). - - - ~ - W~.t:>qq The main walkways are to be sections of 40 feet in length by 8 feet wide.The finger docks are to be 6 feet wide and should be attached to the main walkway by means of flexible joints to prevent damage. The anchoring will be the chain and deadman type (chain attached to submerged concrete blocks). We have issued requests for quotations to several companies, and have received two quotation responses. We understand that two additional quotes are forthcoming. COSTs - The prices received are in the range of $600,000.00 to $800,00.00 for the supply of the docks, along 'with necessary engineering data and site supervision. One of the possible dock systems uses aluminum extrusion and stainless steel hardware throughout, and currently best meets the Federation's requirements and criteria. CONCLUSION Quality, longevity and appearance will be the determinative factors as to which manufacturer or system should be chosen or acquired. The various costs appear to be within the same range throughout the industry. It seems that, even with two estimates yet to be reviewed, the criteria will definitely be met, with costs not exceeding $750,000.00 for the initial 250 finger docks. ~_. ~-- ~ wfl.., u..-t>O - - ~ SAM SMITH BOATING FEDERATION - PROPOSAL -- PHASING . It is the Federation's intent to phase the total project over a five to seven year period. The proposed project will consist of II two 250 slip wet sail clubs (club A and club B), a dry sail component at club A, and Humber College keel boat sailing school ~ (See site plan - exhibit 1). The phasing program for the Humber . College Sailing School will be considered separately as development of the site is not dependent on revenues generated - from memberships as in the other club facilities. --- - Phasing for the two wet clubs (club A and club B) and the dry sail ,component is proposed as follows: ~ PHASE ONE -- Summer /Fa 11 1991 - vertical shoreline hardening at the haul out and launch area. ~ - install docks for the first 250 moorings - (club A). ~ - driveway preparation and start parking area preparation (club A). - -- - begin site preparation for temporary clubhouse / maintenance / storage building. ~ - construct and erect mast crane. - Spring/Summer 1992 - launch first 250 (phase one) boats. - - initiate dry sail program. - - - complete parking area and boat storage area preparation. - - service site from mains provided by MTRCA / ~ Metro Works / Hydro (See servicing drawings ~ provided by MTRCA - Exhibit 2, 3, 4). - - construct temporary clubhouse / maintenance / storage building. (shell, with interior - finishes dependent on budget constraints - See exhibits 5, 6, 7). - - - install pump out facility. - Spring 1993 - service phase one docks (water, electric). - - - WIl . 4--0' PHASE TWO 1994/1995 - construct main clubhouse A - ready' for occupancy in the spring of 1995. - dry sail component to move into existing clubhouse / maintenance / storage building. PHASE THREE 1995-1998 - develop club B~ timetable to be established. at a later date (earlier or later depending upon demand). - estimated time of initial boat launch - spring 1996. - agreement between clubs to share haul out, launch, and pump out facilities. - possible agreement with club A for club B to share clubhouse A facilities until clubhouse B is ready for occupancy. I WR. ~').. - - -- SAM SMITH BOATING FEDERATION - PROPOSAL - CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES -- - Assumptions: - -- i) That all cost estimates include sales tax, GST, and any - municipal or professional fees. -- ii) That all estimates are in 1990 dollars. - iii) That estimates are subject to change as plans 'become ' finalized. - - PHASE ONE A. Docks - 250 - based o~ quotations $ 750,000.00 B. ServicinQ 1. Assumptions: i) That MTRCA / Metro Works / Hydro will provide servicing as indicated on drawings provided by MTRCA (exhibit 2, 3, 4). ii) That services will be ready for hook up by spring 1992. iii) That servicing for Humber COllege Sailing School site will be provided to the site boundary. iv) That much of the labour required for the installation of services will be provided by federation / club members. 2. Costs: (based on 1989 construction means) i) Electrical - 220m. buried $ 30,000 ii) Water - 100m. of 200mm dia. cast iron $ 25,000 iii) Sanitary - 100m of 100mm dia. F.M. $ 20,000 -~ _ __T ~ W 1t · 1..J,.03 C. Initial BuildinQ 1- Assumptions: i) That most labour will be provided by Federation / club members on a volunteer basis. ii) That any General Contracting required would be provided by the Federation / club. i i 1) Initial interior finishes would kept to a minimum. iv) Builders risk insurance will be investigated and if appropriate obtained. 2. Uses: i) Equipment / Tool Storage, Work Area - 650 sQ. ft. ii) Washrooms / Showers / Lockers - 470 sQ. ft. iii) Lounge / Kitchenette - 650 sQ. ft. iv) Admin. and General Office - 190 SQ. ft. v) Maintenance / Mechanical - 40 sq. ft. vi) Laundry Room - 40 sQ. ft. SUB-TOTAL 2,040 sQ. ft. ADD 10. circulation 200 SQ. ft. TOTAL 2,240 SQ. ft. 3. Cost: 2,240 sQ. ft. . $50.00 / SQ. ft. = $ 112,000.00 D. Mast Crane 1- Assumption: Crane will be designed and built by the membership. 2. Cost $ .5 , 000 . 00 r II . wR. . ~t>~ II E. parkina Lot I Drive I Walkways I 1 . Assumptions: I i) That the base will be prepared by the MTRCA. ii) That the material used for the initial I finish will be lime screenings. iii) That the membership will provide all . labour to apply the finish. 2. Cost: 1,500 tonnes . $10.00 $ 15,000.00 . F. LandscaDina 1. Assumption: II i) That landscaping will be phased in , over a number of years. 2. Cost $ 5,000.00 . G. Vertical Shoreline Hardenina & Haul Out - 1. Assumptions: .. i) That the MTRCA will pick up a portion of the cost yet to be . determined. ii) That the Federation will investigate ~ various systems to try to find the most viable alternative. [ 2. Cost: 65m . $1000.00 / m. $ 65,000.00 [ H. PumD Out $ 2,000.00 I. Sewaae Ejector $ 3,000.00 r- ~ r- -'-- .- ~ - UJR...4-~b J. FencinQ 1. Assumptions: i) That temporary fencing will be used wherever practical. ii) That the federation will attempt-to negotiate an agreement with Molson Indy to use their temporary fencing. 2. Cost: additional fence and control gates $ 10,000.00 K. FurnishinQs $ 10,000.00 L. Crash Boat $ 8,000.00 M. Tools and EauiDment $ 5,000.00 TOTAL PHASE ONE $ 1,065,000.00 PHASE TWO A. Service Phase One Docks - for 1983 season. $ 150,000.00 B. Additional LandscaDinQ $ 10,000.00 C. Construct Clubhouse A - Approximate size - 8,000 sq. ft. - To be constructed for 1995 occupancy. - Program to be determined. $ 900,000.00 D. FurnishinQs $ 50,000.00 TOTAL PHASE TWO $ 1,110,000.00 I I wt<. U-O~ I I PHASE THREe . A. Docks - 250 . 750,000.00 - B. Landscace and ParkinQ . 20,000.00 'W - C. ServicinQ $ 75,000.00 - -- D. Service Docks $ 150,000.00 E. Construct Clubhouse B . 900,000.00 -,. F. FurnishinQs . 50,000.00 G. MISC. . 55,000.00 ~ TOTAL PHASe THREe $ 2,000,000.00 -- - - TOTAL All .PHASES . .,175,000.00 - - - - - _. - - I ~.4-()7 SAM SMITH BOATERS FEDERATION PHASE I Phase I assumes that there will be 250 docks installed for use in the 1992 summer season, and that a proportionate amount of site servicing will be done for the members using the facility. CAPITAL BUDGET FOR PHASE I Docks (without assembly and installation) $750,000 Site Servicing (includes initial club building, electrical, landscaping, etc.) 315,000 TOTAL PHASE I CAPITAL BUDGET $1,065,000 FINANCING OF PHASE I CAPITAL BUDGET We are assuming that approximately 73\ of the initial costs will be financed by the founding members, and the remainder to be financed by an outside source (ie. bank) . We are assuming that each founding member of the Phase I club will contribute $3100 in the form of an non-interest bearing debenture. The member contributions will be phased over a period to coincide with the work in progress between now and the spring of 1992: November, 1990 $ 100 March, 1991 750 June, 1991 750 September, 1991 750 January, 1992 750 TOTAL DEBENTURE $3,100 X 250 members TOTAL MEMBER CONTRIBUTIONS 775,000 CAPITAL BUDGET AS ABOVE $1,065,000 AMOUNT TO BE FINANCED ($290,000) We are assuming that this debt will be retired over a four year period, based on the annual dOCking and winter storage fees (see next page). ------ --- . ~. l}~ I Sam Smith Boaters Federation Page 2 .. .-- DOCK FEES . It is the intent of the club to keep the operating costs at a minimum. In keeping with this goal, the following annual costs are assumed: . $45.00/foot which is to include summer docking, haul out in the fall, winter . storage, and launch in th~ spring. It is assumed that the first docking fees will be due in April, 1992. ---'Ill-. - -. ~ L_ ~ -- r: November, 1990 -.......- ~ "........ ~ --- ---- ~ -"._~ .,..-- ~-- ~-- ~- 1- J__ f - J - -T - J - - . - - SAM SMITH BOATERS FEDERATION ~r<. 4-D1 BANKING PROCEDURES The club will maintain a current account with a chartered bank. There will be three signing officers designated. Any two of the three signing officers will have to sign cheques issued by the club. A limit will be set as to the amount that can be signed for before requiring approval of the club executive. FINANCIAL REPORTING AND AUDIT The club will retain the services of a bookkeeper (maybe a designated club member) to prepare quarterly financial statements which will be cused for accounting purposes only. Each year, for the annual general meeting of the club members, an annual financial statement will be prepared by an accountant for presentation to the club members. November, 1990 -~- - -- .--- -- -- . . /)Jrt U-I 0 I. I " I i ' . ,- , . - - - .. - - -- e.aA.T~ ..JLJLILfFfri}9 - -u-rn- - -- ~ -- - -- - ~AtvlUEL 6~llrH LJAT~e ~FZ~A " - coL. ..'? A,tAll! ~ f)(H1tH, J. ': ' /.., - [y.~-- ---~/ - , IL__.II_~ - ~//jl. n'IL-u---~ -- - " II - ., ~.. --- -- WR. l.tll ONTARIO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 43 TO THE MINISTER EXTENSION OF APPROVAL OF THE CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR WATER MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES BY CONSERV A TION AUTHORITIES OF ONTARIO June 22, 1990 Dr. Philip Byer, Chairman Dr. Robert Gibson, Member -- ~- ---.- ~- 1 . VIR. 4-1~ NATURE OF THE REFERRAL On January 5, 1990, the Honourable Jim Bradley, Minister of the Environment, requested the advice of the Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee on whether approval of the Class Environmental Assessment for Water Management Structures should be extended for another five year period, and what changes, if any, should be made to the Class EA. The proponents of this Class EA are the 38 Conservation Authorities in Ontario, as represented by the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario (ACAO). The Class EA was approved under the Environmental Assessment Act on December 12, 1985 for a five year period, ending in December 1990. It requires the proponents to submit a new Class EA for approval by December 1989 to allow sufficient time for review, or to request a waiver of this requirement for re-submission. Pursuant to this, the ACAO wrote to the Minister on September 27, 1989 requesting a waiver of the requirement that a new Class EA be submitted, and requesting that approval for the existing Class EA be extended for a 5 year period to December 1995, subject to changes identified in a review of the Class EA. In January 1990, the ACAO submitted to the Minister a summary of the results of its own review of the Class EA and a set of proposed amendments to it. The Minister will have to decide on the effectiveness of the Class EA and any necessary changes, and asked the Committee to conduct a public review of the matter. The Minister stated that the Committee's notification of its review to the public and agencies meets the notification requirements for extension of the Class EA. The Minister also asked the Committee for advise on how the ACAO should monitor the future effectiveness of the Class EA, and to consult with the ACAO and any future monitoring committee on an on-going basis to follow up on issues raised in our review. The Committee sent a notice, including the ACAO's proposed amendments, to the 38 Conservation Authorities, selected environmental groups and individuals, all regional and selected local municipalities, and affected provincial ministries and agencies. A complete list of those notified is available from the Committee. To discuss the Class EA and receive oral -~~ VJ~ · U-l~ 2 submissions, the Committee met on April 11 with the ACAO, MTRCA, MNR, MOE, MEA, Environment Canada and the following public groups: the Conservation Council of Ontario, Federation of Ontario Naturalists, Black Creek Project and Save the Rouge Valley System. DESCRIPTION OF THE CLASS EA The stated purpose of the Class EA for Water Management Structures is .to define one planning and design process to minimize the environmental effects a!;sociated with the reduction or elimination of water management problems.. It applies to projects that address problems associated with flooding, erosion - ~nd sedimentation and having construction costs ranging between $175,000 and $2.7 million. This includes channel alterations and bank stabilization, dykes, dams, impoundments and weirs, and shoreline protection structures undertaken by Conservation Authorities and, less frequently, by municipalities. Projects with construction costs of less than $175,000 do not require any environmental assessment unless the Minister so designates; projects with construction costs greater than $2.7 million require an individual environmental assessment. According to the ACAO, during the period 1986 to 1989, Conservation Authorities had completed or were completing the Class EA process for 37 water management projects, and were anticipating that they would be planning over 100 projects during the 1990 to 1992 period. The Class EA requires the proponent to follow a four phase planning and design process to address an identified problem. Attachment 1 is a flowchart of this process, as summarized below. · Phase 1 - Problem Identification. The problem is identified and notification to the general public and potentially interested agencies is made. This phase examines .the need that the undertaking is intended to satisfy. . · Phase 2 - Site Investigation and Alternative Examination. The environmental effects of the proposed undertaking are studied, possible alternatives to the undertaking are investigated. and alternative methods of carrying out the structural undertaking are examined. In all cases the -- ~ 3 W~. 4.14- .do nothing. alternative is to be considered first, then non-structural solutions, including planning, or regulatory controls, emergency programs, and land acquisition, are considered. .Should both the 'do nothing' and non- structural alternatives prove to be inadequate, then examination of the structural alternative is required.... When the actual flooding or erosion problem that presently exists must be solved, only} the structural alternative can be used.. · Phase 3 - Preferred Solution. This involves the preliminary formulation of a preferred solution, its review by the public, finalization of the preferred solution, preparation of the Environmental Study Report (ESR), receipt of other necessary government approvals, publiC review of the ESR, and finalization of the E~R with possible changes to the undertaking. · Phase 4 - Implementation and Monitoring. Once the ESR has been finalized, construction can commence. The anticipated environmental impacts of construction and necessary mitigating measures identified in the ESR are considered during this phase. Monitoring is undertaken to ensure that the project is undertaken in accordanc~ with the ESR and that required mitigating measures are properly instituted or complied with. The Class EA specifies opportunities and requirements for public involvement in the planning and design of water management structures. It also notes opportunities outside of the Class EA for public involvement in the activities of the Authorities. The Class EA requires public notice and consultation at four points in the process. There are similar requirements for notification and involvement of relevant government agencies. · In Phase 1, the public is notified of a proposed undertaking or group of undertakings in the form of an annual list Notification will usually be in the form of a newspaper advertisement. Landowners directly affected by a proposed undertaking will be contacted by letter, telephone or personal visit. Every individual expressing an interest in an undertaking at this stage will be contacted for involvement later in the process. · In Phase 2, the public .will be contacted in order to obtain any data/information relevant to the site or the problem.. WR . ~l6 4 · In Phase 3, meetings on the preliminary preferred solution are held with the affected landowners and other members of the public. · Also in Phase 3, after the drafting of the ESR, the ESR is made public for a review period of 30 days at the offices of the Conservation Authority, the Environmental Assessment Branch (MOE) and the nearest regional office of the Ministry of the Environment. For the general public, notice of the filing of an ESR will be given in a manner similar to notification in Phase 1, usually by newspaper advertisement. If a revision to an ESR is required at a later time, the public previously forwarded a copy of the ESR or commenting on the ESR will be contacted immediately and provided at least 5 working ,d,ays to respond after receipt of notice of the change. The Class EA also has a provision for the public to request the Minister to "bump-up" an undertaking from the Class EA process to require an individual environmental assessment if the Class EA process does not resolve significant concerns. The public may request a .bump-up" at any time during the planning and design process up to 30 calendar days after filing of the ESR in the Public Record, or five working days after receipt of notice of a revision to the ESR. The Minister may also bump-up water management undertakings costing less than $175,000, which do not undergo the Class EA process. The Class EA states that the individual undertakings are done in the context of the mandate of the Authorities, their watershed plans, and the policies and programs under these plans. The watershed planning process includes .the development of goals and objectives (policies) and the determination of the most appropriate combination of programs to be undertaken by the Conservation Authority to fulfill its responsibilities.. The Class EA states that the proponent must show that the proposed undertaking falls within the scope of the watershed plan and is consistent with the policies and appropriate Authority programs. 5 W~ .4-lb REVIEW BY THE ACAO As part of its review of the Class EA, the ACAO distributed a questionnaire to the 38 Conservation Authorities, and in January 1990 submitted to the Minister a summary of its results. The ACAO's summary of the review stated that: · the cost of preparing ESRs for the 37 projects between 1986 - 1989 was $591,500, or 1.60/0 of the total estimated construction costs of the projects, and preparation of the ESRs is generally not an administrative or technical problem; · of the 23 authorities havi'ng experience with the Class EA, approximately two-thirds found the ESR to "enhance" environmental protection, issue resolution and the approval process, while the other third believed that the ESR did not provide enhancement in these areas. Almost all authorities felt public input and environmental issue identification was enhanced; · almost all authorities felt that the Class EA process provided the right amount of contact with the public; · authorities did not report any serious difficulties in understanding and dealing with the Class EA process; · authorities were divided on the need for a "sounding board" to help assist proponents with using the Class EA; · the bump-up provision is rarely invoked but when it happens there is general dissatisfaction with the time it takes to get a decision from the Ministry of the Environment: they estimated that 10 projects in 1990-1992 might involve bump-up requests: and · the majority of authorities felt there is a need for additional seminars and literature on the Class EA. --- -- f)Jtl. ~11 6 The ACAO concluded that: "The Class Environmental Assessment for Water Management Structures is serving its purpose well. It allows Conservation Authorities to comply with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. The costs are manageable. The public has a formalized role for input to undertakings. The environment is enhanced - and that is the bottom line." The lack of bump-up requests was also cited by the ACAO as evidence that the Class EA has "worked well." On January 31, 1990, the ACAO, ~ubmitted to the Minister a list of proposed amendments to the Class EA. Almost all of the proposed changes consist of amending the text to provide clarification, update information or delete redundancies in the document without changing the Class EA requirements. The ACAO also proposed that the Class EA allow the proponent to request the Minister to "bump-down" a project costing over $2.7 million from an individual EA to the Class EA process. In addition, the ACAO recommended that the purpose of dams, impoundments and weirs be expanded to include recreation, fish and wildlife habitat management, water supply and groundwater recharge. As part of the requirements of the existing Class EA, the ACAO submitted a draft handbook that focusses on mitigative measures, and construction techniques to assist Conservation Authorities' staff in meeting the Class EA requirements. This was submitted in December 1989. SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS The Committee requested submissions on the Class EA and any needed amendments under five broad categories: · The overall effectiveness of the Class EA; · The overall effectiveness of the process set out in the Class EA; · ACAO's request to extend the Class EA for five years; · ACAO's proposed amendments; and · The design of a program to monitor the future effectiveness of the Class EA. 7 WR.l.J.1€ Submissions were received from 19 agencies, organizations and individuals, including submissions that were sent to the Environmental Assessment Branch of the Ministry for its separate review. A list of submitters is included as Attachment 2. The following is a summary of the oral and written submissions: Ministry of..l:latural Resources (M~Bl · Has experienced no major difficulties with the Class EA, and implementation of projects has adequately had regard for MNR interests; · Supports a waiver of the requirement for resubmission of a new Class EA and the extension of the exi.sting Class EA for 5 years; · The Class EA description of Watershed Plans should also view water as a resource to be managed for peak and baseflows and water quality by examining the physical, chemical, biological and sociological factors within the watershed and ensuring the best use and allocation of water within the watershed; · Applicability of legislation administered by MNR (e.g. public land~ ~, lakes and Rivers Improvement Act and the Fisheries Act) to Authority projects needs to be clarified in the Class EA; · There should be .no net loss. or preferably -net gain. of fish habitat as a result of a project. and this should be further explained in the Class EA; · The Class EA should recognize that ancillary uses to water management projects, such as recreation, trails, etc., may be part of the purpose or rationale of the undertaking; · Contrary to what is required in Phase 3 of the Class EA, MNR cannot give any approvals until the Class EA requirements are completed; · Revision of the Class EA should recognize that stabilization of waterways that increases bank complexity, structure and roughness is preferred, and stabilization that decreases diversity and simplifies the channel will cause losses to fish habitat at the site and possibly downstream. Ontario Native Affairs Directorate · Class EA document should be revised to ensure direct consultation with First Nations governments since. in some areas, First Nations use waterways as a means of transportation and as a source of food to a greater extent than Non-Natives. we, .4lq 8 Ministry of Tran~portation. Highway Engineering Division · No concerns regarding the Class EA provided that consultation occur with MTO on any project, regardless of cost, where an impact to a highway or highway watercrossing is perceived. Ministry of Agriculture anUood~ Preservation Branc~ · Policy Statements under the planning Act should be added as examples of legislation that may be applicable to site inventories; · The minimum five-day periOd for reviewing addendums to an ESR may . be too short, particularly if significant changes are proposed. Environment Canada -Water Planning and ManaQement Branch. ln1aad Waters Directorate. Ontario Region and Canadian Wildlife Service. Ontario Region · Firmly opposes any granting of waiver and extention of the Class EA; · Environment Canada reviewed previous drafts in 1983 and 1985 to the effect that only a few concerns were addressed and the rest ignored without any benefit of explanation or discussion from the ACAO or MOE; · Range of undertakings in the Class EA has significant potential to damage waterfowl staging areas, migratory bird habitat, and wetland habitat; · ACAO's review has not addressed such new developments in the past five years as the Wetland Planning Policy and its Implementaion Guidelines. the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and Fisheries and Oceans' Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat; · Lack of reference to wetlands is a serious deficiency in the Class EA; · Section /I of the Class EA is based on consultants' work prepared for Metro Toronto and is not adequate for application in other Conservation Authorities watersheds. Municipal ~noineers Association (M.EA). · Supports the ACAO's request to extend the Class EA for five years subject to amendments aimed at removing/avoiding conflict with the Class EA for Municipal Sewage and Water Projects; · If a given undertaking can be planned under either the Class EA for Water Management Structures or the Municipal Class EA for Sewage and Water Projects, it should be up to the proponent to select the most appropriate Class EA to follow, and the Class EAs should be amended to clarify this; ~"- 9 WR.42..0 · The amendment proposed by the ACAO to add water supply and groundwater recharge as purposes of dams, impoundments and weirs should make it clear that such purposes are incidental to the establish- ment of these structures, and that undertakings for such purposes are municipal functions which should follow the .Municipal Class EA. ~eritaoe Resource Centre. University of Waterloo · The section on alternatives to the undertaking needs attention, especially the treatment of non-structural approaches; · Requirements for monitoring and emergency measures should be more detailed; · There is a need for special review in case of special areas, such as Environmentally Sensitive Areas, (ESAs), Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSls), parks, etc. JQhn Frazer lorivate citizen) · Drainage is a natural occurrence; any drainage altering project has the potential to disrupt the natural environment; · Must ensure that MOE's concern for one aspect of the environment is not cancelled out by another department; for example, advocating preserving and restoring the Carolinian forest - yet Ruscom River drainage project has the potential to destroy an area of Carolinian significance; · Need .criterion other than monetary that looks at all drainage projects to see what impact they will have to the surrounding environment. . Conservation Council of Ontario. Water TaslLForce (CCO) · The process outlined in the Class EA document does not appear on paper to present any serious problems, yet experience has shown that the end result of many Conservation Authority undertakings is a degraded natural environment; · There is nothing in the document to ensure that the selected alternative is the least damaging - or most beneficial - to the environment. The Class EA has not improved the way of doing things - the continued use of water management structures, such as channels, for flood and erosion control purposes, in spite of their well known deleterious effect on the ecosystem illustrates this problem; · There has been no monitoring, meaningful assessment of the Class EA, or public consultation on it, in order to improve the Class EA; w~.I.}?J 10 · An examination of some of the Authorities' management techniques is something that should not be lost in reviewing the Class EA. Many of the structures they build are necessary because of a lack of proper land use planning. The continued easy use of structures through the Class EA process may, in fact, allow such poor planning to continue; · Rivers should remain in their natural state, without impediments or barriers to flow, biota movement, and natural connection with the floodplain; · While the Class EA satisfies the accepted criteria of environmental assessment, it does so without addressing the real ecosystem impact of the chosen project. The Class EA fulfills neither the intent of environmental assessment nor the mandate of the Ministry of the Environment; '. · Opportunities to control flooc;jing and erosion using techniques based on natural processes are often overlooked, or at least not adequately considered, as the Authorities' efforts are focused more on property protection than environmental protection; · Issues of water quality enhancement, wetlands preservation, and wildlife habitat protection are not adequately addressed because the Watershed Plans and the Class EA of the Authorities lack any reference to goals and ecosystem targets and because overall management of the water resource is left to a multitude of often conflicting and overlapping government agencies; · What is decided in this review of the Class EA will have a significant . impact on the way rivers and streams are managed in the next five years; · There is no provision in the Class EA approvals process to examine the cumulative impacts of water management structures on a watershed; · Structures described in the document are all single purpose, structural measures, and do not consider the full range of water resource management techniques presently available, especially innovative ones like vegetative slope stabilization and stormwater management; · Special interest groups like the Conservation Council should receive proper notification of all projects under the Class EA in order to provide comments and review; ---- 1 1 WR. ~ ~~ · The Class EA wshould only b~ extended if the following conditions are metw: -all water management structures must have a biological enhancement component. The justification that flood and erosion control constitutes environmental enhancement is not acceptable on its own. All structures should be designed to fulfil all components of a Watershed Plan, and only when a Watershed Plan is in place wi~h specific ecosystem targets should a Class EA be aI/owed. In all other cases, a full EA should be required; -aI/ Watershed Plans should be ecologically based plans, not engineering plans, with input from professional consultants; -monitoring should become a requirement of all projects approved under the Class EA, to det~rmine their effectiveness and improve upon existing techniques. · The Class EA should be changed to also provide the following: -bank regrading and slope vegetation should not require a Class EA review at any funding level; -gabions, log cribs, and deflectors should be part of the Class EA between $25,000-$100,000. Above this ceiling, a full EA should be required, below it, nothing; -rip rap, channel realignments, diversions, bank drainage, and dykes should be part of the Class EA between $50,000-1.5 million. Above this limit, a full EA should be required, below it, nothing; -concrete sheet piling, concrete revetments, sea walls, break waters, groynes, dams, weirs, and any other new products should all require a full EA and should not be part of the Class EA; · wBump downw provision recommended by the ACAO could set a dangerous precedent, and ruins the spirit and intent of the environmental assessment process; · Support an extension of the Class EA only if above recommendations are incorporated: otherwise, there should be a new Class EA. Black Creek Proiect · The Class EA treats water as the source of problems, while in reality water is a resource that, if treated as such, will not be the problem but the solution. A primary problem in this case is inadequate management of water resources during upstream development; · For construction of flood control or erosion con~rol structures, the onus should be on the developer to prove that effective procedures have been followed to control water at source; IIJrt. U~O 12 · The Class EA should treat wetlands, marshes, lakes, rivers, creeks and natural watersheds as an ecosystem, as natural resources, and as a valuable heritage; · A proper and mandatory management system for the watersheds and the water resources is absolutely necessary to be built into this Class EA and projects proposed under it; · Use of subjective words such as -minor impacts- in the Class EA should be stopped; · The Class EA can be used as a mechanism to require zero storm runoff after development (which has been achieved by a developer in Vaughan), minimum disturbance of the natural resources through development, and control of any discharges from the development site during the construction period; · The Class EA needs to be altered to include contemporary technology and a commitment to adopt current control and treatment policies and regulations; · Alternatives to costly, unsafe, unattractive, and ecologically antagonistic single purpose structures should be considered; environmentally viable alternatives and new non-destructive technology has to be included in the Class EA; · Flood and erosion control does not have to be separated from environmental, long term ecological and socio-economic considerations of the water managment structures. This Class EA must devise an effective means to assess and mitigate biological, water quality and quantity, botanical, safety, aesthetic, recreational, social and economic impacts of any project; · The classification of projects according to costs to determine the level of environmental assessment is inappropriate and should instead be based on the scale of impact. For example, individual EAs should be required for structures such as dams, channelization, piping, gabion channels and baskets, regardless of size. In addition, real estate transactions of the Authorities should not be exempt from this process, because some of these transactions have been the source of much environmental adverse effect over the years; · The -Handbook- does not refer to regulations and most importantly does not commit to follow guidelines and regulations. A set of construction codes of practice and design standards should be developed for the projects covered by the Class EA, and implementation of them effectively enforced; 13 wR.ll-~~ · ACAO should publish internal audits or external monitoring of the Class EA or should be required, as a condition of approval for the Class EA, to conduct monitoring of projects over the next few years to assess the full impact of this Class EA; · The proposed bump-down provision is totally unacceptable in the present context, ie. in the absence of screening mechanisms, effective design and construction standards. or meaningful public involvement; · Public notification and involvement should be improved to require meaningful public involvement since current requirements are very inadequate - no Black Creek Project members, who look for legal notices, had seen any notice for Authority projects; need notification similar to that required under the Planning Act. Federation of Ontario Naturalists' (FaN) · Urges the Minister not to extend approval of the Class EA; · If the Class EA is retained in its present form, it will have serious impacts on natural areas and wildlife; · Revisions to the document offered by the ACAO are without substance, which shows an alarming complacency and satisfaction with the status quo which the state of our waterways belies; · . Considering the environmental importance of this Class EA, it is surprising how little public awareness there is of its existence; . Since the main function of the EA Act is to protect the environment with full public participation in the process, this failure in publicizing this Class EA and its bump-up provision needs to be remedied; . Nowhere does the document show concern for healthy aquatic ecosystems, and some of the Class EA undertakings violate MNR's Strategic Plan for Ontario Fisheries (SPOF II); · Projects under the Class EA have had significant impacts on aquatic ecosystems, ego decrease in habitat diversity, removal of bank vegetation, and reduction of fish habitat, and do not have, as stated in the Class EA, a -predictable range of relatively minor effects on the environment-; . The basic problem with the Class EA is that it is not a conservation document, but an engineering one. It does not protect the environment and nowhere in the document does it endorse the principle that as far as is possible waterways should remain in their natural state, and that attention should be focused on regulating, not the waterways, but the activities of humans adjacent to waterways; wi<. ~6" 14 · There is no apparent recognition that the watercourses and the ecosystems they support are precious common resources for the benefit of all; · There is no mention in the Class EA of wetlands or the provincial draft wetlands policy, despite the fact that the Authorities own 15,000 hectares of wetland, nor of the impacts of the undertakings on this valuable resource; · Th~ Class EA refers to Watershed Plans as a basis for the Authorities' actions, yet these plans are clearly inadequate; · The Class EA is incredibly out-of-date: - it does not mention important legislation such as the Public lands ~, which is probably the single most effective means of controlling shoreline alteration; - the ACAO appears to be unaware of recent literature relating to land use planning such as concerns about the cumulative impacts of repeated small actions on the environment; · Much is made in the document of the Authorities work,ing with other agencies and consulting with MNR, yet most MNR district offices do not have the time or energy to fight bad proposals. Therefore, the Class EA must be strengthened environmentally so that Authorities will be compelled to consider the least damaging alternatives first, such as the variety of non-structural alternatives that are available; · Consideration of alternatives in the document encourages Authorities to proceeed thoughtlessly in established patterns, and examination of the do nothing and non-structural alternatives is cursory, suggesting that simple engineering solutions are what is wanted; · Provision for public notification are clearly inadequate, and there is no reassurance about the openness of the process nor of the real intent to involve the public; · Unlike the MNR which frequently contacts the FON on matters related to habitat and wildlife, the Authorities rarely ask the FON for comment on their projects; · Prevention measures mentioned are totally inadequate and unimaginative; · Opposes the ACAO's request for a bump-down procedure; · There is no assessment of the cumulative impacts of so-called minor and repetitive undertakings on a watercourse; · There is no rationale for the division of undertakings by dollar value, yet many undertakings that are exempt would have substantial environmental -impact; - , 15 W~ · 4-2-10 · Monitoring is apparently minimal, since the Class EA states that "monitoring programs in many instances will not be complex or extensive.; · Appreciated the opportunity to reshape the Class EA, but resents being asked to do the job the ACAO should have done. Save ttlL.BouQe VaUey System · Waiver of the requirement for resubmission should .most certainly not be granted, as the document is seriously deficient to the point of being insufficient to acheive the objectives or purpose of the Class EA.; · Substantial revisions, both to the document and possibly to the application of the EA Act to conservation authority undertakings are warranted; - · Orientation of the Class EA is towards facilitating civil engineering works for flood and erosion protection, and not toward recognizing, evaluating, preventing, mitigating and compensating for the incremental, widespread environmental degradation that characteristically accompanies authority and municipal undertakings on watercourses; · Notification under the Class EA has been deficient If the FON, a provincial NGO, or Save the Rouge, a watershed specific NGO, does not receive direct notification, there is a deficiency. · The use of cost as the sole criterion for applicability of the Class EA is inappropriate, reflects a lack of awareness and concern for the environment, and shows a focus on the proponenrs concerns. The assertion in the Class EA that the activities .have a predictable range of effects that are relatively minor. is wrong; · Gabion basket walls with the same costs, but on different rivers, could have completely different effects; application based on projected impacts, ego stream size, fisheries resources, density and character of vegetation, etc. would be more appropriate; · There is a problem since the Class EA does not need to be followed if a private developer pays for the project; · Concerns were also raised about other features of the Class EA including the monitoring provisions - "A letter stating project is completed is monitoring? · The Class EA has not prevented equipment from using streams as access routes during construction, thereby causing environmental damage; (j)e .1+~ 7 16 · Rivers are the prime integrators of an ecosystem. Degradation of a river system incrementally through, amongst other activities, construction of water management structures, will/can result in effects comparable to wholesale clearcutting, desertification or other wholesale transformations; · Many structures are not necessary for the protection of life and property; they simply address minor erosion problems on public land; · Water management structures are built to address immediate problems, often precipitated by upstream, previous or extraju risdictional activities. Consideration must be given to the behaviour and assumptions that precipitated the problem; the creation of wetlands on tablelands is a, solution that does not create problems caused by structures; · Policies which allow water management structures provide for future development with storm water management practices that precipitate costly and destructive water management structures. As an example, MTRCA formulated a Master Drainage Plan for a sub- watershed of the Humber River, which had provisions for an 'erosion levy' on developers in anticipation of the deleterious effect of the planned stormwater management program - the amount of the levy is calculated on the basis of placing gabion baskets on the entire length of the stream; · Watershed strategies or Master Drainage Plans are the obvious contexts in which to evaluate cumulative effects; · Conservation Authorities and/or municipalities should prepare Master Drainage Plans; terms of reference for these plans should be developed with full public and NGO consultation, and designating these plans under a Class EA should be considered; · Consideration should be given to requiring an individual environmental assessment for watershed management plans of each Authority (or each watershed) under the EA Act; · Policies in Watershed Management Plans are often not properly.. implemented, causing a need for structures, e.g. housing developments have been allowed too close to rivers, requiring extensive erosion control. 17 W~ .4-A.~ Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario lACAO) · Class EA has worked well given the purpose for which it exists, namely, that where a Conservation Authoritiy has no alternative to a structural measure, it will be planned, designed and constructed in an environmentally sound manner. The Class EA provides a consistent planning process for evaluating alternatives and reaching solutions; · No objection to amending the existing Class EA to remove ambiguities, reference current legislation, ensure the transfer of improved technology, and delete redundant sections. These matters would be satisfactorily negotiated with the agencies concerned; · Strongly opposes removing the use of dollar limits for the Class EA and believes the rationale originally proposed for this use is still valid. The power of the Minis~~r of the Environment to designate any project, regardless of cost, for a full environmental assessment combined with the .bump up. provision from Class EA to individual EA provides adequate safeguards in this area; · Only those issues directed at Conservation Authority water management activities covered by this Class EA have to be dealt with as part of a decision on whether to extend the Class EA with amendments; agrees with many of the concerns raised by other submitters, but it is impossible to encompass other issues raised in the review within the present focus and scope of the current Class EA, which is meant to deal with specific projects. Ib.LMetro Toronto ancLFl9Qion Conservation Authority. Water Resource Division (MTRCA) · The Class EA should be extended for another five year period; · Other submitters' concerns are not necessarily related to the Class EA, nor the ~A Act. nor solely to Authorities; · The scope of the Class EA is very narrow, as dictated by the Environmental Assessment Branch, to apply solely to structures built by Authorities for the purpose of minimizing the threat to life and property from flooding and erosion; · If the Committee should recommend a broadening of the scope of the Class EA to include other activities or other proponents, this recommendation should recognize the need to change the approach of the EA Branch to Class EAs in general, not the approach of the conservation authorities to Class EAs; 1JJt.l.I-~q 18 · Agencies, including Authorities, which grant project approvals, should be more stringent in protecting the watercourse; however, this is not the purpose of the EA Act, but the responsibility of approval agencies; · In recent years, government agencies have been working to develop improved guidelines for the treatment of urban drainage that ensures the protection of watercourses, which is being done independently of the ~A Act. .Q.ther Submitters The following agencies submitted that they have no concerns with extending approval of the Class EA or with ACAO's proposed amendments: - Ministry of Municipal Affairs - Ontario Provincial Police" - Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters - Regional Municipality of Durham, Planning Committee DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Minister has asked the Committee to review publicly whether approval of the Class Environmental Assessment for Water Management Structures should be extended for another five year period and what changes, if any, should be made to the Class EA. Approval of the existing Class EA expires on December 12, 1990. On September 27, 1989, the ACAO asked the Minister to waive the requirement that it submit a new Class EA one year prior to the expiration date and that the existing Class EA be extended for another 5 year period. If the Class EA is not extended or a new Class EA is not approved, an individual environmental assessment would be required for each water management structure undertaken by Conservation Authorities unless exempt through an exemption order or regulation under the ~nvironmental Assessment Act. The basic alternatives before the Committee were therefore: extending the existing Class EA with amendments; requiring a new Class EA; or requiring individual environmental assessments for water management structures. ~ .. ~~ - -r-- 19 wR.. U- ~O The existing Class EA requires that upon a request to extend the Class EA, the Minister will carry out a public review, and that "if after reviewing the comments received in response to this notice the Minister is of the opinion that there are no major concerns, he will, with Cabinet approval, extend the Class EA approval for an additional period of not more than five years." The Committee has carried out this public review for the Minister. In its review of the Class EA, the Committee received submissions from several government agencies. whose comments ranged from no concerns with extending the Class EA to firm opposition to the extension, and from four environmental groups knowledgeable about water management issues. The environmental groups expressed considerable dissatisfaction with the existing Class EA. They submitt~ that the Class EA focusses too narrowly on solving problems of erosion and flooding through the construction of structures, rather than addressing the source of the problems or using non-structural measures. They argued that despite the use of the Class EA, Conservation Authorities continue to treat water as a problem that must be regulated through engineering. In addition, they stated that the Class EA document understates the environmental impacts of many of the structural measures to which the Class EA applies, and that individual environmental assessments are needed for many of the structures to which the Class EA currently applies. Specific concerns raised by these groups and some agencies pertain to both the requirements of the existing Class EA and the context in which the Class EA is used. Concerns about the requirements of the Class EA include deficiencies in its application, public notification and consultation, consideration of alternatives. and monitoring of environmental impacts, which are essential components of environmental assessment. The Class EA currently applies to projects on the basis of their cost, with projects costing less than $175,000 not re~uiring any environmental assessment, and those costing more than $2.7 million requiring an individual EA. All of the submitters who were critical of the Class EA raised the concern that the use of dollar limits is inappropriate since cost is not a measure of environmental significance. Some projects, such as gabion baskets, a dyke or a dam, with a cost below the $175,000 limit can have impacts that cannot be described as minor. There were also concerns about the cumulative effects of a number of small projects, each of which LVi<. LI- -0 I 20 could cost less than $175,000. In addition, some submitters felt that certain types of projects should automatically require an individual environmental assessment regardless of cost, because of the potential significance of their impacts. The Conservation Council of Ontario (Water Task Force) and the Federation of Ontario Naturalists submitted that despite their known interest in water-related projects, they have had little knowledge or experience with the Class EA. This raised concerns about the adequacy of public notification and involvement under the Class EA. The Class EA states that the first public notice is to be placed in a daily or weekly newspaper in the form of an annual list of proposed projects. The Class EA requires that only those individuals who e~press an interest on the basis of this first notice are contacted later in the process. FON submitted that "this does not reassure the FON about the openness of the process nor of real intent to involve the public." The environmental groups also raised concerns that the Class EA does not ensure adequate consideration of non-structural solutions such as land acquisition, planning or regulatory controls, flood proofing, roadside ditches, man-made wetlands, revegetation and reforestation. Although the Class EA states that structural alternatives are to be used only if the "do nothing" and non-structural alternatives prove to be inadequate, these groups submitted that there are no assurances that this requirement is . met, and that despite the .Class EA, Conservation Authorities continue to use structural measures where they are not necessary. As the CCO submitted, the Class EA .is predisposed towards. structural alternatives, and innovative techniques based on natural, non-structural alternatives such as vegetative slope stabilization and stormwater management .are often overlooked, or at least not adequately considered.. The environmental groups also cited the lack of project monitoring as a major deficiency in the Class EA. The Class EA states: · As the undertakings included in this Class EA will have relatively minor impact, the monitoring program in many instances will not be complex or extensive. It may be in the form of a letter or memorandum indicating that the undertaking has been completed as proposed.. Submitters stated that the impacts can be quite significant, not minor, and that a letter indicating project completion is inadequate. -~---, 21 Wte., 4- ~"l.. The Conservation Council of Ontario (Water Task Force) was also critical of the manner in which monitoring and review,of the Class EA program has been handled. They argued that because effectiveness monitoring is not mandatory for .proven techniques. (those typically built under the Class EA), there is no way of knowing how effective the Class EA has been over the past five years at reducing the threat to life or property as a result of flooding and erosion, or at mitigating environmental impacts of structures. Similarly, the Black Creek Project stated that, .over the years no results of internal audits or external monitoring of this class EA have . been published. Therefore, environmental performance of the Conservation Authorities, integrity of the structures erected, and the long or short term ecological impact of the structures that received approval according to this Class EA have not been e~amined and/or published.. In addition to these concerns about deficiencies of the requirements of the existing Class EA, broader questions were raised about the context in which it operates. The Class EA states that water management structures are undertaken in the context of the Authorities' policies, programs and plans. Each authority has a .watershed plan., which establishes goals and objectives and determines .the most appropriate combination of programs to be undertaken by the Conservation Authority to fulfill its responsibilities. for flooding and erosion control. The Class EA requires that each undertaking falls within the scope of the watershed plan. Some submitters argued, however, that the approach of the Class EA is ineffective in achieving its objective' of controlling flooding and erosion in the most environmentally sound way, and fails to take a comprehensive approach to water management, including a lack of concern for water quality, fisheries and wildlife habitat and wetlands. Save the Rouge Valley System argued that the Class EA is .deficient to the point of being insufficient to achieve the objectives or purpose of the Class EA.. They pointed to the MTRCA's use of an .erosion levy. on developers in anticipation of the deleterious effect of the their stormwater management program (where the amount of the levy is based on the cost of gabion basketting the entire length of the stream) as an example of how structures under the Class EA are used to patch up problems, rather than address the development practice that created the problem. This criticism of the Class EA approach to flooding and erosion control was shared by all public groups. w(l.. ~3 22 These submitters also stated that structural measures on watercourses are ineffective in stopping flooding and erosion problems 'because these structures do not address the quantity and velocity of water entering the watercourse. Effective flooding and erosion control must include the ability to reduce the direct flow of stormwater into the watercourse and encourage groundwater infiltration. The CCO Water Task Force submitted that the Class EA can be effective in achieving the authorities' mandate only by linking the Class EA with a stronger Watershed Plan. They argued that -all structures should be designed to fulfill all components of a Watershed Plan, and only when a Watershed Plan is in place with specific ecosystem targets should a Class EA be allowed.- Furthermore, they submitted that many of the stru<?t~res built -are necessary because of a lack of proper land use planning. Their continued easy availability may, in fact, allow such poor planning to continue.. Save the Rouge Valley System added that inappropriate development near watercourses may then create further environmental degradation downstream. In the 1984 government review of the Class EA, the Environmental Assessment Branch of the MOE emphasized the interrelationship of the Class EA with watershed plans, and held that simple agreement between the two is not enough. The Branch's position was that -ESRs must go beyond demonstrating that the undertaking fits into the watershed plan and/or is compatible with policies and programs of the authority. To provide an adequate rationale for the undertaking, the authority must justify the applicability of the watershed plan and/or its policies and programs to the specific case of the subject project.- This comment was not addressed in the final version of the Class EA. Concerns were raised that the narrow focus of the Class EA on flooding and erosion control fails to ensure adequate consideration of the effects of water management structures on the habitat, water quality and fisheries objectives of other agencies. The Federation of Ontario Naturalists argued that certain activities under this Class EA would require work permits under the Public Lands Act, would be offences under the federal Fisheries Act. are contrary to the Conservation Authorities ~ and directly violate the main goal of maintaining and restoring healthy aquatic ecosystems in MNR's Strategic Plan for Ontario Fisheries' (SPOF II). The MNR stated that -the applicability of legislation administered by the MNR (eg. ,fublic Lands Act, Lakes and Rivers 23 ~~~ 434- Improvement Act) to Conse,rvation Authority projects needs to be clarified in the Class EA. Further, the undertakings included under this Class may have impacts on fisheries and fish habitat...." Environment Canada stated that "through past project experience, we know that the range of activities covered in this Class EA have a significant potential to damage waterfowl staging areas. migratory bird habitat, and wetland habitat" and the Water Task Force of the CCO stated that "the justification that flood and erosion control constitutes environmental enhancement is not acceptable on its own." In response to the above concerns, the ACAO stated that the Class EA "has worked well given the purpose for which it exists, namely, that where a Conservation Authority has no al~ernative to a structural measure, it will be planned, designed and constru'cted in an environmentally sound manner." They also submitted that they are strongly opposed to removing the use of dollar limits for the Class EA and believe that "the rationale originally proposed for this use is still valid," and that the bump-up provision "provides adequate safeguards in this area." It further has argued that proof that the Class EA has worked well is shown by the fact that there have been few, if any, bump-up requests under the Class EA. Finally. ACAO submitted that, while it agrees with many of the concerns raised, the Class EA is not meant 'to deal with many of these concerns; only those issues directed at activities covered by this Class EA have to be dealt with as part of a decision on whether to extend it with amendments. In addressing the conflict between the submissions by the ACAO and many other submissions, the Committee considered whether the Class EA approach is appropriate, and whether the concerns raised can or should be addressed through amendments to the existing document. None of the submitters questioned the use of the Class EA approach to address certain types of water management problems. In the opinion of the Committee, a Class EA is a useful mechanism provided that it is part of a comprehensive, effective approach to water management and that it requires adequate opportunities for public involvement, examination of alternatives, and assessment, mitigation and monitoring of environmental impacts. Clearly, there are situations where Conservation Authorities must undertake structural work to solve emergency problems, and the Class EA ...- 'N (l, . ~:; '0 24 can be used to help plan these structures to minimize their environmental impacts. However, the current Class EA applies to many other, non- emergency situations where a thorough analysis of alternatives and impacts is required. . Some agency submitters, including MNR, appear to take the view that the environmental concerns raised, which include wetland preservation, fisherie~ habitat, stormwater management and shoreline preservation, can be addressed sufficiently through other approval processes. Other submitters observed that this does not always happen in practice. The 'FON stated that "much is made in the document of working with other agencies and consulting with MNR. In our experience most MNR district offices are understaffed and overworked ... and most do not have the time or energy to fight bad proposals. it . In the opinion of the Committee, the Class EA should, through meaningful public involvement, preserve and enhance the environment beyond what would be achieved through other approval processes. The Committee agrees with the ACAO that it is important to distinguish between problems and undertakings addressed by the Class EA and the larger issues of water management (without ignoring the connections between the two). However, the submissions by environmental groups and several agencies raise major concerns about the adequacy of the existing Class EA, even if those concerns that the ACAO argues are not relevant to the Class EA review are ignored. The Committee agrees with submissions stating that the minimum requirements in the Class EA do not ensure adequate public notification and involvement, consideration of non -structural alternatives and monitoring of project impacts. There is also a need to review the class of undertakings to which it applies, since many may not have minor, predictable impacts. While the use of dollar limits in determining when the Class EA applies is administratively convenient, it is not sound environmentally. The Committee also agrees with the EA Branch's comment in the 1984 review that the justification for a project "must go beyond demonstrating that the undertaking fits into the watershed plan and/or is compatible with policies and programs of the authority". There is a need to improve watershed planning. as discussed below, and to strengthen and clarify the relationships among the watershed plans. water quality concerns and the individual undertakings under the Class EA. The existing requirements are ~--.- ,- 25 WR. 4-~b so minimal and flexible that it appears that the existing Class EA has made little difference to the basic approach to decision making by Conservation Authorities, and has therefore added little to environmental protection. A Class EA that is used merely as a planning process for single-purpose flood and erosion control structures will create obstacles in the future as programs and policies of other water-based agencies and the public continue to adopt a more comprehensive approach to water management. As concepts such as "net environmental gain", "best available technology", "sustainable development" and "environmental enhancement" become the norm in water management, an environmental assessment process designed for engineering solution,s to water quantity problems will become increasingly outdated. The existing Class EA states that its approval can be extended if "there are no major concerns" by the public and affected review agencies. Because there are valid, major concerns about the existing Class EA, a new Class EA is required. The Committee, however, considered whether the concerns raised could be addressed through amendments to the existing Class EA. While in theory any concern can be addressed through amendments, the changes required here would result in a significantly different Class EA. The major, . complex issues that must be addressed need formal government review and meaningful public involvement which would not be provided through a process of amending the existing document. The need for a new Class EA is further supported by the history of the existing document. In the 1984 government review of the Class EA, significant concerns were raised by several agencies including MOE, MNR and Environment Canada. These included concerns about the use of dollar limits as the basis for application of the Class EA, the cumulative effects of incremental projects, lack of recognition of wetlands and habitat, and the need to provide an adequate rationale for each undertaking. These concerns were not addressed directly in the approval of the existing Class EA in 1985, as is evident in examining the 1984 review. Instead, the Class EA was approved on the basis of it being reviewed in 5 years. For example, in the 1984 review, the MOE stated that the rationale for the dollar limits proposed was incomplete, but that it was willing to accept WIt. ~ ~7 26 the limits as "administratively reasonable" with the provision that these limits be reviewed in 5 years. During the Committee's review, Environment Canada submitted that "we wish also to raise strongly the question of the Class EA approvals process. Environment Canada reviewed Rrevious drafts in 1983 and 1985 to the effect that only few concerns were addressed and the rest ignored without any benefit of explanation or discussion from the ACAO or MOE." Unfortunately given this history, the ACAO did not undertake a meaningful review as a basis for asking for an extension of the Class EA. Its request on September 27, 1989 for a waiver from submitting a new class EA was made prior to sending out its qu~_stionnaire, and did not allow time if necessary to prepare and submit a new Class EA before the deadline of December 1989. In addition, there was no meaningful monitoring of the effectiveness of the Class EA and the ACAO consulted only the Conservation Authorities in their review. The ACAO review concluded that the Class EA is serving its purpose well and allows the Authorities "to comply with the requirements of the EA Act". This conclusion appears to be based only on the satisfaction of the Authorities in carrying out their water management projects. The fact that there have been few bump-up requests may be more related to insufficient public notice and involvement than public satisfaction. Many of the submitters felt that the ACAO made no attempt to do a meaningful, open review of the Class EA. The Federation of Ontario Naturalists submitted to the Committee that "we feel somewhat resentful at being asked to do the job the ACAO should have done. The fact that no substantial amendments to the document were proposed by the ACAO shows an alarming complacency and satisfaction with the status quo which the state of our waterways belies." The Committee's review provided only a limited opportunity for the public to raise concerns about the Class EA. Submitters, and other members of the public, need adequate opportunity to be involved formally in revising the Class EA, which would come through a new submission under the fA ~. The development and approval of a new Class EA would need to address a wide range of views and concerns, including those raised in this referral, as well as the scope of the Class EA in relation to watershed plans and water quality concerns. The Committee would also expect that, ~ - -~ ------ 27 Wlt~ 43g> as part of the approval for a new Class EA, there would be requirements for the ACAO and the Ministry to monitor publicly the effectiveness of the Class EA in protecting and enhancing the environment. RECOMMENDATION #1 - A new class environmental assessment for water management should be developed by the Conservation Authorities In order to ensure Improvements In the following areas: - meeting the requirements of the EA Act. Including full consideration of alternatives, meaningful public and agency notification and consult~tion, assessment of environmental Impacts and monitoring of Impacts; - strengthening and clarifying the relationships among the Class EA, watershed plans and water quality concerns; and - monitoring the effectlvenesl of the Class EA. Preparation, submission and approval of a new Class EA could be completed within two years if there is meaningful public consultation from the start, assistance from relevant agencies and environment groups, and timely government review. Since the existing, Class EA expires on December 12, 1990, and a new Class EA would not be in place by then, each undertaking covered by the Class EA would, in the interim, require individual environmental assessment unless exempted under Section 29 of the ~A Act. Alternatively, the existing Class EA could be extended by the Minister until the new Class EA is approved. , , In the opinion of the Committee, interim extension of the existing Class EA would be acceptable provided that it is amended to address its deficiencies as well as possible, and provided that the extension is for as short a time as possible. Some amendments should be directed at improving public notification and consultation. Enhanced public notification should involve mandatory direct notification of all major provincial environment organizations and all ratepayer and water-related citizens' groups on the watershed. Consideration should also be given to fftfl. 4-3Cf 28 having citizens' liaison committees to help during the planning and implementation of projects. Improved public notification would make the bump-up provision more meaningful, thereby providing some additional safeguards against other deficiencies in the Class EA. Amendments should also ensure full consideration of the do nothing and non-structural alternatives and full justification for the need for the structural alternative, and strengthen requirements for monitoring and mitigating project impacts. Sections of the text that understate the potential environmental impact of projects should be revised to reflect better the actual potential impacts. The ACAO has proposed a set of amendments to the Class EA. The Committee finds all of these, except th~ recommended bump-down provision, to be acceptable, since they do not change the substance of the Class EA. It would not be appropriate at this time to implement the bump- down provision. particularly one without public consultation, since it would further weaken the existing Class EA requirements. A bump-down provision could be considered in the development of the new Class EA. An interim extension of the existing Class EA, with these needed amendments. would give the Conservation Authorities and the ACAO more resources to put into developing the new Class EA rather than into preparing an individual EA or exemption request for every water management project. The amended Class EA should be monitored closely during its interim extension to gain information that might be useful in the development of the new Class EA. The Committee notes that in March 1990 the Minister decided to provide funds to the ACAO for monitoring and educational activities related to the Class EA. Any extension of the existing Class EA should be for at most two years without any further extensions possible. This should provide sufficient time to put a new Class EA in place and encourage ACAO to work expeditiously on its development. 29 fA R... ij.l.J.O RECOMMENDATION #2 - In the Interim while a new Class EA Is being developed. the existing Class EA for Water Management Structures should be extended until no later than December 1992 with amendments which: - strengthen public notification and Involvement i - ,ensure full consideration of the do nothing and non- structural alternatives and full justification for the need for the structural alternative; - revise the text to reflect adequately the potential significance of project Impacts; and - strengthen monitoring of impacts during and after construction and ensure mitigation of these impacts. . There should be no further extensions beyond 1992. The responsibility for preparing the specific amendments to the existing Class EA lies with the ACAO and the EA Branch. However, the concerns about the existing Class EA have come from the other agencies and environmental groups which made submissions to the Committee. These groups participated in the Committee's public meeting and have expressed interest in helping to improve the Class EA. It is essential that the amendments referred to in Recommendation #2 be developed. through consultation with these groups and agencies. In addition, the Committee, as requested by the Minister in his referral, could assist in this task. In order to provide meaningful public involvement, and promote a better working relationship between the Authorities and the public groups, the Committee suggests the following process for developing the interim amendments. An initial set of amendments should be drafted jointly by the ACAO and the EA Branch. All of the agencies, groups and individuals who made a submission to the Committee should be given at least 30 days to comment on the draft interim amendments and attend an open meeting to discuss these amendments. In order to have acceptable amendments prepared before or shortly after the Class EA expires in December 1990, the initial public meeting should be held before October 15, 1990. These wi< .4-1+ , 30 participants should then determine an acceptable mechanism for revising and seeking agreement on the draft amendments. If it is not possible for these participants to develop acceptable amendments before the Class EA expires, there may be a period between expiration and extension of the Class EA where individual environmental assessments would be required. As long as the ACAO and the EA Branch consult meaningfully with the public, the Committee does not believe that this will be a significant problem. RECOMMENDATION #3 . The ACAO and the Ministry of the Environment should develop the amendments referred to in recommendation #2 In consuUatlon with submitters to the EAAC review, with at least one Initial meeting prior to October 15 to discuss draft amendments. Many of the comments received by the Committee during its review of the Class EA related to concerns about the role of Conservation Authorities and watershed planning. The position of ACAO is that these matters do not have to be dealt with as part of the decision about the Class EA and that it. is impossible to encompass them within the present focus and scope of the current Class EA.' However, it is important not to separate concerns about watershed planning and water management structures. First, as recognized by the ACAO in the Class EA, each water management structure must fit within the watershed plan, ie. the plans provide the context in which the structures are built. Second, effective watershed planning is necessary to avoid the problems which cause the need for water management structures, and finally, water management structures can have significant effects on the environmental integrity of the watershed. The j;nvironm,ntal A~sessment Act requires a rationale for each undertaking. The Committee agrees with the concerns of some submitters who argued that the rationale of individual projects in the current Class EA relies too heavily on the watershed plans, and that these plans are often not specific enough to provide the needed justification for water management undertakings. In addition, it appears that there is no legal requirement for Authorities to have approved watershed plans. A new Class EA, as recommended above, should improve and clarify the 31 wR. 44-~ relationship of the Class EA to watershed plans and the requirements for justifying each undertaking under the Class EA; Conservation Authorities should be required to demonstrate that each structure is of benefit to the environment. The ACAO stated that the programs and policies of the Authorities are described in each Authority's watershed plan. Each plan therefore is, or should be, the Authority's guiding document for determining the environmental health of the watershed. Several submitters raised concerns about the adequacy of these watershed plans. This included concerns that these plans are not ecologically based, should be more specific and should set ecosystem targets. such as for water quality, water flows, fish diversity, wildli~e habitat, public access and navigability . Without proper watershed plans, the Class EA for water management may allow projects which address flooding or erosion problems, but whose other environmental impacts create a situation of net environmental damage. For example, a stream may be channelized to stabilize an eroding bank that is causing downstream sedimentation. While the structure may solve the erosion problem at the specific site, it can create a number of ecologically damaging impacts such as increased water temperature, barriers to fish migration, degraded natural appearance, and decreased vegetation and habitat diversity. In addition, these structures can increase the velocity of the water, thereby creating further erosion problems downstream, which can result in more structures being built. Another major problem with the Class EA and watershed plans is that Conservation Authorities focus on flooding and erosion control for water once it enters the watercourse, but not on controlling the source of the water which causes flooding, erosion and other environmental problems. Many of Ontario's urban rivers and streams have been degraded because development on the land base has been designed in such a way that runoff from storms is piped to the nearest watercourse, creating tremendous flows during storms. Paved surfaces drain into pipes and channels rather than ditches, ponds and other pervious ,surfaces. Because the stabilizing natural process of groundwater recharge into rivers and streams is hindered, these rivers and streams can dry up between rainfalls. The dry watercourse is susceptible to a greater degree ~ --~ we · 4LI- 3 32 of erosion during the next storm, and the increased fluctuation in water levels can have significant effects on the aquatic environment such as fisheries and wetland habitats. As stated in the Class EA, .urbanization in general has converted many pervious tree and grass covered areas into hard, impervious surfaces. These impervious systems serve to rapidly transport storm water to the nearest watercourse, thereby increasing peak flows and aggravating flooding problems.. Unless the drainage pattern from land development is properly controlled, Conservation Authorities will continue to patch up problems on the watercourses, and groundwater infiltration processes and the quality of rivers and streams will continue to degrade through incremental planning. Significantly, this neglect of rive~! creek and stream ecosystems frustrates efforts to restore the water quality of Ontario's lakes. The quality of Ontario's lakes and beaches is dependent upon the environmental integrity of the rivers, and the quality of these rivers is determined by the activities in them and on the land. A watershed plan should be comprehensive to protect, conserve and enhance the environment of the watershed through concerns for water quantity and quality, wildlife habitat and diversity, and publiC access and recreation. These plans would also need to address municipal water concerns to ensure that development on the watersheds does not compromise the environment. As stated by submitters, watershed plans should have specific targets in order to provide firm guidance for specific activities, such as solutions to flooding and erosion problems, and properly address the cumulative effects of individual proposals that. affect the watershed. With ecosystem targets in place for the watershed, it is possible to determine if a structure, or any other activity, is enhancing or harming the ecological integrity of the watershed. Watershed planning must begin with information about the hydrologic regime and environmental resources in the watershed, much of which does not currently exist. Without such comprehensive and specific plans based on adequate information, our watersheds can be expected to degrade further, costly water management structures will be required to mitigate these effects, and the Class EA will continue to function only as a narrow process for planning site-specifiC projects. Conservation Authorities have been organized to address problems on a watershed basis and their watershed plans are the only existing means of -~-~ 33 wR.l+~4- . addressing the above types of problems. The Committee has seen a general public expectation that the Authorities have broad responsibilities to conserve and protect the environment in our watercourses. However, due to both historical reasons and financial contraints, the Auth'orities have been given a more narrow mandate concerning erosion and flooding. Protecting life and property against potential flooding is an important function, but, as noted by submitters, these activities do not constitute environmental enhancement on their own. Furthermore, the effectiveness of flood and erosion control progr~ms is likely to be enhanced by comprehensive planning. Given the importance in looking at broader concerns that affect the environmental integrity of watersheds, the Committee had recommended in its Report No. 38 on the Ganaraska watershed, that the Province should consider how to give the Authorities a more effective role in the land-usa planning process, especially in protecting against negative cumulative effects of land-use planning policies and approvals. Although the Conservation Authorities Act states that the objective of an Authority is .to establish and undertake ... a program designed to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources ....., the current powers of Authorities are too limited to allow them to accomplish this in an effective manner. In order to carry out proper watershed planning, the Authorities need an expanded mandate. At minimum, they need the authority to coordinate the activities of other agencies involved in the watershed, and need additional resources for this purpose. The }:nvironmental Assessment Acf states that its purpose is .to provide for the protection, conservation and wise management in Ontario of the environment,. and that it applies to, among other things, all .plans or programs in respect of enterprises or activities by ... a public body..... As stated by the ACAO, the watershed plans .represent the major philosophies, policies, and programs of the Conservation Authorities.. In the 1984 government review of the current Class EA for Water Management Structures, the EA Branch commented on the importance of the watershed plans, but stated that they .are not in themselves subject to the J;.A Act but are subject to scrutiny when they are used to justify a project, which is subject to the Act, for approval.. wR- · u.ij- ~ 34 Given the environmental importance of watershed plans and that they provide the direction and authority to individual projects, it is regrettable that the EA Act has not been applied to them. The process for considering individual projects under the Class EA cannot provide the needed direct and comprehensive assessment of the plan. The EA Act provides the appropriate process for the development, assessment and approval of plans that affect the environment, and the Committee sees no legal reason why the Act does not apply to the watershed plans. The quality of a watershed plan depends to a large extent on the level of public input in its development. Waterways are a common resource, and public interest in rivers and streams is high. Citizen involvement also ensures ongoing interest and monitoring, and engenders a sense of ownership and responsibility. ThE. EA Act ensures meaningful opportunities for public involvement and independent review which are not guaranteed by the public consultation practices of the Authorities. Although Section 21 of the Conservation Authorities Act gives Authorities the power to undertake studies and determine programs for the watershed, there is currently no legal requirement for Conservation Authorities to have approved watershed plans. It is therefore difficult for the Minister of the Environment to require such plans to undergo environmental assessment. Because watershed plans are necessary for protecting, conserving, and wisely managing watersheds, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources should require Authorities to have watershed plans, and that they be developed and approved under the Environmental Assessment Act. It will also be necessary to ensure that such plans are effectively integrated into decision making on land use planning, and this should be addressed in the current review of the planning process. RECOMMENDATION '4 · All Conservation Authorities should be required to have watershed plans developed and approved under the .EnlJronmental Assessment Act. and these plans should be effectively incorporated into the land use planning process. The Committee recognizes that the implementation of Recommendation #4 is a lengthy and complex process. Since this process would not be 35 NT? .1J-4~ completed until well after the development of the new Class EA for water management recommended above, the new Class EA must be developed recognizing the existing watershed plans. However, it is also important that the new Class EA be developed in anticipation of new, comprehensive watershed plans. Decisions should therefore be made on Recommendation #4 early in the development of the new Class EA. . ~. 1S . + PLANNING a DESIGN PROCESS FOR WATER MANAGEMENT UNDERTAKINGS ~ 1986 BACKGROUND PHASE I ~..L.., PHASE 3 PHASE 4 -.. ........ -.... ..."'. -......., ~~~ -- . r..-;..-;,.;;.;; -;:;-1 r.;,;;;';;j';;;,-' r .-;-...-;; c..;;;, - - ~ .,.,.. .... .-'''', _.'IIl'" I _,.11&,. ., --.. -.. .,-.... -. I .C"'AC' ......... I -,_.. .....- ..,,, .,....... __"_OC ,. _n_. ...... I _CIIII_OC .. I I .....-- II - I L.;"" ... --.-., I ..,,- - - -. L'~~~_-1 ~~~__J ... - -.-- I I -..-. .....- J L~~- ~~- ,I.. . ... a, ;;.;;;;;;.-;-, c__,. __" - ... .,ca._ _oc .....,_.. .....-.. I ........ - I I --,-- I ..... --.. -~.'~J .... -~- . wI< · lJ.1J. g . AIIAkt:iMeNT 2 . us.r OF SUBMITTERS 1. Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario' (ACAO). 2. Municipal Engineers Association (MEA). 3. Ontario Native Affairs Directorate 4. Environment Canada, Water Planning and Management Branch, Inland Waters Directorate - Ontario Region. 5. Environment Canada - Canadian Wildlife Service, Ontario Region. 6. Conservation Council of Ontario, Water Task Force (CCO). 7. Save the Rouge Valley System. 8. Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH) 9. Ontario Provincial Police, Policy and Planning Branch 10. John Frazer (private citizen) 11. Ministry of Municipal Affairs 12. Heritage Resources Centre, University of Waterloo 13. Ministry of Transportation, Highway Engineering Division 14. Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Foodland Preservation Branch 15. Federation of Ontario Naturalists (FON). 16. Black Creek Project. 17. Ministry of Natural Resources - Corporate Policy and Planning Secretariat. - Fisheries Branch. - Conservation Authorities and Water Management Branch. 1 r . . ~ wtZ ~ 4'+ Cf - 2 - 18. Metro Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Water Resource Division (MTRCA)* 19. Regi~nal Municipality of Durham, Planning Committee * Indicates attendance and submission at Meeting of April 11, 1990. SOHMARY OF BNVIRONMENTAL STUDY REPORTS IN PROGRESS WI( .u.5o UNDER THB CLASS BA FOR WATER MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES (The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority) - "Carmel Court" 1. Date E.S.R. started* : July 12, 1989 2. Date E.S.R. scheduled for completion: April, 1991, if funded (project currently on hold due to expected lack of funding) 3. % of work completed: 75% . 4. Name of Project: Erosion Control and Slope Stabilization Project in the vicinity of Carmel Court and Harrington Crescent Location: Bestview Park/Carmel Court, City of North York Project Description: The study wil.l determine, the cause(s), extent, and hazard to structures and property associated with the erosion problem along the creek, which flows through Bestview Park. A number of design proposals will be developed, and through an evaluation of environmental concerns, technical merit and costs, the most practical solution will be recommended. "Sylvan Avenue" 1. Date E.S.R. started* : July 18, 1989 2. Date E.S.R. scheduled for completion: December 31, 1990 3. % of work completed: 80% 4. Name of Project: Erosion Control and Slope Stabilization Location: Sylvan Avenue, Scarborough Bluffs, City of Scarborough Project Description: The study will determine the causes, extent and associated hazard of the erosion problems. A number of design proposals will be developed, and ,through an evaluation of environmental concerns, technical merit and costs, the most feasible alternative for implementation will be recommended. * "Date E.S.R. started" has been interpreted to mean date of publication of the Notice of Intent Sl r' Burqundv Court" t1JR.~ * May 2, 1990 1. Date E.S.R. started: 2. Date E.S.R. sc~eduled for completion: June, 1991 3. % of work completed: 60% 4. Name of Project: Erosion Control and Slope Stabilization Project Location: Burgundy Court, North York Project Description: The study will determine the cause, extent, and hazard to structures and property associated with the slope failure. A number of design proposals will be developed, and through an evaluation of environmental concerns, technical merit and costs, the most feasible alternative for implementation will be recommended. . Additional Notes WR · 45~ (1) In accordance with the Class EA, the MTRCA has advertised its intent to carry out projects exempt under the Class EA (i.e. under the minimum $175,000). This was done in 1987, 1988, and 1989. No projects of this nature were identified in 1990. One project of this nature has been proposed for 1991, but any further work on this project will be dependant upon funding allocation. The project will involve erosion control and slope stabilization at 39 and 41 Springbank Avenue, Scarborough Bluffs, City of Scarborough. (2) In addition to the Class EA guidelines, environmental inventories are carried out on all projects exempt under the Glass EA. (3) One up-coming project is the Coatsworth Cut Navigation Dredging at Ashbridge's Bay Waterfront Park, City of Toronto. This project is not clearly within the scope of the Class EA, and furthe~ore, would be 'exempt (estimated cost of $100,000). However, MTRCA has chosen to proceed with environmental studies and public notices, as if the project were subject to the Class EA process. . . 1 ~ ,. Ministry \'i:~ Ministere Environmental Comlte of the de Assessment consultatif - .- Environment I'Environnement Advisory des evaluations '-' Committee environnementales Dr Philip H Byer. Chairman President Dr Robert B Gibson. Member Membre 65 St. Clair Ave. East Christine S Lucyk, Memoer Membre 7th Floor fJ.)1l-.Lf-S3 Toronto, Ontario M4T 2Y3 (416) 323-2666 September 10, 1990 Dear Sir/Madam: Re: ACAO Class EA for Water ManaQement Structures As you are aware, last Sprin'g the Advisory Committee reviewed the Association of Conservation Authority's Class EA for Water Management Structures in order to advise the Minister on whether to extend approval of the Class EA. The Committee wishes to thank you for your input to our review. The Committee submitted its report to the Minister on June 22. Enclosed is a copy of our report. On September 6, the Minister announced his decision accepting the Committee's three recommendations concerning the extension of approval of the Class EA. No decision has yet been made on the Committee's fourth recommendation concerning conservation authority watershed plans. Also enclosed are copies of the Minister's decision letters to the Committee and the ACAO. Further to the Minister's decision on our recommendation #3, you should be hearing shortly from the ACAO about the drafting of amendments to the Class EA. Again, I wish to thank you for your input to our review. Sincerely, ... /JLJ/ Iv Zy---, U Philip H. Byer Chairman Enclosures :3": 1 - -- - - ~ lti Ministry Ministere of the de Sfp 06 1900 Environment l'Environnment ena- W~.~Sh. Office of the " 135 Sl Clair Avenue West 135. avenue Sl Clair ~.,~: Mlnlaler Suite 100 Bureau 100 Bureau du Toronto. Ontario Toronto (Ontario) M4V 1P5 M4V 1P5 min~ 4181323-4359 41813~9 13335 Mr. Russ Powell n Executive Director Association of Conservation = Authorities of Ontario Suite 200A, Time Square ~ 380 Armour Road Peterborough, Ontario . K9H 7L7 .:l.. ~ .:_: .: ~.I' ~~ Powell: Dear Mr. I have now fully reviewed your. request to extend the approval of the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario (ACAO) Class Environmental Assessment for Water Management Structures for a further five years. Based upon the many deficiencies identified during both the Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee (EAAC) public review and the Environmental Assessment Branch's internal review, I have decided to adopt in principle the first three of EAAC's recommendations and give further consideration to the fourth recommendation. I am enclosing EAAC's Report #43. The changes needed to improve this existing Class EA to provide an effective environmental planning process are substantial. Therefore, in keeping with EAAC's first recommendation, I have determined that only a new Class EA developed by the ACAO could ensure improvements in the following areas: 0 meeting the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act), including full . . . 2 --- - - --'7 ' . ....-. -, , - , - IIJR..LI- sS Mr. Russ Powell paqe 2 consideration of alternatives, meaninqful public and aqency notification and consultation, assessment of environmental impacts and monitorinq of impacts; 0 strenqtheninq and clarifyinq the relationships amonq the Class EA, watershed plans and water quality concerns; and 0 monitorinq the effectiveness of the Class EA. Therefore, I will not qrant an extension of the approval of the existinq Class EA for a further fiv~ years. However, recoqnizinq the time needed to develop, review and approve a new Class EA, I am willinq to extend, with Cabinet concurrence, approval of the existinq Class EA for a further 2 years provided amendments are made as outlined in EAAC's second recommendation. In addition, amendments should be included which address the followinq: 0 revise the text to reflect chanqes to Federal and Provincial policies and leqislation; 0 amend the "Provision for Phasinq In of Onqoinq Undertakinqs" (Chapter 8) to apply to the phase-in of the amended Class EA; 0 revise the text to show the revised upper and lower project costs; and 0 amend the requirement for an annual list to be prepared and advertised for water manaqement undertakinqs costinq less than $175,000 with suitable mention of the "bump-up" procedure, to require mandatory submission alonq with documentation respectinq how it was advertised, to the Director of the EA Branch. EAAC's third recommendation states that the ACAO and the Ministry of the Environment should develop the needed amendments. However, I would like to clarify thAt this Ministry is not a co-proponent of this Class EA and therefore does not bear the responsibility for developinq the needed amendments. Nonetheless, I have directed the EA Branch to facilitate the development of the amendments by the . . . 3 . ---"-,..:-..z,~.....S?~ "~.~~ ~;~~.;,r;"" -, '. - .'. ~-,J".,"-, .. ~~~-~~:~' ::: .. . '. ,.' :,.J/ wR .lJ.Sb , Mr. Russ Powell . Page 3 ACAO in consultation with all interested individuals, groups and agencies with at least one initial meeting prior to October is to discuss draft amendments. I strongly encourage you to hold this meeting as soon as possible to allow for meaningful consultation. In keeping with the notice requirements as stated in the Class EA, I will be issuing a notice shortly, regarding the amendments and inviting public, group and agency comments and participation. In view of the time needed for review and approval of a new Class EA, I would recommend that the ACAO make a formar submission by June, 1991. To assist you in the development of a new Class EA and the amendments to the existing Class EA, I will ask EA Branch staff to provide quidanc~ wherever possible. I will.be contacting the Ministers of Natural Resources and Municipal Affairs to further study the fourth recommendation. I look forward to the ACAO's full participation. If you have any questions on this matter, please contact Mr. Mark Burqham of the EA Branch at (416) 440-6966. Yours sincerely, Original signed by Mini.st.. SEP 61990 Jim Bradley Minister Enclosure cc: Dr. Philip H. Byer V Chairman Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee eo - lti Ministry Ministere SEP.06 19Q} - of the de Environment J'Environnment Ont_ 135 Sl. Clair Avenue West 135. .v.n.... Sl Clair ouest Office 01 the Suite 100 Bureau 100 Minister Toronto. Ontario Toronto (Ontario) M4V 1P5 M4V 1P5 Bureau du 4181323-4359 4181323-4359 ministre 13335 September 6, 1990 wR. 4.~7 Dr. Philip H. Byer Chairman Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee__ 65 St. Clair Avenue East 7th Floor Toronto, Ontario M4T 2Y3 Dear Dr. Byer: Thank you for your four recommendations regarding the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario (ACAO) Class EA for Water Management Structures, contained in your recently submitted report #43. After reviewing your report, I have decided to adopt in principle the first three recommendations. I will be contacting the Ministers of Natural Resources and Municipal Affairs to further study the fourth recommendation. In addition to the amendments suggested by the Committee in recommendation #2, I have asked the ACAO to include amendments which address the following: 0 revise the text to reflect changes to Federal and Provincial policies and legislation; 0 change the "Provision for Phasing In of Ongoing Undertakings" (Chapter 8) to apply to the phase-in of the amended Class EA; 0 revise the text to show the revised upper and lower project costs; ~d . . . 2 -- (;JR .lf5€ Dr. Philip H. Byer Page 2 0 require mandatory submission of the annual list of water management undertakings costing less than $175,000 with suitable mention of the "bump-up" procedure, to the Director of the EA Branch, along with documentation pertaining to how it was advertised. As stated in my letter to the ACAO (copied to you), this Ministry is not a co-pro~onent of this Class EA and therefore does not bear t e responsibility for developing the needed amendments. However, in keeping with the intent of your third recommendation, I have directed the EA Branch to facilitate the dAvelopment of the amendments by the ACAO in consultation with ~ll interested indivi~~a~s, groups and agencies with at least one 'initial meeting prior to October 15 to discuss draft amendments. Please provide a copy of this letter and EAAC report #43 to all persons, groups and agencies that made a submission to the Committee upon receipt of this letter. Yours sincerely, ~l~ . Jim Bradley Minister cc: Miss Rebecca Goodwin secretara Natural eritage Lea~~e Mr. Russ Powell Executive Director Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario The Honourable John sweener Minister of Municipal Affa rs Mr. MacDonald Dunbar Executive Director Association of Municipalities of Ontario The Honourable Lyn McLeod Minister of Natural Resources wJ!. 459 THE METROPOLITAN 1'ORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY GUIDELINES FOR A COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED IMPACT STUDY OF FILL, RUNOFF AND SEDIMENTATION Water & Related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting #5/90 November 23, 1990 1 W~. 4~O GUIDELINES FOR A COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED IMPACT STUDY OF FILL, RUNOFF AND SEDIMENTATION Introduction At the Authority Meetinq '6/90 concern was expressed regarding the impacts of contaminants entering the watercourses from development activities on adjacent lands. contaminants to watercourses can include suspended f.ed iment, nutrients, toxics, metals, hydrocarbons, bacteria, and others. contaminants, such as these, impact adversely on a wdtercourse's water quality as it relates to such beneficial uses as swimming, fishing, and aesthetics. Various sources of thesn contaminants and pathways that they follow to watercourses can be categorized into groups related to land use activities. Table 1 lists major contaminant source areas, according to land use activities, and illustrates the relative attention given to each source area in recent, local studies. A review of Table 1 shows that studies have been of two types: those concentrating on a specific watercourse's water <Iuality and those concentrating on a particular pollutant source area. The Metro Toronto Remedial Action Plan reports have addressed a broad range of pollutant sources for the entire Toronto watershed area. Although natural areas have been acknowledged as a potential source of pollutants to water quality, their contributions will not be significant as those from human-related activities, and herein will be omitted. Further review of this literature has indicated that much information is already known of the sources of pollutants, pathways for their transport, and resultant impacts upon the aquatic ecosystem. To avoid duplication of past efforts, it is suggested that a Comprehensive Watershed Impact Study could offer the largest contribution to knowledge in this area by 1) identifying potential sources of pollutants that have not been fully investigated by other studies and by 2) building upon and following up on the recommendations of previous studies. Part I of this report briefly summarizes the main objectives of recent studies, ident if ies noted areas for further study and action, and lists study recommendations most relevant to the Conservation Authority's interests. Part II of this report <letails the proposed Comprehensive Watershed Impact Study. PJ,ItT I: CURRENT LITERATURB Local studies that have focussed on water quality problems and recommendations of these studies, as they relate to broad Conservation Authority interests, are provided for each of the following land-use activities: 1. URBANIZED, DEVELOPED AREAS Contaminant Source Areas: . Storm sewer discharges Residential (pets, household wastes, fertil izers, etc. ) Industrial . Combined sewer overflows . Snow dumps . Landfill sites . Streambank -erosion . Atmospheric fallout . Herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers . SWM facilities . Spills E TABLE 1: RELATIVE ATTENTJ:ON GJ:VEN TO KAJOR CONTAKJ:NAh"T SOURCE AREAS IN RECENT LOCAL STUDJ:ES ~ . PRE V IOU S S T U DIE S ~ SOU R C E S I Metro TAWMS TAWMS BMPs Beaches MTRCA ~ RAP Don Humber study + CURB Fill study (1990) ( 1989) (1986) ( 1990) (1990) (1990) - A. URBANIZED AREAS 1- storm sewer discharge X X X a) Residential X X Pets X Fertilizers Household Wastes X b) Commercial c) Industrial X X 2. Combined Sewer OVerflows X X v ^ 3. Snow Dumps X X 4. Landfill Sites X X 5. Streambank Erosion X X X 6. Atmospheric Fallout X X 7. Herbicides, Pesticides, X Pertilizers 8. SWM Facilities X X 9. Spills X X B) URBANJ:ZJ:NG AREAS 1- Pill Quality and Placement X 2. Erosion and Sedimentation X X C) RURAL/AGRICULTURAL AREAS 1- Livestock Access X X X 2. Manure Management X X 3. Milkhouse Wastewater X X 4. Private sewage Systems X X 5. Fertilizers, Pesticides (X) 6. soil Erosion X X 7. Rural Roadside Sources D) "NATURAL" AREAS 1- Natural Erosion 2. Wildlife X 3. Wetlands 3 wR.4b~ TAWHS - Study ot Water Oualitv in the Don River The Don River ~tudy attempted to identify water quality problems, identify contaminant source areas, and evaluate effectiveness of various remedial measures tor improving Don River water quality. The Don River strategy recommended the following immediate actions: . control of tunoff from new developments with wet ponds or equivalent . demonstration projects for specific areas . restoration of riparian vegetation and other aesthetic improvements . improvement of several source control programs . continuation and/or acceleration of existing programs related to water quality (e.g. erosion and sediment control, cross connection programs). TAWHS - study ot Water Oualitv in the Humber River The Humber River study -attempted to identify water quality problems, identify pollutant sources, and develop cost- effective measures for reducing pollutant loadings. The Humber River Water Quality Management Plan recommends that the following programs be continued: . reduction of sediment delivery to the river through existing programs of sediment and erosion control and stormwater management . inspection and monitoring of snow disposal sites to ensure that they meet MOE guidelines . encourage senior levels of government to seek reductions in air emissions in order to reduce deposition of contaminants on the watershed . implement i1gricultural controls to: limit livestock access to streams; reduce soil, nutrient and pesticide loss; prevent contamination from manure storage areas . implementation ~f pilot scale fishery habitat improvement . construction of stormwater retention ponds to control runoff quality from existing industrial and residential areas and from all new developments. 2. URBANIZING AREAS contaminant Source Areas: . fill placement and quality . erosion and sedimentation during construction HTRCA Fill Oualitv Control Proqram A study by the MTRCA has identified a strong need for a program to assess the quality of surplus fill material being placed in inland locations within the MTRCA's jurisdiction, where contaminants could be released to groundwater and surface water. Seventeen out of 21 municipalities who responded to a survey (out of a possible 23) stated that they do not presently follow any guidelines to monitor the quality of fill being disposed within their boundaries. This study has recommended that the MOE designate MTRCA as the agency to establish and regulate such a program. It was also recommended that MTRCA clarify its powers regarding fill, as contained in Regulation 293/86, and that the MOE develop better guidelines for classifying the quality of fill. W1l.~&3 4 Metro Toronto Remedial Action Plan The Metro RAP addresses sediment control from urban construction activities. Program improvements are recommended in the fOllowing areas: . Proper application of existing controls and development o,t new measures of erosion and sediment control . Compliance monitoring . Improved education of the development industry . Introduction of new legislation Brosion and Sediment Control Guidelines . During the construction phase of urban development, eroded sediment during runoff events may increase one-thousand times or more as compilred to pre-development conditions. This document offers a collection of methods for the control of erosion and sedimentation on urban construction sites. However, it has bElen note~ in the Metro Toronto RAP that these guidelines need to be implemented and enforced more effectively. 3. RURAL/AGRICULTURAL AREAS Contaminant Source Areas: . Livestock Access to watercourses . Manure Management Practices . Milkhouse Washwater Treatment . Private Sewage Systems . Fertilizers, Pesticides . Soil Erosion . Rural Roadside Sources (e.g. ditch design and maintenance) Rural Beaches Pro1ect. CURB Plan The Rural Beaches Project and the CURB Plan have identified bacterial pollution from agricultural sources as the primary reason for beach closures. The Plan recommends several remedial measures (e.g. the construction of new manure storage facilities, repair of faulty septic systems, and livestock fencing) , preventitive measures (e.g. policy changes to restrict livestock access to watercourses, inspection program for private sept.ic systems, municipal drains, etc.) , and improved financial assistance. Metro Toronto Remedial Action Plan The Metro RAP addresses agricultural dry and wet weather contaminant sources to surface water quality. The RAP identities potent:ial program improvements in the following areas: a) develop individual farm remedial plans b) develop improved financial assistance programs c) develop an improved education program d) develop legislation (e.g. strengthen the Environmental Protection Act) e) enforcement of existing and proposed legislation f) increa~e subsidies for barnyard and manure storage system improvements and barnyard water diversion projects 5 Pl\RT II: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED IMPACT STUDY l\1 ~ · 4.-bi+ IntrocSuction The following goals have been considered in the design of the proposed Comprehensive Watershed Impact study. The Study should attempt to: a) avoid duplication of past research efforts; b) investigate areas that have not been fully addressed by previous studies; and to c) build upon and follow up on recommendations of previous studies. A review of previous studies has shown that some mitigative measures for the prevention of water quality impairment and remedial measures for the improvement of water quality are available. Some preventitive measures are in place (e.g. Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Controls on Urban Construction Sites, Guidelines for Snow Disposal). However, compliance to the guidelines and effectiveness of recommended techniques in the field remains to be demonstrated. In fact the Metro RAP identified a need for compliance and effectiveness monitoring in the area of erosion and sediment controls. This type of exercise could prove valuable for other types of controls as well. For example, where the opportunity for control does exist (1. e. preventitive or mitigative): Is it being used? Is it performing as expected? Study obiectives The study will be carried out through two phases, with the following objectives: I'hase I 1- To identify all "oontrols" currently in place to protect against water quality impairment. 2 . To collect baseline data at the study subwatershed level. phase II 1. To determine subwatershed baseline water quali ty characteristics. 2. To determine to what degree average practice complies with known and accepted "best management practices" as these are documented in existing guidelines/regulations. 3. To determine the effectiveness of all existing controls. StudY Area 'l'his Study proposes to use the Robinson Creek watershed, a subwatershed of the Rouge River, as the study area. The Robinson Creek watershed was IIsed as the test subwatershed in the Rouge River Study for various hydrologic, water quality, runoff control and erosion control studies. For the purposes of the Rouge Study, the Robinson Creek watershed met specified conditions. Several of these are particularly important to a Comprehensive Watershed Impact Study: 6 ~.4b5 . conditions within the sub-basin should be generally typical of the Rouge River at large . land use should be varied within the sub-basin to provide a range of conditions on which to evaluate current and future control options . suitable locations should exist for the collection of flow and water quality data The Robinson Creek watershed seems to provide a manageable and representative watershed for intensive study. In addition, the Rouge Study has produced a relatively recent data set (1986) for the Robinson Creek watershed, including land use, hydrologic modelling, and water quality data. study Methodoloqy PHASE I To carry out the first objective of the Phase I study an inventory of ~xisting controls for the prevention of water quality impairment and available techniques for mitigation and remedial work must be comp iled. The following framework would be applied to each contaminant source area to provide a consistent review: 1. Detailed review of relevant literature to determine the nature of the contaminant source. 2. Identification of existing preventitive controls (e.g. Legislation, Regulations, Guidelines, etc.) . 3. Identification of existing techniques for prevention, mitigation, and remediation of water quality impairment. Once a generic list of "controls" has been compiled, examples of their application within the study subwatershed can be identified. Phase I will involve the gathering of such baseline data needed to initiate the Phase II studies. Baseline data will include: 1. any available historical water quality data for the study subwatershed; and 2. identification of examples of "controls", specific to the study subwatershed. Examples of these could include: . determination of the number of permits issued within the subwatershed over the past 2 years . details and conditions applied to each permit issued within the subwatershed over the past 2 years . determination of the location of Stormwater Management Best Management Practices (e.g. water quantity and quality ponds) . determination of any stream alterations . location of any snow dump sites . identif ication of any existing Master Drainage Plans etc. 7 PH1.SE II W~. 4-bIo The objectives of the Phase II study will be met through a series of field studies involving: 1. Subwatershed (e.g. Robinson Creek) Water Quality Baseline Monitoring study A series of water quality sampling stations will be identified to represent the entire subwatershed. A series of paired stations, upstream and downstream of an identified potential contaminant source, will determine water quality impacts attributable to a suspected source and will help to assess effectiveness of "control" techniques. 2. Compliance Monitoring Source areas (e.g. construction sites, snow dumps, etc.) will be investigated to determine the degree of compliance with known and accepted "best management practices" as these are documented in existing guidelines/regulations (e.g. Guidelines for the Control of Erosioh and Sediment on Urban Construction Sites, Guidelines for the Disposal of Snow, Permit conditions, Master Drainage PLan guidelines, etc.). 3. Effectiveness MonLtoring Existing controls will be assessed in terms of their effectiveness in preventing the impairment of water quality. Proiected Products of a Comprehensive Watershed ImPAct studY A Comprehensive Watershed Impact Study would provide the following products: 1. Information regarding the compliance to and effectiveness of existing controls. 2. Guidelines to be used by staff in reviewing future development applications (e.g. potential areas of impact, preferred mitigative techniques, etc.). 3. Recommendations for modified or upgraded practice. Modifications may lie in the area of necessary new legislation, regulations, or stiffened penalties for non- compliance. 4. Establishment of an Authority position on areas in need of further attention. If these areas are not within the Authority's mandate, then the Authority will still be able to justify its support to another agency. Time frame Phase I - complete by first quarter, 1991 Phase II - minimum one year, depending on availability of historical water quality data. ~osts Phase I - $15,000 - 20,000 to be conducted by a consultant . 8 Phase II - $125,000 Lo~. 4-b 7 to be conducted by a consultant and in-house staff ParticiDants in study Coordinator: MTRCA Participants: Municipalities - with respect to their involvement in urban development activities Ministry of the Environment - with respect to their mandate for water quality and environmental protection Ministry of Natural Resources - with respect to their mandate for fisheries possible Sources ot Fundinq , MTRCA 1991 Budget Metro Toronto Remedial Action Plan Ministry of the Environment SMjap. 1990.11.13 , I .. ~ ~ ----- . N~. U-b~ TOMMY TIIOMPSON PARK 1991 INTERIM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM October 26, 1990 THE METROPOUTAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ~- . VJ R · u..bCf TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1. Location 1 2. Purpose .of Site 1 3. Approvals Overview 1 3.1 MNR Approval of 1977 1 3.2 MlRCA Executive Approval of 1984 2 ,.;.J- ~""" 4. Interim Management Program 3 4.1 Background 3 4.2 Proposed 4 ..... 4.2.1 . Public 4 4.2.2 Lessees 6 4.2.3 Wildlife Management 6 5. Costs 8 --- . ~\l rz · 4--70 1 1. LOCATION Tommy Thompson Park, also referred to as the Outer Harbour Headland. is located in the City of Toronto. It is a man-m.lde 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. y - - '~-... .. 2. PURPOSE OF SITE Construction on this site was initiated ~ 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 3.1 Ministty 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 w,e.. u- 71 . 2 that title of Tommy Thompson Park land must be transferred to the Authority ( (ii) 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 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 N~tural Resources to The Metropolitan,Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. ~- .'fI.... -q;, ~ 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 lHAT The Metropolitan Toronto and Regi?n Conservation Authority assume the responsibility for the Interim Use Program currently under Toronto Harbour' Commissioners management when title to Tommy Thompson Park is received; lHAT the Authority request the Toronto Harbour Commissioners to act as m8nagers of the 1984 Interim Use Program and as our agents with respect to all agreements; mAT the authority approve an expenditure of $5,000.00 to cover ( - - --..- predevelopment costs associated with the Authority receiving title to Tommy Thompson Park lands; . WI2..4-7:a 3 AND FURTIIER THAT Authority staff be directed to enter into negotiations with the Ministty 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 4.1 Background In 1973, after the Toronto Harbour Commissioners had determined that much of the ',f . area was not required for port expansion, they initiated an informal program to all.?W the general public access on a 't'eekend basis. However, in 1977 this program .was formalized by the Commissioners with policies for the operation of a swnmer -- 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 T.T.C.; - With the exception of emergency vehicles, no automobile access or parking on the. h~adland 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, M1RCA, university researchers and the Aquatic Park Sailing Cub (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~ · 473 - 4 ( 4.2 Proposed At the water and related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting #4/90, the . following resolution was adopted: IT IS RECOMMENDED TIIAT the staff report on the 1990 Interim Management Program at Tommy Thompson Park be received for information. The 1991 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 sunimer season; - a transportation system for use by the public du.ring the spring, summer and fall seasons; - a wildlife management program (gull control and tern management); and - a licence agreement with the Aquatic Park Sailing Oub for sailing activities. 4.2.1 Public Tommy Thompson,Park will be open year round on weekendS and holidays from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. commencing January 5, 1991, excluding Christmas and Boxing Day. Staff will be on site during public hours. During the winter l. --- months the park may close periodically due to unsafe conditions. - w~. ~ 7~ 5 Public transportation will be provided commencing April 27, 1991 and will operate until October 14, 1991. The following are the proposed types and times of service: April 27 - May 26 - Multi-seating Passenger Vehicles June 1 - September 2 - T.T.C. Special Summer Bus September 7 - October 14 - 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. .1..... - A nature interpreter will be on hand from June 1 to September 2 to answer any questions and to conduct hikes and theme tours. The Tommy Thompson Park Newsletter will continue on a quarterly basis and will _highlight scheduled events. In addition any changes in the Interim Management Program Will be announced in the newsletter. 4.2.2 Lessees Aquatic Park Sailing Oub members will be permitted parking on their leased lands and vehicle access during public hours only from April 6 - 21, inclusive, and October 19 - November 3, 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. ~ wl2 · Lr ,e; . 6 ( 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 1991 lease, access to only Aquatic Park Sailing Club leased lands will be granted upon proof of membership and key priviJeges. Security and adherence to MTRCA and THC site regulations will be the responsibility of the Aquatic Park Sailing Club. 4.2.3 Wildlife Management Gull Control Pro~ ~ The Gull Control Program will utilize similar discouragement techniques as in previous years (falconry, pyrotechnical devices, and/or mock gulls). If approved by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), it is proposed that the Gull controll?rogram be tendered as a two (2) year contract. The terms of reference for the two year period would be similar to the 1989-90 program. For 1991 the control areas and timing of the control periods will b~ similar to 1990. The program will commence on March 25 and will continue until .,July 5, 1991, as follows: ~ - - - --.- - ~- . W~.4-(b 7' March 25 - Weekday Control Endikement, Pyrotechnical J~y5 Areas South of Devices, Falconry the Road, and and Mock Gulls Peninsula D April 27 - Weekend Control Pyrotechnical June 2 Endikement and Devices and Areas South of Falconry .... ----' ..., Road 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 1991 to minimi7e any ..- egg collection. Tern Manaiement The Tern Management Program for 1991 will be similar to the 1990 program and will include: - delineation and monitoring of nesting areas; - increased signage and patrol; . - re-instalment of the 4 tern nesting rafts constructed in 1990; - assisting the CWS with nest inventories; and - monitoring tern nesting success. - - - -- LO~. "+17 . 8 ,- ( 5. Costs Costs associated with the 1991 Interim Management Program have been estimated at $138,000.00. The following is a breakdown of costs associated with this program: INTERIM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM - TOMMY THOMPSON PARK 1. Consultant for Gull Control $ 30,000.00 ~ 2. Support Staff for Gull Control $ 22,000.00 -<4 "..... 3. Resource Interpreter $ 26,000.00 4. Transportation System \ $ 28,000.00 5: Interpreter Facility $ 10,000.00 , Materials and Supplies $ 9,000.00 6. 7. Vehicle Rental $ 13.000.00 TOTAL $138,000.00 l ---- . f ~':-'~...~::':i ; . .. "__._ ./ lAJ~.t,..78 : i .. :: I . I I 1 J :; )" 2 . ~ . 4 J J · '., . I ~ ; 14 "j I . · J _J III I I II ~ f ~I c .'t , ~ 1 ~ 1 : ~ ~ ~ . 3 ! ' . i i! . .! . . u 1 J 14 ': . d d ~ .~ I It:. , . . i .' \ " I .... ;' , - --.. "~ --. - ., . I -- ~ . I '.. .--~ I J : ' . I l " #... OUTES HARBOUR ~, t".metropoIiUnt~toand'.gion EASTERN HEADLAND FIG I , con~tlOn IUthority LAND OWNERSHIP · . ~ WR~ 1.4, q Rural Beaches Project Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Report Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of the Environment The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority December 1990 wR.lI-~O ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Technical and financial support for the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Rural Beaches Project comes from the Provincial Rural Beaches strategy Planning and Advisory Committee. The Author greatly appreciates the guidance and input from the MTRCA Rural Beaches Project steering Committee: Keith Willson, MOE, Chairman steve Maude, MOE Michael Young, MOE Michael Toombs, OHAF Ralph Stanley, Peel Health Department Harvey Bones, York Health Department Glenn Atkinson, York Federation of Agriculture Jim Early, Peel Federation of Agriculture Additional thanks go out to past Steering Committee members who provided support for research leading up to the CURB Plan: Doug Miller, OHAF Tom Willins, Richmond Hill Health Department Many thanks go to Doug Hocking, ABCA, Garry Palmateer, MOE south West Region, and Dave Hayman, UTRCA, for their information and assistance in developing the CURB model. The MTRCA appreciates the cooperation of farmers and rural residents within the study watersheds. i wR. . 4el LIST OP TABLES Page Table 1: Summary of high pollution potential livestock 10 operations Table 2: Bacteria transportation time in target 13 watersheds Table 3: Percentage of bacterial sources delivered to 20 swimming beaches by watershed Table 4: Claireville and Boyd Conservation Area 33 potential lost revenue from swimming beach closures Table 5: Bruce's Mill and Albion Hills Conservation 35 Areas - Average summer attendance 1980 -1990 Table 6: Estimated capital costs of remedial measures 44 to reduce bacterial inputs upstream of the swimming beaches at Bruce's Mill, Albion Hills, and Boyd Conservation Areas. Table 7: Value of manure nutrients 46 ii wR.l.f~ LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1: Map of study watersheds 2 Figure 2: swimming season geometric mean fecal 3 coliform densities Figure 3: Bruce Creek bacteria production versus 18 delivery to the beach at Bruce's Mill Conservation Area Figure 4: Dry weather - Predicted versus actual 21 water quality at the Bruce's Mill Conservation Area beach Figure 5: Wet weather - Predicted versus actual 22 water quality at the Bruce's Mill Conservation Area beach Figure 6: Centreville Creek - Bacteria source 23 input versus delivery to the Albion Hills Conservation Area beach Figure 7: Dry weather - Predicted versus actual 24 water quality at the Albion Hills Conservation Area beach Figure 8: Wet weather - Predicted versus actual 26 water quality at the Albion Hills Conservation Area beach Figure 9: East Humber River - Bacteria source 27 input versus delivery to the Boyd Conservation Area beach Figure 10: Dry weather - Predicted versus actual 28 water quality at the Boyd Conservation Area beach Figure 11: Wet weather - Predicted versus actual 29 water quality at the Boyd Conservation Area beach Figure 12: Annual summer attendance from June to 32 August 1980 to 1990, at Boyd and Claireville conservation areas Figure 13: Annual summer attendance from June to 35 August 1980 to 1990, at Bruce's Mill Albion Hills conservation areas iii - w~ · Lf~~ Figure 14: Bruce's Mill Conservation Area - Beach 50 water quality predictions for' individual remedial options Figure 15: Bruce's Mill Conservation Area - Beach 50 water quality predictions for combined remedial options Figure 16: Albion Hills Conservation Area - Beach 52 water quality predictions for individual remedial options Figure 17: Albion Hills Conservation Area - Beach 52 water quality, predictions for combined remedial options Figure 18: Boyd Conservation Area - Beach water 54 quality predictions for individual remedial options Figure 19: Boyd Conservation Area - Beach water 54 quality predictions for combined remedial options iv WR. u.t\f. LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1: Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) model calculations Appendix 2: Bruce Creek (Bruce's Mill Conservation Area) CURB model calculations Appendix 3: Centreville Creek (Albion Hills Conservation Area) CURB model calculations Appendix 4: East Humber River (Boyd Conservation Area) CURB model calculations Appendix 5: wildlife bacterial estimates v W(t. '+is;" EXECUTIVE SUMMARY From 1986 to 1989 the MTRCA Rural Beaches Project, in co- operation with the Ministry of the Environment (MOE), investigated the sources of rural water quality impairment that have affected conservation area swimming beaches. The Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Plan identifies bacterial pollution sources, estimates their impact on water quality, and presents remedial options necessary to improve water quality in the Centreville Creek, Bruce Creek, and East Humber River watersheds. stream surveys, field assessments, and water quality monitoring revealed agricultural sources as the primary contributors of beach bacterial pollution. The CURB model estimates that runoff from barnyards, inadequate manure storage facilities, and from unrestricted livestock access to watercourses, account for between 87% and 95% of the bacterial contamination at rural swimming beaches. Faulty septic systems and wildlife account for most of the remaining share. In an effort to improve water quality, the CURB plan recommends remedial measures to control bacterial pollution sources. These remedial measures include: Construct proper manure storages and barnyards ( 30) to minimize contaminated runoff. Fence livestock from watercourses (31) . Repair faulty septic systems (122) . Control the numbers of Canada Geese at the swimming beaches. vi . ~~ .u 4ft> The estimated costs for these measures are: Bruce Creek $120,000 Centreville Creek $586,000 East Humber River $2,677,000 --------- Total $3,383,000 It is recommended that the Bruce Creek watershed (headwater of the Rouge River watershed) be remediated as a pilot project. It is the smallest watershed, has the fewest problems, and is the least costly to implement. Monitoring water quality will evaluate the effectiveness of remedial measures. Program delivery by the MTRCA should be provided under the direction of a multi-agency steering committee. The program should offer educational, financial, and technical assistance to the rural community. This effort would promote alternative land management practices that may achieve improved surface water quality. vii w~.4~7 RECOMMENDATIONS LIVESTOCK ACCESS That policy changes be implemented at the provincial or municipal level to restrict livestock access from municipal drains and watercourses. That the grant program consider financial compensation for pasture land taken out of production. MANURE MANAGEMENT That the ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OHAF) subsidize a manure management course for all landowners who have manure application on their fields. This course must be completed by all licensed custom applicators. That MOE, OHAF and Authority staff assist farmers to develop a contingency plan to prevent, contain and clean up a manure spill. That prior to manure storage construction, MOE provide environmental guidelines, individual construction plan approvals and post construction inspection to ensure standards are met to prevent surface or groundwater contamination. MILKHOUSE WASHWATER TREATMENT That washwater tank and treatment trench systems are only installed by OMAF certified contractors. (Similar to OMAF approved drainage contractors) viii ~ .4-11 That OMAF initiate research to develop reliable and economical methods for milkhouse washwater treatment (grassed filter strips, artificially constructed wetlands, aeration of discharge, bacterial disinfection, etc.). That legislative changes be made to the Milk Act, necessitating the Dairy Inspection Branch of OMAF to require milkhouse washwater treatment or handling facilities for Class A milk sales. PRIVATE SEWAGE SYSTEMS That the MOE develop a program to inspect and ensure the correct operation of septic systems adjacent to open water, agricultural field drainage tiles, municipal drains, and storm sewers. That the use permit be renewed at least every three years, upon a septic system inspection indicating proper system maintenance as outlined in the certificate of approval. The inspection will include the emptying of the septic tank, and an examination for gross system malfunctions, such as above ground effluent discharge. That a certificate of approval be a condition of sale or resale of private or commercial residences. That sewage haulers provide a maintenance record for each pumped tank to the MOE and to the landowner. That MOE tighten regulations requiring records of disposal for all sewage haulers. ix W(l.4-~ TABLE OP CONTENTS Paqe ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i LIST OP TABLES ii LIST OP PIGURES iii LIST OP APPENDICES v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vi RECOMMENDATIONS viii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 HISTORICAL WATER QUALITY 3 2.0 BEACH CLOSING HISTORY 4 2.1 BOYD CONSERVATION AREA 4 2.2 BRUCE'S MILL CONSERVATION AREA 4 2.3 ALBION HILLS CONSERVATION AREA 5 2.4 CHLORINATION SYSTEMS 5 3.0 CURB MODEL 7 3.1 MODEL DEVELOPMENT 9 3.11 AGRICULTURAL BACTERIA SOURCES 9 3.12 RURAL RESIDENTIAL BACTERIA SOURCES 11 3.13 WILDLIFE BACTERIA SOURCES 12 3.14 BACTERIAL DISAPPEARANCE IN TRANSPORT 12 3.15 BACTERIA TRANSPORT MODEL 14 3.16 BEACH IMPACT IN DRY AND WET WEATHER 15 3.17 FIELD COMPARISON 17 3.2 MODEL PREDICTIONS 18 3.21 BRUCE CREEK 18 3.22 CENTREVILLE CREEK 23 3.23 EAST HUMBER RIVER 27 3.3 MODEL LIMITATIONS 30 x WR.(4.qo 4.0 CURB PLAN REMEDIAL OPTIONS 31 4.1 DO NOTHING 31 4.2 TREAT THE SYMPTOMS 33 4.3 CONTROL THE POLLUTION SOURCES 36 4.31 IMPROVED MANURE MANAGEMENT 36 4.32 RESTRICTED LIVESTOCK ACCESS TO WATERCOURSES 40 4.33 MILKHOUSE WASHWATER TREATMENT OR CONTAINMENT 41 4.34 REPAIRING OR REPLACING FAULTY SEPTIC SYSTEMS 41 4.35 WATERFOWL CONTROL PROGRAM 42 4.4 CAPITAL COST TO CONTROL POLLUTION SOURCES 42 4.41' INITIAL AND LONG TERM COSTS 42 4.42 CAPITAL COST FOR REMEDIAL MEASURES 43 4.43 EXPECTED IMPROVEMENTS FROM CONTROLLING 45 POLLUTION SOURCES 5.0 CURB PLAN STRATEGY 48 6.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 55 7.0 REFERENCES 59 8.0 APPENDICES 60 xi ~.4Cf' 1.0 INTRODUCTION Poor water quality in the early 1980's caused swimming beach closures in the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (MTRCA) rural conservation areas. The closures were primarily due to elevated fecal coliform bacteria concentrations. In September 1986, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) in co-operation with the MTRCA, established the MTRCA Rural Beaches Project to improve water quality at the Boyd, Bruce's Mill, and Albion Hills Conservation Area's (Figure 1). The principal objectives of the first three years of the Project were to determine the sources and extent of bacterial pollution originating from livestock operations, rural residential and urban sources, and natural inputs. This was achieved through extensive water quality sampling, field studies, and farm surveys. This report presents the Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Plan, a model which estimates the pollution contribution from various rural sources, and, an implementation strategy with recommendations for remedial measures developed to reduce bacterial pollution at their point of origin. The long-term goal of the Rural Beaches Project is to return beaches to natural swimming without recurrent beach closures at the Boyd, Bruce's Mill, and Albion Hills Conservation Area's, and also, to ultimately provide technical assistance towards improving surface water quality for all the Authority's rural watercourses. 1 - - Centreville Creek Watershed E ~ . East Humber Watershed Bruce Creek Watershed ~ )) 1<1 Conservation Areas I Albion Hills C.A. . Boyd C.A. . Bruce's Mill C.A. . OAf__ 0 4_ : I . I . 0 6 1lI_ ~ the metropolitan toronto and region Location of Study Areas, FIG. 1 conservetion euthority ~.lR~ Fecal COllforms /100 mL 1000 .........1;....' 100 10 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 Year _ Albion Hi 115 C.A. _ Bruce's Mi II C.A. ~ Boyd C.A. Figure 2: Swimming beach geometric mean fecal coliform densities for 1979 to 1986. Water samples collected from within swimming areas from May to September. Data from local Public Health Offices. 1.1 HISTORICAL WATER OUALITY Bacterial water quality data collected for the Boyd, Bruce's Mill, and Albion Hills conservation area's, from 1979 to 1986 are presented in figure 2. The geometric mean fecal coliform densities at Bruce's Mill exceeded the provincial Water Quality Objective (PWQO, 1984) of 100 fecal coliforms per 100ml of water (100 FC/100ml), for seven out of eight years. At Boyd similar results occurred for five years. Although the water quality at Albion Hills was the best of the three conservation areas, it suffered sporadic beach closures in the 1980's. Poor water quality forced the permanent closure of Claireville Conservation Area swimming beach in 1984. 3 . I,()~ .If-qcf 2.0 BEACH CLOSING HISTORY 2.1 BOYD CONSERVATION AREA The swimming pond at Boyd was created by semi-impoundment of the East Humber River and ocpupied 0.8 ha. From the mid 1970's until 1984, bacterial densities frequently exceeded the HOE's Provincial Water Quality Objectives forcing beach closures at Boyd. The problem peaked when the beach opened on Hay 26, 1983 and was posted by the second week of June due to high bacterial levels. After three weeks of continuous samples that exceeded the Provincial Water Quality Objectives, the beach was closed on July 4, 1983. Water testing continued through the remainder of the 1983 swimming season and during the summer of 1984. However, consistently high levels of bacteria forced the permanent closure of the beach at Boyd. 2.2 BRUCE'S MILL CONSERVATION AREA Located in the headwaters of the Rouge River watershed, the swimming beach was created in 1963 by impounding the Bruce Creek. The pond covers an area of 1.2 ha, while the swimming area is regulated to 0.5 ha. In the late 1970's sporadic beach closures occurred each summer. They increased in frequency and peaked in 1981 when virtually all samples after June 16 exceeded the Objectives for safe swimming. On June 24, 1985 the chlorination beach curtain system.began operation. By maintaining adequate residual chlorine levels within the confined swimming area, the FC densities remained low, 4 -- -. WR .I+qs even when water samples exceeded 100 FC/100ml beyond the swimming area. 2.3 ALBION HILLS CONSERVATION AREA The swimming area in the Albion Hills Conservation Area is formed by impounding Centreville Creek. Sand is imported every 2 years to maintain the beach. The swimming area occupies approximately 0.81 ha. Beach closures due to high fecal coliform bacterial levels have occurred since the late 1970's. On July 18, 1986 the Authority began operating a chlorination beach curtain system at Albion Hills. . 2.4 CHLORINATION BEACH CURTAIN SYSTEMS Chlorination systems were designed and installed by the MTRCA to maintain water quality at acceptable levels for recreational use. They consist of a heavy vinyl curtain that confines chlorine to the swimming area and a recirculating chlorination system. Water is drawn into a pump-house where chlorine is added. It is then recirculated into the swimming area through several regularly spaced dif~users. These systems allow continued operation of the facilities while the pollutant source problems are being remediated. Except for infrequent mechanical difficulties, the systems have maintained more than adequate water quality for beach swimming since their installation. The systems have demonstrated good reliability, are relatively simple to construct and operate, and are cheaper than swimming 5 ~ w<< .u.qt> pools. However, as a semi-natural swimming area they have a number of disadvantages. The first is the annual maintenance and operation costs. The curtains must be installed, removed, cleaned and repaired annually. The chlorination circulation systems require regular maintenance and must be winterized at the end of each swimming season. Although the MOE provincial Water Quality Objectives (pwQO) for fecal coliform bacteria are achieved by chlorination, the curtains confine beach sediment raised by swimmers. A hazard results from suspended sediment that reduces the visibility of submerged swimmers in need of assistance. The PWQO guideline for water clarity requires the bottom of the bathing area to be visible or at least have a secchi dish transparency of 1.2m. This is often unobtainable in the chlorinated swimming areas. Ultimately, correcting the sources of bacterial pollution and returning the beaches to natural swimming would provide the safest swimming environment. . 6 lAJi.4q7 3.0 CURB MODBL In 1987 the MTRCA Rural Beaches Project steering committee requested that bacterial pollution from all sources be evaluated and quantified. It was concluded that a model be produced to determine the relative impact of various pollutant sources on swimming beach water quality. Field data for the model were collected from livestock operation surveys, airphoto analysis, stream assessments, and continuous water quality monitoring (Hubbard et. a!. 1987 and 1988). Also in 1987, the provincial Rural Beaches Program commissioned Ecologistics Limited (1988) to produce the Pollution from Livestock Operations Predictor (PLOP) Model. It predicts individual farm pollution inputs into the nearest watercourse, on a seasonal basis, for fecal coliforms, fecal streptococci, and phosphorus. The PLOP model was used by the MTRCA as a simple method for determining the local impacts from individual livestock operations. However, a bacteria transport model was required to translate PLOP model data into swimming beach water quality. Models from other rural beaches programs were evaluated. They used custom algorithms, and modified Plop model algorithms were applied, but not the PLOP model itself (Hocking 1989, Hayman 1989, and Ryan 1989). Each authority had designed and calibrated their own bacteria transport model to calculate bacterial impacts on beach water quality. The models were generally similar to each other, but, none were directly applicable to the MTRCA. They had used subwatersheds as their smallest unit of evaluation, while the MTRCA pollutant inputs were calculated for individual farm operations. A cursory evaluation of hydrologic models revealed the most promising to be the QUALHYMO continuous simulation model (Rowney 7 wp..Ll-ct<< and Wisner, 1986), due to its ability to model bacteria as a first order decay contaminant. However, it was ruled out because it would have required gathering additional hydrologic data, and recalculating incompatible pollutant loadings outputted from the PLOP model. It was decided to create an MTRCA CURB model with a pollution transport model based upon available data, and PLOP model outputs already calculated. The model combined features and algorithms from existing models of the ABCA, MVCA AND UTRCA. The MTRCA CURB model estimates the fecal coliform bacterial loads from rural and suburban sources, and their impact on receiving swimming beaches. The model calculates: . A) The bacteria load transported to the beach from each source on individual livestock operations: 1. Livestock access to watercourses 2. Manure storage runoff 3. Barnyard runoff 4. Milkhouse washwater B) The watershed bacteria load transported to the beach from: 1. Manure spreading 2. Rural septic system failures 3. wildlife 4. Suburban septic system failures * 5. Suburban storm sewer runoff * * Suburban septic system failures and suburban storm sewer runoff from, Oak Ridges, King City, and Nobleton were modelled as two point source pollutant inputs for each community. 8 ~Il.q.qq 3.1 MODEL DEVELOPMENT 3.11 AGRICULTURAL BACTERIA SOURCES Pollution from Livestock ODerations Predictor (PLOP) Model Bacteria runoff from barnyards, manure storages, milkhouse washwater discharge and livestock access were calculated for each high priority farm with the Pollution from Livestock Operations Predictor (PLOP) model (Ecologistics, 1988). Field surveys and farm site visits were conducted from September 1986 to May 1989 (Hubbard et. ale 1987 and 1988). Over 100 livestock operations were surveyed in our target watersheds. Forty four (44) high pollution potential farms were inspected to gather specific data for the PLOP model. These were farms with visible evidence of: 1. contaminated runoff from barnyards and manure storages into surface waters 2. Livestock access to watercourses 3. Improper milkhouse washwater disposal Table 1 contains the summary of high pollution potential livestock operations. Farms with low pollution potential were not included in the CURB model. Bacterial contribution from manure spreading, livestock pastures adjacent to water courses and tile drainage were not covered by the PLOP model. Separate estimates for manure spreading and livestock pastures were calculated for each watershed (Appendices 1 to 4), based upon conclusions from the MOE CURB Plan Workshop (Kempenfelt, 1987). 9 r,ufl. '500 Although it can convey substantial bacterial loads, field tile discharge was not modelled, due to a lack of field data. Interviews with farm operators revealed 39% had tiled fields, however, less than one percent indicated manure spreading on them (Hubbard et. al. 1988) . Calculations for bacterial contamination from agricultural sources can be found in Appendices 1 through 4. Table 1: Summary of high pollution potential livestock operations Study Watersheds Bruce Centreville East Creek Creek Humber River Study Area (km2) 18 44 178 Watercourse length (km) 24 36 233 Farm Bacteria Sources Number of high priority Livestock operations 5 9 25 Livestock Access 4 7 20 Barnyard/Manure 2 9 19 Storage Runoff Milkhouse washwater - 1 3 10 ,^,R. 501 3.12 RURAL RESIDENTIAL BACTERIA SOURCES Failed seDtic Systems Failed septic systems are defined as those that have surface "blowouts", or direct connections to subsurface tiles or storm drains leading into a watercourse or municipal drain. The bacterial load of failed septic systems from rural residences and suburban communities was based upon a theoretical three percent failure rate. This is the upper nominal failure rate of septic systems in York Region (Harvey Bones, pers. comm.) . Farm surveys and field inventories were not initially directed to investigate faulty septic systems. In streambank surveys of over 100 farms, only one ostensibly failed septic system was found. Water quality monitoring in the towns of Oak Ridges and King City revealed very high bacterial concentrations of fecal coliforms and Pseudomonas aeruqinosa (Hubbard et~ ale , 1988) . This indicates the possibility of illegal connections of sewage lines into stormsewers. Based on conclusions by other Rural Beaches Programs, where failure rates may be from 30% to 60%, the actual failure rate in the MTRCA study watersheds may be higher than three percent (Fuller and Foran, 1989, Hocking and Dean, 1989, and Hayman, 1989). An accurate assessment would require a septic system survey of each watershed. Stormsewer Runoff Although water sampling revealed high Fecal coliform and Pseudomonas aeruqinosa densities from storm sewers in the towns of Caledon East, King City and Oak Ridges, no systematic field investigation was conducted. storm sewer runoff was considered important in the East Humber River watershed only. Consequently, 11 ~ I))A.~ bacterial runoff was estimated for the towns of Nobleton, King City and Oak Ridges. Bacterial contributions from suburban storm sewer runoff were based on literature values from Marsalek et. al. (l985). 3.13 WILDLIFE BACTERIA SOURCES Wildlife bacterial sources were included in the CURB model, due to the relatively large area of potential habitat and possible contribution from these sources. This component was confined to beavers and muskrats throughout the watershed, and to Canada Geese at the swimming beaches. A lack of information on other potential wildlife sources prevents their inclusion. The wildlife bacterial loads were based upon estimated populations located along the length of each watercourse. Canada Geese contributions were estimated by their summer beach populations as observed by conservation area staff at Albion Hills and Bruce's Mill (Appendix 5). Diffuse Source Bacterial TransDort Manure spreading, rural septic systems (in Bruce and Centreville Creek), and wildlife, are diffuse bacteria sources that originate from the entire watershed. In order to keep the model simple, these were modelled as individual inputs. For example, the total watershed wildlife bacterial load, was modelled as a single source generated in the middle of the watershed (Table 2). 3.14 BACTERIAL DISAPPEARANCE IN TRANSPORT The measure of bacterial reduction during downstream transportation will be referred to as the disappearance rate. When bacteria enter a watercourse they are subject to a number of factors that reduces their numbers. 12 WR. 50~ Table 2: Bacteria Transportation time In study watersheds Study Dry weather transport Wet weather transport Watersheds time In hours from time In hours from Headwater: Middle: Headwater: Middle: Bruce Creek 50 24 17 8 Centrevllle Creek 35 16 19 9 East Humber River 161 72 81 36 In-stream experiments on Centreville Creek and the East Humber River from the MTRCA-LSRCA bacteria survival study (May 1987 to June 1989), found bacterial mortality rates averaged 0.35 logs/day. However, the bacteria diffusion chambers used in this study may have filtered out bactericidal wavelengths of sunlight (G. Palmateer, MOE, pers. comm. 1990). The chambers may also have provided physical protection for the bacteria. Thus, actual bacteria mortality may have been underestimated. In the MTRCA biotracer field experiments on Centreville Creek, known concentrations of a tracer bacteria, Nalidixic Acid resistant Escherichia coli, were introduced into the watercourse and sampled at specific locations as the bacteria flowed downstream. Bacterial loss rates as' high as 7.2 logs/day or 0.30 logs/hour were found (April, 1989) . This high rate may be a function of bacterial mortality from sunlight and bacterial sedimentation in areas such as pools and slow reaches of the creek. The actual disappearance rate would probably be smaller if subsequent resuspended bacteria were accounted for. 13 wR · 5oq., CURB Model DisaD~earance Rate For the purposes of this model the estimated bacteria disappearance rate is 0.7 logs/day, or 0.029 logs/hour, which is twice the average mortality rate found in the bacteria survival study and one tenth the disappearance rate of the biotracer study. 3.15 BACTERIA TRANSPORT MODEL The bacteria transport model determines the impact of each pollutant source on beach water quality. By estimating the transportation time of bacteria from its source to the beach, under dry and wet weather conditions, bacterial disappearance can be calculated. A beach bacterial load from each upstream source results. The beach impact from each bacterial source was calculated as follows: Bacterial load - (travel time to beach x disappearance rate) = Beach bacterial load for each source e.g. (2.42xl0'2 FC/92)77 - ( 35 hours x 0.029 logs/hour) FC load from Dry weather FC disappearance livestock travel time 0.029 logs/hour access on or 0.7 logs/day farm # 15 EHR = 1.97xl0t1 FC = Estimated fecal coliform bacteria load transported from the livestock access site on Farm #15 to the Boyd C.A. beach, during summer dry weather. 14 .~ ~. 50S 3.16 BEACH IMPACT IN DRY AND WET WEATHER The effects of combined upstream bacterial sources on the beach swimming area were simulated three ways in each watershed: 1. Summer dry weather (low flow) bacterial loads 2. Summer wet weather (high flow) bacterial loads 3. Total summer bacteria loads (the sum of 1 and 2) For the purpose of this report the summer season is defined as June 15 to September 14. This is standardized with the PLOP model (Ecologistics, 1988) to eliminate data conversions. It was assumed that 13 days of the 92 day summer season would have precipitation greater than 5mm, or enough to generate runoff from the study watersheds (D. Haley, MTRCA., pers. comm.) . Thus 13 days have wet weather and high flow conditions. Dry weather, or low flow conditions, occurs during the remaining 79 days. This division separates the bacterial contributions from constant flow sources such as livestock access and failed septic systems into dry and wet weather units. For continuous sources, the bulk of their 92 day summer bacterial contribution, will come from dry weather inputs (79 days). The remaining 13 days will be wet weather inputs. The dry weather sources deliver continuous bacterial loads to a watercourse. In this CURB model dry weather contributors to beach contamination are: 1. Livestock access to watercourses 2. Milkhouse washwater 3. Rural septic system failures 4. Suburban septic system failures 5. Wildlife 15 w~.5~ Wet weather bacte~ial sources are created by rainfall carrying potentially contaminated runoff into watercourses. Runoff dur~ng wet weather conditions convey all dry weather sources and the following additional inputs: 6. Manure storage runoff 7. Barnyard runoff 8. Manure spreading runoff 9. Suburban storm sewer runoff Total summer bacterial loads reveal the total seasonal contribution to the beach for each source. The total annual bacterial loads were also calculated for comparison purposes (Appendix 1 to 3). Although contaminants contribute to water quality degradation throughout the year, the impacts to recreational water quality are limited to the swimming season, from the end of May to the beginning of September. In natural systems, slow stream velocities during dry weather are conducive to sedimentation of bacteria, and bacteria bound to suspended sediment particles. It is likely that the simple formula used in this model will overestimate the dry weather bacterial transport, because bacterial sedimentation was not accounted for. Conversely, under wet weather, increased stream velocities will entrain streambed sediment and resuspend bacteria into the water column. Bacteria deposited during dry weather conditions will subsequently be re-introduced into the watercourse along with the wet weather input sources. Thus, the model will likely under predict wet weather bacteria transported to the beach. 16 wR .507 3.17 FIELD COMPARISON The CURB model predictions were compared to samples collected at the Bruce's Mill and Albion Hills swimming areas, and in the East Humber River near Boyd Conservation Area. Two samples were collected from outside of the chlorinated area. Initial samples were taken from 0.3m below the surface of the water. A second sample was collected after intentional disturbance and resuspension of bottom sediments. The disturbed sample attempts to mimic effects of normal swimming activity and often exhibit greater bacterial densities than undisturbed samples. 17 w~ .~Ol 3.2 MODEL PREDICTIONS 3.21 BRUCE CREEK Figure 3 displays the bacteria input at its source and delivery to the beach under dry and wet weather conditions. The principal contaminant source is runoff from barnyards and manure storages. TOTAL FECAL COLI FORMS 1.000E~14 1.000E~13 1.000E~12 1.000E~11 1.000E~10 1.000E~09 1.000E~08 ACCESS YArlDS SPREAOING SEPTIC WilDLIFE _ BACTERIA INPUT _ HIGH FLOW OEL I VEREO ~ LOW FLOW DEL IVERED Figure 3: Bruce Creek - Bacteria source input versus bacteria delivered to the Bruce's Mill Conservation Area beach. It is evident for livestock access, septic system failures and wildlife, that the bacteria delivered is higher during dry weather than wet weather. In the CURB model, continuous flow sources have their 92 day summer bacterial contributions divided into 79 dry and 13 wet days. Thus, ~he majority of bacteria from these sources are discharged under dry weather. The relatively 18 ~ .50q large losses for spreading, wildlife and septic systems, are due to the relatively long bacterial delivery time (eight hours) from the watershed midpoint. Farms with livestock access and runoff from barnyards and manure storages, are located within four hours (wet weather) of the beach. Bacterial loss is small and the impact from these sources is large, due to the short travel time. Summer drv weather model The CURB model predicts wildlife (42%) and septic system failures (39%) as the primary bacterial contributors under dry weather conditions. Livestock access accounted for the remaining 20% (Table 3). The Bruce Creek CURB model predicts a range of summer dry weather beach concentrations between 93 and 186 fecal coliforms / 100 ml. When compared to field samples ( figure 4), the geometric mean of undisturbed pond samples outside of the chlorinated beach area was 145 FC/100 ml, falling within the predicted range. However, the geometric mean of 412 FC/100 ml for disturbed samples is above-the predicted range. The individual samples show a rising trend that peaks between late July and early August. The highest individual sample on Aug 10, 1987 was 2600 FC/100 ml, 14 times higher than the upper model prediction range. The bacterial concentration of disturbed water samples almost always exceeded the undisturbed samples, with 3700 FC/100 ml on Aug 25, 1987 exceeding the model's predicted range by 20 times. Summer wet weather model Shown in table 3, the primary wet weather bacteria source is runoff from barnyards and inadequate manure storage facilities (96%) . The model predicts bacteria from livestock access to 19 LOR.sIO Table 3: Percentage of bacterial sources delivered to swimming beaches by watershed Bruce Centreville East Creek Creek Humber River Summer low flow sources Livestock access 20% 21 % 90% Milkhouse washwater - - 0% Septic system failures 39% 34% 8% Wildlife 42 % 45% 2% ------ ------ ------ Total 100 % 100 % 100 % Summer high flow sources Livestock access 1% 1% 6% Barnyards and storages 96 % 97% 89% Milkhouse washwater - - 0% Manure spreading 0.05% 0.1% 0.1 % Septic system failures 2% 1% 3% Storm sewer runoff - - 2% Wildlife 1% 1% 0.4 % --.--- ------ ------ Total 100 % 100 % 100 % Total summer sources Livestock access 3% 3% 16 % Barnyards and storages 84 % 87 % 79% Milkhouse washwater - - 0% Manure spreading 0.1% 0.1 % 0.1 % Septic system failures 6% 4% 3% Storm sewer runoff - - 1% Wildlife 6% 6% 0.5% ------ ------ ------ Total 100 % 100 % 100 % 20 WR .SI' FECAL OOLIFO~S I 100ml 100000 10000 + + . 1000 + + . . . + + . . PRED I CTED AAN:;E + 100 . . + . 10 100 120 140 160 180 20D 220 240 260 280 300 DAY OF YEAR . UNDISTURBED SAMPLES + DISTURBED SAMPLES - tvOE OBJECT I VE Figure 4: Dry weather - Predicted versus actual water quality at the Bruce's Mill Conservation Area beach. Water samples were collected under undisturbed, and disturbed sediment conditions. 1986-89. decrease to one percent (1%) . wildlife contribution decreases to one percent (1%) and septic system failures are estimated by the model to contribute two percent (2%) of the total bacteria under wet weather conditions. When compared to field samples at the beach (figure 5), the geometric mean of both undisturbed (824 FC/100 ml) and disturbed samples (1441 FC/100 ml) fall into and above the CURB model prediction range of 329 to 1317 Fe/lOO ml, respectively. The highest recorded wet weather samples at the beach were on July 14, 1987, when the undisturbed sample was 3700 FC/100 ml and the disturbed sample was 6800 FC/100 ml. Both samples exceeded the upper model range by three and five times respectively. 21 WR · ~t ~ FECAL OOLIFORMS / 100ml 100000 10000 t + . + 1000 t . P~I cr I ON IWIiE + . 100 10 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 DAY OF YEAR . UNDISTURBED SAMPLES + DISTURBED SAMPLES - f..OE OBJECT I VE Figure 5: Wet weather - Predicted versus actual water quality at the Bruce's Mill Conservation Area beach. Water samples were collected under undisturbed, and disturbed sediment conditions. 1986-89. 22 ~ --.-- ~ -- WII..S/~ 3.22 CENTREVILLE CREEK Figure 6 displays the bacteria production and delivery to the beach by source under dry and wet weather conditions. The results are lower in magnitude, but generally quite similar to the Bruce Creek estimates. TOTAL FECAL COLI FORMS 1.oooE~14 1.000E+13 1.oo0E+12 1.oooE+11 1.oo0E~1o 1.oooE~09 ACCESS YArlDS SPREADING SEPTIC WI LDL I FE _ BACTER I A INPUT _ HIGH FLOW DEL I VERED ~ LOW FLOW DEL IVERED Figure 6: Centreville Creek - Bacteria source input versus bacteria delivered to the Albion Hills Conservation Area beach. Summer drv weather model . The CURB model predicts wildlife contributes 45% of the summer dry weather bacteria. This is followed by septic system failures at 34% and livestock access at 21% (Table 3). The wildlife bacterial load estimate is substantial in dry 23 , .~ ~. ~/ij.. weather conditions. There is a vast amount of the Centreville Creek watershed that is good wetland habitat. Most of the watercourses in the watershed have well vegetated streambanks and relatively little direct disturbance. Although these are estimated sources, numerous beaver dams exist along Centreville Creek, and are under constant scrutiny by residents adjacent to the Creek. FECAL OOLIFORMS I 100ml 100000 10000 + 1000 + + . PREDICTION RANGE t . 100 . . + + . . 10 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 DAY OF YEAR . UNDISTURBED SA~PLES + DISTURBED SAMPLES - MJE OBJECT IVE Figure 7: Dry weather - Predicted versus actual water quality at the Albion Hills Conservation Area beach. Water samples were collected under undisturbed and disturbed sediment conditions. 1986-89. The Centreville Creek CURB model predicts the range of summer dry weather bacterial concentrations to lie between 126 and 379 FC/100 ml (Figure 7). The prediction is higher than the actual geometric mean of 67 FC/100 ml for undisturbed water samples. 24 ~.~/' But, the disturbed sediment geometric mean of 191 FC/100 ml falls into the middle of the prediction range. As in Bruce Creek, individual field sample bacterial densities rise in early summer and peak in late July and early August. The disturbed sediment samples almost consistently exceed the undisturbed samples by almost an order of magnitude. The highest single disturbed sediment sample was 1420 FC/100 ml recorded on August 10, 1987. This exceeded the upper range of the model by almost four times. . Summer wet weather model Agricultural sources become dominant under wet weather conditions, totalling 98% of the bacterial pollution sources. wildlife decreases to one percent (1%) and septic system failures becomes 1% (Table 3). The majority of agricultural bacteria originates as runoff from barnyards and inadequate manure storage systems. Storm sewer inputs from Caledon East were not contributors to the CURB model because the town is located upstream of Innis lake and Belcon pond. These water bodies are a kettle lake complex that acts as a buffer to filter out bacteria and sediment (Hubbard et. ale , 1988). Agricultural sources upstream of Innis Lake were not modelled for the same reason. This does not suggest that these sources are unimportant. In fact, several stormsewers in Caledon East should receive attention regarding potential illegal septic system connections. Manure management practices on two farms may cause severe local water quality problems. However, bacteria from these sources do not appear to'travel through Innis Lake and impact the beach at Albion Hills. From 1987 to 1989, water samples from Centreville Creek in the town of Caledon East had dry and wet weather geometric mean 25 wQ · ':), b densities of 763 and 1028 FC/100 ml respectively. The geometric mean density of a stormsewer outflow at Airport Road was 3913 FC/100 ml, over seven wet weather samples. For the same period, at the outlet of Innis Lake where Centreville Creek continues, the dry and wet weather geometric means were 10 and 42 FC/100 ml. These are the lowest bacterial densities on the main branch of Centreville Creek. The wet weather predicted range of 1206 to 4824 FC/100 ml is well above the actual swimming pond undisturbed and disturbed geometric means of 217 and 639 FC/100 ml (Figure 8). Most of the individual samples are well below the predicted range. This may be due to overestimating the potential bacterial sources or underestimating the wet weather discharge of Centreville Creek into the Albion Hills beach. FECAL COLIFORMS / 100ml 1oooDo 10000 . PRED I CTla. RAfoGE t 1000 + . . . + + 100 10 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 DAY OF YEArl . UNDISTURBED SA~PLES + DISTURBED SAMPLES - t.OE OBJECT I VE Figure 8: Wet weathef - Predicted versus actual water quality at the Albion Hills Conservation Area beach. Water samples were collected under undisturbed and disturbed sediment conditions. 1986-89. 26 ,- wR. 517 3.23 EAST HUMBER RIVER The majority of bacteria delivered to the Boyd Conservation Area beach are from barnyard and inadequate manure storage runoff, and livestock access. Many farms are located in the Cold Creek subwatershed near the beach, less than 24 hours travel time (high flow) from Boyd (Table 3). In figure 9, it is apparent that septic system failures and stormwater runoff produce large amounts of bacteria. However, bacteria from the towns of Oak Ridges, King City and Nobleton, on the upper East Humber River, are SUbstantially reduced due to transport mortality by the time they contact the beach. FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA 1.oooE~14 1.o00E...13 1.oooE~12 1.oooE~11 1.000E...10 1.oooE~09 1.oooE~08 10000000 1000000 ACCESS YARDS SPREAD M I LKWASH SEPTIC SEWERS WILDLIFE _ BACTER I A INPUT ~ HIGH FLOW DELIVERED ~ LOW FLOW DEL I VERED Figure 9: East Humber River - Bacteria source input versus bacteria delivered to the Boyd Conservation Area beach. 27 ~j)ltrsummer dry weather model The CURB model predicts livestock access to contribute 90% of the summer dry weather bacteria. This is followed by septic system failures at eight percent (8%) and wildlife at two percent (2%) (Table 3). The high proportion of bacterial pollution from livestock access, is sourced primarily from farms within the Cold Creek subwatershed. The dry weather travel time is approximately 35 hours or one third to one fifth the travel time from the headwaters of the East Humber River. In figure 10, the CURB model predicts a range of summer dry weather bacteria concentrations from 58 to 174 FC/100 ml. The field water sample geometric mean of 131 FC/100 ml collected at Rutherford road (undisturbed samples only), falls within the predicted range. FECAL COLIFORMS / 100ml 100000 . 10000 1000 . PRED I CT I ON FW<<iE . 100 . 10 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 DAY OF ,YEAR . EHR AT RUTHERFORD RD - M)E OaJECT I VE . EHR AT COLD CREEK 0 EHR I N OOYD Figure 10: Dry weather - Predicted versus actual water quality at the Boyd Conservation Area. Water samples collected from 1986-89. 28 . < . ~ .SIC} Summer wet weather model In Table 3, the model predicts the agricultural contribution from barnyard and manure storage runoff to be 89% of the total wet weather bacterial contribution and livestock access falls to six percent (6%) . septic system failures contribute three percent (3%) and storm sewer runoff one percent (1%) . wildlife bacterial pollution decreases to less than one percent. The wet weather CURB model predicts the beach concentrations between 801 and 2571 FC/100 ml. A relatively small number of field samples on East Humber River at Rutherford Road reveals a geometric mean bacteria concentration to be 942 FC/100 ml (figure 11) . FECAL COLIFDRMS / 100ml 100000 ~ 10000 . PRED I CT ION AANGE t 1000 . . 100 10 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 DAY OF YEAR . EHR AT RUTHERFORD RD - l.OE OBJECT I VE + EHR AT COLD CREEK 0 EHR AT OOYD Figure 11: Wet weather - Predicted versus actual water quality at the Boyd Conservation Area. Water samples collected from 1986-89. 29 -. . ~.S"O 3.3 MODEL LIMITATIONS The CURB prediction models do not account for bacterial deposition and resuspension. These are important factors that affect bacterial transportation in open water. The majority of bacterial pollution originates in wet weather (Table 3). These bacteria are deposited on streambeds, and are resuspended over time, creating beach impacts under dry weather conditions (M. Young, MOE. pers. comm.). This phenomenon is exhibited regularly on the Toronto waterfront beaches. Bacterial inputs from wet weather events are carried into near-shore areas, and may impair water quality for many days after their arrival. For this reason it is imperative to control all dry and wet bacterial sources to maximize the prospect of measurable improvements to downstream water quality. Agricultural bacteria sources are primarily wet weather dependent. Barnyards and inadequate manure storages require rain to carry bacteria into watercourses. Thus, solving these problems may reduce wet weather bacterial input substantially, and improve dry and wet weather water quality. 30 ~ ~ - W~ . S:li 4.0 CURB PLAN REMEDIAL OPTIONS The CURB remedial options can be separated into three approaches (after Ryan, 1989) ; 1. Do nothing 2. Treat the symptoms of beach pollution 3. Control the pollution sources 4.1 OPTION 1 DO NOTHING Permanent beach closures were the result of a failure to maintain acceptable water quality at the swimming beaches of the Claireville Conservation Area on the West Humber River, and the Boyd Conservation Area on the East Humber River. Although Claireville is not one of the Rural Beaches study areas, it is located close to Boyd, and is similar in both size and past popularity. Unfortunately, Claireville has also suffered permanent beach closures due to excessive bacterial contamination. For these reasons the effects of beach closures on Claireville are also examined. It should be noted that the MTRCA, through its fisheries enhancement projects and sediment control programs, completed a number of remedial projects within both watersheds. However, the projects were not focused on improving swimming water quality. Consequently, changes in water quality at the swimming beaches were not investigated. Costs of the 'Do Nothing' ADDroach Without swimming beaches, the drawing power of the conservation areas diminished. Claireville and Boyd conservation areas 31 -~ ~ w~. '5~" VISITO~S (1,000) 140 120 100 80 ..............................._.un......._u...............nn...................................nn_............................. 60 40 20 0 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 .. BOYD ~ CLAIREVILLE Figure 12: Annual summer attendance from June to August, 1980 to 1990, at Boyd and Claireville conservation areas. Beaches were permanently closed after the 1983 season. suffered declines in visitor attendance since 1984 when the swimming beaches were permanently closed (Figure 12). Table 4 reveals average annual summer attendance reductions of 56,822 (49%) and 63,965 (64%) for Boyd and Claireville respectively. The subsequent decline in gate receipts and park attraction revenues, had forced the Authority to cease operations at the Claireville Conservation Area, in the Fall of 1990. Other reasons may also have contributed to the decline in park popularity, these include: improved local recreational facilities of nearby suburban communities, and demographic changes. However, swi~ing is judged to be important by conservation areas guests. Visitor surveys (1989) revealed swimming to be the 32 .. ~.S2~ single most important reason for visiting to Bruce's Mill and Albion Hills, and that it was an important form of summer recreation for over 60% of the respondents. EXDected Imorovements from the 'Do Nothina' AODroach The 'do nothing' approach will have no impact on the status quo. Therefore, no water quality improvements are expected. Table 4: Claireville and Boyd Conservation Areas - Average Summer Attendance 1980 -1990 Claireville Boyd Average summer attendance 1980 - 1983 100,250 115,250 (Swimming beach open) Average summer attendance 1984 - 1990 36,285 58,428 (swimming beach closed) Percent decline after beach closures - 64% - 49% Beaches were closed permanently in 1984. 4.2 OPTION 2 TREAT THE SYMPTOMS The primary symptom of poor water quality at the study beaches, is bacterial densities that exceed the Provincial Water Quality Objective of 100 Fecal coliforms per 100 ml of water (MOE, 1987). Chlorine disinfection of the Swimminq Area Artificial treatment of excessive bacterial concentrations in beach water is the most cost effective remedial approach, and ultimately the one chosen by the MTRCA. Beach chlorination 33 ~R. s 2. q., systems installed at Albion Hills (1986) and Bruce's Mill (1985) Conservation Areas, disinfects bacterially contaminated water. Except for occasional malfunctions, these systems have effectively reduced Fecal coliform bacteria to almost zero (MOH, Peel and York). Costs of Beach Water Treatment The chlorination systems were installed at a cost of $74,667 and $68,609 at Albion Hills (1986) and Bruce's Mill (1985) respectively. The annual operating cost varies with the amount of chlorine and maintenance required during the season, generally falls between $10,000 to $15,000. Chlorination has allowed these beaches to remain open in a semi- natural state. Aesthetically, visitors have complained about the "dirty" appearance of the water and the smell of chlorine. The vinyl curtain impounds chlorinated water in the beach area to maintain adequate residual chlorine levels, and to prevent downstream effects by the chlorine. However, it also contains sediment raised by swimmers. Safety problems may arise as reduced water clarity impairs lifeguards performance. Exoected ImDrovements from Beach Water Treatment Semi-natural swimming has been available throughout the summer at both treated beaches since 1986. Figure 13 displays summer attendance at the Bruce's Mill and Albion Hills conservation areas, from 1980 to 1990. Although park attendance fluctuates, no obvious reductions occurred in 1984, the year Boyd and Claireville suffered visitor reductions of over 50%. Attendance was maintained after the chlorination systems were installed. A 'net benefit' of at least $137,000 per year is estimated for swimming at the Bruce's Mill and Albion Hills conservation areas. 34 ~ . - - - ~ .S2~ VISITO~S (1,000) 140 120 ................................................................nn.........................................................................................__................................................ 100 80 60 40 20 0 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 _ BRUCE'S MILL _ ALBION HILLS Figure 13: Annual summer attendance from June to August, 1980 to 1990, at Bruce's Mill and Albion Hills conservation areas. Chlorination systems began operation in 1985 and 1986 respectively. ~ Table 5: Bruce's Mill and Albion Hills Conservation Areas - Average Summer Attendance 1980 - 1990 Bruce's Mill Albion Hills Average summer attendance 1980 - 1984 104,250 89,500 Average summer attendance 1985 - 1990 97,428 78,857 Percent decline - 6% - 12% Chlorine disinfection systems were installed in 1985 and 1986, for Bruce's Mill and Albion Hills respectively. 35 WR .5)t. This was calculated by extrapolating potential gate receipt losses, if swimming were cancelled at these beaches, and visitor attendance decreased by 50%. Spin-off income from food concessions and other park attractions were not included in the calculations. This 'band-aid' solution to maintain swimming, has improvements limited only to the swimming beach. There are no benefits beyond the treated swimming areas since no other water quality improvements are achieved. Pollution sources continue to exist, and downstream impacts of degraded water quality remain. 4.3 OPTION 3 CONTROL THE POLLUTION SOURCES controlling pollution at its source is the most difficult and expensive strategy to return beaches to natural swimming. It requires a watershed approach to address individual problems that cause surface water contamination. The Rural Beaches Project has identified specific areas of concern through stream assessments, field surveys, and water quality monitoring. The CURB model consolidates this information to assist in developing a remedial action strategy that targets high priority sites. Recommended remedial measures: 4.31 Imoroved manure manaqement Improved manure management can be divided into two categories: A) To upgrade manure storage facilities and control barnyard runoff. B) To improve manure handling practices. The former is capital intensive, and latter is planning and labour intensive. 36 ~.S11 A) Improved facilities UDqrade Manure storaqes Manure storages must contain all solid and liquid manure portions, and have a storage capacity of over 250 days. All storages must be absolutely water tight to prevent surface and ground water pollution. Covered storages are an alternative that prevents precipitation from being contaminated by manure. This eliminates the need to store and handle contaminated water. Divert Runoff Precipitation runoff should be diverted from being contaminated in barnyards and storages. Eavestroughs, berms, and ditches are cost effective diversion techniques. Runoff that becomes contaminated must be captured and contained for proper field application. These general measures serve three functions: 1. Total contaminated runoff is minimized, reducing the amount of liquid to be handled; 2. Complete manure containment prevents runoff into watercourses (the primary bacterial contaminant pathway in the target watersheds) ; 3. Increased manure storage capacity allows the farmer greater flexibility to apply manure when it is environmentally sound, and beneficial to crops (discussed below) . 37 ~.~f Minimum Seoaration Distances New livestock buildings, barnyards, and manure storages must satisfy the above two criteria, and conform to a minimum separation distance of 150m to the nearest watercourse or municipal drain (Ryan, 1982). Existing barns that require expansion or upgraded storages, may be exempt due relocation difficulties. Robinson and Draper (1979) determined 122m to be the optimal distance for attenuation of phosphorus in surface runoff. However, field observations have occasionally uncovered runoff conditions in excess of 150m (D. Hayman pers comm, 1987). New municipal zoning bylaws that incorporate a minimum separation distance of 150m, can reduce or eliminate potential contaminated runoff problems from new facilities. B) Imoroved manaoement oractices There is plethora of information available on the subject from OMAF, agricultural groups, and independent research studies. A thorough investigation into proper manure management is beyond the scope of this report. It is suggested that research begin with OMAF Publication 296 - 1988 Field Crop Recommendations (1987). Farms with inadequately sized storages, may be forced to spread manure during less than optimum periods. If adequate manure storage facilities exist, operators can practice improved manure application rates, timing, and methods. 38 ... ~.5~q Manure Aoolication Rates Manure application rates can be determined by evaluating the field conditions, soil type, crop needs, and existing soil nutrients. Soil and manure testing is required, and manure spreader calibration will ensure correct nutrient application. Timinq of Manure Aoolication Timing when manure is applied is important to maximize nutrient benefits and prevent runoff into watercourses. Manure spreading on frozen or saturated ~round is no longer acceptable. Substantial runoff can occur during thaws or heavy rains, posing a serious environmental hazard. Volatilization losses from exposed manure significantly reduces nitrogen availability to crops. Methods of Manure Application A contingency plan should be prepared for potential manure spills. Manure should be applied to minimize runoff. On hay and pasture, manure should be applied at least 5m from a watercourse. Solid manure spreading on worked fields must be incorporated into soils within 24 hours to prevent potential wash-off by precipitation, and nitrogen losses to the atmosphere. Liquid manure application should be calibrated to prevent any surface runoff. Injection and banding (injection into seedbed rows) are the best alternatives. Liquid manure applied to tile drained fields requires monitoring of tile outlets to ensure no manure escapes into drains or watercourses. Improved manure management practices requires greater farmer 39 wR · 5~O awareness. To plan a manure storage and handling system, or determine how, when, and where manure can be best applied, may be viewed as too time consuming. However, education should be aimed at changing perceptions of manure from a disposal problem to a resource. Significant on farm benefits can be realized if manure is utilized as such. 4.32 Restricted livestock access to watercourses Livestock must be fenced out of watercourses. Cattle that water from a stream will require alternate watering devices such as nose pumps, electric or solar powered pumps. Livestock crossings through watercourses must be restricted to reduce contact with water. High level (culvert) crossings are preferred to stream level crossings. Livestock have traditionally been pastured in bottom lands. Cattle watering from streams is still a common practice in the MTRCA watershed. However, serious environmental degradation can result from livestock access to watercourses: 1. Livestock manuring in or near a watercourse will cause bacterial contamination that can impair downstream recreational water use, and may spread diseases to livestock or wildlife. Nutrient loads will create excessive algal growth leading to eutrophication. 2. Livestock trampling causes streambank erosion, and streambed destruction. Increased sediment loads can smother fish gills, and spawning sites. Bacterial and nutrient contaminants are attached to sediment particles, and can be carried and released downstream, creating problems indicated above. 40 ~.s~ 4.33 Milkhouse washwater treatment or containment Milkhouse washwater drains from an average dairy herd, can discharge an average of 35 kg of phosphorus per year into watercourses. Milk solids flushed from the pipeline rinse cycle provide a growth media for bacteria. Consequently bacterial concentrations have been found to exceed the objective of 100 FC / 100ml by over 100 times (Hayman, 1988) . Milkhouse washwater must be: 1- Treated in an OMAF approved tank and treatment trench system, or; 2. Directed to a liquid manure storage for future land application. A recent innovation uses hydrogen peroxide and cider vinegar in place of phosphate detergents for dairy pipeline cleaning (Samson, 1990) . The attributes are impressive: it is phosphate free, the hydrogen peroxide is bactericidal, and the cost is lower than commercial detergents. If long term feasibility can be achieved, this method can reduce the economic and environmental impact of milkhouse washwater disposal. 4.34 Repairina or reolacina faulty septic systems Private sewage systems are designed to safely dispose of domestic waste and washwater. Faulty septic systems can cause serious health hazards, and impair surface or ground water. Faulty systems must be repaired or replaced. All household waste and washwater must be directed to the septic systems. Grey water must not be connected to field tile. septic tanks should be pumped out at least once every three years. 41 ~ ------.------..-- wa · 5~:2 4.35 waterfowl control proaram An effective goose control program will reduce the impact of bacterial pollution at the beach sites. staff will: l. Manipulate goose eggs during the spring nesting season. 2. Transfer geese to other Authority properties during their moult in early summer. 3. Manage transient geese during the swimming season, using various harassment techniques including, bird scarring cannons, and pistol launched noise crackers. 4.4 CAPITAL COST TO. CONTROL POLLUTION SOURCES 4.41 Initial and long term costs The predicted cost for remedial measures can be divided into two groups: the initial project capital cost, and the long term cost of management and maintenance. The former would include the construction of manure storage facilities, livestock fencing and alternate watering devices, and new or upgraded septic systems. The latter relates to improved management practices such as the handling methods for manure or the rotation of livestock on pastures restricted from watercourses. Regular maintenance of fencing and septic systems are also long term costs. The estimated CURB costs will include only the initial capital construction costs. It is assumed that operating and maintenance expenses will be sustained by the individuals concerned. The waterfowl control program and other beach management techniques will be incorporated into conservation area operating costs. Costs for information and education will be included as part of the program delivery. 42 ---. ~~,533 4.42 CaDital Costs for Remedial Measures Capital costs to implement remedial measures in the Bruce Creek, Centreville Creek, and East Humber River watersheds are displayed in Table 6. The number of sites do not correlate with the number of livestock operations. Farms may require more than one remedial measure, such as restricted cattle access and an upgraded manure storage. The costs were calculated from preliminary individual farm remedial action plans, designed for each high priority livestock operation (Appendices 1 to 4). The cost estimates are based upon the values from the MOE CURB Workshop (Kempenfelt 1987). Some changes were made to reflect a higher cost of labour and materials in the greater Toronto area. Cost estimates for the construction of concrete structures were multiplied by two. Estimates for manure storages, barnyards and retaining walls are double the suggested costs. This change due to the construction cost of a liquid manure storage at the Albion Hills Demonstration Farm, which was approximately twice the price based on the Workshop (Kempenfelt 1987) values. The septic system costs are based on a $10,000 price of newly installed systems in York Region. No septic system costs were included for the community of Oak Ridges. In July, 1990 a new bylaw requires all homes to be connected to the municipal sewage lines. Thus, negating the need for upgraded private sewage systems. As of December, 1990, 68% of all homes have been connected. The full costs are borne by the homeowners (P. Horvath, pers. comm.) 43 we .5~U . Table 6: Estimated capital costs of remedial measures to reduce bacterial Inputs upstream of the swimming beaches at Bruce's Mill, Albion Hills, and Boyd Conservation Areas. Watershed Number of sites Estimated Capital Construction Cost Bruce Creek Uvestock access 4 $16,000 Barnyards and storages 2 74,000 Milkhouse washwater - - Septic system failures 3 30,000 ----..- ---------- Total projects 9 $120,000 Centrevllle Creek Uvestock access 7 $ 19,000 Barnyards and storages 9 512,000 Milkhouse washwater 1 5,000 Septic system failures 5 50,000 ------ --------- Total projects 22 $ 586,000 East Humber River Uvestock access 20 $ 115,000 Barnyards and storages 19 1,407,000 Milkhouse washwater 3 15,000 Septic system failures 1 114 1,140,000 ------ ------------ Total projects 156 $ 2,677,000 1 The total number of septic system projects do not include homes in the community of Oak Ridges. Due to a recent municipal bylaw, all homes are required to connect into sanitary 44 ~.S3S 4.43 Exoected Imorovements from Controllina Pollution Sources Within the scope of this study, it is difficult to quantify downstream water quality improvements made by upstream remedial measures. A qualitative analysis will outline some of the expected improvements from controlling pollution sources. Beach Imorovements The primary objective of the Rural Beaches Project is to remediate pollution sources that contaminate downstream swimming beaches. Remediating upstream bacterial sources may translate to a decrease in bacterial concentrations at the conservation area swimming beaches, and a subsequent reduction in beach closures. Without relying on the chlorine disinfection systems, between $10,000 and $15,000 in operating and maintenance costs can be saved annually. General water quality imorovements Remediation of bacterial runoff sources will reduce associated phosphorus and nitrate loads. Reduced nutrient runoff may decrease nuisance algal growth, and improve watercourse aesthetics. Eliminating cattle access to watercourses reduces streambank erosion, streambed trampling, and sediment loading. with less soil entering watercourses, stream habitat may improve and drain clean-out costs may be reduced. Without manure input to a watercourse, less nuisance algal growth will result, and the biochemical oxygen demand ( BO D) may be reduced. This may improve local dissolved oxygen levels, and would enhance aquatic habitat suitability. The overall result is improved fish species diversity and quantity that may contribute to greater angling opportunities for sport fishermen. 45 fA)R · 5~ Properly functioning septic systems can reduce health risks to the residents, prevent odours, and eliminate wet spots over tile beds. Aaricultural Imorovements with expanded manure storage facilities, optimal timing of manure application can be realized. This would maximize nutrient availability for crops and minimize environmentally hazardous runoff into surface waters or leaching into groundwater. Improved manure management practices that reduces runoff to watercourses will have on farm benefits as well. Proper manure application will increase soil fertility, reduce the amount of synthetic fertilizers required, improve soil texture, enrich organic matter content, and provide soil micronutrients. A dairy operation can realize substantial benefits from improved manure management practices. Properly timed field applications of solid manure at 10 tonnes/ha can provide NPK equivalents of 30-10-44 kg/ha (OMAF, 1987). Each dairy cow can provide between $40 and $60 of nutrient value per year (Table 7). This can offset the cost of manure spreading and commercial fertilizers. TABLE 7: Value of Manure Nutrients Nutrient Kg/Cow % Availability Value in Dollars N 77 25 - 60 10 - 25 P 36 40 10 - 12 K 81 90 20 - 24 From: Farm & Country, pg 55, April 24, 1990. 46 ~.~7 without livestock standing in watercourses or drinking contaminated water, herd health improves and livestock operators may realize reduced veterinary costs. Removing dairy cattle from watercourses may reduce the incidence of mastitis. Numerous disease causing pathogens can be transmitted in water such as: E. coli, Salmonella, LeDtosDira, Bacillus anthracis (foot and mouth disease virus), and entero viruses. Local wildlife can benefit by reducing their chances of contracting barnyard diseases from contaminated streams. 47 - - ,- kJt~ 5~i 5.0 CURB PLAN STRATEGY REMEDIATE ALL POLLUTION SOURCES In an effort to improve water quality at the conservation area swimming beaches, the CURB plan recommends that all pollution sources be systematically addressed. Partial remediation may not achieve significant improvements. In this section, the CURB model will estimate water quality changes when hypothetical combinations of remedial measures are implemented. The model predictions will provide a guide to the effectiveness of various remedial measures. Consult section 3.3 Model Limitations for potential problems associated with the predictions. The Watershed Aooroach The most efficient use of limited resources would be to target efforts on a watershed basis. The recommended objective is to remediate all pollution sources, beginning with the Bruce Creek watershed to return the Bruce's Mill Conservation Area beach to natural swimming. As a pilot project, its success can be evaluated prior to extensive remediation in the other two watersheds. Bruce Creek Being the smallest of the three stuay watersheds, it has the fewest number of problem sources, and is the least costly to remediate (Table 6). Rectifying all agricultural bacteria sources and rural septic 48 wR.~~~ system failures, at an estimated cost of $120,000, may reduce an estimated 84% of the total summer bacterial impacts to the beach (Table 3). wildlife accounts for only six percent (6%) of the bacterial impact. Approximately half of this (3%) are estimated to originate from the 20 to 40 geese at the beach area. Applying the CURB model to predict the effects of remedial measures on beach water quality (Figure 14), reveals limited water quality improvements in dry weather for individual remedial measures except septic systems. When remediating septic systems alone, the model estimates low flow bacterial densities slightly below the objective of 100 FC/100ml. The remediation of all agricultural sources (87%) may provide the most effective beach water quality improvement. When further improvements are made to septic systems, and geese at the beach are removed, the resultant predicted water quality is well below 100 FC/100ml (Figure 15). Remediating the latter sources alone may reduce bacterial sources by nine percent and is estimated to achieve only minor water quality improvements (Figure 14). Thus, it is recommended that all bacteria sources be remediated in an attempt to improve recreational water quality at the Bruce's Mill Conservation Area. Centreville Creek The Centreville Creek watershed is the second watershed suggested for systematic remediation of all bacterial sources. It is a larger watershed with over twice the number of identified pollution sources (Table 6). An estimated 94% of the summer bacterial sources can be 49 ~. c;u.o FECAL OOLIFOR~S I 1DO mL 10000 100D 100 10 1 ACTu..L WQ w:JOEL WQ OPTION 1 CPTION 2 OPTICN :3 OPTION <4 CURB MJOEL - RBolED I AL OPT IONS _ DRY WEATHER ~ WET WEATHER Figure 14: Bruce's Mill Conservation Area - Beach water quality predictions for individual remedial options. FECAL OOLIFO~MS I 100 mL 1000D 100D 100 10 1 ACTUAL ..0 t.CD:L WQ OPT ION 1 1..2 1..2..3 1'02..3.... CURB MOOEL - RE~EOIAL OPTIONS _ DRY WEATHER ~ WET WEATHER Figure 15: Bruce's Mill Conservation Area - Beach water quality predictions for combined remedial options. Remedial Options: 1. No Uvestock Access 2. No Barnyard Runoff 3. No Septic System Failures 4. No Waterfowl on Beach 50 . .- 1A1R. SQ..I remediated for an estimated $586,000 in the Centreville Creek watershed. Most of the cost is for improvements or construction of new barnyards and manure storages ($512,000). The estimated summer bacterial reduction from this source alone will be 87%. The Curb model (Figures 16) shows that remediating individual sources will have small effects on water quality in dry weather, and almost no effect in wet weather. The estimated improvement to water quality is largest in wet weather when bacteria from barnyard and manure storage runoff are controlled (Figure 17). Remediating all sources is estimated to achieve beach water quality below 100 FC/100ml in dry and wet weather conditions. East Humber River Because of its size, and the complexity of bacterial sources, the achievement of measurably improved water quality in the East Humber River watershed will be difficult. It is recommended that remedial measures for be directed to the part of this watershed closest to the beach where potential improvements are high. Restricting livestock access may reduce 16% of the summer bacterial load to the beach, at a cost of $115,000. This is the most cost effective remedial measure in this watershed. The CURB model predicts dry weather water quality to be less than 10 FC/lOOml (figure 18). Barnyards and manure storage runoff constitute 79% of the summer bacteria load to the beach, and can be eliminated for $1,407,000. The majority of livestock operations that impact the Boyd Conservation Area beach, are located nearby in the Cold Creek watershed, which occupies the lower quarter of the East Humber River watershed. Bacterial contamination from suburban septic systems and storm sewer discharge in the upper East Humber River, have been 51 WR .Slf:A FECAL COllFOR.1S /100 mL 10000 1000 IoClE OBJECT IVE 100 10 1 ACTlII'L YlQ hrXEL YlQ CPT I ()ol 1 OPTICN 2 OPTION 3 CPT I ()ol .. REMEDIAL OPTIONS _ DRY WEATHER ~ WET WEATHER Figure 16: Albion Hills Conservation Area - Beach water quality predictions for individual remedial options. FECAL COL I FO~S /100 mL 10000 1DOO 100 10 1 A~L YlQ t.r:lt'EL YlQ CPT I ()ol 1 1+2 1.2..3 1.2..3+4 REMEDIAL OPTIONS _ DRY WEATHER ~ WET WEATHER Figure 17: Albion Hills Conservation Area - Beach water quality predictions for combined remedial options. Remedial Options: 1. No Uvestock Access 2. No Barnyard Runoff 3. No Septic System Failures 4. No Waterfowl on Beach 52 w(l.54~ documented to significantly impair local water quality (Hubbard et. ale 1988). However, remediation is limited to septic systems only, reducing beach bacterial loads by only 3% at a cost of $1,140,000. The modelled water quality show almost no change when only septic systems are remediated (Figure 18). Methods and costs of improving suburban storm water quality have not been evaluated in this report. In Figure 19, modelled water quality based upon full remediation of all sources reveals dry and wet weather bacterial densities to be under 20 FC/100ml. These are rather optimistic CURB model estimates. No attempt was made to estimate the potential geese populations. The Boyd beach has not been open since 1984 and no swimming area exists for the geese to inhabit. . 53 . -........... --~ IIJI2 · 5 q-Lf- FECAL COL I FORo1S I 100 mL 10000 1000 100 10 1 ACTUAL v.o t.<<J0 E L WQ OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3 Re.iEOIAL OPTIONS _ DRY WEATHER ~ WET WEATHER Figure 18: Boyd Conservation Area - Beach water quality predictions for individual remedial options. FECAL COLI FORMS I 100 mL 10000 1000 100 10 1 ACTUAL WQ t.<<JOEL WQ OPTION 1 1..2 1..2.3 REMEDIAL OPTIONS _ DRY WEATHER ~ WET WEATHER Figure 19: Boyd Conservation Area - Beach water quality predictions for combined remedial options. Remedial Options: 1. No Uvestock Access 2. No Barnyard Runoff 3. No Septic System Failures 4. No Waterfowl on Beach . 54 ~ ~. '^>Il.. S4 6 6.0 CURB IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Water quality monitoring, field assessments, and the CURB model have shown that considerable water quality degradation results from inadequate land management practices. Although agricultural programs have been available in the past to deal with some of these problems, participation has been strictly voluntary with limited emphasis on specific areas of concern. In order to effect water quality improvements throughout the watershed, the program must be watershed based. A proactive approach is required to promote the principal remedial efforts of: adopting improved manure storage and management practices, livestock access restriction, and repairs to faulty septic systems. The Ministry of the Environment is requested to fund the CURB implementation program. The program would be administered by the MTRCA, within the framework of the Rural Beaches Project, and under the direction of the mUlti-agency steering committee. Two full time positions, and associated support costs, are recommended. Laboratory services should continue to provide adequate support to further investigate contaminant sources and to monitor the effectiveness of remedial measures. The time period for the program should be 5 years, or at least as long as the financial assistance program indicated below. 8.1 PROGRAM DELIVERY Working with the rural community will require cooperation from government agencies and rural organizations that share a common interest in resource management. The MOE should be the lead agency since its mandate is the protection of the province'S water resources. The ontario Mi'nistry of Agriculture and Food, as well as agricultural organizations including the local ontario 55 - - --- ~ ~t.~b Soil and Crop Improvement Association (OSCIA), and the local Federation of Agriculture (OFA), can provide guidance to implement environmentally compatible management practices. The local public health office can be utilized to address bacterial sources related to private sewage systems in rural and suburban areas. . The Authority can deliver program components on a local watershed basis. To effect changes to present methods of rural land use necessitates the implementation plan to focus on three areas; problem awareness, technical assistance and financial assistance. 8.11 Problem Awareness An effective CURB strategy must include a broad based education program to increase public awareness of rural pollution sources. The (CURB) Plan has identified agriculture as a significant contributor to bacterial pollution in the target study areas. If not properly managed, nutrients, soil, manure and chemicals associated with agricultural practices can have negative environmental impacts on surface water quality. It is imperative that farmers, rural residents and the general public understand the link between agricultural activities, rural urban land use, and water quality. The Authority would deliver an information and education campaign to increase awareness of water quality issues, and propose the best methods and management practices for achieving and maintaining improved water quality. 56 8.12 Technical Assistance ~.SQ7 Agricultural water auality management glans Preliminary farm abatement (CURB) plans have been drafted, for high priority farms, that address on-farm sources of bacterial loading into surface waters. These plans will act as planning tools for individual farm operators to priorize specific problems, and make management decisions based upon economic and environmental concerns. Although the individual CURB plans are based on technical abatement measures, sound management practices are essential for successful remediation of pollution problems. Assistance from OMAF field staff and the local OSCIA and OFA is required to ensure improvements under varying physical conditions on each farm. 8.13 Financial Assistance Coupled with educational efforts and technical assistance, there should be a greatly expanded program of financial assistance to encourage land managers to develop and implement their comprehensive water quality' management plans. To effect progress towards reducing agriculturally related water quality problems, public funds are required to offset the cost of capital intensive projects. Previous assistance programs were considered inadequate by some farm operators. The ontario soil Conservation and Environmental Protection Assistance Program (OSCEPAP II) provided a 40% grant rate with a $7,500 ceiling, for environmental protection projects. However, a new manure storage and liquid runoff tank, for an average dairy herd of 35 cows, may cost approximately 57 ~.S~9 $30,000. The low maximum grant ($7,500) may have required some design compromises to reduce costs. However, environmental benefits may also have been reduced. A financial assistance program should provide a grant rate between 75% and 90% of the total capital costs for agricultural remedial measures. In the united states, the experimental Rural Clean Water Program successfully used a grant rate of 75% to encourage the implementation of capital intensive projects. The York Federation of Agriculture suggested that a 90% grant rate is required for participation by farms located within the urban shadow of the greater Toronto area. The grant ceilings should depend on the remedial options adopted. Ceilings that are to low can deter the construction of environmentally friendly systems. A proposed 90% grant rate is much higher than previous grant assistance programs and may be justified on two counts. Firstly, it removes financial impediments posed by the inadequacy of previous assistance programs. Secondly, this rate clearly indicates the degree of importance being placed on correcting existing problems. It seems reasonable, however, that a specific time limit be placed on the availability of this grant; perhaps for a period of five years. During this period, every effort should be made to encourage uptake. As a last resort, the prospect of abatement would exist at the end of the five years. 58 WR . ~t,.q 7.0 REFERENCES Bones, H. 1990. supervisor Public Health Inspection. York Region Public Health Department. Personal Communication. Newmarket, ontario. Ecologistics Limited, 1988. PLOP - A Planning Tool to Evaluate the Pollution Potential of Livestock Operations in Southern ontario. Waterloo, ontario. Fuller, R. and H.E. Foran, 1989. Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Plan for Lake Huron Beaches in the Maitland Valley Conservation Authority Watershed. Wroxeter, Ontario. Hayman, D.G., 1989. A Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Plan for Fanshawe, pittock and wildwood Reservoirs in the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority. London, Ontario. Hayman, D.G., 1988. Subsurface contamination with Milkhouse Wastewater - An Environmental Concern, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority. London, Ontario. Hayman, D.G. 1987. Rural Water Quality Program Coordinator, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority. Personal Communication. London, Ontario. Hocking, D. and D. Dean, 1989. Ausauble Bayfield Conservation Authority Target Sub-basin Study Report. Exeter, Ontario. Horvath, P. 1990. Water and Sewer Technician, Richmond Hill Works Department. Personal Communication. Richmond Hill, Ontario Hubbard, R., B. Hindley, H. Power, and P. Mar, 1987. Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Rural Beaches Impact Study 1986. Downsview, Ontario Hubbard, R., P. Mar, H. Power, and T. Ryan, 1988. Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Rural Beaches Impact Study 1987-88. Downsview, Ontario. Little, C.E., 1989. The Rural Clean Water Program: A Report. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Kensington, Maryland. Marsalek, J., V. Panu, and H.Y.F. Ng. 1985. Storm Runoff Study of the Newton Urban Catchment. Urban Hydrology Study of the Waterford River Basin, Technical Report No. VHS WRB 1.5. Environment Canada. Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 1990. Conservation Area Visitor Survey Results, June 1 to September 4, 1989. Downsview, Ontario. 59 ,-.. w fl. ~O Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, 1987. Publication 296, 1988 Field Crop Recommendations. ISSN 0701-532lo ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 1984. Water Management - Goals, Policies Objectives and Implementation Procedures of the Ministry of the Environment. Toronto, Ontario. Palmateer, G. 1990. Microbiologist. Ministry of the Environment. Personal Communication. London, ontario. RObinson, J.B. and D.W. Draper, 1978. A Model for Estimating Inputs to the Great Lakes from Livestock Enterprises in the Great Lakes Basin; Report to Pollution from Landuse Activities Reference Group, Task C, Agricultural watershed studies, LJ.C., Windsor, ontario. Rowney, A.C. and P.E. Wisner, 1986. Qualhymo, User Manual Release 1.1. Queens University, Kinston. University of Ottawa. Ryan, T.E., 1982. Assessment of Potential Water Quality Problems from Agricultural Manure Handling and storage Systems. Ausauble Bayfield Conservation Authority. Exeter, Ontario. Ryan, T.E., 1989. The Grand River Rural Beaches Study, Clean Up Rural Beaches ( CURB) Plan. Cambridge, Ontario. Samson, R. 1990. Taking the P out of Your Washwater. Sustainable Farming, Vol. 1, No. 3. Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Quebec. Thelin, R. and G.F. Gifford, 1983. Fecal Coliform Release Patterns from Fecal Material of Cattle. Journal of Environmental Quality, Volume 12, No. lo Toombs, M.1990. Agricultural Engineer. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Personal communication. Newmarket, Ontario. Young, M. 1990. Microbiologist. Ministry of the Environment. Personal Communication. Rexdale, Ontario. 60 -~..-, f)J~ .$1 APPENDIX 1 Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Model wR.. S51 POUUTION FROM LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS PREDICTOR (PLOP) MODEL The PLOP model (Ecologlstlca. 1988) calculated farm bacterial contamination for these individual sources: Uveatock acceta (ACCESS). Barnyard and manure stack Nnoff (BARNYARD AND STACKS), Milkhouse waahwater discharge (MILXHOUSE) BACTERIAL TRANSPORT MODEL Each bacterial output from the PLOP model Is mathematically transported to the beach with the MTRCA CURB transport model. The bacterial travel time Is calculated for each Individual farm under dry and wet weather conditions. The presented results predicts, for each source, the load of fecal coliform bacteria to the beach. ACCESS The PLOP model estimates bacterial pollution to be 3.84 X 1010 fecal coliforms / kg of manure (after Crane et. aI., 1983). This is 43 times higher than the 8.9 x 10s fecaJ coliforms / kg obtained from local samples (M. Young. MOE. pers. comm.). It Is assumed the PLOP model overestimates livestock access bacterial pollution. Thus, the PLOP model livestock access predictions are divided by 43. prior to transportation by the CURB model. ACCESS L: (PLOP MODEL SUMMER LIVESTOCK ACCESS FECAl COLIFORM BACTERIA LOAD / 43 / 92 DAYS) X 7i DAYS. (LOW FLOW TRAVEL TIME X DISAPPEARANCE RATE) = Beach bacteria/load for each source at low flow (7i days) FCBEACH H: (PLOP MODEL SUMMER UVESTOCK ACCESS FECAl COLIFORM BACTERIA LOAD / 43 / 92 DAYS) X 13 DAYS - (HIGH FLOW TRAVEL TIME X DISAPPEARANCE RATE) .. Beach bacterial load for each source at high flow (13 days) CURB COST: Cost for 100'll. livestock restriction from watercourses and all necessary ancillaries. which may include: fencing, low level crossings and alternate watering devices. BARNYARD AND MANURE STACK All bacterial Nnoff from barnyards and manure stacks were assumed to be due to wet weather events. Therefor, 100'll. of the PLOP model outputs were calculated as a high flow (wet weather) contaminant source. BARN HI: ~PLOP MODEL SUMMER BARNYARD AND MANURE STACK FECAl COLIFORM BACTERIA LOAD) . HIGH FLOW TRAVEL TIME X DISAPPEARANCE RATE) . Beach bac:terlalload for each source at high flow (13 days) CURB COST: Cost to eliminate all manure contaminated Nnoff from existing barnyards and manure storages. This is based on double the cost of OMAF estimates from the MOE Kempenfelt workshop. No the MTRCA's Albion Hills Farm, the cost to construct a new manure storage was almost twice the estimated OMAF values. MILXHOUSE Bacterial contamination from Improper mllkhouse washwater effluent treatment. MILX LO: (PLOP MODEL MILXHOUSE WASHWATER FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA LOAD / 43 / 92 DAYS) X 79 DAYS. (LOW FLOW TRAVEL TIME X DISAPPEARANCE RATE) .. Beach bacterial load for each source at low flow (79 days) MILX HI: (PLOP MODEL MILXHOUSE WASHWATER FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA LOAD / 43 / 92 DAYS) X 13 DAYS - (HIGH FLOW TRAVEL TIME X DISAPPEARANCE RATE) = Beach bacterial load for each source at high flow (13 days) CURB COST: $5,000 Is the estimated cost to construct a new approved milkhouse tank and treatment trench system. This Is based on a an average sized dairy farm In the study watersheds. .,---. -- '.- -.....- wA · ~~RE SPREADING BACTERIA RUNOFF MODEL SEASON: Based on Plop model seasons (Ecologistics, 1988) Spring = March 15 - June 14, Summer = June 15 - September 14, Fall = September 15 - December 14, Winter = December 15. March 14 VOM KG: Volume of estimated manure production in the watershed (after MOE Kempenfelt conference, 1987) EAU: Estimated number of animal units in the watershed (Ecologistics, 1988). Fe/KG: Estimated fecal coliform load per kg of manure (after MOE Kempenfelt conference, 1987). % of MANURE SPREAD: Seasonal fraction of manure field application over a period of one year. Assuming annual production equals annual spreading (Michael Toombs, OMAF, pers. comm.). Spring = 45 %, Summer = 20 %, Fall = 30 %, Winter = 5 % FARMS WINTER SPREAD: The fraction of farmers spreading manure in a given season. Value of 1 means 100% for all seasons except winter. Survey results from the three study watersheds indicates 57 % of farmers spread manure in the winter (Hubbard et. aI., 1988). % OVERSPREAD: Number of farmers that over-spread manure. This is assumed to be 5 % for spring through fall, and 100% for winter manure spreaders (after Hayman, 1989). AMOUNT OVERSPREAD: Estimated manure over-spread by applicators that over-spread manure. This is assumed to be 25 % for spring through fall (Thelin and Gifford, 1983), and 100% for winter manure spreaders (after Hayman, 1989). DELIVERY RATIO: The estimated amount of bacteria from manure over-spreading that enters a watercourse (1 %). STORAGE SURVIVAL DAYS: Estimated manure storage time (25 days) before each clean out for field application (Ecologistics, 1988., Thelin and Gifford, 1983) T+G 83 10+15 RATE: Bacteria survival rates based on Thelin and Gifford's (1983) 10 + 15 day rate, multiplied by STORAGE SURVIVAL DAYS = 0.01 log units FIELD SURVIVAL DAYS: 7 days is the estimated in field time before each rainfall generates enough runoff to enter a watercourse. T+G 83 10+15 RATE: Bacteria survival rates based on Thelin and Giffords (1983) 10 + 15 day rate, multiplied by FIELD SURVIVAL DAYS = 0.275 logs TOTAL SURVIVAL RATE: Combined bacteria survival rate. 0.01 logs x 0.275 logs = .0037 logs TOTAL MANURE RUNOFF: Total seasonal fecal coliform bacteria runoff = VOM KG x FC/KG x % OF MANURE SPREAD x FARMS WINTER SPREAD x % OVERSPREAD x DELIVERY RATIO X TOTAL SURVIVAL RATE BACTERIAL TRANSPORT MODEL IA~ .55 q.. This model calculates the bacterial disappearance In transportation from the source input location to the beach for the following sources: SEPTIC: Failed septic systeml W1LDUFE: Instream beaver and muskrat GEESE: Canada Geese on or near the beach area (Bacteria for this source was not transported. It was assumed that 5% of geese fecal coliform bacterial production directly entered the beach SPREADING: Manure spread on farm fieldl water. See Appendix 5) STORM WATER: Stormwater runoff Qn East Humber Rver watershed only) FC (source): Estimated fecal coliform bacteria generated for each source over 92 days. TIME IN HOURS: Low and high flow travel time. in hours, from the midpoint of the watershed to the beach. FCBEACH L: (FC SOURCE I t2 DAYS) X 71 DAYS. (TRAVEL TIME X DISAPPEARANCE RATE) . Beach bactMalload for each source at low now (71 claya) FCBEACH H: (FC SOURCE I t2 DAYS) X 13 DAYS. (TRAVEL TIME X DISAPPEARANCE RATE) . Beach bac:terlalload for Nch lOurce at high now (13 claYI) CURB COST: Cost for remedial measures to theoretically eliminate bacterial source. BT IDOLLAR: 811cterlal reduction per dollar spent on remedial measurel. :z (SOURCE LO + SOURCE HI)/CURB COST TP: Total phosphorul produced by source for the entire summer season. TP IDOLLAR: Phosphorus reduction per dollar spent on remedial measures. . TP/CURB COST ANNUAL FC: Total annual fecaJ coliform production by source. ~C BEACH: ANNUAL Fe . (high flow travel time x disappearance rate) '"' Estimated annual beach bacterial load for each source DO RATE: OIaappearance rat. for bacteria as they downstream travel in watercourses: 0.0291 log units per hour (0.7 logs/day). SEPTIC SYSTEM FAILURES: ModIfIed after Hayman, 1989 1be bacterlallolld II a product of: NUMBER OF HOUSES, NUMBER OF PEOPLE I HOUSE, UTRES I PERSON OF DAILY WATER USE, FECAL COUFORMS I UTRE OF EFFLUENT, FAULTY SYSTEMS ESTIMATED AT THREE PERCENT (3%). NUMBER OF DAYS PER YEAR. STORM WATER RUNOFF: Calculated In East Humber River watershed only. No stormwater outlets affect the beach water quality at Bruce's Mill or Albion Hills Conservation Areas. Based on work by Marselak (et. aI. 1985) 1be bacterlallolld II a product of: AREA OF THE TOWN IN HECTARES 3.1 X 10" FECAL COUFORMS I HECTAREI YEAR tdR..t;&5 CURB MODEL CALCULAnONS The model predicts bacteria transport to the beach and the beach bacterial densities for a range of discharge conditions. Beach bacterial Impact In Dry and Wet Weather The effects of combined upstream bacterlallOurce. on the bNdl swimming area were simulated three ways in each watershed: 1. Summer dry weather (low flow) bacterial load.. 79 days 2- Summer wet weather (hIgh flow) bacterial load.. 13 days 3. Total summer bacteria loads (the sum of 1 and 2). 92 days The summer season Is defined as June 15 to September 14 (92 days). This Is standardized with the PLOP model (Ecologistlcs, 1988) to eliminate data conversion.. During the summer. an estimated 13 days would have precipitation greater than 5mm, or enough to generate runoff from the study watershed. (D. Haley, MTRCA.. pers. comm.). These 13 days are modelled to have wet weather or high flow conditions. Dry weather, or low flow conditions, occurs during the remaining 79 days. SUMMER LOW FLOW SOURCES: All low flow bacterial sources delivered to the beach for 79 dry summer days. SUMMER HIGH FLOW SOURCES: All high flow bacterial sources delivered to the beach for 13 wet summer days. This Includes 13 days of bacterial input from the low flow sources. PERCENT OF TOTAL CONTRIBUTION: Each source I. divided by the sum of sources for each event SUMMER LOW FLOW MODEL: (SUM OF ALL LOW FLOW BACTERIAL SOURCES /79 DAYS) / DAILY DISCHARGE . Beach bacterial concentration SUMMER HIGH FLOW MODEL: (SUM OF ALL HIGH FLOW BACTERIAL SOURCES /13 DAYS) / DAILY DISCHARGE · BMch bacterial concentration WR. SSG:> APPENDIX 2 Bruce Creek CURB model ~. ss ..., BRUCE CREEK BACTERIAL TRANSPORT MODEL BACTERIAL LOAD FROM INDIVIDUAL FARM SOURCES ACCESS BT/$ TP/$ FARM ACCESS L ACCESS HI COST REDUCTIO TP REDUCTIO ANNUAl F AFC BEAC 1 4.43E+09 1.26E+08 800 1.S8E+Oe 1.48 1.85E~ 3.572E+l0 2.748E+l0 3 8.00E+l0 2.169E+l0 10S00 4.34E+Oe 0.41 8.1 8E~5 1.800E+ 11 1.SOl E+ll 2 0 5.88E+08 3210 1.nE+Oe 0.303 8.44E-05 2.0SOE+ll 6.723E+l0 5 2.34E+09 S06567487 8SO 5.116E+05 0.2818 3.43E-44 7.08E+09 5.85E+08 TOTAL 8.676E+l0 2.814E+l0 15360 1.90E+Oe 2.4808 1.81E-44 2.S07E+ll BARNYARD AND STACKS BT/$ TP/$ FARM BARN LO BARN HI COST REDUCTIO TP REDUCTIO ANNUAL F AFC BEAC 1 o 14019 O.OOE+OO 8.7 4.78E-44 5.408E+ll 4.182E+ll 4 3.539E+12 80000 5.90E+07 128.5 2.14E~ 4.754E+13 4.074E+13 TOTAL 3.539E+12 74018 4.78E+07 135.2 1.83E~ 4.115E+13 BRUCE CREEK BACTERIAL TRANSPORT MODEL BRUCE CREEK - MANURE SPREADING BACTERIA RUNOFF MODEL SEASON VOM KG FClKG _OF FARMS ~ OVER- AMOUNT DELIVERY STORAGE T+G 83 FIELD T+G 83 TOTAL TOTAL MANURE WINTER SPREAD OVERSP RATIO SURVIVAL 10+15 SURVIVAL 10+16 SURVIVAL MANURE SPREAD SPREAD DAYS RATE DAYS RATE RATE RUNOFF SPRING 1823223.8 3.000E+l0 0.45 1 0.05 0.25 0.01 26 0.01 7 2.75E-()1 3.70E-()3 1.01E+10 SPRING SUMMER 1823223.8 3.000E+l0 0.2 1 0.05 0.25 0.01 26 0.01 7 2.76E-()1 3.70E-()3 4.50E+08 SUMMER FAll 1823223.8 3.000E+l0 0.3 1 0.05 0.25 0.01 25 0.01 7 2.75E-()1 3.70E-()3 8.75E+08 FALL WINTER 1823223.8 3.000E+l0 0.05 0.57 1 1 0.01 25 0.01 7 2.75E-()1 3.70E-()3 5.13E+l0 WINTER NOTES: MANURECALCULATIO 1.15xl.31x24xEAUxDAYS EAU. FROM MOEIKEMPENFE . 1823223.8 123 SURVIVAL RATES FROM THELIN AND GIFFORD 1883 ~ 1t> , :a ~ IArf2 .. 5" 5<=t BRUCE CREEK BACTERIAL TRANSPORT MODEL WILDLIFE BACTERIAL LOAD S~RING SUMMER FALL WINTER TOTAl WILDLIFE INPUT 10% 5.500E+ll 5.500E+ll 5.500E+ll 5.400E+ll 2.1QOE+12 WILDLIFE ALL AREAS 5.500E+12 5.500E+12 5.500E+12 5.400E+12 2.1QOE+13 SEPTIC SYSTEM FAILURE (3%) BACTERIAL LOAD Fe LOAD. , HOUSES x PEOPLElHOUSE x IIPERSON x Fen x % FAULTY x WAYS 100 3 137 1.00E+07 0.03 385 . 4.500E+12 SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER TOTAl SEPTIC SYSTEM 3% 1.125E+12 1.125E+12 1.125E+12 1.125E+12 4.500E+12 DO RATE 0.02Ql888 TRANSPORT MODEL SUMMER TIME SEPTIC WILDLIFE GEESE SPREADING HOURS Fe 1.125E+12 5.500E+ll 2.S40E+12 4.50E+08 FeBEACH L 24 1.Q21 E+ll 2.068E+ll 1.129E+ll FeBEACH H 12.0 7.25QE+l0 5.455E+l0 1.Q07E+l0 2.01 E+08 CURB COST 30000 BTIDOLLAR 8.82E+Oe TP TPIDOLLAR ANNUAL Fe 4.500E+12 2.322E+12 7.287E+l0 AFC BEACH 2.010E+12 1.1e8E+12 3.24eE+10 OJ wR .S"~g BRUCE CREEK BACTERiAl TRANSPORT MODEL SUMMER LOW FLOW SOURCES PERCENT OF TOTAL CONTRIBUTION LIVESTOCK ACCESS 8.878E+10 201\6 SEPTIC FAILURES 31\6 1.821 E+11 381\6 WILDLIFE 2.088E+11 421\6 TOTAL 4.85eE+11 SUMMER HIGH FLOW SOURCES PERCENT OF TOTAL CONTRIBUTION LIVESTOCK ACCESS 2.814E+10 1 1\6 SPREADING + PASTUR 2.01 E+08 0.05 1\6 YARDS & STACKS 3.538E+12 1NI1\6 WILDLIFE 5.455E+10 1 1\6 SEPTIC FAILURES 31\6 7.258E+10 2 1\6 TOTAL 3.887E+12 TOTAL SUMMER SOURCES PERCENT OF TOTAL CONTRIBUTION LIVESTOCK ACCESS 1.258E+11 3 1\6 SPREADING + PASTUR 2.01E+08 0.05 1\6 YARDS & STACKS 3.538E+12 841\6 WILDLIFE 2.814E+11 8 1\6 SEPTIC FAILURES 31\6 2.lS5E+11 8 1\6 TOTAl 4.183E+12 TOTAl ANNUAL SOURCES PERCENT OF TOTAl CONTRIBUTION LIVESTOCK ACCESS 2.507E+11 1 1\6 SPREADING + PASTUR 3.248E+10 0.1 1\6 YARDS & STACKS 4.115E+13 821\6 WILDLIFE 1.1118E+12 3 1\6 SEPTIC FAILURES 31\6 2.010E+12 IS ~ TOTAl 4.481E+13. SUMMER LOW FLOW MODEL . a-AVG AUG 1888 DISCHARG CUBIC TOTAl Fe DAILY Fe BEACH CONC CMS METRESIOAY Fe/100ML 0.04 345e 4.85eE+11 U4E+08 188 0.08 5184 4.85eE+11 U4E+08 124 . 0.08 8812 4.85eE+11 8.44E+08 83 SUMMER HIGH FLOW MODEL . a-MAX SUMMER 1880 DISCHARG CUBIC TOTAL Fe DAILY Fe BEACH CONC CMS METRESIOAY Fe/100ML 0.25 211100 3.897E+12 2.844E+11 1317 0.5 43200 3.887E+12 2.844E+11 e58 1 88400 3.897E+12 2.844E+11 328 . WIl.5~' APPENDIX 3 Centreville Creek CURB model 1012, Q~ CENTREVILLE CREEK BACTERIAL TRANSPORT MODEL BACTERIAL LOAD FROM INDIVIDUAL FARM SOURCES ACCESS BT/$ TP/S FARM' ACCESS L ACCESS HI COST REDUCTIO TP REDUCTIO ANNUAL F AFC BEAC 1 o 8.230E+l0 880 e.18E+07 US 1.88E-03 7.781E+11 8.713E+11 3 7.1SE+08 153787S14 1700 e.OSE+04 0.08 3.35E-oS 1.85E+oe 1.24E+oe 4 7.2eE+oe 2.S1 E+09 880 3.70E+Oe 0.701 1.03E-03 8.20eE+10 2.e11E+l0 S S.035E+l0 1.732E+10 7850 2.04E+08 4.01 4.72E-02 7.S74E+l1 3.228E+ll 8 1.1eE+09 399410el0 200 2.00E+Oe 0.288 1.35E-03 1 .888E+ 10 7.10E+oe 7 2.582E+ 11 S.e37E+10 1700 3.49E+07 0.08 3.35E-oS 1.083E+12 7.534E+l1 e 8.22E+oe 2.8eE+oe eooo e.52E+OS 0.12S18 4.32E-oS e.137E+10 2.748E+10 TOTAL 3.23aE+11 1.44eE+ 11 18el0 7.7aE+oe 8.3724 3.42E-04 1.80eE+12 BARNYARD AND STACKS BT/S TP/S FARM' BARN LO BARN HI COST REDUCTIO TP REDUCTIO ANNUAL F AFC BEAC 1 U1SE+12 13800 1.38E+08 e.1 8.55E-04 1.S70E+13 1.355E+13 2 S.OaoE+l1 85880 S.a:JE+08 S.S 8.41E-oS 7.08eE+12 8.074E+12 2 8.31E+oe 30858 2.08E+OS 1.00 3.28E-oS 8.4S2E+l0 S S29E+l0 3 e.428E+10 58352 1.58E+Oe 2.30 3.88E-oS l.S1SE+12 1143E+12 3 2.02eE+10 0 1.a:JE+Oe 1.00' 5.5eE-oS S.44eE+l0 4.108E+l0 4 e.181E+12 13800 4.45E+08 3.5 2.52E-04 25&4E+13 1.078E+13 S 1.023E+12 185888 e.18E+Oe 1.4 a.43E-oe 3.038E+13 t.2aSE+13 S l.735E+l1 0 7.21E+08 8 S.8eE-oS 3.819E+12 l.e28E+12 8 1.aoeE+12 eooo 3. 18E+08 8.7 1.12E-03 4.a3$IE+13 2.105E+13 7 7.S1SE+10 5081S 1.48E+Oe 2.30 4.53E-oS l.1SOE+12 8002E+l1 8 1.201 E+12 85000 1.41E+07 73.50 8.85E-04 4.872E+13 1 342E+13 TOTAL 1.311E+13 511473 2.56E+07 114.3 2.23E-04 8.149E+13 MILKHOUSE BT/$ TP/$ FARM' MILK LO MILK HI COST REDUCTIO TP REDUCTIO ANNUAL F AFC BEAC 2 5000 O.OOE+OO 13.74 2.7SE-03 CENTREVILlE CREEK BACTERIAL TRANSPORT MODEL CENTREVILLE CREEK - MANURE SPREADING BACTERIA RUNOFF MODEL SEASON YOM KG FCJI(G ~OF FARMS ~ OVER- AMOUNT DELIVERY STORAGE T +G 83 FIELD T+G 83 TOTAl TOTAl MANURE WINTER SPREAD OVERSP RATIO SURVIVAl 10+15 SURVIVAl 10+15 SURVIVAL MANURE SPREAD SPREAD DAYS RATE DAYS RATE RATE RUNOFF SPRING 5028034.14 3.000E+10 0.45 1 0.05 0.25 0.01 25 0.01 7 2.75E-41 3.70E-43 3.14E+10 SPRING SUMMER 5028034.14 3.000E+10 0.2 1 0.05 0.25 0.01 25 0.01 7 2.75E-41 3.70E-03 1.38E+10 SUMMER FAll 5021034.14 3.000E+10 0.3 1 0.05 0.25 0.01 25 0.01 7 2.75E-41 3.70E-43 2.08E+10 FAlL WINTER 5028034.14 3.000E+10 0.05 0.57 1 1 0.01 25 0.01 7 2.75E-41 3.70E-43 1.!58E+11 WINTER NOTES: MANURE CALCULATION: 1.15x1.31x24xEAUxDAYS EAU. FROM MOEIKEMPENFEL . 5028034.1 381 SURVIVAL RATES FROM THELIN AND GIFFORD 1883 . ~ ~ , gl (,I ---- " .. ~ .,,---- l$ · 5(, LI- CENTREVlLLE CREEK BACTERIAL TRANSPORT MODEL WILDLIFE BACTERIAL LOAD SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER TOTAL WILDLIFE INPUT 10~ 1.110E+12 1.110E+12 1.0eoE+12 1.080E+12 4.3SIOE+12 WILDLIFE ALL AREAS 1.110E+13 1.110E+13 1.0eoE+13 1.080E+13 4.3SIOE+13 SEPTIC SYSTEM FAILURE (3%) BACTERIAL LOAD Fe LOAD. I HOUSES x PEOPLElHOUSE x IIPERSON x Fen x ~ FAUL TV x IDA YS 155 3 137 1.00E+07 0.03 365 . 8.ll7570E+12 SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER TOTAL SEPTIC SYSTEM 3~ 1.744E+12 1.744E+12 1.744E+12 1.744E+12 8.978E+12 DO RATE 0.0211188888 TRANSPORT MODEL TRAVEL SUMMER TIME SEPTIC WILDLIFE GEESE SPREADING IN HOURS Fe 1.744E+12 1.110E+12 8.270E+12 1.3ll4E+10 FeBEACH L 18 5.Oll5E+11 8.780E+11 3.538E+11 FeBEACH H 11.0 1.378E+11 1.473E+11 5.1173E+10 7.82E+Oll CURB COST 50000 BTJDOLLAR 1.211E+07 TP TPJDOLLAR ANNUAL Fe e.ll7eE+12 4.3SIOE+12 2.251E+11 AFC BEACH 3.111 E+12 2.3liIllE+12 1.230E+ 11 MC BT/S 78228546. W~ .~"5 CENTREVILLE CREEK BACTERIAL TRANSPORT MODEL TOTAL SUMMER LOW FLOW SOURCES % LIVESTOCK ACCESS 3.238E+11 21.4 % SEPTIC FAILURES 3% 5.085E+11 33.7 % WILDLIFE 8.780E+11 44.e % TOTAL 1.511 E+12 TOTAL SUMMER HIGH FLOW SOURCES % LIVESTOCK ACCESS 1.448E+11 1.1 % SPREADING + PASTURE 7.82E+Oe 0.1 % YAROS & STACKS 1.311E+13 118.8 % WILDLIFE 1.473E+11 1.1 % SEPTIC FAILURES 3% 1.378E+11 1.0 % TOTAL 1.355E+13 TOTAL SUMMER SOURCES % LIVESTOCK ACCESS 4.688E+11 3.1 % SPREADING + PASTURE 7.82E~e 0.05 % YAROS & STACKS 1.311 E+13 87.1 % WILDLIFE 8.254E+11 5.5 % SEPTIC FAILURES 3% 8.471 E+11 4.3 % TOTAL 1.508E+13 TOTAL ANNUAL SOURCES % LIVESTOCK ACCESS 1.8OeE+12 2.0 % SPREADING + PASTURE 1.230E+ 11 0.1 % Y ARCS & STACKS '.14eE+13 eo.e % WILDLIFE 2.38eE+12 2.7 % SEPTIC FAILURES 3% 3.811E+12 4.3 % TOTAL 8.ee3E+13 SUMMER LOW FLOW MODEL Q.AVG AUG 1988 DISCHARGE CUBIC TOTALFe DAILY Fe BEACH CONC CMS METRESJDAY FC/1ooML 0.08 5184 1.511E+12 1.ll83E+10 37e 0.12 10388 1.511E+12 1.ll83E+10 18e . 0.18 15552 1.511E+12 1.ll83E+l0 128 SUMMER HIGH FLOW MODEL Q.MAX SUMMER 1988 DISCHARGE CUBIC TOTAL FC DAILY FC BEACH CONC CMS METRESlDAY FC/l00ML 0.25 21800 1.355E+13 1.042E+12 4824 0.5 43200 1.3ssE+13 1.042E+12 2412 . 0.75 84800 1.355E+13 1.042E+12 1608 W fl., Seo (0 APPENDIX 4 East Humber River CURB model wa.5,,7 EAST HUMBER RIVER BACTERIAL TRANSPORT MODEL BACTERIAL LOAD FROM INDIVIDUAL FARM SOURCES ACCESS BT/S TP/S FARM' ACCESS LO ACCESS HI COST REDUCTION TP REDUCTION ANNUAL Fe AFC BEACH 2 3.57E+08 2.12E+10 12800 1.84E+Oe 10.20 7.lUE-04 7.lMlE+12 2.42E+ 11 3 1.52E+Oe 8.01 E+Oe 4215 2. 12E+04 0.08 1.34E~ 3.78E+08 1.07E+08 4 8.28E+Oe 3.04E+07 8l5OO 3.2OE+03 0.3885 4.08E-05 8.41E+08 3.50E+08 5 2.87E+08 1.54E+08 2700 5.71E+05 0.827 2.32E~4 3.28E+11 1.07E+10 8 4.38E~ 2.nE+08 8125 4.52E+05 1.421 2.32E~ 1.05E+12 2.62E+10 7 8.2OE+07 8.74E~ 52150 1.28E+05 0.88 1.eaE~ 8.00E+11 8.32E+08 I O.OOE+OO 2.82E+08 2700 1.05E+Oe 0.84 2.38E~4 1.71 E+11 3.90E+10 8 1.35E+OI 1.48E+08 8l5OO 1.54E+015 1.48 1.53E-04 1.08E+12 UI8E+l0 11 1.31E+10 8.IleE+08 12800 7.48E+015 0.80 4.82E~15 4.43E+11 1.01E+11 14 4.81 E+08 7.14E+08 1 7.14E+08 1.12 1.12E+OO 7.56E+11 8.24E+l0 15 1.87E+11 1.04E+11 2808 4.00E+07 4.58 1.78E-03 3.42E+12 1.02E+12 18 1.84E+11 8.81E+10 8100 1.58E+07 10.18 1.87E-03 8.88E+12 2.20E+12 17 8.S8E+10 4.74E+10 1n50 2.87E+08 7.08 3.89E-04 2.10E+12 8.70E+11 18 1.80E+11 8.34E+10 4400 1.90E+07 8.13 1.39E-03 1.09E+12 3.98E+ll 18 1.80E+11 5.30E+10 8500 5.57E+Oe 1.71 1.80E-04 1.18E+12 5.55E+ 11 20 8. 13E+Oe 2.80E+07 3550 7.33E+03 0.24 8.85E-05 5.88E+08 2.50E+08 21 2.81 E~ 1.03E+08 170 8.08E+Oe 0.85 4.II8E-03 4.78E+11 2.03E+10 22 1.33E+11 4.88E+10 170 2.78E~ 0.83 3.88E-03 1.13E+12 5.40E+11 23 5.II8E+10 5.07E+10 3380 1.50E+07 7.32 2.17E-03 5.28E+12 1.05E+12 24 3.03E+07 1.10E+08 52150 2.10E+05 8.56 1.25E-03 5.28E+12 2.29E+ 1 0 TOTAl 1.04E+12 5.31 E+11 114878 4.82E+Oe 82.8828 5.48E-04 7.01E+12 BARNYARD AND STACKS BTIS TP/S FARM , BARN LO BARN HI COST REDUCTION TP REDUCTION ANNUAL Fe AFC BEACH 1 3.14E~ 0 1.83E+05 2 4.85E-05 3.48E+11 8.28E+08 1 2.05E+10 1278n 1.81E+05 4.2 3.28E-05 1.58E+13 4.24E+l1 2 8.84E+10 113885 7.80E+05 48 4.22E~ 3.56E+13 1.08E+12 3 8.37E+10 47501 1.34E+Oe 2.30 4.84E-05 2.eeE+13 7.57E+11 15 1.12E+11 24085 4.IleE+Oe 83.8 3.88E~3 4.17E+13 1.38E+12 '8 15.nE+10 122272 4.72E+05 12.2 8.88E-05 2.56E+13 1.37E+l1 10 2.78E+10 1271n 2.18E+05 0.1 4.88E-48 1.58E+12 2.28E+11 12 3.151 E+08 4238 8.28E+015 3 7.08E~ 1.48E+12 3.88E+10 13 8.78E+11 13342 5.08E+07 8 8.75E-04 3.05E+13 8.51E+12 14 2.73E+11 88437 3.88E+Oe 24.90 3.64E-04 3.20E+13 3.48E+12 14 2.70E~ 0 3.II8E+Oe 0.00 3.64E-04 1.17E+10 1.28E+09 14 1.21E+07 0 3.II8E+Oe 3.00 4.08E-04 3.84E+10 4.19E+09 15 1.33E+12 52485 2.53E+07 15.90 3.03E-04 4.90E+13 1.46E+13 15 7.40E~ 0 2.53E+07 0.00 3.03E-04 1.17E+10 3.49E+09 18 8.03E+11 10a0G2 5.54E+Oe 12.40 1.14E-04 2.70E+12 8.81 E+11 18 8.21 E+11 113782 5.48E+Oe 13.00 1.14E-04 3.04E+13 1.11E+13 18 8.32E+10 92810 1.00E+Oe 17.70 U1E~ 2.31E+12 1.10E+12 20 1.12E+08 81455 1.37E+04 0.70 8.59E-oe 1.85E+12 7.88E+10 21 15.32E+08 5308 1.00E+Oe 0.40 7.54E-05 1.10E+12 4.68E+10 22 3.08E+10 31157 8.81E+05 83.80 3.01 E-03 1.88E+12 8.98E+11 23 3.25E+12 90227 3.80E+07 7.00 7.76E-05 3.28E+13 8.49E+12 24 1.81 E+10 81515 1.78E+05 8.56 7. 17E-05 4.33E+13 1.88E+l1 25 7.84E+11 88418 8.55E+Oe 50.00 5.S8E-04 4.33E+13 O.OOE+OO TOTAL 8.03E+12 1406554 5.71E+Oe 420 2.89E-04 5.20E+13 EAST HUMBER RIVER BACTERIAL TRANSPORT MODEL Wfl.. 5(,8 MllKHOUSE BTIS TPIS FARM , MILK LO MILK HI COST REDUCTION TP REDUCTION ANNUAL Fe Me BEACH 2 lU5E+Oe 5.85E+07 6000 1.17~+04 33.00 e.80E~ 5.32E+10 U2E+Oe 24 1.118E+05 3.84E+07 5000 7.27E+03 23.00 4.eoE~ 3.35E+10 1.45E+08 1. O.ooE+OO 3.85E~1 5000 7.30E~5 12.00 2.40E~3 1.ooE+OO 3.86E-01 TOTAL 1.ooE+07 e.48E+07 16000 8.32E+03 ea 4.53E~ 1.78E+Oe E ~ EAST HUMBER RIVER - MANURE SPREADING BACTERIA RUNOFF MODEL , d\ SEASON VOM KG FCIKG ""OF CMl OF CMl OVER- AMOUNT DELIVERY STORAGE T +G 83 FIELD T+G 83 TOTAL TOTAL J MANURE FARMS SPREAD OVERSP RATIO SURVIVAL 10+15 SURVIVAL 10+15 SURVIVAL MANURE SPREAD SPREADING DAYS RATE DAYS RATE RATE RUNOFF SPRING 38580820 3.00E+10 0.46 1 0.05 0.25 0.01 25 0.01 7 2.75E~1 3.70E~3 2.47E+11 SPRING SUMMER 38580820 3.00E+10 0.2 1 0.05 0.25 0.01 25 0.01 7 2.75E~1 3.70E~3 1.10E+11 SUMMER FALL 38580820 3.00E+10 0.3 1 0.05 0.25 0.01 25 0.01 7 2.75E~1 3.70E~3 1.e5E+11 FALL WINTER 38580820 3.00E+10 0.05 0.57 1 1 0.01 25 0.01 7 2.75E.:o1 3.70E~3 1.25E+12 WINTER NOTES: MANURE CAlCULATIO : 1.15x1.31x24xEAUxDAYS EAU-3000 IN EHR (FROM MOE/KEMPENFEl T) DAYs-3e5 THELIN AND GIFFORD 1ea3 ~ -..,..---,.- - EAST HUMBER RIVER BACTERIAL TRANSPORT MODEL UlR · S-r 0 BACTERIA LOAD FROM SEPTIC SYSTEM FAILURES SEPTIC SYSTacS BT/S TOWN SEPTIC LO SEPTIC HI COST REDUCTIO , FAULTY ANNUAL F AFC BEAC KING CITY 1.oaE+08 2.326E+10 540000 4.51 E+04 54 8.110E+13 8.442E+11 OAK RIDGE 4.55E+08 1.55E+10 0 O.OOE+OO o 8.841E+13 4.288E+11 NOBLETO 1.78E+10 8.87E+10 300000 2.81 E+05 30 4.538E+13 1.831 E+12 EHRW 7.S5E+10 1.45E+11 300000 7.38E+05 30 4.500E+13 4.011E+12 TOTAL 8.56E+10 2.53E+11 1140000 3.06E+05 84 2.58E+14 7.02E+12 BACTERIA LOAD FROM STORMWATER RUNOFF STORMW A TER TOWN STORM HI ANNUAL F AFC BEACH KING CITY 2.863E+10 1.442E+13 1.145E+11 OAK RIDGES 1.56E+10 1.259E+13 8.248E+10 NOBLETON 1l.64E+10 1l.052E+12 3.854E+11 TOTAL 1.41E+11 3.61E+13 5.62E+11 wtl. · S7 , EAST HUMBER RIVER BACTERIAL TRANSPORT MODEL BACTERIAL LOAD CALCULATIONS FOR SEPTIC SYSTEM FAILURES AND STORMWATER RUNOFF KING CITY SEPTIC SYSTBA FAILURE (3%) Fe LOAD ., HOUSES. PEOPLElHOUSE. IIPERSON. Fen. % FAUL TV. #DAYS 1802 3 137 1.00E+07 0.03 386 . 8.110E+13 FeIYR . FROM HAYMAN, 1888 STORM WATER RUNOFF TOWN AREA Fe LOAD . HECTARES. FeIHAlYR . . FROM MARSELAK, lass 465 3.100E+l0 . 1.442E+13 FCIYR OAK RIDGES SEPTIC SYSTBA FAILURE (3%) Fe LOAD.' HOUSES. PEOPLElHOUSE. IIPERSON. Fcn x % FAULTY x 'DAYS le20 3 137 1.00E+07 0.03 365 . 8.M1E+13 FeIYR . FROM HAYMAN, 1888 STORM WATER RUNOFF' TOWN AREA Fe LOAD . HECTARES x FClHAlYR . . FROM MARSELAK, 11185 408 3.100E+10 . 1.25eE+13 FeIYR NOBLETON SEPTIC SYSTEU FAILURE (3%) Fe LOAD.' HOUSES x PEOPLElHOUSEx IIPERSONx Fen x % FAULTY x'DAYS 1008 3 137 1.00E+07 0.03 365 . 4.53eE+13 FeIYR . FROM HAYMAN, leae STORM WATER RUNOFF TOWN AREA Fe LOAD . HECTARES x FC/HAlYR . . FROM MARSELAK, 1985 292' 3.100E+l0 . e.052E+12 FeIYR WQ .S71- EAST HUMBER RIVER BAC'TERIAL TRANSPORT MODEL EAST HUMBER RIVER WATERSHED SEPTIC SYSTEM FAILURE (3CM1) FC LOAD. , HOUSES x PEOPLElHOUSE x IlPERSON x FCn x CMI FAULTY x IDA YS 1000 3 137 1.00E+07 0.03 385 . 4.500E+13 FCIYR . FROM HAYMAN. 1888 -~ -- ~- -.... --.oF ..- .... W~ .57!> EAST HUMBER RIVER BACTERIAL TRANSPORT MODEL BACTERIAL TRANSPORT MODEL FOR SEPTIC SYSTEM FAILURES AND STORMWATER RUNOFF KING CITY SUM Fe TIME SEPTIC STORMWATER HOURS FC 2.388E+13 2.0275E+13 3.8038E+12 51320 KING CITY KING CITY FeBEACH L 144.0 1.OQE+08 FCBEACH 5.189E+10 72.0 2.328E+10 2.883E+10 CURB COS 540000 540000 BTIDOLLAR 4.31E+04 54 SYSTEMS 10000 COSTI ANNUAL F Q.551E+13 8.1098E+13 1.4415E+13 AFC BEAC 7.587E+11 e.4419E+11 1.1450E+ll OAK RIDGES SUM FC TIME SEPTIC STORMWATER HOURS Fe 2.475E+13 2.1802E+13 3.1485E+12 57000 OAK RIDGE OAK RIDGES FCBEACH L 158.0 4.55E+08 FCBEACH 3.111E+10 7Q.0 1.548E+10 1.582E+10 CURB COS 0 0 BTIDOLLA O.ooE+OO O.OOE+OO o SYSTEMS 10000 COSTI ANNUAL F Q.888E+13 8.840QE+13 1.2588E+13 AFC BEAC 4.Q14E+11 4.2884E+11 e.248E+10 NOBLETON SUM FC TIME SEPTIC STORMWATER HOURS FC 1.380E+13 1.1341E+13 2.2830E+12 METRES 34000 NOBLETON NOBLETON FCBEACH L 84.0 1.759E+10 FCBEACH 1.881E+11 47.0 8.Q75E+10 Q.835E+10 CURB COS 300000 300000 BTIDOLLA 5.54E+05 2.32E+05 '30 SYSTEMS 10000 COSTI ANNUAL F 5.442E+13 4.5385E+13 Q.0520E+12 AFC BEAC 2.317E+12 l.9315E+12 3.8540E+11 EAST HUMBER RIVER BACTERiAl TRANSPORT MODEL L<>(l.S71f EAST HUMBER RIVER WATERSHED SUM Fe TIME SEPTIC HOURS Fe 1.125E+13 EHRW FeBEACH L 72.0 7.848E+10 FeBEACH H 38.0 1.448E+11 CURB COST 300000 BT/DOLLAR 4.83E+05 SYSTEMS 30 COSTI 10000 ANNUAl Fe 4.500E+13 AFC BEACH 4.011E+12 ~ ~---~~-- -~. lNe.676 EAST HUMBER RIVER BACTERIAL TRANSPORT MODEL WilDLIFE BACTERIAL lOAD SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER ANNUAL WILDLIFE INPUT 10% 2.540E+12 2.S40E+12 2.520E+12 2.490E+12 1.OOSlE+13 WILDLIFE ALL ARF.AS 2.540E+13 2.S40E+13 2.520E+13 2.490E+13 1.009E+14 TRANSPORT MODEL STORM SUMMER TIME WATER SEPTIC WILDLIFE SPREADING HOURS Fe 2.S40E+12 1.100E+11 FeBEACH 72 9.580E+10 1.728E+10 FeBEACH 38 1.408E+11 2.533E+11 3.270E+10 9.80E+08 CURB COST 1140000 BTIDOLtAR 3.0eE+C5 ANNUAL Fe 3.605E+13 2.579E+14 1.009E+13 1.n2E+12 AFe BEACH 5.624E+11 7.018E+12 8.993E+l1 1.579E+ 11 AFC BT/S 8.15E+C8 EAST HUMBER RIVER BACTERIAL TRANSPORT MODEL WIl.,51~ TOTAL SUMMER LOW FLOW SOURCES % SOURCE LIVESTOCK ACCESS 1.043E+12 80.2 % MILKHOUSE WASHWATER 1.ooE+07 0.00 SEPTIC FAILURES 3% 8.5eOE+10 8.3 % WILDLIFE 1.728E+10 1.5 % TOTAL 1.15eE+12 TOTAL SUMMER HIGH FLOW SOURCES % SOURCE LIVESTOCK ACCESS 5.311 E+11 5.8 % MILKHOUSE WASHWATER 8.37E+07 0.00 SPREADING + PASTURE UOE+08 0.1 % YARDS AND STACKS '.034E+12 88.3 % SEPTIC FAILURES 3% 2.533E+ll 2.8 % STORMSEWER RUNOFF 1.408E+11 1.8 % WILDLIFE 3.270E+ 10 0.4 % TOTAL 8.oo2E+12 TOTAL SUMMER SOURCES % SOURCE LIVESTOCK ACCESS 1.574E+12 15.5 % MILKHOUSE WASHWATER 7.37E+07 0.00 SPREADING + PASTURE 8.80E+08 0.1 % Y ARCS AND STACKS 8.034E+12 n.1 % SEPTIC FAILURES 3% 3.488E+11 3.4 ~ STORMSEWERRUNOFF 1.408E+11 1.4 % WILDLIFE 4.elJ8E+10 0.5 % TOTAL 1.018E+13 TOTAL ANNUAL SOURCES % SOURCE LIVESTOCK ACCESS 7.008E+12 10.4 ~ MILKHOUSE WASHWATER 1.78E+08 0.00 SPREADING + PASTURE 1.mE+11 0.2 ~ YARDS AND STACKS 5. 1 lMlE+13 78.8 ~ SEPTIC FAILURES 3~ 7.018E+12 10.4 ~ STORMSEWERRUNOFF 5.1124E+11 0.' ~ WILDLIFE U83E+l1 1.3 ~ TOTAL 8.781E+13 SUMMER LOW FLOW MODEL . Q.AVG AUG lau DISCHARGE CUBIC TOTAL Fe DAILY Fe BEACH CONC CMS METRESlDAY FC/looML 0.1 8840 1.15eE+12 1.501E+l0 174 0.212 18318.8 1.15eE+12 1.501E+10 82 . 0.3 25820 1.15eE+12 1.501E+l0 51 SUMMER HIGH FLOW MODEL . Q=MAX SUMMER 1111 DISCHARGE CUBIC TOTAL Fe DAILY Fe BEACH CONe CMS METRESlDAY Fe/looML 0.3 25820 8.oo2E+12 8.924E+11 2871 0.858 74131.2 8.oo2E+12 8.824E+l1 834 . 1 86400 8.oo2E+12 8.824E+l1 801 ~. S77 APPENDIX 5 Wildlife Bacterial Estimates wa.~ WILDLIFE BACTERIAL POLLUTION SOURCES The following model calculations are discussed in the 1990 Rural Beaches Project annual report. Fecal coliform loading rates for beaver and muskrat, were calculated with the following formula: FECAL COLIFORM LOAD = (FECAL COLIFORM CONCENTRATION/G OF FECES) X (FECAL OUTPUT IN G/DAY/ANIMAL) X (# OF ANIMALS) X (# OF DAYS) WHERE; NUMBER OF ANIMALS: length of watercourse In habitat area x density estimate 72 and 23 geese were observed at Albion Hills and Bruce's Mill Conservation Areas respectively, in June 1990. NUMBER OF DAYS: 92 days (PLOP model, Ecologistics, 1988) Estimated number of animals: 0.64 beavers per kilometre of watercourse (Semyonoff, 1951). Estimated watercourse length for beaver habitat Number of animals Centreville Creek - 22 km 14 East Humber River - 44 km 28 Bruce Creek - 3 km 2 11 muskrat per kilometre of watercourse (Brooks & Dodge. 1986) Estimated watercourse length for muskrat habitat Number of animals Centreville Creek - 22 km 242 East Humber River - 53 km 583 Bruce Creek - 14 km 154 FECAL OUTPUT: 657g per beaver per day (Ingle-Sidorowicz, 1982; Boutin & Birkenholtz, 1987). 100g per muskrat per day. Based on information available for other herbivores of similar size. 100g per goose per day (Pitt. pg 20., 1980). BACTERIAL CONCENTRATION: 3.6 x 108 fecal coliforms per gram of fecal material for beaver and muskrat (Young et.al., 1988). 7.8 x 108 fecal coliforms per gram of fecal material for geese (Young et.al., 1988). An estimated 10% of all fecal coliform bacteria produced was released into the watercourse (M. Young, MaE, pers. comm.). For geese, the application factor was 5%. REFERENCES tA~. 51Cf Boutin, S. and D. Birkenholtz, 1987. Muskrat and Round-tailed Muskrat. In M.Novak, J.A. Baker, M.E. Obbard and B. Malloch, eds. Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America. Ontario Trappers Association, North Bay, Ontario. Brooks, R.P. and W.E. Dodge, 1986. Estimation of habitat quality and summer population density for muskrats on a watershed basis. J. Wild!. Manage., 50(2):269- 273. Ecologistics Umited, 1988. PLOP - A Planning Tool to Evaluate the Pollution Potential of Uvestock Operations in Southern Ontario. Waterloo, Ontario. Hayman, D.G., 1989. A Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Plan for Fanshawe, Pittock and Wildwood Reservoirs. in the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority. London, Ontario. Hubbard, R., P. Mar, H. Power, and T. Ryan, 1988. Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Rural Beaches Impact Study 1987-88. Downsview, Ontario. lngle-Sidorowicz, H.M., 1982. Beaver increase in Ontario: Result of changing environment. Mammalia, 46(2):167-175. Marsalek, J., V. Panu, and H.Y.F. Ng. 1985. Storm Runoff Study of the Newton Urban Catchment. Urban Hydrology Study of the Waterford River Basin, Technical Report No. VHS WRB 1.5. Environment Canada. Pitt, Robert, 1982. Urban bacteria sources and control by street cleaning in the Lower Rideau River watershed, Ottawa, Ontario. Toombs, M. 1990. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Personal communication. Newmarket, Ontario. Young, M. 1990. Ministry of the Environment. Personal Communication. Rexdale, Ontario. Young, M., E. Harris and P. Seyfried, 1988. Pathogen/indicator bacterial relationships and their relevance to recreational waters introduction. Ministry of the Environment Report awaiting publication. ~.5~ Clean Up Rural Beaches Implementation Program to improve water quality in the Centreville Creek, and the Bruce Creek (Rouge River) watersheds. An unsolicited proposal to the Minister of the Environment by The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority January 1991 ~. 5Ci' TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 BACKGROUND 1 The MTRCA Rural Beaches Project 1 The Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Plan 1 THE CURB IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM 2 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 2 PROGRAM SCOPE 3 PROGRAM COMPONENTS 3 ANTICIPATED RESULTS 4 PROGRAM SCHEDULE 5 REPORTING 5 PROGRAM BUDGET 6 FIGURES Figure 1 7 Figure 2 8 Figure 3 9 Figure 4 10 I . . -............-- ,- -,- ,-,. . ()J~. 582-. INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND Beach closures along the Great Lakes in the early 1980's drew public and government attention to this water quality problem. While significant contamination causing urban beach closures have received the most attention, swimming beaches in rural areas have also experienced closures from pollution. As a result, in 1985 the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MaE) established the Provincial Rural Beaches Strategy in cooperation with local Conservation Authorities. The objectives were to locate bacterial pollution sources, assess their impact on water quality, provide technical and financial assistance to perform remedial measures, and monitor surface water quality, before and after remediation. The MTRCA Rural Beaches Proiect In September 1986, the MTRCA Rural Beaches Project was initiated. The primary goals of the Project were to: 1. Locate and identify bacterial pollution sources causing water quality impairment and swimming beach closures at the Albion Hills (Centreville Creek) Bruce's Mill (Bruce Creek) and Boyd (East Humber River) conservation areas. 2. Priorize bacterial pollution sources by their relative impact to water quality. 3. Promote public awareness of rural water pollution sources. 4. Promote improved manure management practices and the adoption of remedial measures to improve rural water quality and reduce beach closures. Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Plan Based on the findings of the Rural Beaches Project, a Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) Plan was developed to identify the relative impact of bacterial pollution sources on conservation area swimming beaches. It also estimates the total cost to remediate all identified sources of bacterial pollution. The plan concluded the following sources to be significant contributors of bacterial pollution: 1 -r..........__...____ ~- ~(J. · ~~ 1. Contaminated runoff from inadequate livestock manure storages and barnyards. 2. Uncontrolled livestock access to watercourses. 3. Failed rural septic systems, and potential illegal connections to storm sewers in the communities of Caledon East, Nobleton, King City and Oak Ridges. 4. Bacteria originating from wildlife living in, or near, watercourses. - THE CURB IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM The Program will implement remedial n:teasures to reduce pollution inputs into surface water. It will attempt to address the problem of inadequate financial assistance, and other factors that have obstructed remedial measures implementation during the Rural Beaches Project. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 1. Provide sufficient financial assistance to farm operators and rural residents for .i.f. the adoption of remedial measures. 2. Implement remedial measures to reduce bacterial and nutrient pollution from all high priority sources. 3. Improve water quality at the Albion Hills and Bruce's Mill conservation area swimming beaches. 4. Improve riparian buffers to control erosion, reduce and filter overland runoff, and moderate stream temperatures. 5. Further investigate the effects of private sewage systems on local surface water quality. 6. Maintain a water quality database to evaluate the effectiveness of remedial measures. 7. Maintain public education and information extension in the rural community. 2 wit. ~~IJ-- PROGRAM SCOPE The implementation program will be targeted at the watersheds of Centreville Creek, and Bruce Creek that terminate at conservation area swimming beaches. These watercourses are the headwater tributaries of the Humber River and Rouge River. Both watersheds are relatively small, and may reveal distinct water quality changes after remedial measures. PROGRAM COMPONENTS 1. Provide Financial Assistance Provide financial assistance for up to 90% of the capital cost of all remedial projects. Where possible, funding would be directed to supplement existing financial incentive programs. 2. Implement Remedial Measures Encourage landowners to enter into agreements to implement remedial measures and adopt best management practices that reduce pollution loads into local watercourses. Develop site specific management plans in cooperation with landowners, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF), and MOE to address specific pollutant input sources. The remedial measures include: Livestock Access Restriction (11 sites, $34,000) Fence livestock out of watercourses to reduce stream bank erosion, and prevent cattle from defecating directly into surface water. Provide alternate water supplies from the barn, wells, or by pumping water from the watercourse with cattle nose pumps, electric or solar powered pumps. (Figure 1) Improved Manure Management (11 sites, $586,0.00) Construct or modify existing manure holding facilities to improve solid and liquid storage capacity in excess of 250 days. This allows manure application in optimal periods to maximize its nutrient benefits, and prevent serious water quality impairment. (Figure 2) Riparian Plantings (11.3 km, $340,000) Evaluate all riparian zones for adequate vegetative buffers. Plant trees and shrubs to a minimum of 10m from the edge of all watercourses. Improved buffer strips will reduce surface runoff into watercourses, improve stream bank stability, reduce instream temperatures, and improve wildlife habitat. (Figure 3) 3 - ~ ----- wt1 · 5~5 3. Investigate Private Sewage Systems Cooperate with local health offices to determine the water quality impact of suspected faulty septic systems. 4. Monitor Water Quality ($87,000 per year) Maintain a surface water quality monitoring network. Also conduct site specific sampling to evaluate the effectiveness of remedial measures on water quality. 5. Information and Education Provide information and education to increase public awareness of methods and management practices for achieving and maintaining improved water quality. (Figure 4) ANTICIPATED RESULTS Reducing pollutant inputs within the target watersheds would result in a number of benefits: ~ Reduced bacterial concentrations at the swimming beaches of Albion Hills and 1. Bruce's Mill conservation areas, may significantly reduce the number of beach closures, without relying on the chlorine disinfection system. 2. Improved local surface water quality. 3. Enhanced watercourse aesthetics. Limiting phosphorus inputs will prevent eutrophication, and reduce excess algal growth. 4. Improved fisheries habitat within the watershed. 5. Improved biological diversity in the riparian zone. 6. Decreased downstream bacterial and nutrient pollutant loadings. 7. Provide information on the effectiveness of individual remedial measures on water quality. 8. Present a framework for targeting future remedial measures throughout the MTRCA watershed. I ! _J . 4 - _.~ wR. 5~b PROGRAM SCHEDULE A three year program is recommended to implement remedial measures within the target watersheds. The time frame is long enough to allow long range agricultural planning, and should provide sufficient time for completing implementation projects. REPORTING It is anticipated that an annual report would provide an adequate summary of accomplishments. It would include: 1. Results of water quality monitoring. The success of the program may be measured by the impacts to water quality, after the remediation of individual, and collective remedial measures. 2. The number of landowners contacted. 3. The number of applications for financial assistance. 4. The number, loca~ion, and type of remedial projects implemented. 5 ~. 5" PROGRAM BUDGET Capital costs: Bruce Creek Livestock access restriction (4) $16,000 Manure management facilities (2) $74,000 Riparian plantings (S,300m, $30/m) $190,000 ------------- Total $280,000 Centreville Creek Livestock access restriction (7) $19,000 Manure management facilities (9) $512,000 Riparian plantings (5,000m, $30/m) $150,000 ------------- Total $681,000 Annual operating costs: Salaries: j One project manager $40,000 .J One technician. $35,000 Benefits at 15% $11,250 i@ Water Sample Analysis: Chemistry (300 samples at $250 each) $75,000 Microbiology (300 samples at $40 each) $12,000 Miscellaneous Expenses: Vehicle Rental ($SOO/month) $7,200 Gas $2,500 Printing/Typing/Drafting $4,000 Promotional Material $2,000 Supplies and Materials $2,000 ------------- Annual operating cost $190,950 Total three year operating cost $572,850 ---------------- Total Budget Request $1,533,850 , 6 - . .e.. ~~Ji'ki'" .f. . ~~ .",l ." ~ - I ' ./" - . ~ ClEAN i ;' ~--. _ \ .... '."',r _ c,~ if i\ . RECRE~'1"In..'.1 -PATHWAYS \'. TIE. FlJW.tES. .1".... . YIaER.. .'. \ ~. - . I"\IIUIV\L, ~ MANtlE, BEAC ' ~ IAI !TV . I'" _ W\TER I.~ ,POlLUTION ~gt,--~ ~-~==.;: ~:,~I. r ~. .~. .: 'Iff..... ~.- -~~'. .._;......~- ..,. iI'.' :-;;1\- I . 11"'" . ...._~..... .....- '. -- ,~ 1 -" ~ ..... "". - . ~I \' ~:.' . ~ I' ...;.;;;..;...;. _,.1 ~:: ~'.-..- . . II .' , . ~ 't I'" ' " ...... · , ,..... . '" ~ .~' ,-.r At; .. '1 ~', ___., ~T . " - .. .. '!' ' ~... . '!...~ , . ::_ ,. i*..." \, i, . . '" .... f ."..... -. \.,. t ~i ". I . .111 .. . f .' · ::. -... ......~ -,I);", --~."'" ~ . ...... .. . '. L ...... .1'~ .. ~.: < , , .... ~ i .. ..." . ./ . . I ~~ .. " . -c~ . ~')A' --'! ". ... V' .f .' ~ --- '., , !.~,.., -...,~:.j.'r,,- .11"....:..: \ Il .,'.)<. · '" ' . jl "I '" . .: t'., 'j~. ~ . -. ~." '~""'.. . ,; '0' f ~ .,; . 0 .. .. .~. ..... . .' - '- ....... ., .. ,. . \,,; / ,,:. . .." -- -- - .'- ". .. I ...-_.- .,. -, ~...... ~~ - ' ~ ---.-' -- " . --- .. -- ." . -' _.- ' ." -. ... ~ .; .,. >. o , ' ~ , 0' - - - . - . - ( -'~' -,....;._........ .. f' t " .," ~ ",.' ."~ ..... .... """ ...... . ':--'- ~ ji . ; , ,~. - '. , .... ....... ,. " .- ~ .... .. ... -",.. ~ , ,,~.' ,_ J . .r . "" '.' " .- .. .' ., ." . . . . . ". Joo." >- , .' . . ..' ' "- .,.H '.'" , ,-' - " ... ... .,. -, .~' , " . " . . l!l." , -.;.~ .' .' < '~~ i "- _ _, l'iif .. ,.... .." \><. ,:. ..(,. . , " ",' . ."' . . I' ,,':' t!,"'.. . ." ' ,-;' . " ' ..; ... . ' . "." . ' , ' c' ' · . - " ' , .-' . . . . ' . Figure 2: Manure storage sized to contain all solids and liquids. Contaminated runoff no longer enters the watercourse. - - - - - - . - ""I I . ..: . ~j: . ~-...." ".,: . .. . ~~.- ..... ....,..-.~ '" Figure 3: Creating riparian buffers planted with trees and shrubs, stabilizes stream banks, moderates water temperatures, and promotes runoff infiltration. W~.6~2 THE ROUGE RIVER AND WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT A JOINT PROJECT OF TREES FOR TODAY AND TOMORROW AND THE METROPOLIT AN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Phase I: April 1991 - March 1994 THE ROUGE RIVER AND w~5q3 WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT T A B L E 0 F C 0 N T E N T S ; PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARy............................................................................... 1 TREES FOR TODA Y AND TOMORROW ....................................................1 WHY RESTORE THE ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED? ...........................2/3 THE ROUGE RIVER AND WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT LOCATION OF THE PROJECT ................................................................ 3 PROJECT OU11..JNE........................................................................................ 4 PROJECT COMPONENTS: 1/ STREAM BANK ST ABll...IZA TION .....................................................4 2/ REVEGETATION ......... ............ ............ .................................... ........ ..... 5 3/ FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE HABITAT IMPROVEMENT ............... 5 4/ PUBLICITY AND COMMUNICATIONS ............................................6 5/ PROJECT MAINTENANCE ................................................. ........ ......... 6 6/ PROJECT MONITORING AND EV ALUA TION ......................'..........6 - ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS ..................................................................... 7 REQUIRED MATERIALS, LABOUR AND EQUIPMENT ........................... 8 BUDGET OUTLINE ..... ................................................ .............................. .....9 APPENDIX 1: MAP OF THE ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED AND PROJECT AREA ......... ............. ............ .......................... ........ ............... 10 APPENDIX 2: INDIVIDUAL WORK PROJECT SITES AND MAP ......................................................................................11/12 APPENDIX 3: ASSOCIATE PARTNERS IN 1HE ROUGE RIVER AND W A TERSHEDRESTORA TION PROJECT ............................13 ROUGE RIVER AND WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT c/o TREES FOR TODAY AND TOMORROW 44 Eglinton Avenue West, Suite 206 Toronto, Ontario M4R lA1 , Tel.: (416) 485-1901 Fax: (416) 485-2013 WR · SCi4- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Southern Ontario region has undergone widespread and rapid urban expansion which has had detrimental impacts on many aspects of the natural environment. Neglect of river corridor lands has created cases of widespread soil erosion, river sedimentation, water pollution, deforestation and fish and wildlife habitat degradation. Trees for Today and Tomorrow (T.T.T.) has been actively involved in developing reforestation and restoration projects along three of the four main watersheds in the Metropolitan Toronto Region: the Credit River Valley, the Humber River Valley and the Don River Valley. Our most recent initiative concerns the last large watershed, the Rouge River system. T.T.T., a program of the Institute of Marine and Terrestrial Ecology, a registered charitable organization (# 0573576-21-13), is working in cooperation wi th the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA) to provide practical solutions to many environ~ental problems associated with these important ecosystems. T. T. T. plans to be gin the first phase of the Rouge River and Watershed Restoration Project in April 1991. The first phase will last three years at a total cost of $500,000. The project will involve four major components: 1) stream and fisheries habitat improvement 2) wildlife habitat improvement and protection 3) revegetation; and 4) public awareness and communications. T.T.T. is seeking sponsorship for this project from a variety of funding sources including charitable foundations, corporations and individual donors as well as the federal, provincial and municipal governments. . The following proposal outlines the project in greater detail. TREES FOR TODAY AND TOMORROW Trees for Today and Tomorrow (T.T.T.) was formed in 1987 in order to carry out reforestation and environmental restoration work on the most densely populated and environmentally degraded sites in Canada, particularly in Southern Ontario. A more recent mandate for T.T.T. has been to promote environmental education which is necessary to prevent further degradation from occurring. T.T.T. works in cooperation with the recognized experience and expertise of the approp~ate government authorities including the Conservation Authorities and municipal parks departments. All T.T.T. projects address immediate environmental problems which the government has not yet been able to solve or bring sufficient funding to bear. T.T.T. is attempting to encourage greater private sector support for these crucial projects. In Southern Ontario, T. T. T. curren tl y has major projects on the Humber River Watershed, the Credit River Watershed, the Don River Valley, and in the Oakville, Essex County and Oshawa Regions. T. T. T. also has an Environmental Education component which includes the "Tree Survey Project" for secondary schools and the "Environmental Education and Awareness Project" which incorporates in-class activities such as games and slide shows with local tree-planting events. T.T.T. has also started the Great Lakes Alive Project which connects environmental issues affecting the Great Lakes with issues in the surrounding watersheds which feed into the Lakes. In addition, T.T.T. frequently meets with a number of community organizations, private landowners and concerned individuals to discuss and, if possible, resolve local environmental issues. ROUGE RIVER AND WATERSHED RESTOR A TION PROJECf 1 wR · SQ5 . .. T.T.T. receives its funding from a variety of sources including individual donations through T.T.T.'s "Adopt-a-Tree" membership program, corporate sponsorship and "- charitable foundation support as well. as government support at the municipal, provincial and federal levels. There are five permanent staff members at the T. T. T. office, 7 board members, 50 part-time volunteers and approximately 4,000 donors. -- WHY RESTORE THE ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED? The Rouge River Watershed, which drains 327 km2, is composed of a number of creeks apart from the Rouge River itself. It includes Berczy, Bruce, Robinson and Little Rouge Creeks. All of these principal streams originate from the Oak Ridges Moraine and along i their course pass through the City of Scar borough, and the towns of Markh am, Whitchurch- S touffville, Richmond Hill and Pickering. ,-.. The Rouge River Watersh~ is comprised of four characteristic zones: the headwaters, the middle reaches, the lower reaches and fmally, at the mouth of the Rouge, the estuary - or delta marsh. In each of these zones various fish, wildlife and vegetation as well as recreational and economic activities are supported. From the origins of the spring-fed headwaters, each consecutive zone is intensely r' affected by any physical, chemical and biological changes that occur upstream. Thus, a continuum of conservation and restoration efforts along each tributary is required in order to ensure that healthy biological and physical conditions within the Rouge River Watershed remain intact. This can aptly be termed an "ecosystem approach" to - conservation. The Rouge River Watershed is presently under active urbanization along much of its .-. length. As a result, it requires immediate and extensive attention to the rehabilitation, protection and preservation of its ecosystem in order to prevent irreparable damage in the f~lture. Although the upper reaches of the Rouge River system appear to have . experienced minimal change from their natural state, much of the area has been affected by certain land management practices which have not been environmentally sustainable. If steps are not taken now to remedy environmental problems along the Rouge River Watershed, future costs of repair will increase dramatically. The lower Don River Valley . - is a good example of this situation; it has been negatively affected for so long that complete rehabilitation is practically unaffordable. -- Efforts made in the Rouge River system at this time will not only keep future maintenance costs to a minimum, but will ensure that benefits to fish and wildlife will continue and that a haven for public recreation, health, enjoyment and education will be maintained. This is especially important in a world where urban stress is ever increasing. Some of the major environmental problems which must be addressed as soon as possible are described in the following points. -- I) Absence of Streambank Vegetation: In the Rouge River Watershed the length of cold water habitat extending down from .- the spring-fed streams has been significantly reduced. At present, there are many open areas along the Rouge River which are lacking in any kind of streambank vegetation such as tree shade cover. This has been a result of deforestation and .- agricultural practices as well as residential and estate development. This results in decreased cold water habitat and severe soil erosion. These conditions are visible along many sections of the Rouge River today. - .- - ROUGE RIVER AND WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECf 2 lA) ~. Stitc 2) Water Quality: The overall water quality of the Rouge River Watershed has suffered as a result of agricultural land usage and encroaching urban development. Agricultural run-off into rivers from pasturing livestock, poor manure storage and poor cultivation practices result in high bacteria (fecal coliform) and phosphorus levels in the river water. This ultimately leads to excessive algal growth and decreased water clarity. Furthermore, erosion and sedimentation affect water quality by reducing water clarity, covering spawning beds and decreasing the quality of life for many resident aquatic organisms. 3) Flood Risk: Decreased vegetative cover and loss of flood plain inhibits the potential for flood! drought control, which is normally found in the spongy soils that are characteristic of heavily vegetated streambanks. This situation increases the likelihood of flooding in downstream areas arid as such is hazardous to residential or municipal properties which are located adjacent to the stream banks. 4) Improvements: Many mid-stream ponds located along the river have disrupted the natural flow of water and interfered with the migration routes and spawning of fish species such as rainbow trout and speckled trout. These ponds, for the most part, have been built by private land owners hoping to increase the aesthetics of their property . Unfortunately, the results have created stagnant areas of water which have high water temperatures and therefore, low dissolved oxygen content. A healthy water stream would have the exact opposite characteristics: low temperatures and high dissolved oxygen content. The healthy state of the streams and rivers is necessary not only for the spawning of fish which have an important economic and recreational value, but also for human contact, wildlife habitat and aesthetics. 5) Lack of Information and Public Awareness: As efforts are made to restore and protect the Rouge River Watershed, it is important that major efforts are also made to maintain a high level of environmental awareness and action among people who live within or near the Rouge River Watershed. Often this project component is not adequately recognized in environmental projects and yet, it is the local people who inevitably will be responsible for the maintenance and protection of their own local environment for the good of themselves, their property and their children. LOcA TION OF THE PROJECT The Rouge River project will focus on the headwaters and upper mid-reaches of Little Rouge Creek, a sub-watershed of the Rouge River Watershed, which is indicated on the map in Appendix 1. The area is bounded by 16th Avenue to the south, Kennedy Road to the west, Gormley Road to the north and 10th Concession to the east. The actual work projects are indicated numerically on the map with reference made to these numbered sites in Appendix 2. Appendix 2 also describes in detail the physical work required on each individual site. The project area also encompasses a portion of the ecologically significant Oak Ridges Moraine from which the spring-fed cold water tributaries in the Town of Whitchurch- Stouffville originate. These tributaries converge in the Town of Markham and form the main stream of the Little Rouge Creek. There is also a work project located further downstream within the municipal boundaries of the City of Scarborough, which requires the removal of a dam. This dam interrupts fish migration routes to important spawning and nursery areas. ROUGE RIVER AND WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECf 3 wfJ..~9( PROJECT .oUTLINE The Rouge River and Watershed Restoration Project involves work activities that are not being adequately addressed due to financial and/or administrative constraints. Trees for Today and Tomorrow strongly believes that environmental problems in the Rouge River Watershed must be tackled immediately before they lead to large-scale, irreversible environmental degradation. The Rouge River and Watershed Restoration Project has been designated as a nine year project which will consist of three phases. Each phase will be three years in length. The first project phase will commence in the spring of 1991. The physical activities involved in the project will be carried out each year between early April and late November, as weather permits. The educational and public relations activities and the --- monitoring and evaluation of the project will continue throughout each year. During the first three year phase emphasis will be placed on work activities such as stream bank stabilization, revegetation debris removal and environmental education and awareness - among local people. ,.". The following is a more comprehensive list of the activities which the Rouge River and Watershed Restoration Project will involve. PROJECT COMPONENTS - 1/ Stream Bank Improvement: Stream bank improvement efforts will result in: - reduction of soil erosion; - increased vegetative growth (trees, grasses,shrubs and wildflowers); - improved water quality due to fewer negative inputs and quicker moving, colder water; and - improved wildlife habitat and sources of detrital food matter for stream invertebrates and fish. r- The techniques for stream bank improvement involve various mechanical and natural methods such as: r' a) tree and shrub buffer planting on the top and sides of stream banks of moderate gradient; b) "log rip-rap", used on stream banks to stabilize curves where erosion is occurring; c) "rock rip-rap" which uses rock and filter materials (geotextiles, gravel etc.) which are fined snugly against the stream bank to achieve maximum strength and durability in areas affected by excessive erosion; once repaired, these areas are rapidly colonized .- . by natural vegetation which camouflages and reinforces the mechanical structure; d) pond bypass methods are used to divert main-stream water flow around midstream ponds; these ponds disrupt and reduce main- stream flow and cause watertemperatures . - to increase and oxygen content to decrease; e) fencing is used to control livestock access to streams to prevent soil erosion and sedimentation and to protect vegetation, reduce nutrient loading and bacterial input - into the water and to permit successful revegetation; t) debris in the water, which may inhibit stream flow 9r spawning routes, is removed or altered; g) addition of in-stream boulders to provide aquatic habitats, roughen stream bottom substrata and decrease stream velocity. - ROUGE RIVER AND WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECf 4 tAR. SClg 2/ Revegetation The planting of native species of trees, shrubs grasses and wildflowers has a tremendous impact on all aspects of stream and river health. These benefits are reflected through: - increased stream bank stabilization as roots bind to soils and absorb excess water run- off; - increased shade cover over the river which facilitates cooler water temperatures and shelter for wildlife; - increased and improved food supply to local wildlife as well as fish and invertebrates within the rivers. Revegetation for the purpose of erosion control is particularly important along all river and stream banks not only on its own merit but also as a reinforcement for other mechanical stream bank stabilization measures. Excess sediment in the rivers can have many detrimental impacts, including the siltation of spawning beds and the blockage of water flow. Vegetation planted in the project is maintained through pruning, mulching and staking measures, all of which ensure a very high survival rate and, therefore, a continuous and self-sustaining habitat. 3/ Fisheries and Wildlife Habitat Improvement a) Historically, the Rouge River Watershed has supported a very wide range of cold water and warm water fish species. U nfortunatel y, due to changes in the water course as a result of agricultural practices and loss of vegetative cover on stream banks, the suitability for maintaining healthy fish populations in these rivers has seriously declined. For example, at present the current potential for a self-sustaining rainbow trout population in the lower Rouge River is extremely low. This is the result of extremely high summer water temperatures which are unable to support juvenile populations of this species. However, a report prepared for the MTRCA has stated that a reduction of these summer maximum temperatures by 2 to 4 degrees Celsius would make the lower Rouge River suitable for rainbow trout. Cooler water temperatures would be improved through increased stream shading and the removal of obstructions which may be decreasing water velocity. Increased vegetative cover along the stream banks will also benefit the creation of a more suitable habitat for many fish species. Removal of the dam at Steeles Avenue will allow access to upstream spawning and nursery habitats by migratory fish species such as rainbow and brown trout. b) Revegetation techniques will also be employed in order to benefit the many species of mammals and birds found in the Rouge River Watershed. These techniques will provide improveq nesting sites and appropriate food plots. Wildlife in the region will further benefit from improved water quality ,lower water temperatures, increased fish populations as a food source and generally, a cleaner and more suitable habitat. Since there are some important wetland sites along the Rouge River, particularly in the delta marsh at the mouth of the river, restoration efforts such as garbage clean-up and native marsh grass and shrub planting will hav~ a significant impact on the health of these important sites. Improvement of these areas could allow for future public accessibility to the lower marsh area. A boardwalk or pier could be constructed so that birdwatching, angling, and naturalist activities are enhanced. ROUGE RIVER AND WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECf 5 - , -- wit · '5QQ . . 4/ Publicity and Communications Public education and awareness are crucial steps for ensuring the success of any environmental conservation and restoration effort. Because many aspects of urban and suburban society are affected by local watersheds and their health, the only way to prevent further disruption and sustain rehabilitation efforts is to involve and educate the public. In the case of the Rouge River Watershed, this public outreach would include private landowners, urban planners, potential developers and young people whose daily and future activities directly affect the state of the local environment. All aspects of the local community should be involved in this project and therefore, T.T.T. will maintain contacts with the municipalities, towns and cities within the - watershed as well as local schools, residents, community associations and environmental organizations such as Save The Rouge Valley System. A special map will be pr~pared by T.T.T. which will identify all the landowners along the Little Rouge Creek and the main sections of the Rouge River. This will facilitate effective communication within the community and in turn, the future success of the Rouge River and Watershed Restoration Project. The communication materials that T. T. T. will develop include information sheets for local residents and update bulletins to advise them of the work that is being done on the Rouge River Watershed. Other forms of public involvement in the Project will evolve as the project continues. Examples of such involvement will undoubtedly include community tree-planting events and presentations. Particular effort will be made to increase the awareness of landowners who presently have ponds on their properties and to local farmers whose agricultural practices may be contaminating the rivers with nutrient and bacteriallmids. Assistance and advice will be offered to individual landowners in order to improve their land-use practices. 5/ Project Maintenance Proper maintenance of all restoration work is absolutely necessary in order .- to ensure the continued success of the project. This work is carried out by the MTRCA throughout the year, as weather permits. In-stream wood structures such as log cribs, wood rip-rap and brush bundling usually ..- require annual maintenance in order maintain their usefulness. Areas which have to be revegetated must also be checked annually until the plants become established. They are also pruned or replanted when necessary. Nesting sites, food plots and wetlands must also be periodically checked and maintained as required. 6/ Project Monitoring and Evaluation .- Particularly in the first phase of the project it is important that accurate and informative monitoring reports be kept so that future activities along the watershed can benefit from past experience. - Monitoring reports will be conducted seasonally (spring and fall) and annual evaluations will also be conducted. Periodic progress reports will also be published in T.T.T. 's newsletter "Treelines". -- - ~ I ROUGE RIVER AND WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECf 6 ~. ~eo ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS The Rouge River and Watershed Restoration Project represents T.T.T.'s active and consistent involvement in the restoration of the four major watersheds in the Metropolitan Toronto Region: the Credit River, The Humber River, the Don River and now the Rouge River. This is very important because through accumulated experience and expertise T.T.T. has been able to integrate and incorporate the biological and societal needs of the entire Metropolitan Toronto area into a feasible and successful long-term program. The Rouge River Watershed is an essential component of Southern Ontario's watershed systems. From its importance for fish and wildlife habitat, farming and agriculture to its recreational benefits, the Rouge River Watershed has come to playa major role in the lives of hundreds of thousands of residents in the region of Southern Ontario. For instance, the Rouge River Valley provides a magnificent habitat to the many animal species at the world famous Metropolitan Toronto Zoo and a precious space for environmental education arid recreation. Many of the activities involved in the project focus on the ecological principle that no one component can be separated from the rest. Ecology dictates that the environment is a complex of interrelationships between plant species, wild animals and humans which in turn, are affected by condi tions ofland, air and water. Therefore, any action taken to repair (or destroy) the environment will directly and indirectly affect all other components. Since many of the activities involved in Rouge River project are integrated and interrelated actions, they will create a "chain effect" of benefits to all ecological spheres involved. Another benefit of this project is the fact that any financial commitment to work done on the upper reaches of the watershed will also have a "chain effect". That is, money spent to repair a particular problem in the Rouge River Watershed will automatically improve other problems, especially at downstream locations and thereby decrease the amount of money that would have been spent on those individual sites. For example, improvements to water quality in the headwaters of the Rouge River will also benefit water quality downstream and along the lakeshore and beaches in the City of Scarborough. However, the Rouge River and Watershed Restoration Project's most significant benefit is that it combines physical environmental rehabilitation wo!k with environmental awareness building. To accomplish these two inter-dependent goals the project not only brings together private and public agencies in a long-term co-operative work effort but it establishes a participatory structure which will allow local citizens to have input into and feedback from the project. As a result, local people, organizations, businesses and government will share in the responsibility of ensuring that local environmental action is sustained. ROUGE RIVER AND WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECf 7 - -.. -- ,pR.. ~DI .- REQUIRED MATERIALS, LABOUR AND EQUIPMENT The advantage forT.T.T. to work in cooperation with the MTRCA is to benefit from their valuable experience and expertise in carrying out many of the practical activities already mentioned. MTRCA will provide the project with the majority of minor materials and smaller equipment which will be needed to carry out the Project (ie. shovels, pails, shears and chain-saws). Larger equipment such as tractors, pick-up trucks, post-hole augers and back-hoes will be rented as needed. Such rentals usually make up about 10-15% of the budget for most of the activities. The materials that will be required in this project will include trees and shrubs, grass and legume seeds, sand, gravel, rocks and logs. The cost of these materials make up - approximately 30-35% of the budget. Labour makes up a significant part of the budget because practical environmental work is usually labour intensive. It typically requires anywhere from 20% to 45% of the budget ..-. allocation for the components of stream improvement, revegetation, wildlife management, project maintenance, monitoring and evaluation. Although T.T.T. and MTRCA work closely as sponsors and partners of the project, the MTRCA would accept the responsibility for organizing and supervising the practical field work on this project. Aside from overall project organization, administration and funding, T.T.T. assumes the direct responsibility for the publicity and communications ... component of the project. It also will conduct the monitoring and evaluation aspects of the project. - - - - .-- - - - r-- - r-- ROUGE RIVER AND WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECf 8 ROUGE RIVER AND WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT WR. b02 BUDGET OUTLINE Activity Labour Materials Equipment Total Site Improvement $ 22,000 $ 15,000 $ 6,400 $ 43,400 Revegetation 15,400 14,600 1,600 31,600 Fish and ; Wildlife 13,500 . 9,000 4,500 27,000 Publicity and Communications 13,500 9,100 1,000 23,600 Maintenance 3,500 2,975 525 7,000 Monitoring & Evaluation 500 75 159 734 Administration (20% of total budget) 33,333 Total for first year ofPhase One $166,667 Total for phase One (Three Years) $ 500,000 ROUGE RIVER AND WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECf 9 -- ~---- - -- - -- OOR.(oC3 APPENDIX 1 .-- MAP OF THE ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED AND PROJECT AREA - -- . - - - - -- 0 R T ,_\,1.10- I.'" . . : LEGEND ,1 (.&1. Iowl . PRIVATELY OWNED LANDS D - ..00- ,1 _. PUBLICLY OWNED LANDS - QUIIOf& " - M.T.R.C.A. LANDS -- ~ I PROJECT AREA , I (identified sites) - SCALE - KILOMETERS ?\ GENERAL PROJECT t-+ ;- - 7 AREA (unidentified sites) o I 2 3 4 5 e , I DEC. 1980 - 10 , ROUGE RIVER AND WATERSHED RESTORA nON PROJECT I --~ -- -- 1M .~oI.r APPENDIX 2 INDIVIDUAL WORK PROJECT SITES The following descriptions of requirements at each project site is a non-prioritized list. Locations are identified by project number on the map that follows. The descriptions are meant to be used to obtain rough estimates of the costs associated with each project. The work program concentrates on the headwaters and middle reaches of the Little Rouge Creek. Two satellite projects (#22 and #23) occur further down in the system, at the lower reaches and the delta marsh. References made to improvements of streams and ponds can include bypass, removal, bottom draw or fish way methods. Project 1: ; This site is near the down stream limit of coldwater habitat in the system. Approximately 20 meters of tree and shrub planting is required. A small stream obstruction may require removal. Project 2: Up to 1.0 km of tree and shrub planting is required along the fairways as the stream passes through a golf course. A seasonal water level control structure for irrigation should be removed and an alternate watering method constructed. Project 3: Tree and shrub planting should be conducted on up to 500 meters of the stream. Project 4: Tree and shrub planting should be conducted on up to 800 meters of the stream. Project 5: Tree and shrub planting should be conducted on up to 500 meters of the stream. Project 6: Improvement of an onstream pond is required as well as tree and shrub planting on up to 800 meters of the stream. Project 7: Improvement of an onstream pond is required as well as tree and shrub planting on up to 800 meters of the stream. Project 8: Tree and shrub planting should be conducted on up to 500 meters of the stream. Approximately 100 meters of stream requires fencing to prevent livestock access. Project 9: Improvement of an onstream pond is required as well as tree and shrub planting on up to 1.0 km of the stream inside a golf course. Project 10: Tree and shrub planting should be conducted on up to 1.0 km of the stream. Approximately 200 meters of stream requires fencing to prevent livestock access. Project 11: Tree and shrub planting should be conducted on up to 1.0 km of the stream. ROUGE RIVER AND WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECf 11 ~~ ~ ~.,(Qi)~ APPENDIX 2 CONTINUED: Project 12: Improvement of an on stream pond is required as well as tree and shrub planting on up to 500 meters of the stream. Project 13: Two onstream ponds must be improved. Project 14: Improvement of an onstream pond is required as well as tree and shrub planting on up to 800 meters of the stream. Live stock fencing is also required on up to 200 meters - of the stream. Project 15: ; Tree and shrub planting is required on up to 2.0 kIn of the stream. Project 16: A section of bank requires stabilization and up to 500 meters of tree and shrub planting - is required. Project 17: Tree and shrub planting is required on up to 1.5 kIn of the stream. Project 18: Tree and shrub planting is required on up to 800 meters of the stream. . .. Project 19: Tree and shrub planting is required on up to 800 meters of the stream. ,-., Project 20: A section of bank requires stabilization and up to 1.2 km of tree and shrub planting is required. -- Project 21: A section of bank requires stabilization and up to 1.5 km of tree and shrub planting is required. -- Project 22: An on stream dam obstructing fish movement must be removed. - Project 23: , ,Ir ~, _\ Possible construction of a board walk through the Rouge River Marsh for interpretive 1)/.."1 . /~ - J--", , J l" r walks and recreational activities. ,~, ,I, ,l ; , _. Project 24 thru 27: Possible project sites to be determined by the MTRCA and the - Town of Markham. Project 28 and others: - To be determined within the general project area. (City of Scarborough, Town of Markham, Town of Richmond Hill) _. ROUGE RIVER AND WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECf 12 I~- - t':.F-rJ , or~r" .\.... I .-""-" , .' ,,"" -.....-' :' NE :;ji4"itKET '~'I '. . . : I " .. , . . _ "'; . ". ,.' . i' . " .---" ...-' , , .' . . . i' · _~K -. ......... ".c', ,. : \lH' . : "1 V' __ II" : I .! I" ."" . YI .' :'lle ..:YIIC3X. _-':;1... ~ ""- ~ c- . :: TOW}!' . .:. . I TOW~ or:. -.-' '.,:. ::..;:--::: -. : 'IT -m -to-t; , , . . ,.:-- . -;;;-_~-- _' ,,' " '7 -' . ' , .., . ",-...' . : . ~. ~~:'. ,', ~:... '~lnTCll.URCi-sTOUff\ i~'!.:'~':":';<:'::" -: -u- "--""'-";'-' . ..,,-... '''''' ('A/'-' ,.c'-'L.JR~'-') ....., II -/ ..] , '. . ' tl n _ ,..,'-C" ~ ~~., n ".;""'" 0 ,,'" ," I . AURORA: 1............ _' .. ." "n . .... ..' " ,,,' '" .. . " . . .n" ,,' ...' ." · ~ ~ ~~ " JIll\. '" .. . . ..' .".-- " - F , .. " .. " Ne.-: . --' . .. .' n :::- """ 0 - . . . ,-,' . _ n ." .. n ".,:n. .. 'E I 1-" ---- .m~'''''''''- 'CT" ,,, ~~~ ~ ","-'" ./ . .___ __1' , '!l ..".' ..' - ..." n':I/ .. : y;;__ .~"9 / ... NJ\:. -~r'G~"~ y.,.~..~ 4;-~~'~):::::;: :,'" - : -r"" ~~__ 'P~ /,,,,, ' l~' ~ ~... d--'''-' " tl- n ...... - · . .. " ' . _~'J . ..../r.;.=-.IC..' .. .. n' .'? . _~.~ .,' u~~ . "". - / ' _ ,. _ .. "" ., -r: - .. .-.. --;r-" .~~ ~--"1 ' . ." .',.. ,. . ...-<-" ' " .__, ..' 'C;",~' . "., ,.... -"-= ,"' ~ .... ..' -.:,<'-1.:; .\c,",n'\,i--.,,---~-r~c ..+-nW....-~.. -r I \ I .__.~~..~ 'bl" ~~- "'I!!!I' - I~'" ;., ,. - ' ' ::::R'" ...'n..... om"" _' _'_ .." '.=-1~"'~' ~~\ .~. · .. ....-:-- ,... ;i. . . _ .__ .__ ,.~ . "'._ __ .. 'T' jI!I;' .....' .__' .,.. ___ ," ':__1 ,--- "" 1=1,- ~ ., , · :\":'\" .\"~"\" "..,,\ll,n "\':il/ ,,'f!!:,1 .: _, _.,-,-.' . . . \., ; ., .!iP' .==_=.:'l ..' ~ ~"" .".' . ",. . ' ;'_'\' ~-ll~ ~ :,:\, "" ::.:.!.~~ ~=-1=:'_<llk:"---' ~"''G>, - '"" -} \ \ I ~" 1,\ \'\)::\ ~ , "" -"''''1 ," _~r-_ _' __ ,_,"!---- .,..,1,---):..---1-"'- . . i\ilJ,J m,l \' ~V' '~ __nO - on.'.. .,.,.' .. . ...- ,,'.- -~', :'..----".. _..- ."" ,,- -' ..-' \ ' . , .:. \ ._' 'C' ,., " .,' l~ " ' \ ~ V \ " ' 1'/ . ,,~.:.:._ . __ _,,-", .n' _.' .' - .' - ".,: .,,-,' : ~ ':~1.:1~~2! . ',':l-.n~ =-~..- ':::~l/. l bttr\ 'it' ,~ : --::\~ .: ~ . '~~J-- _____.. ,w:~~']r-~ ~'"JL.e.---- ," TI 1 \<\ . :'_' ',' _' __'-', _ ,n _~.r-'''' .-- \:.1' '" : ' .;;:-.--' .....,', uf--r _ r.--:::::: ~i .-' k... A 1")1 : L---'c ;__y- ~ '-' ~r--JijH~'" ~_.::=~__~'::':-jHt-'i VV" 1/' .j ,1-' '1'i.r.Ij.;.:-;flfii~l:i;'(tJ==:-~~~~~{ ~ l~I,,::~;,~~"V.---t1 I'~! l\ f\~rc~~ :7:'1 ' O"-~::-~~' _ -'I'~ '1"-- ,__ .",._:o>!I,.'\:.; N" '"' , \ : \ \. il. . '-f- Ir-~' ;..---1_ .;..- '~~_']~-I ,- -' _------~--~L:',--::. 11-,...l....l- ~. 1\1,1'\' . " .. ' . . _ . . L .. .," , ." · I' ~ ~. __Jr'-' . d'" _, _0---' _' .--....".,-., '-:""'j' ' -rl 11 "", ~ . .' -. .". ,. "" ., " ' ' .: . .... ~ .__ . .." ""." ,,_ .n' -="' _-- ..........--. .-- .. ,,-' J '. r .' · ..;NI-- c. .--",,,. ..x=. ,,_ _r-c""--- .-' - --......-iOD...----~, 1 \ ~~)~ I_~ \ \l,~ \ ,:\ ,\ ~ ,., , .___~_ 1 ,~I 'I ' cilt'!': . ~_ ....;;1' ,,~\ ' J~' I ,....-- ' ,. - \'~' \': \ :-' \ Ii. ." ~~;~~____ _' . = .-....-=f' ~~ h w'. ~ ,\ ,~ ,: \ '"~I _ ./t'-~ ~ -'r __ . 1.;1'- r4=.~ j, ,. \ .11 \ ' . .. ,. ,.' ~, ',' __ __ _ _ _, __ __, _ _,,". . . ~'"'" .., \ " . .--- .'..+---"_ _ .~ ___ .' __ n __ 'n~' - .- ' II ' "\ ,. ., "._-"- .",.~ _---.J...... _.,,,,_J.. ,'" =- 4 _ · ~\.... ~ i. · \ d I I I ~ ,. " .' " 'i~h:-:-""~'" . ./~f: '. L~':~-":.!~" . --::.. .S:-- -'- ~~~~.~ I.~:-}..I~~~~~ k ::i \ \ ~1~- '-, '~\~\ .) 1\ \, . .,_ ..~, _J~ . ..___ _' ,,__ ---. ~ -' \ \ 111 \"'.' f\,./ '~\l I : "=- - .. ""'~"""'~Jt .. .--' - -"'~,- - --." . ' ,', :'~ " . ,,' .:, , . _" . --=-= ._" ....... C. 'L 1'---".-. . ~ · ~ . ._-. . ._-'. _n"j--,C--.---. _- . ~dl:t'.-- '1. "i' ~1-" .. iT' ,. .,_ ......:., _.-...-"n-....:i-.".n:::":~:- .,_"::'.".., ." .....\ '1 \ \ I,:.":l~"\ \ '.' \ I, J .. ...__..1 ' .I..I-~ -U.." .'" ,.,', · , II l"'. . I' \ " .- '1 '" i ."1-' _, ,-01. -" ,. . \ ~T~' "Y:'~' I-I\. ~. \ 'l;---~,I I : '. " \\ \~,."(\ -,_.f ,\ 'i, , >,:,," _.,~,.~.,.' v--'" '+A~~:~ -- ~"I2-~' \... 11.'"........1 ,~.~ . I ,.'" ,) '---! .\ I '. \ ~ 'I d \ \ \ { r\~ '1 ~ \ ~ \ \ \..~ .; \ l' i\ \ l ~l \ \~ 1 if;'~ 'f'$flnrJf\"lr~ 1"',r'li.i2:i''. ' t.-., (I') J 1:\' , \ \ Ii \.1 \ \ \ \ '\ \ \ \I' \ I\l!') \ r' ~ j Ur ~ '~~~ \ l\ ~1 · '\ 4;:;=,1\ .~i~\ \ \ 1\, :,:'1\ ._ ._. .... _ "... ",1' \ '" . . I' .,\ \ .,..V'" ~ , . \ ' ." I ~, 1; --:r 3VnUl" Lif\WI~J.:r.,~"I-$ ~~ r+r~ 'of ~ .~ J. .. ;~ll..J t" ,,0 R' 1i..1.'0 R" I{~~ \ ilH \~IM)\~n'\\~~~I\:l.t~l\~ ,'\ \"r\~I~\~I~\ \.\ ~ 91\\~J~;1~"\n~ _\"..._ _._ ~_ , ,_, ..___ .' I \ l"n " ~ U .~'\\ \~Ii \. \t~' '\-\?'J~ ~... . '\-' ~ ~ ,,\~~1~\~ ........ ~ \ '.II_J- ,I r ~ "\'. . ,\ \ \' II ... ,,:,; .' . ~.ll\ .,..,1'!' . " ." ____. .,_,' . i'" .' ,\'j' IT" ..",-. ." '-' ~[~ . ~. 'I (, ~ .. ~ ~I ,\ ,..l..:ID\, I,~..rr::"! ~ n tL.~ \ '.l..!..:l. I)ll\ ~' '.i<-'o,,,,\f',,\~ " :J .. _.'-:l,-,=-~,p.,.. f,...' ,~._ \.' 1i 0 '0" ,.,." '-\<-iii\d ~ b\ q*'";\-\ \ \"". 1~""I:" ';:~~'\ ~\2~ , "' ..: C" D"'" ' ' "p. \... ' \ ,. 11'\." ,-.' , , '1 ,_ / '. '>0, /"j \!. . \ I " . I ) )..... hi1 \ L~' , " ,~. . .. " ," \ ' ,~ I" .N _,. ,. .,c "T '" '., ,. . .l..."r.', 1 ; __; . } 1 ,,\1, , ., ,,,..IL ~l /' II- ~ r....;. }/~ J\' ~ II ~- _., <,,_' . "-'-1'~"- _ "".. ..,~ " ! \. "" " I " -. . r.. I . $:ll , 1-"'1' _ [:: ~ \1. (~... /"- 'r..-Ul .~......"! -~'\""-l--'J ._\1;.- lll!~~_c.,:l.-:1:-.:I- "-=t-~r .~~.;.. J...rrv;L . I ,! >~\" . . ,,11 . 'I . ~'" -r.~.. ~"I\ I~jr- ., I'lL I _.n .~=b=-=-\' _ ~. _.,,' .,\. ~. "1 \ \.J'- " .~ I ,\-A" '-l,' . I '..,1 I ~., · V' .' , ' .,' . , " (. ,,!1~~"' ~ - :'" .. I. )!'i' \.'!:I"_-l~YI .~ ~ )~':::.~ ~1..J-~=' ......_ .. l J$ ,__ i _ 7. ..- ." l~ , 11'.\ 1\ ,f .~ r-~ .1.-. e--' - -~" - -- -..." ' ,., "., . , , I,. 'iIl~: ::1 ~r,l 1 ~ ~( ,I \~ ,\ ot\(4f' ',,, ,11 Y,...,,' t"" :1 . \ t1 ~ ~ . u\ i' .., . " .~-.-~" . "!rr""" - . --' y--- \ k ..,1 ,_C-' ._~-li'r" 't'll. "\ \ ,.. ...! \ ' ., \ , ,I I ...- , ~ . \.. ,..." , ,.' -' I ,I , \ ." ::.:- .,.,,,','" . ., ,.,.' "I' ,V", :\,' H // .. . , ' . ".'/' 0 '" C Ii..' \ " \( '" .. ;---- .J",JJ,,~... .:i.e...... ,.,.... \ \ 'd I I ." " 0 .\ t -I 'y .<-11' "",,-,.." ,- n ' "~J.:-;~'" t' :'1.1\ " ~I" I' I 1 'y_' ,;" 1. T~ .., - (- 'f'\ I' J"I! ~".,j, - ' J ..' ." ..,,, . .'. , yORK I );~ . / \ I ~ t.,., (' ~ E!^ Ii" ,". I ./ I, '! \ ;.:..\i ,"'-- / . ""I, (r., Ie. ~ --;' II I ~ 'I' (:.,r1,.' ',/~ I ,..... / ._. , i. ,t-]I .____-'- . "/ rl" . / 0. _'. ~.. .".J - ,\," :~s..~ ~ :'r'~l ./ " . 'vA' " . ~ CENERAL 'PROJECT AREA- ;-1- ~ lIJ ~. bff7 APPENDIX 3 ASSOCIATE PARTNERS IN THE ROUGE RIVER AND WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT RESIDENTS AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS OF THE ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED: -- Town of Markham City of Scarborough Town of Whitchurch - Stouffville Ministry of Natural Resources Ministry of the Environment - ,- Town of Richmond Hill Regional Municipality of Metropolitan Toro~1to Metro Toronto Zoo ~ - - - - ROUGE RIVER AND WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECf 13