HomeMy WebLinkAboutSustainable Communities Board 2005c.
THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES BOARD #1/05
April 8, 2005
The Sustainable Communities Board Meeting #1/05, was held in the South Theatre,
Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, April 8, 2005. The Chair Michael Di Biase, called
the meeting to order at 11:02 a.m.
PRESENT
Michael Di Biase Chair
Suzan Hall Vice Chair
Colleen Jordan Member
Glenn Mason Member
Elaine Moore Member
Dick O'Brien Chair, Authority
Gerri Lynn O'Connor Member
Linda Pabst Member
Andrew Schulz Member
John Sprovieri Member
REGRETS
Maria Augimeri Member
Glenn De Baeremaeker Member
RES. #E1/05 - MINUTES
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Linda Pabst
Suzan Hall
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #7/04, held on February 4, 2005, be approved.
CARRIED
PRESENTATIONS
(a) A presentation by Ed Mallett, Chief Executive Officer, Ontario Centre for Environmental
Technology Advancement (OCETA) in regards to item 7.1 - Sustainable Initiatives in
Vaughan.
1
RES. #E2 /05 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Linda Pabst
Andrew Schulz
THAT above -noted presentation (a) be heard and received.
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES. #E3 /05 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
CARRIED
SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVES IN VAUGHAN
Two collaborative initiatives with Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA) and the City of Vaughan: the efforts by TRCA, Ontario
Centre for Environmental Technology Advancement (OCETA )and the
City of Vaughan to develop the Vaughan Manufacturer's Sustainability
Program to engage small and medium manufacturing enterprises; and
the application of sustainable community design principles in a proposed
subdivision development currently under review.
Linda Pabst
Andrew Schulz
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff be directed to enter into an
agreement between the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), the City of
Vaughan, and the Ontario Centre for Environmental Technology Advancement (OCETA)
to develop the Vaughan Manufacturer's Sustainability Program to engage small and
medium enterprises (SMEs) in Vaughan under the Toronto Region Sustainability
Program;
THAT staff be directed to develop similar agreements with municipalities across the
Toronto region;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to collaborate with Vaughan in exploring
opportunities for applying sustainable community design principles to a proposed
subdivision development off Pine Valley Drive, across from The Kortright Centre for
Conservation.
AMENDMENT
RES. #E4 /05
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Linda Pabst
Andrew Schulz
THAT the following replace the second paragraph of the main motion:
2
THAT staff send a letter to the municipalities in TRCA's jurisdiction requesting support
for the TRCA/OCETA sustainability initiatives in an effort to develop similar agreements
with these municipalities;
THE AMENDMENT WAS
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS
BACKGROUND
TRCA has been collaborating with the City of Vaughan under two initiatives:
CARRIED
CARRIED
1. TRCA, OCETA and the City of Vaughan are developing the Vaughan Manufacturer's
Sustainability Program to engage small and medium manufacturing enterprises; and
2. The application of sustainable community design principles in a proposed development in
the City Vaughan.
1. Partnership with OCETA and Environment Canada
The proposed Vaughan Manufacturer's Sustainability Program is based on the Toronto Region
Sustainability Program (TRSP). TRSP was initiated in February 2000 with funding from
Environment Canada - Ontario Region and the City of Toronto. The Ontario Centre for
Environmental Technology Advancement has been the delivery agent for the program since its
inception. This program provides small and medium manufacturing enterprises in the Toronto
region with a 50% cost -share funding incentive (up to a maximum of $4,000) for pollution
prevention planning. The objectives of the program is to create an action and results oriented
program in Toronto to advance the performance of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and
manufacturing operations in the City of Toronto in areas of sustainable development and
environmental performance.
In 2004, the TRCA entered into an agreement with Environment Canada to administer the
program on behalf of Environment Canada and take a lead role in expanding the program.
Under the agreement, OCETA continues to be the delivery agent for TRSP. In 2004, TRCA
watershed specialists worked to initiate support for OCETA by engaging local manufacturers;
TRCA and OCETA staff worked together to promote Toronto Region Sustainability Program
through conferences and workshops; and TRCA worked to gain municipal support by
developing a framework for shared action.
2. Applying Sustainable Community Principles to a Development in Vaughan
Staff have been in conversation with the City of Vaughan about collaborating with them to
apply principles of sustainable community design to a development, particularly to a property
on Pine Valley Drive, across from Kortright Centre for Conservation. This initiative will
complement projects already underway, such as the "Market Transformation of Green
Community Design and Residential Housing" research, which is being done for Canadian
Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the City of Vaughan, intended to develop an
understanding of the marketplace for green community design and green homes construction.
Results from this research will create an action plan for increasing the application of best
practices in a local municipality.
3
The development will also learn from a number of communities in the GTA and across Canada
which are in various stages of progress that are applying aspects of green home construction
and community design.
RATIONALE
1. The Current Partnership with OCETA and Environment Canada
The Toronto Region Sustainability Program is the only pollution prevention technical assistance
program in Canada where participating organizations have a forum for systematically achieving
environmental outcomes that all three levels of government - federal, province and municipal -
identify as being important. Initially the program was developed to be applied in the City of
Toronto; however, Environment Canada authorized OCETA to expand it into adjacent
municipalities (Mississauga, Brampton, Vaughan, Markham, Richmond Hill and Pickering).
The program is helpful in overcoming government barriers for SMEs in terms of support for
priority industrial sectors, and in terms of addressing priority environmental issues (wastewater,
air quality, waste) generated by industry. Downstream benefits to municipalities include
helping to address provincial environmental priorities (smog, hazardous waste) and federal
requirements (Canadian Environmental Protection Act) and highlighting of industry leaders
through case studies.
The agreement between the City of Vaughan, TRCA and OCETA to develop the Vaughan
Manufacturer's Sustainability Program is a positive, strategic step towards increased SME
engagement. This framework can be tailored to meet the needs of other interested
municipalities in collaboration with TRCA and OCETA.
2. Sustainable Community in Vaughan
The sustainable community in Vaughan will be a model for other developments in Vaughan
and in other municipalities. The community will also be in close proximity to the green building
projects being undertaken at The Living City Campus; namely The Living City Centre, the
Vaughan/York Fire Hall and Emergency Medical Services building, The Environmental Services
building, and the Earth Rangers building (already on site). The public awareness and
educational opportunities created by these buildings will lead the way for positive change from
current building practices to the adoption of innovative sustainable design across the market
place.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
1. Vaughan Manufacturers Sustainability Program (VMSP)
The goal for 2005 is to formalize agreements with three more municipalities with whom TRCA
and OCETA have been engaged through the Toronto Region Sustainability Program.
Agreements with these municipalities will build on the framework developed with the City of
Vaughan. The framework below outlines the activities that will be undertaken with the City of
Vaughan in 2005.
The agreement for the Vaughan Manufacturers Sustainability Program establishes a framework
for TRCA, OCETA and the City of Vaughan to launch the program. Implementation of all
initiatives will be coordinated as a team effort to achieve greatest results and impact, with each
organization exercising leadership on aspects of the Program as outlined below.
4
Joint Efforts
• Develop marketing and delivery strategies to bring the Program to the attention of the local
SME manufacturing community, with appropriate delineation of responsibilities and costs
for the production and distribution of material, follow -up contacts, and group presentations;
• Ensure the use of the logos of all the partners in all program materials, including future
presentations that highlight examples involving Vaughan -based companies;
• Refer local manufacturers to the other partners on issues within the areas of interest and
expertise of the other partners; and
• Discuss the renewal of this agreement no later than January 15, 2006.
The City of Vaughan
• Provide $5,000 to TRCA/OCETA for the delivery of the program in Vaughan from March 1,
2005, to February 28, 2006;
• Utilize City databases, with input from TRCA/OCETA, to develop a list of target sectors and
companies for the distribution of program information that may include mailings,
newsletters, website postings, etc.;
• Provide a letter of introduction from the Mayor / Environmental Task Force supporting the
initiative, to be included in introductory material on the program;
• Provide in -kind staff support to participate in marketing and delivery strategy discussions
and to participate in introductory meetings or presentations to groups of businesses; and
• Highlight the VMSP in contacts with local businesses
OCETA
• Develop and deliver customized marketing and presentation materials for manufacturers
located in Vaughan;
• Deliver the Program in Vaughan, including: the management of the roster of P2
consultants, the delivery of marketing, presentation, and workshop efforts, the provision of
facility assessments, the management of cost -share subsidies and the development and
posting of case studies on the Toronto Region Sustainability Program website; and
• Deliver monthly milestone reports and a year -end status report consistent with the
performance metrics and reporting format that are standard for TRCA and Environment
Canada. The year -end report will include case studies, which can be used by the City of
Vaughan. In addition, at year -end, provide the City of Vaughan with a summary statement
of numbers of: presentations, participating companies, and P2 assessments, and the
aggregated value of P2 assessment subsidies received by Vaughan -based manufacturers.
TRCA
• Provide marketing and design support for Program development
• Include the VMSP in presentations to municipal leaders on The Living City Program, the
Natural Heritage Strategy, and Development Services initiatives
• Coordinate funding support between the City of Vaughan and OCETA.
5
2. Sustainable Community Collaborative
Staff will continue the discussion with the City of Vaughan about the sustainable community
initiative located across from Kortright off of Pine Valley Drive. A letter will be sent to the City of
Vaughan from TRCA confirming our support of the project. We will continue to collaborate with
the City, helping to engage the necessary stakeholders and building on previous and existing
work to apply principles of sustainable communities to the development.
Report prepared by: Anne Reesor, extension 5202
For Information contact: Andrew Bowerbank, extension 5343
Date: March 18, 2005
RE$. #E5/05 - SEATON COMMUNITY PLAN DEVELOPMENT
City of Pickering. Status of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
(TRCA) staff involvement in the ongoing preparation of the local regional
and provincial development plan for the Seaton Community in the City of
Pickering.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Suzan Hall
Glenn Mason
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the status report on the Seaton
Community Development Plan be received for information;
THAT staff be directed to continue working with the City of Pickering, the Regional
Municipality of Durham, the Province of Ontario and other participating groups towards
the completion of a Natural Heritage System for the Seaton Lands;
AND FURTHER THAT as a component of the planning process that a Management Plan
be implemented for the protected Natural Heritage System within Seaton.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Seaton Lands are lands generally bounded by Brock Road to the East, Highway 7 and the
Green River Community to the north, the West Duffins Creek to the west, and the CP Rail
Corridor to the south. The lands are currently within the City of Pickering's Urban Expansion
Boundary as identified in the current local and regional Official Plans. The lands are owned by
the Province of Ontario. The lands are the subject of an Environmental Assessment process
which if approved, will allow for the transfer of developable areas within Seaton in exchange for
lands within Richmond Hill.
6
For the past several months TRCA staff have attended field visits and meetings to assist in the
Provincial and City of Pickering initiatives to develop an Structural Plan /Growth Management
Plan for the Seaton Lands. TRCA staff were initially involved in two separate processes, one
initiated through the Pickering Growth Management Study, and the second through the
Provincial Ontario Planning and Development Act Process. Both processes with some overlap,
aimed to identify and secure a natural heritage system for Seaton. In recent weeks through a
series of joint discussions with Municipal and Provincial staff, TRCA staff have been
instrumental in the preparation at a staff level, of a common natural heritage system for the
Seaton lands. We are also involved in the creation of environmental policies which would be
incorporated in local and regional Official Plan Amendments and, in the Provincial Plan. TRCA
staff are also involved in weekly meetings to finalize the process and sequence by which the
various technical requirements will unfold through the planning and approval process.
The natural heritage system proposed is significant. The system encompasses approximately
two thirds of the lands within Seaton, and incorporates all meaningful features including
watercourses, wetlands, forest blocks and hedgerows. The system also incorporates buffers
from the protected features and, tableland corridors which would link key natural heritage
features. The minimum buffer from all defined features would be 30 metres. The natural
heritage system lands will remain in public ownership and uses will be restricted to those which
are related to passive recreation, cultural heritage and occasionally servicing (i.e., road
crossings and stormwater management facilities). Where services are required criteria is being
developed to ensure that impacts to the system including fragmentation, is minimized. Given
the size of the community and natural heritage system, road crossings will occur. However, in
order to reduce ecological impacts through future design stages, we have incorporated design
criteria and recommended policy inclusions such as span bridges and tunnelling for servicing
where feasible. We are also establishing the engineering criteria to ensure that the water
management objectives are maintained through the development process, as this is critical to
the continued health of the Duffins Watershed.
TRCA staff are also promoting the inclusion of sustainable development technologies in the
design of the community. The Province is committed to this innovation while the City of
Pickering has committed to a sustainable development forum to set the specific requirements
which could be incorporated in the community design.
Finally, staff are promoting the development of an Environmental Management Plan for the
protected natural heritage system. This plan should identify the mechanisms by which the
natural heritage system will be protected and enhanced as Seaton develops. Among other
issues, the plan should outline an ecological enhancement strategy, the pedestrian access
system, any safety and security requirements, and set out a monitoring program to ensure that
the features and their functions continue to flourish.
7
It is expected that the City of Pickering, the Region of Durham and the Province will finalize
policy documents (Pickering and Durham Official Plan Amendments and a Provincial Plan) in
the coming months which will set the stage for future development and will outline the natural
heritage system as a schedule. These documents will also outline the land uses which will
occur on areas beyond the natural heritage system and give a general indication of the road
pattern for the developing community. Finally the documents will define the requirements for
the protection of the defined natural heritage system through the community design and the
criteria for the content of additional technical reports (i.e., Master Environmental Servicing Plan
(MESP) and Functional Servicing Studies (FSS)) to support future development.
Staff will continue to work with the Province, the Region of Durham and the City of Pickering to
finalize the development plan for Seaton in the coming months. We will provide an update as
the provincial and municipal initiatives for the development of Seaton are furthered.
Report prepared by: Russel White, extension 5306
For Information contact: Russel White, extension 5306
Date: March 30, 2005
RES. #E6/05 - DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
(MOU) TO EXPAND THE GREEN BUILDING PARTNERSHIP
Expand the membership of the Green Buildings Partnership to include
Sustainable Buildings Canada and the Canadian Urban Institute.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
Andrew Schulz
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT staff develop a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) to begin collaborative efforts with Sustainable Buildings Canada
(SBC) and the Canadian Urban Institute (CUI) In an effort to expand the membership of
the Green Building Partnership (GBP).
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
On June 25, 2004 a memorandum of understanding (MOU) was established between the
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the Toronto Chapter of the Canada
Green Building Council (CaGBC). The MOU was the beginning of collaborative efforts (titled
the Green Building Partnership) to advocate for green building design in the Toronto region
and engage municipalities and building developers in the adoption of green technologies and
practices.
On January 26, 2005 a formal invitation was given to TRCA by the Canadian Urban Institute
(CUI) and Sustainable Buildings Canada (SBC) to support Canada's bid to have Toronto host
the 2008 Global Conference on Sustainable Building and Construction. The winning bid will be
announced at the 2005 Global Conference in Tokyo.
8
A proposal plan to deliver a green buildings conference in the fall of 2005 was presented to
SBC, CaGBC National Office and the CaGBC Toronto Chapter. TRCA is participating in this
proposal and will work to ensure the success of the conference .
RATIONALE
The actions and initiatives that are being conducted by a variety of organizations in support of
green buildings is increasing in profile and in complexity. TRCA is uniquely placed through
collaborative partnerships and working relationships with these organizations to take on the
leadership role of bringing all parties together under a common goal. Each organization
identified has unique strengths and expertise that, through joint efforts, would greatly enhance
the promotion of green building design within our communities. Each organization would
continue with their current mandates and day to day activities but come together under the
Green Building Partnership to achieve initiatives that are large in scale or broad in scope to
affect market transformation beyond the individual organizations capabilities and resources.
As new members, SBC and CUI will work with TRCA and CaGBC - Toronto Chapter to develop
a strategy that will increase the adoption of green building development across the Greater
Golden Horseshoe.
Report prepared by: Andrew Bowerbank, extension 5343
For Information contact: Andrew Bowerbank, extension 5343
Date: March 23, 2005
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:44 a.m., on Friday, April 8, 2005.
Michael Di Biase Brian Denney
Chair Secretary- Treasurer
/ks
9
VrTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES BOARD #2/05
June 3, 2005
The Sustainable Communities Board Meeting #2/05, was held in the South Theatre, Black
Creek Pioneer Village , on Friday, June 3, 2005. The Chair Dick O'Brien , called the meeting
to order at 10:16 a.m.. Due to lack of quorum all items will go straight to the Authority for
consideration at Authority Meeting #5/05, to be held on Friday, June 24, 2005. No
objections to the items on the agenda were raised by the members in attendance.
PRESENT
Maria Augimeri Member
Colleen Jordan Member
Elaine Moore Member
Dick O'Brien Chair, Authority
John Sprovieri Member
REGRETS
Glenn De Baeremaeker Member
Michael Di Biase Chair
Suzan Hall Vice Chair
Gerri Lynn O'Connor Member
Linda Pabst Member
Andrew Schulz Member
A presentation by John Wilson of NaturalLifeNetwork.com in regards to sustainable living was
made as scheduled.
10
c.
PrTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES BOARD #3/05
October 14, 2005
The Sustainable Communities Board Meeting #3/05, was held in the South Theatre,
Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, October 14, 2005. The Chair Michael DI Biase,
called the meeting to order at 11:20 a.m.
PRESENT
Glenn De Baeremaeker
Michael Di Blase
Suzan Hall
Colleen Jordan
Glenn Mason
Elaine Moore
Dick O'Brien
Linda Pabst
Andrew Schulz
John Sprovieri
REGRETS
Maria Augimeri
Norm Kelly
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
RES. #E7/05 -
Moved by:
Seconded by:
MINUTES
Colleen Jordan
Elaine Moore
Member
Chair
Vice Chair
Member
Member
Member
Chair, Authority
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #1/05 and #2/05, held on April 8, 2005 and June 3, 2005,
respectively, be approved.
DELEGATION
CARRIED
(a) Mr. Jim Robb, Friends of the Rouge Watershed, speaking in regards to item 7.3 -
York-Durham Sanitary Sewer Projects.
11
RES. #E8 /05 - DELEGATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
John Sprovieri
Elaine Moore
THAT above -noted delegation (a) be heard and received.
CARRIED
PRESENTATIONS
(a) A presentation by Jamie James, Environmental Consultant, Tridel, in regards to Green
Buildings Strategies for High -Rise Residential Development.
(b) A presentation by Deborah Martin - Downs, Director, Ecology, Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority, in regards to item 7.3 - York Durham Sanitary Sewer Projects.
(c) A presentation by Mr. Bruce MacGregor, Commissioner, Transportation and Works,
Regional Municipality of York, in regards to 16th Avenue Trunk Sewer - Project Update.
RES. #E9 /05 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Glenn De Baeremaeker
Andrew Schulz
THAT above -noted presentation (a) be heard and received;
THAT Tridel be congratulated on their leadership in achieving CO savings, energy
reduction and seeking LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design)
certification;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the, Sustainable Communities Board on the
feasibility of requesting all municipalities in Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's
Jurisdiction to consider requiring LEED certification in building applications.
CARRIED
RES. #E10 /05 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
John Sprovieri
Elaine Moore
THAT above -noted presentations (b) and (c) be heard and received.
CARRIED
12
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES. #E11/05 - INDOOR AIR BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM AT HEAD OFFICE
Results achieved by the indoor air biofiltration system in terms of air
quality and energy savings.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Linda Pabst
Glenn Mason
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff pursue potential funding partners to continue
monitoring the indoor air biofiltration system at Head Office in 2006.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
TRCA, with support from Air Quality Solutions and Toronto Public Health, was awarded a
$53,700 grant from the Green Municipal Fund (GMF) to install and test an indoor air biofiltration
system, also known as a "biowall ", in TRCA's Head Office. The project was initiated to
demonstrate the benefits of this sustainable technology as a basis for recommending adoption
by others. This green technology contains an air filtration system that utilizes plants to improve
indoor air quality. This reduces the need to draw on outdoor air for ventilation which helps to
reduce energy costs associated with heating and cooling of the building. In the spring of
2004, the completion of the biowall was officially recognized by two unveiling events: one
internally for TRCA, and one for our partners and interested parties.
At Authority Meeting #6/03, held on July 25, 2003, Resolution #A155/03 was approved, in part,
as follows:
...AND FURTHER THAT staff report to the Executive Committee in 2004 on the results
achieved by the biofiltration system in terms of air quality and energy savings.
A study for the TRCA biowall was conducted by Air Quality Solutions, which is a company in
the City of Guelph that uses innovative biofiltration technology to develop environmentally
friendly and energy efficient systems, capable of improving the indoor environment. This report
updates the TRCA on the progress and its future direction of the biowall project.
Description of the Study
The biofiltration of indoor air has been presented as an alternative means of removing indoor
pollutants. Using this approach, the airborne contaminants are degraded by passing the
building air through a specifically tailored biological system. The system relies on benign
beneficial microbes, which consider the organic contaminants a food source. This approach
reduces the need to bring outside air into the office space thereby improving energy efficiency.
Prior to implementing a full program of maintaining air quality by biofiltration, a study to
determine how the population responds to air cleaned in this manner was implemented. The
purpose of this study was to determine if the augmentation of the traditional ventilation system
with biofilter air results in an indoor environment as good as, or better than, air maintained by
traditional means only.
13
Approach
The impact of the biofilter was evaluated by three means as follows:
1. Occupant surveys on changes in environmental quality associated with the implementation
of the biofiltration program.
2. Changes in physical characteristics of air quality with the implementation of the biofiltration
program.
3. Potential energy savings to be realized with the implementation of the biofiltration program.
There are numerous studies indicating people can respond positively to the simple addition of
plants into the work environment. Although the greening effect does have value, this study
attempted to separate this effect from the effect of the system on air quality. To this end, an
experimental design was used in which the implementation of the biofilter into a retrofitted
space would separate this office greening effect from the effect of the biofilter, using three
sampling periods as follows:
1. pre - installation;
2. post installation /pre- activation; and
3. activation of the biowall.
The population exposed to biofiltered air was also compared at each sampling period to a
control group within the same building complex who were not regularly receiving the biofiltered
air as their office environment has a separate ventilation system.
RESULTS OF THE STUDY
The biofiltration of indoor air by means of TRCA's Biowall appears to be an effective means of
supplying good quality air to the building occupants. The biowall reduced both the number of
different compounds present in the air and their concentrations while substantially reducing the
energy required to heat and cool the building.
Psychological Impact of Biowall
TRCA employees, when surveyed about air cleansed by this technology, exhibited no
negative responses when compared to a group that did not receive the treated air. The
group exposed to the treated air experienced a general increase in the perceived air quality
with the installation and activation of the biofilter. The treated group did not exhibit an
increase in the frequency of physical symptoms, such as irritation to mucous membrane in
the form of itchy eyes or runny noses, nor was there an increase in background odours
associated with the operation of the biowall. This suggests that the acceptance of the
biofiltered air was very high. Substantial improvement in indoor air quality was perceived
with the installation and activation of the biofilter.
14
Physical Impact of B /of/ /ter
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) are represented by chemicals such as formaldehyde,
benzene and toluene. These chemicals arise from activities that occur within the office,
building materials and the occupants themselves. If not controlled, the contaminants may
accumulate to the point of influencing the well -being of occupants. Estimates have placed
the annual impact of poor indoor air quality on worker productivity in the USA to be
between 20 and 200 billion dollars. Upon activation of the biofilter, there was a substantial
impact on air quality in the area immediately adjacent to the biowall (front lobby). Passing
the air through the biofilter reduced Total Volatile Organic Compounds (TVOCs)
concentrations by 75% relative to the rest of the building. The air exiting the biofilter
(sampled from the duct) exhibited an 80% reduction in the number of different VOCs
present in the air. This is a major improvement on air quality.
Areas further away and not adjacent to the biofilter, exhibited a slight improvement in air
quality although not significant. The limited impact of the biofilter on the more distant
locations was likely due to the interference from enhanced ventilation during the sample
period. The evaluation of the biofilter occurred during September and October when
ventilation systems take advantage of cool air outside to free cool" the building. Hence
the higher volume of outside air may have diluted the impact of the biofilter in regions
further from it.
The biofilter did not increase the fungal and bacterial spore loads in the spaces receiving
the treated air. However, the duct system carrying air between biofilter and the central air
handling system exhibited bacterial counts comparable to outdoors.
Impact on Energy Consumption
Energy required to provide required outside air to occupants:
• Peak summer energy requirement is approximately 0.36 KW of energy per occupant.
• Peak winter energy requirements are 0.62 KW per person for properly humidified air.
Energy requirement of biofilter
• The operation of the biofilter requires approximately 0.025 KW per m2 or approximately
0.05 KW per building occupant.
Potential Energy Savings
• Potential savings during peak energy requirements in the heat of summer and the cold
of winter are estimated to be 0.32 and 0.58 KW per occupant respectively. This
translates into approximately a 5 -10% annual energy savings.
15
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Immediate actions include upgrading of the lighting fixtures and continued maintenance of the
biowall. The system had a very large impact on the area adjacent to the biofilter and less of an
impact further away. This may have been due to the enhanced amount of fresh air brought into
the building during the fall. It is recommended that the impact of the biofilter be examined
during peak heating and cooling seasons when ventilation is minimized and determine to what
extent biofiltered air can replace outside air as a means of maintaining indoor air quality.
Continued monitoring is subject to available funding. TRCA staff will be pursuing potential
funding partners to continue the monitoring in 2006.
Report prepared by: Cindy Kambeitz, extension 5336
For Information contact: Glenn MacMillan, extension 5212
Date: September 22, 2005
RES. #E12/05 - UPDATE ON THE MAYORS' MEGAWATT CHALLENGE
Participation in the Mayors' Megawatt Challenge by municipalities in
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's jurisdiction.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Glenn Mason
Suzan Hall
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Members of Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) whose municipalities are not participating in the Mayors'
Megawatt Challenge be requested to encourage them to join the program;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back with an update of the status of membership in the
Mayors' Megawatt Challenge at the Sustainable Communities Board meeting to be held
on December 2, 2005.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
The Mayors' Megawatt Challenge brings municipalities together to improve energy efficiency
and environmental management in their own buildings. Through the Mayors' Megawatt
Challenge municipalities demonstrate leadership, inspiring other organizations and
individuals to take action towards healthier, more sustainable communities.
Municipalities in Canada have long been champions of energy efficiency. Many cities, towns
and regional governments have implemented projects and programs aimed at improving their
energy performance. The Mayors' Megawatt Challenge takes these efforts to the next level by
benchmarking performance between municipalities and sharing best practices for
improvement.
The Mayors' Megawatt Challenge program helps municipalities improve the energy efficiency
of their own facilities. The program provides:
• a web -based utilities management system;
16
• quarterly workshops to explore and assess benchmarking, action plans, best practices and
actual savings;
• on -line tools for analyzing and budgeting energy use;
• collaborative projects;
• best practices checklists; and
• newsletters, awards and media releases.
Facility design, retrofits and operations in a wide range of facility types, combined with
management practices and the actions of building users, all work together to achieve and
sustain optimal levels of municipal energy efficiency. Sharing knowledge and experience with
peers in each of these areas can yield better performance than any municipality can achieve by
acting alone.
The inaugural meeting of the Mayors' Megawatt Challenge took place on June 23, 2003.
Twenty -eight municipalities from the Toronto region were invited, and 12 municipalities took up
the challenge, representing about 92% of the region's population (encompassing 5.3 million
people). Participating municipalities for the first session of the challenge were: Barrie,
Brampton, Burlington, Markham, Milton, Mississauga, Oakville, Oshawa, Richmond Hill,
Toronto, Vaughan and Whitby. The pilot session ended with a final workshop at Richmond Hill
City Hall on November 29, 2004.
By November of 2004, the program participants had reported savings of 640 kilowatts or 64%
of the targeted megawatt in total. Based on the data gathered for 11 of the 69 buildings in the
database, 2,617,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) were saved. Total gas saved was 137,000 cubic
metres (m') and total water saved was 6,000 m3. This translates to the prevention of
approximately 1,400 tonnes of greenhouse gases (GHG) from being released into the
atmosphere. Total energy use decreased by 4% and water savings of 7% were recorded.
Cost savings from the energy and water savings were estimated to be approximately $362,000.
This is more than seven times the total program fees collected of approximately $50,000. The
program also attracted a federal grant which was used to keep municipal fees low.
In August of 2004, written surveys and phone interviews were conducted with the participants
to gauge the interest in the next phase of the program and to determine the content and focus.
Feedback was very positive. To support this expansion and to encourage small municipalities
to join, participants suggested that a tiered fee structure be created for the 2005/2006 session.
Invitations and planning for the 2005/2006 session began in January 2005. Forty -three
municipalities from around the Greater Golden Horseshoe were invited to participate in the
program. As of September 2005, thirteen municipalities had joined the program, including
Ajax, Barrie, Brampton, Burlington, Guelph, Kitchener, Milton, Mississauga, Oshawa, Richmond
Hill, St. Catharines, Toronto and Waterloo. The Town of Markham is still considering joining,
while the cities of Pickering and Cambridge have indicated that they would join in 2006.
17
In the current session of the program, a collaborative project has been initiated to identify
energy savings and thus cost savings in the operation of arenas. Benchmarking for the
Mayors' Megawatt Challenge indicates that there are major differences in energy use amongst
seemingly similar single pad arenas. The single pad arenas project will involve audits of
facilities, documentation of best practices and specification of building automation system
installations. Municipal partners will provide input to existing operational procedures at rinks,
along with ongoing energy use data. Working collaboratively and learning from the experience
of others will provide support for municipalities in implementing projects that will save energy
and money. By working collaboratively, economies of scale will be achieved and grants from
government agencies will be received to provide municipalities with a cost effective and
integrated assessment of energy and cost savings for arenas that are enrolled in the program.
RATIONALE
Feedback from participants has indicated that the program adds value to existing energy
efficiency programs and helps municipalities get started on their own program. In last year's
program, municipalities had estimated aggregate savings of $362,000, which is more that
seven times the total fees charged to the municipal participants.
The value of the program is linked in part to the number of municipalities participating. The
more participants, the more opportunity there is for sharing of knowledge, experience and peer
learning. The Government of Ontario has committed to lowering energy demand by 5%
province -wide and by 10% within its own buildings by 2007.
Energy savings targets for publically funded buildings are likely to be included in upcoming
energy conservation regulations. The Mayors' Megawatt Challenge provides participating
municipalities with the tools and access to the experience and expertise to develop appropriate
energy targets.
Report prepared by: Bernie McIntyre, extension 5326
For Information contact: Bernie McIntyre, extension 5326
Date: October 3, 2005
RES. #E13/05 - YORK - DURHAM SANITARY SEWER PROJECTS
16th Avenue Phase II. Recommendation for continued staff involvement
in the York - Durham Sanitary Sewer projects.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Linda Pabst
Glenn Mason
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT all interested parties be advised
that In the opinion of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), the
Environmental Management Plan and detailed works plans for the 16th Avenue Phase II
York - Durham Sanitary Sewer project are being effectively Implemented by York Region
and their contractors;
18
THAT staff be directed to continue reviewing the monitoring and mitigation reports and
web site data, conducting field inspections and Independent monitoring, and
participating in the adaptive management program associated with the implementation of
the 16th Avenue Phase II York - Durham Sanitary Sewer project;
THAT staff be directed to continue working with York Region, Fisheries and Oceans
Canada, and the Ontario Ministries of Environment and Natural Resources to ensure that
the environmental impacts associated with the planning, design and construction of all
other York - Durham Sanitary Sewer projects In TRCAs jurisdiction are minimized;
THAT staff report back to the Sustainable Communities Board in December 2005 with a
detailed presentation regarding the planning, design and construction status of all other
York - Durham Sanitary Sewer projects In TRCAs jurisdiction;
THAT York Region be encouraged to continue and extend their current efforts toward
sustalnability planning, water budgets, natural heritage planning and environmental net
gain within all municipal planning and development processes;
THAT staff be directed to continue participating In activities underway in York Region to
develop a sustalnability plan and positive legacies for regional residents emanating from
this plan;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Sustainable Communities Board In 2006
with a detailed presentation regarding mechanisms for implementing net environmental
gain practices In York region's planning and development processes.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Over the past few months, considerable public criticism has been leveled at TRCA, Fisheries
and Oceans Canada (DFO) and the Ministry of Environment (MOE), over the construction of
the 16th Avenue Phase II sewer project and its environmental effects. Recently, the City of
Toronto became concerned about the potential environmental effects of this project on the
watercourses in the city. The issues raised by the public, agencies and the City of Toronto are
summarized along with an assessment of conditions and potential environmental
consequences.
The technical issues associated with the construction of the York - Durham Sanitary Sewer
(YDSS) projects are complex. In order to fully understand these issues, background
information regarding the planning history of the YDSS system, as well as an overview of the
16th Avenue Phase I project, are provided.
PLANNING HISTORY
Between 1964 and 1980, water quality of the streams and rivers in the Greater Toronto Area
(GTA) was poor. One of the contributing factors was the number of small sewage treatment
plants (STPs) that discharged their effluent to the streams (i.e., at one time there were 31 STPs
on the Don River alone). The York - Durham Sanitary Sewer was constructed during the 1970s,
and many of the STPs were taken off-line. Sewage collection was centralized into a large trunk
sewer from Newmarket to Lake Ontario, outletting at the Durham STP, and water quality in the
GTA's streams and rivers significantly improved.
19
In 1994, York Region developed their first official plan which identified substantial growth in the
region. This growth was to be centred around existing urban centres of Aurora, Newmarket,
Vaughan, Richmond Hill and Markham. Following this, the York Region embarked on a master
servicing study to assess the requirements to provide for this growth.
In 1997, York Region approved the YDSS Master Plan which was designed to service this
growth. The master plan was completed following the mastering plan provisions of the Ontario
Environmental Assessment (EA) Act . The EA Act requires that master plans be approved by
municipal council. There is no requirement for ministerial endorsement of a master plan.
Once approved by council, the EA Act requires that an environmental assessment be
conducted for each project segment identified in the master plan. In accordance with the
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (formerly the Class EA for Municipal Road, and
Water and Wastewater Projects), the assessments for individual sewer projects identified in the
YDSS Master Plan commenced in the late 1990s. They are on- going.
16TH AVENUE
The YDSS Master Plan identified the construction of the 16th Avenue trunk sewer as one
project. However, as part of the approval process for the Swan Lake development in Markham,
a sanitary connection to the existing YDSS sewer was required in advance of the planned
construction of the new 16th Avenue sewer. Thus, the project was constructed in two phases:
16th Avenue Phase 1:
• 9th Line from Box Grove to almost Major Mackenzie Drive.
• 16th Avenue from 9th Line to just west of Stone Mason Drive.
16th Avenue Phase 1!:
• 16th Avenue from just west of Stone Mason Drive to just east of Woodbine Avenue.
This decision was supported by York Region Council and incorporated into the 2002 YDSS
Master Plan update. In accordance with the updated YDSS Master Plan, construction of the
Phase I sewer was required by 2003 and construction of the Phase II sewer by 2005.
16th Avenue Phase 1
The Class EA for 16th Avenue Phase I was approved in 1998. The preferred alignment for this
sewer was along 16th Avenue, and the preferred design was for a gravity sewer. These options
required construction in the aquifer. Construction was completed in the summer of 2003.
During the review of the Class EA and the subsequent permit applications, TRCA review
included an assessment of the impacts that the sewer, or the construction of the sewer, would
have on valley and stream corridors within TRCA's jurisdiction as per the policy requirements in
the TRCA Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program (1994). As such, the only permits
issued by TRCA were related to construction compounds within fill regulated areas.
20
While MOE reviewed the Permit to Take Water (PTTW) application required to facilitate
construction of both the shafts and the tunnel, Ontario Regulation 99/380, requiring that effects
to the natural environment be considered, had not come into effect. Thus, consideration for all
aspects of the environment through the issuance of the PTTW was not a requirement. MOE
also reviewed the detailed design of the sewer and issued a Certificate of Approval (CofA) to
York Region prior to commencement of construction. It is TRCA staffs understanding that a
gravity sewer is preferred over a forcemain as there is no requirement for a pumping station or
emergency overflow to the creek or river. Thus the risk of environmental contamination is
significantly reduced. Additionally, a pump station would consume electricity on a perpetual
basis and does not facilitate sustainability goals. Associated with the issuance of the PTTW,
TRCA reviewed the anticipated dewatering requirements in relation to capacities of the
watercourses and stormwater management ponds, and staff determined that no TRCA permits
for the associated discharge were required for Phase 1, based on these assessments.
The construction of the project began on 9th Line, with two tunnel boring machines (TBMs)
simultaneously drilling the tunnel. One of the machines then turned the corner and proceeded
to drill along 16th Avenue. As the drilling neared the end of the Phase I contract area, near
Stone Mason Drive and Robinson Creek (at shaft C8), there was an unpredicted high
permeability zone in the aquifer. Additional dewatering was required to repressurize the aquifer
and to lower the water levels to facilitate construction and to ensure worker safety. As a result,
the dewatering rates doubled and exceeded the limits prescribed in the PTTW in order to
maintain a safe construction area. The resulting discharge rates from the pumping in spring
2003 exceeded the capacity of the Wismer Commons stormwater management pond, leading
to the overflow of the pond and erosion of the Robinson Creek flood plain, streambanks and a
locally significant wetland.
Without the increased dewatering, it is likely that the TBM would have been disabled or
destroyed, the partially constructed tunnel and pipe would be impacted and worker safety
would be compromised. The increased dewatering resulted in erosion and deposition of iron
precipitates on the banks and streambed of Robinson Creek both at the dewatering site and
downstream. TRCA, Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), and DFO staff were all on site to
assess the situation. DFO, MOE and Environment Canada are still investigating the incident.
Private prosecution pursuant to subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act was initiated.
At their own discretion, York Region had the condition of Robinson Creek assessed both at the
discharge site and downstream. York Region applied to TRCA for permits to restore Robinson
Creek, its flood plain and wetland, and these permits were granted in 2004 and 2005. The
restoration works will be completed this year.
As a result of the issues identified during the construction of the Phase I project, the
construction of the Phase II project was substantially modified in order to better protect the
natural environment. In addition, the planning and design processes related to other YDSS
projects have also been substantially changed over the past two years. These changes,
resulting from conditions set forth by the Ontario Minister of the Environment as well as the
application of new advances in sciences, are discussed as follows.
21
16TH AVENUE PHASE 11
The Class EA for 16th Avenue Phase II was approved in 2002. In the EA document, the impact
to surficial features from the required dewatering was identified. Agency staff concluded that
this issue was not adequately addressed in the EA, and required that these impacts be
addressed through the detailed design and construction phases of the project. The agencies
required substantial environmental mitigation and monitoring as part of the permit approval
processes. This review took place in 2003 and 2004. All required permits and approvals were
issued, and construction commenced in December 2004 after a substantial delay to develop
the Environmental Management Plan (EMP). The following legislation was reviewed and
addressed as part of the approval process for 16th Avenue Phase II:
Ontario Regulation 158
TRCA required permits for the construction of the discharge infrastructure related to the
supplementation infrastructure at or near Elgin Mills Road. Five permits were issued in the
summer of 2004. Through an amendment to the work plan, an additional permit for the
construction of an outlet channel from Wismer Commons stormwater management pond was
issued in summer 2005. Approval of these permits was based on TRCA approval of the EMP.
Flsherles Act
Approval under section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act is a voluntary process. TRCA has a Level 3
Agreement with DFO. As such, TRCA undertakes the fisheries review of all requests on behalf
of DFO. If the project is not deemed to cause a harmful alteration, disruption or destruction
(HADD) to fish habitat, TRCA issues a Letter of Advice on behalf of DFO. If a project is deemed
to be a HADD, then TRCA continues to act as the agent and consults with DFO during the
course of the project review. Upon request and given that the required process has been
followed, DFO may issue an authorization for the project. The issuance of an authorization is a
trigger for a Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) review. Of significance is that
subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act is a non - affirmative regulatory duty. This means that DFO
does not provide an authorization unless requested by the proponent and that they are
satisfied that compensation can be provided to address the harmful alteration, disruption or
destruction of habitat.
As part of the TRCA Level 3 Agreement with DFO that was adopted in 2002, staff undertook a
fisheries review under the auspices of the Level 3 Agreement for 16th Avenue Phase II. Prior to
the development of the environmental management plan that is now in place, TRCA staff
identified significant concerns with respect to the potential impact on fish or fish habitat if the
project proceeded without mitigation. As mitigation was not proposed at that time, staff referred
the project to DFO. As a result of agency requests, an environmental management plan was
developed. This was followed by detailed work plans for each of the eight effected
watercourses. The work plans outline the operational procedures, and have been in effect
since March 2005. It should be noted that York Region did not request DFO to authorize the
impacts to fish or fish habitat arising from the 16th Avenue Phase II project. As a result, a
review under CEAA was not triggered. However, DFO staff was involved in the review of the
EMP and work plans and provided advice to York Region in this regard.
22
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
There are a number of triggers for a project review under the CEAA. One of these triggers is
authorization of a project under the Federal Fisheries Act. Because York Region did not request
such an authorization for this project, CEAA was not triggered. The project therefore remains
solely in the planning domain of the Ontario EA Act and as such, approvals and conditions are
mandated by the Minister of the Environment for Ontario.
Permit To Take Water
In 2003, York Region applied for a PTTW for the 16th Avenue Phase II project. The original
application was not accompanied by a dewatering needs assessment, a monitoring plan or a
mitigation plan. As required through Ontario Regulation 99/380, the effects to the natural
environment had to be considered in the application. Concerns with respect to a number of
issues associated with dewatering were raised by TRCA, MOE, DFO and MNR. These issues
included the following:
• long term impacts of dewatering;
• size of the zone of influence;
• groundwater and wells;
• groundwater and fish habitat (including reduced baseflow, water temperature changes, and
increased water volume and velocities at discharge locations);
• groundwater and wildlife habitat;
• federal EA triggers;
• comprehensive environmental planning;
• alternative methods, alignments and design.
The agencies, York Region and their contractors worked together to develop the EMP. In the
meantime, the Minister of the Environment received a request for a Part II Order for a number of
the YDSS projects, including 16th Avenue Phase II. Typical of environmental assessment
planning in the late 1990s and early 2000s, sewers were generally considered to be
appropriate projects for review under the Municipal Engineer's Association, Class EA for
Municipal Infrastructure document. As stipulated in the EA Act, however, any individual or
agency can request the Minister review the class designation of a particular project and if
appropriate, order an Individual EA to be conducted.
While this request was denied, the Minister did establish additional conditions for approval of a
number of the YDSS projects as outlined in a letter dated October 1, 2004. In terms of 16th
Avenue Phase II, the following is a summary of the conditions which were applied:
• That monitoring and mitigation measures be developed and applied to the natural features
and wells that could be impacted by the dewatering activities associated with the project.
• That public consultation be undertaken regarding the monitoring and mitigation plan.
• That a well complaint review committee be maintained.
• That all technical studies, reports and other documents be made available for review by the
public.
• That a habitat improvement plan be developed and implemented for each section of a
stream where water is discharged for the purpose of this project.
• That an annual report be submitted to the MOE.
23
These conditions have been, or will be, addressed as requirements of the PTTW. The EMP
developed by York Region includes a comprehensive mitigation and monitoring plan. This plan
was reviewed by TRCA, MOE, MNR and DFO. MOE subsequently issued the required PTTW
and construction of the project was allowed to proceed in December 2004.
Certificate of Approval
MOE has issued a Certificate of Approval for this project which permits the construction of a
gravity sewer in the aquifer, as recommended in the EA and as supported by the Minister of the
Environment in her response to the request for a Part II Order related to this EA. It is staffs
understanding that gravity sewers are environmentally safer than forcemains. The pressure of
the aquifer works to contain any Teaks in the pipe. Thus, there is a greater chance of the
groundwater leaking into the pipe than there is of sewage leaking out into the aquifer. With
forcemains and pumping stations, emergency overflows to the streams and rivers are a design
requirement to prevent surcharge into basements. These options are reviewed as part of the
EA review.
PROJECT DELAYS AND IMPACTS TO THE ENVIRONMENT
The phasing of the Phase I and Phase II projects was not based on environmental factors. It
was based largely on timing of development and financial implications and synergies.
Environmental issues associated with dewatering of the Phase I project included not only the
aforementioned impacts on Robinson Creek, but impacts on private wells, stream baseflow
and possibly forests and wetlands. The full impact that this project had on the natural
environment will likely never be known because the collection of baseline information was not a
requirement of any agency's approval process for either the EA or their permits, nor was
detailed monitoring required during construction.
The original PTTW application for Phase II did not take into account the surficial environmental
impacts that were associated with the required dewatering or discharge. Discussions between
York Region, their contractors, and the agencies (MOE, MNR, DFO and TRCA) ensued.
However, from August 2003 when the tunneling required for Phase I ended, to April 2005 when
tunneling required for Phase II commenced, the TBM remained in the ground and dewatering
continued at a rate of approximately 15,000 Lim. Potential impacts that this dewatering may
have had on the environment while construction was stopped and the environmental
management plan was developed are not known. MOE granted a one year extension to the
Phase I PTTW to allow this dewatering to occur. Had it been stopped, the pressure in the
aquifer would have likely caused the completed Phase I tunnel to collapse.
With some of the direct impacts of Phase I identified (i.e., the impacts to Robinson Creek),
none of the agencies were prepared to issue approvals for the Phase II project without an
environmental management plan. York Region and their contractors applied for the required
PTTW for Phase II in 2003, and the Ontario Regulation 158 permits in 2004. York Region
committed to mitigating all adverse impacts to fish and fish habitat, and as such did not apply
for Fisheries Act authorization.
ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH DEWATERING
There are two fundamental aspects of the dewatering which concern TRCA staff: the rate and
duration of dewatering, and the impacts of the dewatering on the surficial environment.
24
The current dewatering rate for the sewer brings between 15,000 and 20,000 litres per minute
O
of 9.5 C groundwater to the surface to be discharged. This groundwater has a significantly
different temperature than that of the ambient watercourses in the summer and winter, as well
as different chemistry (e.g., higher iron content). The rate and duration of groundwater
withdrawals can be mitigated, in part, through construction methodologies. Staff spent
considerable time researching and discussing the potential for changing the construction
methods associated with the 16th Avenue Phase II pipe.
Agency staff recognized that:
• the pipe was over half built;
• the TBM was in the ground;
• the elevations had been determined; and
• the shaft construction had been applied or the design had been finalized based on
conditions in the aquifer.
As such, agency staff concurred that changing the construction methodologies associated with
the construction of the Phase II was not practical given that the Phase I project was complete.
As such, the completion of an effective mitigation and monitoring plan, the EMP, became the
primary requirement of agency staff during the review and approval of the required PTTW and
Ontario Regulation 158 permits, as well as the review of DFO and MNR staff regarding their
respective interests.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
The main issues addressed in the EMP are:
• interference to existing water wells;
• loss of groundwater contributions to natural streams, wetlands and ESAs; and
• discharge of excess volumes of water and its potential to change the natural regime of the
receiving watercourses.
The EMP predicts zones of effect and identifies targets to be maintained (e.g., baseflow). The
EMP is divided into two major parts:
• a proactive well mitigation and monitoring plan to address adversely affected private wells
and specialized groundwater uses, including golf courses and farms; and
• an EMP to manage stress to the natural features and functions of the ecosystem during the
dewatering operation and associated recovery period of the aquifer.
The proactive well mitigation and monitoring plan was reviewed by MOE as part of the region's
PTTW application. The EMP was reviewed by TRCA staff for permits under Ontario Regulation
158; MOE for the PTTW; and MNR and DFO. Only MOE and TRCA formerly approved the plan.
Key considerations associated with the EMP included:
• complexity of the natural ecosystem;
• deficiency in historic baseline information;
• deficiency of documented effects from projects of this type and scale; and
• flexibility to address conditions not anticipated or predicted through the EMP process.
25
To assess the potential zone of impact (ZOI) associated with the water - takings during the
dewatering operation, a three - dimensional groundwater flow model developed as part of the
York -Peel- Durham - Toronto (YPDT) Groundwater Model was used. The results obtained from
this modelling were used to define an area where a 0.5 metre drawdown in the shallow aquifer
would occur. Because unimpaired baseline data was not available at a comprehensive level,
the use of this model, which became available in 2002, was considered acceptable by all
agencies. The YPDT Groundwater Model has been developed in partnership with the City of
Toronto, York Region, Peel Region, Durham Region and conservation authorities.
The predicted ZOI defines the cone of potential groundwater level decrease. Within this cone
some surficial features may be affected depending on soil permeability properties. The shallow
aquifer zone of influence was modelled to predict the impact on shallow aquifer wells. A
conservative buffer zone was added to the predicted ZOI in order to reduce the level of
uncertainty associated with the predicted ZOI. Because the definition of the ZOI was based on
a model versus baseline data, a buffer was deemed essential for this project. The YPDT
Groundwater Model was also used to predict sections of streams which may be impacted
through the anticipated reductions in shallow aquifer levels.
Within the predicted ZOI and its buffer, all environmentally significant areas (ESA), wetlands
and watercourses were identified and an analysis of these ecosystem receptors was carried
out for fish and fish habitat, wetlands and ESAs, critical stream erosion rates and capacity,
woodlots, and agriculture. A comprehensive monitoring and mitigation plan was developed for
all of these features, including recognition that adaptive management must be used as
required due to the complexities of the system. The systems that have been defined are being
mitigated and monitored as required. They include:
Fish and Fish Habitat
• Piping dewatering discharge upstream to supplement stream baseflows within the ZOI.
• Releasing the discharge through splash pads and channels to remove iron.
• Establishing holding tanks within the ZOI to supplement stream baseflows within the ZOI.
• Dispersing dewatering discharge to alternate waterbodies.
• Thermal regulation of dewatering discharge.
• An extensive temperature, flow and groundwater monitoring system.
Wet /ands and ESAs
• An extensive species and groundwater monitoring system in select areas.
• Piping water to supplement soil moisture.
• Plant additional species.
Critical Stream Capacity
• A fluvial geomorphological assessment of creeks that may be physically impacted was
conducted to determine maximum discharge velocities.
Wood lots
• Soil moisture conditions and tree growth is monitored in sample plots.
26
All rates and triggers are established in the EMP and are intended to be adjusted through the
adaptive management process if appropriate. It is recognized that because sufficient baseline
data was unavailable, the triggers were based on modelled conditions. Inaccuracies in the
modelling will occur due to the input data and conservative nature of such models, and as a
result adjustments to the EMP are expected. The rates and triggers established in the EMP
were considered conservative enough to mitigate adverse impacts to the environment. This
approach is essential to ensuring that environmental impacts are minimized and effectively
mitigated. There have been some issues in the implementation of the EMP. These issues are
currently being reviewed by the agencies and addressed by York Region and their contractors.
The adaptive management approach allows York Region or the contractors to react in a timely
manner to results from continuous monitoring of environmental trigger parameters and values,
and operational rules. Any adjustments to the EMP are to be done in consultation with the
YDSS Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Coordinator and the respective agency staff.
For example, the McCowan Road shaft has been added in order to reduce the rates and
duration of withdrawals. By adding this shaft, access will be provided to the tunnel to the east
of C8. As a result, the contractors will be able to proceed with lining the tunnel and Shaft C8
ahead of schedule. Once lined, the area will be secured and the wells can be
decommissioned. It is anticipated that dewatering at this critical location can be stopped about
six months ahead of schedule, thus conserving about 10 million litres of groundwater.
The adaptive management program will continue to be in effect for at least three years after the
works are completed, or until the aquifer has rebounded to 80 per cent and shows a steady
rate of gain as stipulated in the approved PTTW. As construction activities are completed, there
will be less need to continue dewatering and the flow supplementation will be adjusted or
discontinued in consultation with the agencies. To coordinate the inter - agency review of the
monitoring program, TRCA has hired a staff person on behalf of ourselves, MNR, DFO and
MOE. Funding for this position has been committed by York Region.
ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION OF THE 16TH AVENUE PHASE II PROJECT
A variety of public statements have been made over the past few months regarding the
impacts of the project. These issues mirror those considered by agency staff in the
development and review of the EMP. They are summarized as follows:
Cease Project to Apply for Authorization
In accordance with conditions in the PTTW, the proponent was able to begin taking water for
the project in December 2004, and increase pumping capacities as of April 1, 2005, thus
enabling the TBM to commence drilling. The requirements set forth for mitigation and
monitoring had been installed, and the tunnel boring machine began to move toward
McCowan Road. Pumping rates have been substantially Tess than those permitted in the PTTW
(the dewatering rate allowed is 38,000 litres per minute while the actual rate is between 15,000
and 20,000 litres per minute).
27
Shaft C8 continues to be the point of greatest dewatering requirements and therefore the
greatest impact to the environment. Efforts to complete the required tunneling and lining of the
tunnel and shaft, and therefore decommission the wells and stop or reduce dewatering at or
near Shaft C8 are underway. It is anticipated that this will be done by January 2006, thus
significantly reducing the groundwater withdrawal rates and duration at this sensitive location
by approximately six months.
Should the project be stopped again, dewatering would still be required to maintain the system
that has been constructed to date. Any delays to the construction timing will cause continued
impacts to the aquifer, and to the surficial environmental features. At this point in the
construction process the best alternative to reduce environmental impacts is to minimize the
duration and rates of groundwater withdrawals through modifications to the detailed design of
the project, such as the construction of an additional shaft at McCowan Road.
Sewage Pipes In Aquifers
The issue has been raised that the pipe should not be located in the aquifer in order to protect
drinking water supplies. TRCA staff understand from discussions with York Region staff that
long term contamination of the aquifer through the construction of a gravity sewer in the aquifer
is highly unlikely. The pressure of the groundwater against the pipe is greater than the
pressure within the sewer. Therefore there is little potential for an outward leakage of sewage.
Thus the issue of potential contamination of the drinking water resource is minimal. Inward
leakages of groundwater into the pipe may occur. However, TRCA staff are of the
understanding that in the existing sewers, (also located in the aquifer) this is monitored and
maintained through a comprehensive operational program at York Region and this would be
extended to deal with the new YDSS system as well. Additionally, the 16th Avenue sewer
features thick, continuous concrete walls that are far superior to the regular open cut sewers
which are constructed of smaller jointed pipe sections.. The only joints are at the shafts.
Long Term impacts of Dewaterinq
The aquifer impacts from dewatering are anticipated to last for approximately 18 months post
construction. Monitoring and mitigation will continue for up to three years or until the aquifer
has rebounded to 80 per cent and is showing a steady rate of increase.
Staff calculate that there are approximately 1.3 trillion litres of water in the Thorncliffe aquifer
within the impact and buffer zone, and that the total volume of extracted water will be between
32 billion and 53 billion litres (15,000 to 25,000 L/min for 4 years). Therefore, this project will
extract about 2 -4% of the water in the Thorncliffe Aquifer in this area.
This calculation is conservative, since it does not allow for aquifer recharge, which is a
combination of groundwater inflow from the aquifer outside of the buffer zone (5.5 billion L/yr),
vertical leakage downward through the Newmarket Till (8.5 million L/yr), and vertical flow
upwards through the Sunnybrook Aquitard (1.2 million L/yr).
28
The time required for the aquifer to recover to pre - pumping levels will depend on the average
rate of recharge from all sources and has been estimated at 0.4 to 1.4 years, depending on the
actual total volume of water extracted over the estimated four year construction period and the
actual recharge rates from all sources. It is anticipated that there will be a short exponential
(i.e., rapid) recovery period initially after the pumping ceases, followed by a longer, linear
recovery to pre - pumping conditions. Recovery of the aquifer around the 9th Line has already
been noted.
The groundwater in the Thorncliffe Aquifer in this area comprises some young (i.e., less than
50 years) water from leakage through the Newmarket Till, a small fraction of very old (i.e.,
thousands of years) water from upward vertical movement through the Sunnybrook Aquitard,
and mostly middle aged (i.e., hundreds of years) water from lateral movement within the
aquifer itself.
Size of the Zone of Influence
There are two zones of influence that need to be considered - the shallow aquifer and the deep
aquifer. The shallow aquifer ZOI is more limited, and modelled predictions show that there
could be impacts as far north as almost 19th Avenue and as far south as almost 14th Avenue.
The predicted ZOI for the shallow aquifer does not extend into the City of Toronto. All impacted
natural features are being mitigated.
The deep aquifer ZOI has been combined with the ZOI for the production wells for the Town of
Stouffville, and thus extend to that area. These impacts are being mitigated. The southern limit
of the predicted deep ZOI extends to approximately Highway 7. This aquifer outcrops in the
Rouge and Little Rouge rivers just north of Finch Avenue in the City of Toronto. However,
because these aquifer outcrops are outside of the ZOI, no effects to basefiow, fish or fish
habitat, or forests and wetlands are anticipated in the City of Toronto. Because there are no
noted impacts within the buffer zone, the assumption that there are no impacts outside of the
buffer zone is presumed correct. This has been supported by an analysis of stream flow data
at 14th Avenue which show summer volumes within the normal range.
35 years of Urban Sprawl
The Rouge Watershed Task Force is currently looking at growth projection scenarios for the
watershed which take into account the Greenbelt Plan and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation
Plan boundaries, the Rouge Park and Rouge Park North boundaries, and the Terrestrial
Natural Heritage System Strategy boundaries. The YDSS Master Plan and its updates are
required to include areas identified as potential developable land, as determined by the
policies of the federal, provincial and regional governments. Areas of urban growth are
determined as set forth in the municipal official plan.
29
The 16th Avenue project services growth that was approved in the 1995 official plan.
This plan is updated every five years, as are the municipal servicing plans. When the servicing
plans are next reviewed, TRCA staff will request that a regional water budget be prepared. It is
anticipated that with the Lake Ontario water servicing to be provided to Aurora and Newmarket
from the York Peel Feedermain, and the decommissioning of the municipal production wells in
these municipalities, that there will be an increase in groundwater and that this increase could
result in improved baseflow to the TRCA watersheds. The form of growth is also prescribed in
the municipal official plan. York Region has initiated development of a sustainability plan and it
is anticipated that this plan will also address issues related to the form of development and
protection of the environment.
Groundwater and Wells
Groundwater and wells are addressed through a comprehensive well mitigation program that
York Region administers. The approval and management of this program is done under the
auspices of the PTTW and guidance is provided at the discretion of MOE.
Groundwater and Fish Habitat
Three issues have been identified by the public: reduced baseflow; water temperature
changes; and effects on fish.
Reduced Baseflow
The EMP set triggers for stream baseflow to be maintained in the various creeks, should
stream flow be reduced due to pumping. The trigger levels were based on calculations, as
there was no baseline information available at the time the EMP was developed (due to the
construction of the Phase I project, the conditions in some of the creeks were considered to be
already impacted). TRCA, MOE and DFO reviewed this information and with the proposed
adaptive management plan, assumed that the triggers levels were a reasonable approach.
The shallow aquifer is experiencing draw down due to pumping of the deep aquifer. As a
result, it is expected that the streams are experiencing some reductions in flow. The EMP
includes a flow dispersion plan at 26 points throughout the potential impact zone and its buffer.
The plan supplements flow in the creeks from the headwaters and at points downstream,
provides water to mitigate potential effects at ESAs or wetlands, provide contingency to
address flow loss where none it expected, and distributes water to two golf courses to reduce
their ground water taking. A portion of the flow is directed into storm ponds and into ditches
for eventual discharge into the creeks to allow it to come to ambient temperature and reduce
the infrastructure needed for discharges. Some of the excess water is discharged to the YDSS
pipe. Of the eight discharge points to streams, the August data finds that baseflow targets were
met always at 6 streams, about half of the time at one and does not meet the target for
minimum flow at the Little Rouge River at Elgin Mills Road. These targets were not based on
measured values however and were determined by calculation, which may account for the
difference from target.
30
TRCA has historic flow data in the Little Rouge River at Locust Hill (around 14th avenue). This
data shows that flows in the Little Rouge River over the summer of 2005 are among the lowest
recorded over the period of record (1968 - 2005), but lower water flows have been measured in
1991 and 1999, before construction of the 16th Avenue Sewer began. Geologic survey of
Canada baseflow data from 1996/97 can be used to provide a picture of summer stream flows
in the Rouge Watershed pre - construction. The headwaters of Robinson Creek were found to
be dry up to 16th Avenue, with minimal flows (<5 L/s) below 16th Ave. Mount Joy Creek was
also dry above Mount Joy pond north of 16th Avenue.
The flow supplementation plan is important to continuing to maintain stream flow and habitat in
the streams in the study area.
Water Temperature Changes
The EMP requires that temperature in the creeks at the discharge points be maintained within
three degrees of the average mean daily temperature 100 metres downstream of the discharge
points, as compared to the immediate upstream conditions. It is expected that there will be a
range of temperature within a given day, and this occurs in a natural system as well. Fish have
the ability to move from unsuitable areas, and over time, will adapt to changes in condition.
Regardless, York Region and their contractors have acknowledged being out of compliance
with this aspect of the EMP on some days, and have filed incident reports with the MOE.
Enforcement staff at MOE and DFO are investigating this issue.
Those streams that have minimal flow (e.g Robinson and Eckhardt) will receive more discharge
water than they are capable of assimilating from a temperature perspective. For these
streams, boilers and chillers have been purchased to further mitigate the temperature
differential. Although there were some initial issues with the temperature and water volumes
noted in Robinson Creek at the beginning of August, they have been corrected through
monitoring and modifications. The temperatures downstream of the discharge points are
matching upstream temperatures very closely.
Fish and Fish Habitat
The issue then becomes, has the change in temperature or baseflow affected the fish
communities present in the various streams along 16th Avenue? No incidents of dead fish
have been reported. The effects on the fish community may be more subtle and include shifts
from certain species to others more tolerant of warmer or colder conditions. Fishing to assess
community composition has been undertaken by the consultants for York Region as well as
DFO and MNR as part of their enforcement investigations. The results are comparable. The
fish community present at each of the 15 sites sampled by DFO are essentially the same as
that present in earlier sampling dates (pre- construction of the 16th Avenue Project). Those
species that are indicative of cold water (e.g. rainbow trout) or known to be sensitive (e.g.
redside dace) have been located where they were previously. Therefore, it is our assessment,
that the mitigation plan has protected the fish communities. Additional analysis is required to
identify shifts effects on reproduction.
31
Increased Water Volume and Velocities at Discharge Locations
In June, the Town of Markham was cleaning the ditches along Elgin Mills Road and broke the
supplementation pipe at Elgin Mills Road and the Little Rouge River. The flow went unchecked
to the river through an unplanned route. There was some ditch erosion and the sediments were
transported to the creek. The YDSS Coordinator investigated the site and worked with the
agencies and York Region /contractors to fix the problem. The dispersal system has been
changed so that a perforated pipe now discharges into the river.
Groundwater and Wildlife Habitat
The wetlands mitigation via sprinkler system on Robinson Creek Local ESA south of 16th
Avenue continued up to June 30, 2005 to cover the most critical period. This measure was
undertaken in discussion with the TRCA and the MNR and is documented in the work plan for
Robinson Creek, as well as the monthly monitoring reports. No impacts to the wetlands in the
study area have been observed and there is currently no active mitigation system in any
wetlands.
Federal EA Triggers
There are four main triggers for a federal environment assessment: the need for federal
permits; the development of federal Land; the investment of federal funding; or other areas of
federal interest e.g. native land claims. Since none of these triggers applied to 16th Avenue,
there was no trigger for CEAA and a federal assessment was not required.
Comprehensive Environmental Planning
Once the YDSS Master Plan was approved by York Region Council, the next step in the
process was to commence the environmental assessment for each of the project components
identified in the plan. The first project to go through this assessment was 16th Avenue. While
one of the lessons learned in this project has been effective communication with the public, it is
important to recognize that each stage of the project - from the OP Review to the EA review,
required and offered considerable opportunity for public input. Once the EA was approved, the
next steps were detailed design and permitting, followed by construction, mitigation and
monitoring. When issues arose with the Phase I project, the Phase II project was not permitted
until the issues were addressed in a comprehensive, $30 million, mitigation and monitoring
plan - the EMP. This plan and its work plans are now being implemented.
Alternative Methods. Alignments and Design
For 16th Avenue Phase II, there was very little opportunity to change the alternative methods,
alignments and design that had been identified in the EA because the project was already half
built (Phase I was completed). However, there was opportunity to modify the design by adding
the shaft at McCowan Road, and thus reduce the dewatering requirements substantially. In
terms of other projects, the EAs are underway for sections north of the Oak Ridges Moraine,
and for the Southeast Collector. Design details have been substantially modified for the
Interceptor sewer in order to decrease or eliminate the need for dewatering when this project
moves to the construction phase.
Overall, all issues that have been identified by York Region, the agencies and the contractors
have been effectively addressed.
32
OTHER YDSS PROJECTS
There are several other YDSS projects proceeding through the planning and approvals. There
are three projects that are of specific note: King City Sewer, Interceptor Sewer and Southeast
Collector. Each project was identified in the YDSS Master Plan. Each has a comprehensive
baseline monitoring program, public consultation and agency review consultation forums.
Each will require that a comprehensive dewatering impact assessment be conducted and that
environmental impacts be minimized, mitigated and monitored. To preclude that a project
cannot be in an aquifer will circumvent the purpose of the EA Act and the Minister's October 1,
2004 letter regarding the request for a Part II Order. The EA Act and the letter require that an
unrestricted assessment of alternatives be conducted to determine the preferred alignment and
design. Each of these projects is briefly discussed below.
King City
The Class EA was completed and a request for a Part II Order was denied, with conditions, by
the Minister of the Environment. One of the conditions was that the sewer be constructed in
compliance with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. This report has been completed
and submitted to the MOE. Permits from TRCA to construct two sections of the sewer have
been issued and staff understand that the work is nearly complete. This sewer is designed as a
gravity sewer, however in order to connect with existing subdivision elevations the use of a
forcemain system is also required. This pipe is being built near the ground surface, and little or
no groundwater dewatering is anticipated. To date there has been no requirement for a PTTW
to dewater during construction, although MOE has issued a CofA. The need for this sewer, as
stipulated in the EA, was to eliminate contamination to the East Humber River from poorly
maintained private septic systems. During the review of the EA, MNR expressed concern that
the removal of the septic effluent would disrupt the baseflow contributions to the creek. MNR
referred this issue to DFO for their review. To address MNRs concerns, York Region
commissioned a study to examine the effects on baseflow and the resulting impacts to fish
habitat. The study concluded that sewage effluent should not be considered baseflow and that
the amounts to be removed were insignificant. DFO and MNR reviewed this report and
supported its findings. At that time TRCA was not responsible for fisheries review and therefore
did not review the documents. However, all agencies did concur that the water quality
impairments to the East Humber River from the septic systems would be eliminated if they
were discontinued, resulting in an overall environmental benefit.
Interceptor (19th Avenue) Sewer
The Class EA is complete, however the Minister's letter of October 1, 2004 regarding the
request for a Part II Order that was denied with conditions required that the preferred route and
design alternatives be re- evaluated. TRCA has reviewed and commented on the draft report
which details a comprehensive review of route and design alternatives; peer review by an
external team of experts is being undertaken as per the Minister's letter; and an extensive
public consultation process is underway. York Region has selected construction
methodologies that virtually eliminate dewatering requirements such that the potential for
impacts to the environment will be significantly reduced. Extensive baseline data has been
collected, and an extensive monitoring program has been initiated. Staff understand that the
final report has been submitted to MOE. MOE will consult with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs
and Housing regarding compliance with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. This
decision has not yet been made.
33
Southeast Collector
York Region chose to upgrade the EA for this project from a Schedule C to an Individual EA.
The Terms of Reference for the EA is final, and is in the Minister's office for review and
approval. The study area, as per the Minister's letter has been expanded beyond that
proposed in the master plan to encompass areas within the Region of Durham, and Durham is
now a partner in the project. At this time it is the intent of York Region to coordinate the
provincial and federal EA processes. Baseline data is being collected in both York and Durham
regions to ensure that an assessment of impacts can be undertaken. Extensive monitoring is
occurring, and will be tied to the TRCA Regional Watersheds Monitoring Network in the long
term.
CONCLUSION
The approval process for the permits associated with the 16th Avenue Phase II project required
that the project be stopped for 18 months while a comprehensive mitigation and monitoring
plan was developed, and contingency measures were installed. During this time dewatering
continued in order to secure the partially constructed pipe associated with the 16th Avenue
Phase I project. Approximately 15,000 L/min of water was removed from the aquifer during this
time.
The most sensitive area in terms of groundwater withdrawals and surface connections is at or
near Shaft C8, located near Stone Mason Drive and Robinson Creek. Through the current
construction of an additional shaft at McCowan Road, York Region and their contractors will be
able to line the tunnel and seal Shaft C8, thus enabling the pumping at these sensitive wells to
stop in advance of initially proposed timelines. This will result in a decreased rate and duration
of pumping of the aquifer by approximately 6 months, and correspondingly less impacts to the
surficial environment.
A comprehensive mitigation and monitoring program has been developed -- the Environmental
Management Plan. This document has been approved by MOE and TRCA. Fisheries Act and
CEAA approvals are not required for this project. MOE has issued a PTTW and has considered
a request for a Part II Order on the EA.
Because Phase I of the project had been completed, the design details (vertical and horizontal
alignments, shaft depths and construction technologies) for the Phase II section of the 16th
Avenue pipe were predetermined. These were discussed in the development of the EMP, and
agency staff understood from York Region staff and their contractors that such changes were
not practical. Staff therefore concentrated on ensuring that monitoring and mitigation
mechanisms were in place before construction was allowed to continue.
Other YDSS projects have been redesigned to take into account the lessons learned through
the 16th Avenue project. These lessons include the following:
• Choose the right planning process (e.g., the Southeast Collector project is being planned
as an Individual EA).
• Choose the right study area (e.g., the Southeast Collector project has been expanded into
Durham Region to avoid a phased construction of this system).
34
• Collect baseline data of all natural features, including detailed geotechnical and
hydrogeological studies, within a large study area using current science and technologies
(e.g., Interceptor Sewer and Southeast Collector have extensive monitoring programs and
have been collecting data on the surface and subsurface environments for over a year).
• Evaluate all potential environmental impacts for each route and construction methodologies
and select the alternative and design accordingly (e.g., the Interceptor Sewer project has
re- evaluated the preferred alternative and design that was selected through the Class EA
process based on extensive data collection and public consultation).
• Use an ecological approach and strive toward sustainability (e.g., the Terms of Reference
for the Southeast Collector stipulates that alternative measures for sewage treatment and
disposal must be evaluated).
• Set realistic triggers based on science and baseline monitoring (e.g., for the Interceptor
Sewer project there is recognition that construction activities may result in impacts to the
natural environment. As such, design details must ensure that the impacts are minimized
and there must be a mitigation and monitoring program established).
• The importance of provincial and federal governments to fund and maintain their
monitoring systems (e.g. ongoing discussions to maintain monitoring stations at the TRCA
level are occurring). Municipal support would be of benefit.
• Tie the project monitoring to the TRCA Regional Watersheds Monitoring Network in the
long term (e.g. discussions with York Region regarding the long term maintenance and
integration of data and system into the monitoring network are ongoing).
• Meet with the agencies and the public on a regular basis to present project details and
solicit advice (e.g., meetings occur at least monthly).
As such, in TRCAs opinion the projects are proceeding using the best available and practical
sciences and technologies. The implementation of the 16th Avenue Phase II EMP has a total
estimated cost of $30 million. While implementation of the plan has its challenges, it has been
designed to monitor and mitigate adverse environmental impacts. With few exceptions , staff
find that the plan is effective at mitigating predicted effects. In the long term, the Thorncliffe
aquifer will rebound; the water table, baseflows and discharges will be re- established; and
provincial growth objectives as identified in York Region's OP will be achieved. TRCA will
continue to ensure through regulatory and consultative processes that environmental impacts
that may occur through the design and implementation of sewer infrastructure will be
addressed.
Report prepared by: Beth Williston, extension 5217
For Information contact: Beth Williston, extension 5217
Date: October 11, 2005
35
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
RES. #E14/05 - ARCHITYPE: SUSTAINABLE HOUSE COMPETITION
Status report outlining the progress of the Architype Sustainable House
Competition.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Suzan Hall
Elaine Moore
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the status report on the Architype Sustainable House
Competition be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
Project Overview
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), in partnership with the Design Exchange
(DX), are hosting a sustainable house competition. This competition is based on the premise
that in the 21st century, sustainable design is no longer a luxury but a necessity. The
innovation of Canadian designers and their ability to adapt to the changing needs of
contemporary society is now being called on to explore the application of sustainable design
technology for the residential housing market in Southern Ontario.
As a part of The Living City initiative, we are issuing the Architype for The Living City:
Sustainable House Competition. This presents a challenge for design teams to create a
demonstration centre in the form of a detached single family home that creates awareness and
builds understanding of sustainable technologies and building processes. Using a holistic and
interactive approach to design, and measuring progress with the Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) for homes green building rating system, the demonstration
centre will stimulate community transformation towards sustainable living. The winning home
design will be built at The Living City Campus at Kortright, north of Toronto and used as an
archetype - or leading example - for building professionals and the general public. The
winning design will address The Living City's objective to engage and educate through the
following mechanisms:
Design Competition
The primary intent of the sustainable house competition is to:
• maximize public awareness for TRCA initiatives, programs, The Living City Campus;
• maximize media presence;
• develop professional interest via partnerships and training workshops;
• raise funds and product donations required to build the house; and
• showcase professionals leading the way with green design.
Home Construction
The primary intent of the sustainable demonstration house is to:
• educate and demonstrate new technologies, materials and processes for residential mass
construction;
• provide training for product installation and systems management;
• provide equal opportunities for the demonstration and application of products;
36
• encourage a holistic approach to sustainable design (not just energy efficiency);
• engage municipal leaders and serve as a model home for new subdivisions being planned
in municipalities throughout our regions; and
• work as an information centre for consumers looking to incorporate elements of sustainable
design into their own home building projects.
Update on activities
On August 25, 2005 TRCA and the Design Exchange hosted a half day workshop with 35
community leaders from various related industry sectors to review the criteria for the
competition before the public launch scheduled for September 30, 2005.
The competition was publicly launched on September 30 through the Design Exchange
website, press releases and association engagement.
The Royal Architectural Institute of Canada has approved the competition for national roll out
and offers full support and membership engagement.
Judges have now been selected and make up a team of 9 professionals.
Media interest is growing. To date, there have been articles in the Globe & Mail and Building
Magazine. Articles in Canadian Architecture, and The Toronto Star are currently under
development.
Sponsorship
Sponsorship dollars raised will go towards the costs associated with the competition, the
construction of the house on site at the Kortright Centre for Conservation and the educational
programming and exhibits. Sponsorship is also being sought in the form of in -kind
contributions. In -kind contributions will include products and technology, trades and skilled
help for the construction process, exhibit design and installation. Current committed sponsors
have already assured in writing that in -kind efforts will be in place. Ozz Corporation and the
Greater Toronto Home Builders Association (GTHBA) will be committing trades to ensure the
house is constructed on schedule.
Competition
The required budget to fulfill our obligation to the Design Exchange is $61,000. To date,
sponsorship in the amount of $65,000 has been committed toward the competition. An
additional $40,000 will be raised to cover TRCA staff time, promotions and events applied to
the competition. If the money is not raised, our external commitments to the Design Exchange
will be covered. Internal commitments would not be covered and the construction of the house
would be delayed indefinitely.
House Construction
$900,000 is the estimated budget to build the house, design the exhibits and develop training
curriculum. This budget number is only a place holder. It is expected that the house will be
built for $0 dollars through in -kind sponsorship (trades, products and materials), partnership
support of PowerStream, Environment Canada, the Canada Green Building Council, Seneca
College and through marketing opportunities the house will provide for programs and product
demonstrated on site.
37
Committed sponsors to date include:
PowerStream
$30,000
Osram Sylvania
$10,000
Enbridge
$20,000
Ozz Corporation
$5,000
TOTAL
$65,000
Tentative sponsors to date Include:
Sponsor Name
Proposed Contribution
Update
Greater Toronto Home
Builders Association
$60,000
Dollar figure suggested from
GTHBA September 29
meeting to be confirmed.
In -kind trades for
construction also under
consideration
Canada Mortgage Housing
Corporation (CMHC)
$25- 40,000
Firm commitment on
funding will be set at a
meeting on October 4, 2005
Hydro One
$30,000
Of a greater overall funding
request for The Living City
Programs
TOTAL
$115,000 - $130,000
Plus introduction to other
potential sponsors
Additional interested sponsors to date include:
Sponsor Name
Proposed Contribution
Update
Honda Canada
$100,000
Home Hardware
$10,000
Cement Association
$40- 60,000
Reviewing October 7 for
final commitment
Environment Canada
$30,000
Plus introduction to other
potential sponsors
TOTAL
$180,000 - $200,000
* Construction of the house will commence when all funding is in place.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
A workshop for competing design teams will be held at Kortright on October 18, 2005.
Competitors from across Canada will review the criteria and the site and have an opportunity to
ask detailed questions before they begin creating designs.
Development of web pages and placement on the TRCA website is under construction. The
goal for website presence is to document activity and events in chronological order.
The Nature of Things will be filming a 1 hour documentary on the competition and the building
process. Final confirmation and coordination is ongoing.
38
Staff continue to develop and firm up sponsorships for the competition and house
construction.
Report prepared by: Andrew Bowerbank, extension 5343
For Information contact: Andrew Bowerbank, extension 5343
Date: September 16, 2005
RES. #E15/05 - EASTERN POWER - GREENFIELD SOUTH LIMITED
Environmental Screening and Review Report Comments. Receipt of the
staff report on the Environmental Screening and Review Report for the
Greenfield South Power Project.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Dick O'Brien
John Sprovieri
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the staff report on the Environmental Screening and Review
Report for the Greenfield South Power Project be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #6/05, held on July 22, 2005, Resolution #A156/05 was approved as
follows:
THAT the Authority advises that the outcome of the environmental assessment (EA)
process, including the application of criteria and establishment of an appropriate
building envelope, shall take precedent with respect to the development of this particular
project;
THAT TRCA staff be directed to work with the proponent to establish a satisfactory
environmental impact study which will:
(a) allow for a suitable building envelope to be established such that the natural
heritage of the site is protected,
(b) provide for a net environmental gain, either on -site or in close proximity to the
project area, and
(c) provide for site servicing which will not adversely impact the valley corridor or
TRCA property;
THAT TRCA staff be directed to report back to the Authority regarding the
recommendations of the environmental impact study and conformance with the TRCA's
conditions of approval;
THAT TRCA staff be authorized to use provisions within the Environmental Assessment
Act to ensure that the above conditions for this environmental assessment application
are achieved;
39
AND FURTHER THAT the proponent, the ministries of Environment and Energy, the City
of Mississauga, the Credit Valley Conservation Authority and the Etobicoke - Mimico
Watersheds Coalition be so advised.
PROJECT DETAILS
Through a review of the final Environmental Screening and Review Report for the Greenfield
South Power Project, staff confirmed that a building envelope to the satisfaction of Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has been established on site, thus enabling the
construction of the power generating facility.
Natural Heritage Protection:
• The preliminary site plan included in the Environmental Screening and Review Report
increased the setback from the top -of -bank from 10 metres to 35 metres; details of the
setback and valley stability will be confirmed through staff review of the site plan
application; confirmation of TRCA permit requirements in relation to fill placement in a
regulated area will occur at the site planning stage.
• Vegetation removal will be minimized as the tree and shrub species to be removed are
non - native and in the view of the TRCA ecologist, found to not be contributing to the habitat
of the area; details of the vegetation to be removed will be confirmed through staff review of
the site plan application.
• The fuel storage area was relocated from the eastern side of the property (adjacent to the
valley) to the northern section of the property (perpendicular to the property); details
regarding the fuel containment as related to potential spills will be reviewed as part of the
site plan application. The Ministry of the Environment (MOE) is responsible for ensuring
that the proposal for storage meets provincial requirements.
Net Environmental Gain:
• TRCA has requested a commitment from the proponent to restore and augment the area
adjacent to the valley, as well as the area noted on the attached plan as "construction
laydown yard" with native, non - invasive species; the site specific details will be reviewed as
part of the site plan application.
• There is commitment from the proponent to include sustainable technologies in the design
of the facility and the site plan, including an investigation of the applicability of the
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building system for site design,
and implementation of pollution prevention measures.
Site servicing which will not adversely impact the valley corridor or TRCA property;
• Most of the stormwater will be contained on site and recycled into the cooling system for
the facility, thus reducing requirements for municipal water use; details regarding
stormwater management will be refined during the site planning stage; TRCA permit
requirements as related to fill placement in a regulated area, construction in the flood plain,
or alteration to a watercourse will be made during the review of the site plan application.
• There is a commitment from the proponent to investigate in the future, with the City of
Mississauga, opportunities for cogeneration and tie into the local grid system so that the
heat loss from the facility could be recaptured and tied into the heating requirements of the
local area.
40
Position from City of Mississauga
• On Monday, September 19, 2005 at a Special Meeting of Council, the city recommended
that the a Part II Order be requested from the Minister of the Environment and that an
Individual EA be completed for this application. It was Mississauga staff's conclusion that in
order to address outstanding concerns, the project must be elevated to an Individual EA.
Outstanding technical concerns include fire and safety as related to water supply and
pressure within the local neighbourhood, and health as related to air quality.
• TRCA staff has completed our initial review and commenting on the issues of immediate
regulatory requirements related to the EA process, however, we will continue to maintain
dialogue with City of Mississauga staff related to broader issues of air quality with MOE,
and issues related to immediate neighbourhood impacts.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
• Staff comments in support of the project as related to the review of the Environmental
Screening and Review Report have been released;
• Staff comments on requirements related to the site plan application have been released;
• Staff review of the required plans and documentation related to comments on the site plan
will be undertaken once this information has been received;
• Staff will confirm Ontario Regulation 158 permit requirements once appropriate information
has been received through the site plan review;
• Staff may or may not be required to review such permit applications.
Report prepared by: Beth Williston, extension 5217 or Chris Barber, extension 5715
For Information contact: Beth Williston, extension 5217
Date: October 3, 2005
Attachments: 1
41
Attachment 1
Figure 3.2 - Preliminary Conceptual Project Layout Drawing
42
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 1:24 p.m., on Friday, October 14, 2005.
Michael Di Biase Brian Denney
Chair Secretary- Treasurer
/ks
43
PrTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING OF THE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES BOARD #4/05
December 2, 2005
The Sustainable Communities Board Meeting #4/05, was held in the Humber Room,
Head Office, on Friday, December 2, 2005. The Chair Michael Di Blase, called the
meeting to order at 11:09 a.m..
PRESENT
Michael Di Biase Chair
Colleen Jordan Member
Norm Kelly - Member
Glenn Mason Member
Elaine Moore Member
Gerri Lynn O'Connor Member
Linda Pabst Member
Andrew Schulz Member
REGRETS
Maria Augimeri Member
Glenn De Baeremaeker Member
Suzan Hall Vice Chair
John Sprovieri Member
RES. #E16/05 - MINUTES
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Glenn Mason
Linda Pabst
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #3/05, held on October 14, 2005, be approved.
CARRIED
44
SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES. #E17/05 - A SYSTEMS THINKING CURRICULUM FOR LEARNING IN THE
LIVING CITY
Request to adopt "A Systems Thinking Curriculum for Learning in The
Living City as the policy framework for the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority's (TRCA) education programs and activities. This
document presents systems thinking as a key skill in learning for
sustainable living and provides learning benchmarks that align with
TRCA's strategic plan objectives of Healthy Rivers and Shorelines,
Regional Biodiversity, Sustainable Communities.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Linda Pabst
Elaine Moore
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT "A Systems Thinking Curriculum
for Learning in The Living City" be adopted as the policy framework for Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) education programs and activities;
THAT through its implementation staff thoroughly integrate a systems approach for
learning in The Living City into TRCA's education programming;
AND FURTHER THAT the curriculum document be promoted and shared within the larger
education community to provide the opportunity for the on -going exchange and
expansion of key concepts and methodologies In sustainability education.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
TRCA has committed to making the Toronto Region one of the most livable city regions in the
world. Education will play a important role in this transformation. The United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization has stated that "Education is the most
effective means that society possesses for confronting the challenges of the future. Indeed,
education will shape the world of tomorrow." With its wealth of experience and diversity of
established and new programs, TRCA is perfectly positioned to be a champion of education for
sustainable living.
Recognizing this opportunity and imperative, research into the strategies, trends and current
initiatives in sustainability education was carried out in order to evaluate and advance TRCA's
work in education. This research drew upon the body of work from such diverse agencies and
organizations as the United Nations, the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, the
Ontario EcoSchools program and local boards of education, as well as the work of individual
authors and education practitioners. From this, a framework for the re- orientation of TRCA's
education programs was developed. This framework confirms and enhances the experiential
learning model employed by TRCA, yet adds an emphasis on the need for systems thinking as
a key learning objective.
45
To this end, "A Systems Thinking Curriculum for Learning in The Living City" was prepared.
The Living City Curriculum is based on the premise that Systems Thinking with Purposeful
Activity leads to Sustainability. Drafts of the document have been shared with education
practitioners and most recently, staff presented a workshop on systems thinking at a large,
environmental education conference. Participants from Ontario, Canada and international
communities were in attendance. The consultation and feedback to date confirms this new
direction in education for sustainability.
RATIONALE
Traditional environmental education and nature interpretation have focused on learning about
the different parts of the environment and how they work. Early in the development of the new
curriculum, it was recognized that The Living City is a complex entity of which our present
methods of notation and description can only scratch the surface. A system this intricate
cannot be explained by just looking at the parts or following a traditional "scientific method"
approach to learning.
To effectively engage people in learning about The Living City and how this connects to being
sustainable, the TRCA needs a way to frame learning in a holistic, nonlinear and temporal
context which both includes and goes beyond what we are doing today. A curriculum that is
based on systems and systems thinking can frame learning in this way. A systems- focused
curriculum allows TRCA staff to better unravel the complexities of The Living City system and
promote nontraditional learning. Presenting this work in the context of The Living City
objectives for Healthy Rivers and Shorelines, Regional Biodiversity and Sustainable
Communities, also allows staff to develop and share a common and connected vision for the
learning programs of TRCA.
The Living City Curriculum
"A Systems Thinking Curriculum for Learning in The Living City" provides the policy framework
for TRCA's education programs and initiatives. The curriculum has been developed to provide
staff with common goals and objectives, benchmarks for systems learning and the framework
for the scope and the sequence for learning. The curriculum document is presented in four
parts:
Introduction to Systems and Systems Thinking - The presentation of the research and
connection between systems thinking and sustainability education.
General Systems Benchmarks - A presentation of the sixteen key concepts required to
understand systems and systems thinking.
The Living City Systems Benchmarks - The examination of TRCA's strategic objectives for The
Living City (Healthy Rivers and Shorelines, Regional Biodiversity and Sustainable
Communities) from a systems perspective. This includes a detailed narrative, illustration of the
sixteen general systems benchmarks and a related glossary of essential vocabulary.
Systems Thinking Teaching Toolkit - An appendix to support TRCA staff in the implementation
of the curriculum that presents the specific language used to describe systems and various
tools to assist in the study and analysis of systems.
46
The Introduction and General Systems Benchmarks of the curriculum are included with the
agenda package. A limited number of copies of the complete curriculum document will be
available at the Sustainable Communities Board and Authority meetings.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Through its implementation, the curriculum will build upon TRCA's current education practices,
be supported by internal professional development and utilize the expertise of staff. Staff will
develop practical ways to thoroughly integrate a systems approach into the delivery and
development of TRCA education programs and present these in a portfolio of systems- infused
lessons plans. Its distribution through print, workshops, etc., it will also provide the basis for
the on -going exchange and expansion of key concepts and methodologies in sustainability
education within the larger education community.
Report prepared by: Renee Jarrett, extension 5315
For Information contact: Renee Jarrett, extension 5315
Sarah Kear, extension 5234
Date: November 17, 2005
RES. #E18/05 - MUNICIPAL TOOL KIT FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
A Product to Assist Municipalities with Green Building Development and
Implementation. The Municipal Tool Kit is a new collaborative initiative
between Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Canada
Green Building Council. It is a project that will give support, direction
and case study examples to help municipal green building programs
achieve success.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Linda Pabst
Colleen Jordan
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff continue to work with the Canada Green Building
Council (CaGBC) in developing the Municipal Tool Kit based on the successful American
product created by the US Green Building Council (USGBC);
THAT TRCA staff provide services where possible in the production of the Municipal Tool
Kit;
THAT TRCA staff inform municipal partners on the benefits of adopting and implementing
the initiatives outlined in the Municipal Tool Kit;
THAT all municipalities in TRCA's jurisdiction be asked to review and participate in the
new Municipal Tool Kit for sustainable development;
47
THAT TRCA work with municipalities and associated partners to raise the remaining
funds needed to create the Municipal Tool Kit;
THAT TRCA staff report back on the progress of the Municipal Tool Kit through the
stages of development;
AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff review the application of the Municipal Tool Kit when
complete to require Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification
for all public buildings and encourage LEED for all building applications.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Sustainable Communities Board Meeting #3/05, held on October 14, 2005, resolution
Res. #E9 /05 was approved as follows:
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Sustainable Communities Board on the
feasibility of requesting all municipalities in Toronto and Region Conservation Authoritys
jurisdiction to consider requiring LEED certification in building applications.
RATIONALE _
TRCA staff do not recommend requiring or mandating green building certification for buildings
other than those that are classified as publicly -owned (i.e. libraries, civic centres, sport
centres). Without the appropriate level of education, mandating certification for building
applications would place a negative overtone to the process within the building sector.
Although a few municipalities in British Columbia have successfully mandated LEED
certification for all building construction, it is important that green building certification in
Ontario maintain its current voluntary status at this time. This is to ensure the healthy uptake
for which green building professionals strive. Creating a green building incentive program for
privately -owned projects would provide a more positive response to green building
development.
A new TRCA project is about to begin development in partnership with the CaGBC titled the
Municipal Tool Kit for Sustainable Development. This tool kit is designed to aid municipal
leaders with their green building projects and allow them to encourage green building design
for projects within their jurisdiction.
Project Overview
Municipalities are among the early adopters of green building practices and the LEED building
rating system in Canada. Some municipalities such as the City of Calgary and the City of
Vancouver have mandated LEED Silver and Gold level certification respectively for the design
and construction of their new buildings. Canada has mandated LEED certification for all new
federal buildings and the Province of Alberta has now mandated LEED certification for all new
public buildings.
Other municipalities have followed suit, for example:
48
Mandating LEED for public buildings:
• City of Waterloo
• City of Richmond, British Columbia (B.C.)
• Greater Vancouver Regional District, B.C.
• Town of Saanich, B.C.
Making commitments to build green:
• Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation
• Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
• Town of Oakville
• Resort Municipality of Whistler, B.C.
In the process of developing green building policies and /or programs:
• City of Toronto
• Town of Markham
• City of Kingston
• Halifax Regional Municipality, Nova Scotia
The reasons are clear: greening civic buildings provides municipalities with on the ground
examples for the community on how municipalities can address climate change and other
environmental issues. It is also responsible fiscal management since green buildings help to
significantly reduce operating expenses (particularly energy costs) over the life -cycle of the
buildings. If built on a larger scale, green buildings can have significant regional environmental
benefits and reduce demand on infrastructure services with associated savings from deferred
investments in future capital projects.
Municipal Tool Kit Project
Municipalities across the country are looking for assistance on how they can adopt and
implement green building policies and programs to green their own buildings and those
developed by the private sector. In order to facilitate the adoption of green building practices
at the local level, CaGBC and TRCA are working together to develop a three -part tool kit
targeted specifically at municipal government. The tool Kit will consist of the following:
Phase 1. Local Government Tool Kit
The tool kit will provide a step -by -step approach on how local government can develop green
building policies and programs for their own building projects (new and major retrofits). It will
show what policies, tools, processes and strategies other municipalities have used to advance
green building practices within their own organizations. The information will be collected
through a national survey of key decision - makers and program managers at Canadian
municipalities.
More specifically, the tool kit will:
• make a clear linkage of green buildings to local sustainability priorities and infrastructure
demand reduction;
• identify green building benefits to municipalities;
• provide strategies on how to work with key decision - makers;
• identify opportunities and barriers to green municipal buildings and discuss solutions on
how to overcome significant roadblocks;
49
• provide the business case for municipal green buildings;
• provide examples of green building policies and programs;
• address building code issues and recommend the development of training programs for
building inspectors;
• discuss the application and use of green building guidelines with a focus on LEED Canada;
• identify best green building practices and those tools and resources currently available for
program implementation; and
• showcase completed municipal green buildings from across the country.
Total development costs including print -ready layout are estimated at $55,000 for this stage of
the project, excluding GST. The CaGBC has already allocated $20,000 for the project in its
2005 budget. Ameresco Canada is a sponsor for the Municipal Tool Kit, contributing $10,000
for phase 1. The Cement Association is also a committed sponsor with final budget to be
determined. TRCA will be presenting the Municipal Tool Kit to associates and partners to help
raise the remaining budget requirements. The project will begin development in the fall of 2005
with expected completion by early 2006.
Phase 2. Municipal Green Building Project Management Guide
Once municipalities have made the commitment to build green, they will need to better
understand how to implement and manage green building projects and bring them to
successful completion. Municipalities will have to make changes to their internal building
processes and work successfully with external green building consultants. This will require a
rethinking of established policies and procedures and training of staff on green building
practices as they apply to their area of responsibility.
The guide will:
• show how to tender green building projects and provide sample language to identify green
building goals to bidders;
• discuss strategies on how to identify and select green building consultants and contractors;
• discuss the integrated design process which is key to achieving high performance
buildings;
• show how to manage documentation requirements for LEED certification;
• provide models on how to realign and integrate internal resources and departments for
project delivery;
• outline internal training and implementation requirements;
• identify key green building strategies and practices for selected municipal building types
including recreation centres, libraries, public works facilities, park buildings and
infrastructure projects; and
• provide information on available resources and funding
Total development costs including print -ready layout are estimated at $55,000, excluding GST.
The CaGBC will allocate $20,000 for this project in its 2006 budget and will work with TRCA to
approach municipalities and federal government agencies and associated sponsors to raise
the remaining funds.
50
Phase 3. Compendium of Green Building & Sustainable Community Projects
Greening municipal buildings is a first and important step in advancing sustainability locally.
However, to have a greater environmental impact and reduce demand on infrastructure
services, green building practices must also be adopted by the private sector. Municipalities
have considerable influence over private sector development within their jurisdictions through
permitting, planning and engineering functions. Some municipalities have engaged the
development community in the green building discussion though sustainable communities
projects including Dockside Green in Victoria, B.C., South East False Creek in Vancouver, B.C.,
Regent Park and waterfront revitalization in Toronto.
A compendium of leading examples of sustainable community project green buildings,
sustainable infrastructure and land use from across the country will be prepared. The
compendium will summarize key approaches, strategies and mechanisms Canadian
municipalities have used to green private sector development projects on publicly- and
privately -owned land. It will outline the lessons learned to date and recommend steps
municipalities can take to advance green development in their jurisdictions. The compendium
would be the key piece for a one -day national forum, organized by the CaGBC, TRCA, the City
of Calgary and its partners from industry and government. This will be in early 2007 and will
discuss and advance the adoption of green buildings and sustainable communities practices
nationally. The cost of preparing the compendium is estimated at $65,000 and the national
forum at $35,000 plus in -kind contributions.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
Project Section
Budget
Required
Committed Funds
Potential Funders
to Date
Phase 1
Completed first
quarter 2006
$55,000
$20,000 CaGBC
$10,000 Ameresco Canada
$10,000 Cement Association
$10,000 City of Calgary
$10,000 Stantec
Phase 2
Completed fourth
quarter 2006
$55,000
$20,000 CaGBC
$10,000 Ameresco Canada
$10,000 Cement Association
Phase 3
Completed
second quarter
2007
$65,000
$35,000
$20,000 CaGBC
$10,000 Ameresco Canada
$10,000 Cement Association
Report prepared by: Andrew Bowerbank, extension 5343
For Information contact: Andrew Bowerbank, extension 5343
Date: November 21, 2005
51
SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
RES. #E19/05 - EASTERN POWER - GREENFIELD SOUTH LIMITED
Environmental Screening and Review Report Comments. Receipt of the
staff report on the Environmental Screening and Review Report for the
Greenfield South Power Project.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
Norm Kelly
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the staff report on the Environmental Screening and Review
Report for the Greenfield South Power Project be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #8/05, held on October 28, 2005, Resolution #A248/05 was approved as
follows:
THAT Section IV item 9.5 - Eastern Power - Greenfield South Limited, contained in
Section IV of Sustainable Communities Board Minutes #3/05, held on October 14, 2005,
be referred back to the Sustainable Communities Board.
The following report has been updated to reflect comments from Mississauga
Councillors. The purpose of the report is to report back to the Authority through the
Sustainable Communities Board with respect to Authority Resolution #A156/05.
At Authority Meeting #6/05, held on July 22, 2005, Resolution #A156/05 was approved as
follows:
THAT the Authority advises that the outcome of the environmental assessment (EA)
process, including the application of criteria and establishment of an appropriate
building envelope, shall take precedent with respect to the development of this particular
project;
THAT TRCA staff be directed to work with the proponent to establish a satisfactory
environmental impact study which will:
(a) allow for a suitable building envelope to be established such that the natural
heritage of the site is protected,
(b) provide for a net environmental gain, either on -site or in close proximity to the
project area, and
(c) provide for site servicing which will not adversely impact the valley corridor or
TRCA property;
THAT TRCA staff be directed to report back to the Authority regarding the
recommendations of the environmental impact study and conformance with the TRCA's
conditions of approval;
52
THAT TRCA staff be authorized to use provisions within the Environmental Assessment
Act to ensure that the above conditions for this environmental assessment application
are achieved;
AND FURTHER THAT the proponent, the ministries of Environment and Energy, the City
of Mississauga, the Credit Valley Conservation Authority and the Etobicoke - Mimico
Watersheds Coalition be so advised.
PROJECT DETAILS
Through a review of the final Environmental Screening and Review Report for the Greenfield
South Power Project, staff confirmed that a building envelope to the satisfaction of Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has been established on site, thus enabling the
construction of the power generating facility. Staff has responded to Eastern Power
Corporation noting that based on TRCA programs and policies, staff has no objection in
principle to the final Environmental Assessment Screening Report or appendices. Staff are
satisfied that all outstanding concerns can be addressed through review of the site plan
application required under the Planning Act.
Natural Heritage Protection:
• The preliminary site plan included in the Environmental Screening and Review Report
increased the setback from the top -of -bank from 10 metres to 35 metres; details of the
setback and valley stability will be confirmed through staff review of the site plan
application; confirmation of TRCA permit requirements in relation to fill placement in a
regulated area will occur at the site planning stage.
• Vegetation removal will be minimized as the tree and shrub species to be removed are
non - native and in the view of the TRCA ecologist, found to not be contributing to the habitat
of the area; details of the vegetation to be removed will be confirmed through staff review of
the site plan application.
• The fuel storage area was relocated from the eastern side of the property (adjacent to the
valley) to the northern section of the property (perpendicular to the property); details
regarding the fuel containment as related to potential spills will be reviewed as part of the
site plan application. The Ministry of the Environment (MOE) is responsible for ensuring
that the proposal for storage meets provincial requirements.
Net Environmental Gain:
• TRCA has requested a commitment from the proponent to restore and augment the area
adjacent to the valley, as well as the area noted on the attached plan as "construction
Iaydown yard" with native, non - invasive species; the site specific details will be reviewed as
part of the site plan application.
• There is commitment from the proponent to include sustainable technologies in the design
of the facility and the site plan, including an investigation of-the applicability of the
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building system for site design,
and implementation of pollution prevention measures.
53
Site servicing which will not adversely impact the valley corridor or TRCA property;
• Most of the stormwater will be contained on site and recycled into the cooling system for
the facility, thus reducing requirements for municipal water use; details regarding
stormwater management will be refined during the site planning stage; TRCA permit
requirements as related to fill placement in a regulated area, construction in the flood plain,
or alteration to a watercourse will be made during the review of the site plan application.
• There is a commitment from the proponent to investigate in the future, with the City of
Mississauga, opportunities for cogeneration and tie into the local grid system so that the
heat loss from the facility could be recaptured and tied into the heating requirements of the
local area.
Position from City of Mississauga
On Monday, September 19, 2005 at a Special Meeting of Council, the city recommended that
the a Part II Order be requested from the Minister of the Environment and that an Individual EA
be completed for this application. It was the City of Mississauga staff's conclusion that in order
to address outstanding concerns, the project must be elevated to an Individual EA.
Outstanding technical concerns include fire and safety as related to water supply and pressure
within the local neighbourhood; health as related to air quality; and water use as related to the
consumption of water for cooling and the use of sustainable technologies.
Position from TRCA staff
TRCA staff has completed its initial review and commenting on the issues of immediate
regulatory requirements related to the EA process, however, staff will continue to maintain
dialogue with City of Mississauga staff in regards to broader issues relating to immediate
neighbourhood impacts, air quality, water conservation and sustainable technologies.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
• Staff will continue to meet with City of Mississauga Council representatives and staff to
address outstanding issues related to site plan, concerns of the residents and provincial
process, as needed.
• Staff review of the required plans and documentation related to comments on the site plan
will be undertaken once this information has been received.
• Staff will confirm Ontario Regulation 158 permit and review requirements once appropriate
information has been received through the site plan review.
Report prepared by: Beth Williston, extension 5217 or Chris Barber, extension 5715
For Information contact: Beth Williston, extension 5217
Date: October 3, 2005
Attachments: 1
54
Attachment 1
Figure 3.2 - Preliminary Conceptual Project Layout Drawing
55
RES. #E20/05 - YORK - DURHAM SANITARY SEWER PROJECTS IN TORONTO AND
REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY'S JURISDICTION
Receipt of the staff report regarding the status of current projects of the
York - Durham Sanitary Sewer project.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gerri Lynn O'Connor
Glenn Mason
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the staff report on the status of current York - Durham
Sanitary Sewer (YDSS) projects be received.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Authority Meeting #8/05, held on October 28, 2005, continued staff involvement in the
York - Durham Sanitary Sewer (YDSS) projects was approved in accordance with
Res. #A240 /05. In addition, staff were directed to report back to the Authority though the
Sustainable Communities Board regarding the status of YDSS projects currently under review.
The approved resolution stated, in part:
...THAT staff be directed to continue reviewing the monitoring and mitigation reports and
web site data, conducting field inspections and independent monitoring, and
participating in the adaptive management program associated with the implementation of
the 16th Avenue Phase 11 York - Durham Sanitary Sewer project;
THAT staff be directed to continue working with York Region, Fisheries and Oceans
Canada, and the Ontario Ministries of Environment and Natural Resources to ensure that
the environmental impacts associated with the planning, design and construction of all
other York - Durham Sanitary Sewer projects in TRCAs jurisdiction are minimized;
THAT staff report back to the Sustainable Communities Board in December 2005 with a
detailed presentation regarding the planning, design and construction status of all other
York-Durham Sanitary Sewer projects in TRCAs jurisdiction;...
The intent of this report is to provide a status update regarding YDSS projects that are under
review by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). This includes projects
which are at the environmental assessment (EA) stage, the detailed design and permitting
stage, and the construction, mitigation and monitoring stage.
THE YDSS MASTER PLAN
The 1995 York Region Official Plan identified substantial growth in the region, primarily around
the existing urban centres of Aurora, Newmarket, Vaughan, Richmond Hill and Markham. To
support this development, a need for increased capacity in the York - Durham Sanitary Sewer
was also identified. In 1997, York Region approved the YDSS Master Plan. The plan was
intended as an upgrade to the existing system which was installed in the 1970 and 1980s, as
this system was considered to have insufficient capacity to meet the planned population and
employment growth. The master plan was updated in 2002 to reflect changes in the growth
management strategy and official plan of York Region.
56
Based on the 1997 master plan and its subsequent update, York Region has planned, initiated
or completed EAs for the various projects identified in the master plan. Attached to this report
is a copy of the existing and proposed YDSS system. With the exception of the Southeast
Collector project, each of these EAs was reviewed, or is being reviewed, under the Municipal
Engineer's Association, Class EA for Municipal Infrastructure. For further information regarding
the YDSS Master Plan, refer to the correspondence in Attachment 2 from York Region to Mr.
Gord Miller, Environmental Commissioner of Ontario.
As stipulated in the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, any individual or agency can
request the Minister review the class designation of a particular project and if appropriate,
order an Individual EA be conducted. In 2004, the Minister of the Environment received a
request for a Part II Order for a number of the YDSS projects. While this request was denied by
the Minister, conditions were imposed on many of the projects. As appropriate, some of these
conditions are discussed in this report.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
The YDSS system traverses four watersheds in TRCA's jurisdiction: the Don River watershed,
Humber River watershed, Rouge River watershed and Duffins Creek watershed. TRCA
Planning and Development staff have been working with TRCA Watershed Specialists
regarding issues within the respective watersheds as they arise, as well as ensuring that the
respective watershed councils or alliances are aware of the projects as they proceed.
In May 2004, York Region committed to meeting with TRCA, Ministry of Natural Resources
(MNR) and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) staff on a regular basis in order to address
concerns related to impacts on the aquatic and terrestrial systems. Every three weeks an
inter - agency staff meeting is held with the York Region project teams to review and discuss
issues relating to the natural environment specific to the particular projects. Separate meetings
take place with Ministry of the Environment (MOE), where York Region also reviews impacts on
the groundwater resource and private wells. TRCA and MOE meet on a regular basis
regarding YDSS projects.
In the summer of 2004, a request for a Part II Order on many of the YDSS projects was
received by the Minister of the Environment. While the request was denied, conditions were
imposed by the Minister in a letter dated October 4, 2004. The two conditions that are
consistent with many of the projects that are of particular note is (1) a requirement for an
assessment of construction techniques, dewatering needs and environmental impacts,
regardless of whether the EA was complete and (2) a requirement to complete an independent
peer review by recognized experts in their fields.
In terms of the assessment, as required, York Region has planned, initiated or completed
dewatering impact assessments for a number of projects. In accordance with TRCA's Level 3
Agreement with DFO, TRCA staff have reviewed the projects under the habitat protection
provisions of the Fisheries Act. DFO staff are consulted with respect to the appropriateness of
the mitigation and monitoring strategies and to confirm the appropriate designation as related
to any potential harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) to fish or fish habitat. In
accordance with this agreement, TRCA will issue a Letter of Advice for all projects determined
to be a mitigable HADD. Details regarding particular projects are provided below.
57
Independent peer review of technical documentation was required by the Minister for four
projects: Bathurst Collector and Langstaff Trunk Sewers, Interceptor (19th Avenue) Sewer,
Southeast Collector and the Duffins Creek Water Pollution Control Plant Expansion. The peer
review team hired by York Region includes:
• Team Coordinator -- Craig Mather, former TRCA CAO;
• Geotechnical%Tunnelling - Mr. John Westland, Golder Associates;
• Terrestrial /Ecology - Dr. Paul Eagles, University of Waterloo;
• Hydrogeology - Dr. Ken Howard, University of Toronto;
• Fluvial Geomorphology - Dr. Robert Newbury, Newbury Hydraulics; and
• Fisheries - Dr. Richard Cunjak, University of New Brunswick and/ or Mr. Serge Metikosh,
Golder Associates.
The team is provided with the draft reports, as is TRCA and the other agency reviewers. Peer
review comments are provided to York Region in isolation of agency comments, and
addressed by York Region as appropriate. The Peer Review Team also receives final reports
for review and comment. Mr. Mather has provided a formal response on the final documents
for two of these projects to date and details will be provided, as appropriate, later in this report.
Environmental mitigation and monitoring of the various projects is a requirement of
implementation, and is or will be stipulated in conditions for approval of required Permits to
Take Water (PTTW) or Letters of Advice. Recognizing this, York Region has provided TRCA
with funding for the YDSS Mitigation and Monitoring Coordinator position. On behalf of TRCA,
MOE, MNR and DFO, the YDSS Coordinator reviews all reports and provides comments to the
various agencies in relation to their respective mandates or concerns. The YDSS Coordinator
then works with technical staff of each agency to provide responses to York Region on the
results of the monitoring and mitigation programs.
STATUS OF PROJECT REVIEW
Within the four TRCA watersheds, thirteen YDSS Master Plan projects are under review or have
been completed with approvals by TRCA. They are discussed below.
Projects in the Don River Watershed
The Bathurst Collector and Langstaff Trunk Sewer is the only project in the Don River
watershed. This project has three phases:
Bathurst-Langstaff Phase 1
The Bathurst - Langstaff Phase I project includes the extension of the trunk sewer on Bathurst
Street from Steeles Avenue to Autumn Hill Boulevard (where it connects with Phase II), and a
collector sewer on Langstaff Road from Bathurst Street westerly to connect with the Maple
Collector Relief Sewer east-of Keele Street.
58
The EA was completed by York Region in 2001. In late Fall 2004, TRCA received draft copies
of the initial dewatering impact assessment that supported a PTTW application to MOE. The
assessment indicated that substantial dewatering was required, and substantial impacts to
baseflow contributions in the East Don River (near shaft C2) would occur as a result of the
dewatering. In a letter dated April 1, 2004, TRCA identified to York Region significant concerns
with the dewatering aspects of the project. In response, York Region committed to addressing
these concerns through changing construction methodologies so that the required dewatering
could be minimized and the impacts on the environment substantially reduced or eliminated.
Also of concern to TRCA staff was the proximity of Baker's Sugarbush to this project area and
a need to ensure sufficient monitoring was in place.
During the remainder of 2004 and the better part of 2005, York Region and their consultants
worked with the agencies to satisfy these concerns. Substantive baseline environmental data
has been collected. In support of the now revised PTTW, York Region has submitted the
Bathurst Street Collector/Langstaff Road Trunk Sewer - Dewatering Environmental and
Ecological impact Assessment (DEEIA), dated May 2005 and addendum reports dated
September 15, 2005, October 11, 2005 and November 21, 2005. The DEEIA describes the
construction methodology, hydrogeological conditions, extent of potential dewatering and a
mitigation and monitoring plan for the portions of the sewer proposed to be tunneled.
York Region is currently working with MOE to ensure that the conditions in the Minister's
October 4, 2004 letter have been satisfactorily addressed. A public meeting was hosted in
Spring 2005 and the Don Watershed Regeneration Council received notification. The DEEIA
has been reviewed by the Peer Review Team and staff understand that all concerns have been
addressed. The final report of the external peer review team is available for public review.
TRCA staff have reviewed the DEEIA and have no objections to its recommendations.
As described in the DEEIA, the tunnels will be constructed using an Earth Pressure Balance
Machine (EPBM) such that as the tunnels are mined, the liner will be immediately installed
behind the machine. A key feature of the EPBM is that planned dewatering is not required.
However, should boulders be encountered which cannot be cut by the machine, direct human
entry to the tunnel face may be required. Localized dewatering could be necessary while the
obstruction is removed. Thus, there are provisions for contingency dewatering and a detailed
monitoring and mitigation plan has been developed to address potential impacts related to the
natural environment. Shafts C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7 and C8, as well as manhole C1, will be
constructed using contiguous bored piles (secant piles) and no planned dewatering is
required.
In the opinion of TRCA staff, the environmental impacts on the aquatic and terrestrial
resources, including but not limited to the east and west branches of the Don River and Baker's
Sugarbush, have been minimized. Any impacts that could occur through the contingency
dewatering will be effectively mitigated and monitored through implementation of the DEEIA.
In accordance with the TRCA Level 3 agreement with DFO, and in consultation with DFO staff,
TRCA determined that these projects constituted a mitigable HADD under the Fisheries Act and
has issued Letters of Advice to the proponent based on the information provided in the
dewatering needs assessments and addendum reports. MNR has consulted with TRCA staff
on this project, and its opinion has been considered in the TRCA comments. MOE review of
the DEEIA and PTTW is independent, although staff of TRCA and MOE have discussed this
59
project as a part of their regular meetings. Once the design -build contract is finalized, TRCA
permits for the contingency dewatering discharge areas and the construction compounds may
be required. It is anticipated that these permits will be before the Executive Committee in the
summer of 2006.
Bathurst - Langstaff Phase 11 and 1!!
Phases II and III of the Bathurst Trunk Sewer Project extends the Phase I sewer northerly from
Autumn Hill Boulevard to Mill Street. This will provide sanitary services for new development
occurring in the City of Vaughan. The Phase II and III sections of the project are being
undertaken by the benefiting land developers group as substantial portions of these sewers
are located within lands owned by the developer group. A Development Charge Credit
Agreement has been established between York Region and involved developers groups.
Phase II extends on the west side of Bathurst Street from Autumn Hill Boulevard northerly and
then internally through the future developments west of Bathurst Street to Major Mackenzie
Drive. The Class EA for this phase was part of the Phase I Class EA document. Phase III starts
where Phase II finishes at Major Mackenzie Drive and runs east along Major Mackenzie Drive to
Bathurst Street and then north on the west side of Bathurst Street to Mill Street. A Class EA
Addendum to the 2001 Class EA was completed for Phase III in 2005.
As per the Minister's letter, conditions for Phase II required increased public consultation,
technical analysis and peer review. The conditions outlined by the Minister were applied to
Phase III. A public meeting for both Phase II and Phase III was hosted in summer 2005.
Notification to the Don Watershed Regeneration Council was provided. Dewatering Needs
Assessments were prepared for both project phases, addressing issues relating to
construction techniques, hydrogeology, terrestrial and aquatic concerns and cumulative
(Phase I, II and III impacts). All potential impacts to the natural environment were minimized
and a mitigation and monitoring plan was developed. This project was reviewed by the Peer
Review Team and staff understands that all concerns were addressed jointly by the region and
the developer group.
The shallow sewer is being constructed using open cut technologies. Within road
right -of -ways on Major Mackenzie Drive and Bathurst Street, watercourses are crossed above
the culverts. Localized dewatering was to occur, as necessary, in certain project areas. To
date, dewatering needs have been below the required 50,000 L/day threshold required for a
PTTW. Provisions for mitigation were made in the dewatering needs assessments and detailed
monitoring plans were developed. TRCA approved two permits required under Ontario
Regulation 158 for the crossings C -05289 and C -05292 in August 2005. In accordance with the
TRCA Level 3 Agreement with DFO, and in consultation with DFO staff, TRCA determined that
these projects constituted a mitigable HADD under the Fisheries Act and has issued Letters of
Advice to the proponent based on the information provided in the dewatering needs
assessments and follow -up letters. The YDSS Coordinator has received copies of the
monitoring reports and to date, there have been no issues arising from the construction of
these sewers. Construction is scheduled to be complete by the end of 2005.
Proiects in the Humber River Watershed
The four projects in the Humber River watershed are: the King City Forcemain, Nobleton Trunk
Sewer and Sewage Treatment Plant (STP), West Rainbow Creek Trunk, and York -Peel
Forcemain. Details are provided below.
60
Kind City
A Schedule B Class Environmental Assessment was completed for the King City Trunk Sewer
by York Region in 1995 and updated in 2001. Requests for a Part II Order were received by the
Minister and they were denied. In response to MOE requirements under the Oak Ridges
Moraine Act, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Compliance Report for the King City
Sanitary Sewer was completed in January 2004.
The project is being permitted and constructed through approximately 12 contract areas. To
date, four contract areas have been permitted or cleared by TRCA including the works along
King Road, a pumping station on King Road and some local sewer works in the vicinity of King
Road. No dewatering was required for these sections. TRCA is currently reviewing a permit
application for the fifth contract area, paralleling the GO tracks south of King Road to Station
Road. While only limited construction dewatering will be required, TRCA is reviewing the
project under the habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act. It is unlikely that a PTTW
will be required as dewatering should be below MOE's required volumes for such permitting.
At the appropriate time, this project will be brought to the Executive Committee for approval,
likely in December 2005 or January 2006. As part of its regular meetings, TRCA staff are
reviewing information and providing comments related to the remaining seven contract areas.
As appropriate, details will be brought to the Authority for information, or to the Executive
Committee if permit approvals are required.
Nobleton STP
A Class EA was completed for the Nobleton Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) in 2003 and is
currently in the detailed design phase. The project will require TRCA land acquisition or
easements, as well as permits. TRCA is currently reviewing the technical details associated
with these requirements as part of its regular meetings. As well, MOE will require that
phosphorous loads to the Humber River be offset. While the phosphorous reduction plan will
be developed by York Region in consultation with MOE, TRCA is working with the proponent
regarding the implementation of this plan through the Watershed Stewardship section. The
Humber Watershed Specialist has been involved in these discussions when appropriate. The
Humber Watershed Alliance was aware of the Class EA; the Humber Watershed Alliance will be
advised of the recommended design in the near future. It is anticipated that this project will be
brought to the Executive Committee and Authority in Spring 2006 for approvals.
West Rainbow Trunk
A Class EA is underway for the West Rainbow Trunk. As part of its regular meetings, TRCA
staff are reviewing information and providing comments related to required baseline data, route
selection, construction technologies for required watercourse crossings and implications under
the Fisheries Act for various components of this project. The project will require TRCA permits.
The second public meeting for this project is scheduled for January 2006 and notification will
again be sent to the Chair of the Humber Watershed Alliance.
61
York Peel (Steeles Avenue) Forcemain
A Class EA was completed for the York Peel (Steeles Avenue) Forcemain in 2001. Detailed
design followed and the sewer has now been built. The project required TRCA permits, as well
as a PTTW. The zone of influence for this project extended south of Steeles Avenue, into the
City of Toronto. A mitigation and monitoring plan was prepared and monitoring reports were
provided to TRCA during and post construction. TRCA staff considered this project a mitigable
HADD and a Letter of Advice under the Fisheries Act was issued. The Humber Watershed
Alliance was advised of this project. The project, including monitoring, is complete.
Projects in the Rouge River Watershed
There are five sewer projects in the Rouge River watershed: 16th Avenue Phase 1, 16th Avenue
Phase II, 9th Line (Main and West Branch), Interceptor Sewer and Southeast Collector.
Information pertaining to the 16th Avenue Phase I and II projects was presented to the
Authority in October, 2005 (Res. #A240 /05) and is not repeated in this report.
9th Line Main Branch
The construction of the main branch will be completed at the end of 2005. A permit to take
water was issued by MOE, as were permits from TRCA. Impacts to the local forest and
wetland are being monitored, and mitigation contingency plans are in place should established
trigger values be reached. To date, no such events have occurred. Tunnelling stopped in
November 2005 and the aquifer has shown signs of rebounding since September 2005. This
project is under on -going review by the YDSS Monitoring and Mitigation Coordinator.
9th Line West Branch
The construction of the west branch will be completed by spring 2006. A permit to take water
was issued by MOE, as were permits from TRCA. A Letter of Advice was issued by TRCA on
behalf of DFO for two watercourse crossings. The in -water works are now complete. The local
forest, wetland and stream baseflow are being addressed though a monitoring program, and
mitigation contingency plans are in place should established trigger values be reached. To
date, no such events have occurred. This project is under on -going review by the YDSS
Monitoring and Mitigation Coordinator.
Interceptor Sewer
The Class EA was completed in 2003. As per the Minister's letter, conditions were imposed
that required a new comparison of alternative route alignments, increased public consultation,
technical analysis and peer review. Extensive public consultation has been undertaken at
various stages of this new comparison of alternative routes. The technical analysis report:
YDSS Interceptor Sewer Study and New Comparison of Alternative Route Alignments, dated
October is complete. The report confirms the preferred alignment along 19th Avenue from
Yonge Street to Leslie Street, and then down Leslie Street to Elgin Mills Road. Issues relating
to construction techniques, hydrogeology, terrestrial and aquatic concerns and construction
technologies for a number of routes were considered. The selected route and construction
technologies minimize the required dewatering, and hence impacts to the natural environment.
The reports were developed in consultation with the Interceptor Sewer Stakeholder Advisory
Committee, of which TRCA was a member. The Rouge Park Alliance has participated in the
public consultation associated with this project. The report was also reviewed by the Peer
Review Team and staff understand that all technical issues raised by the Peer Review Team
have been addressed.
62
The preferred alternative requires the sewer be constructed using a combination of tunneling
and open cut technologies. Construction along 19th Avenue will be done using an EPBM
(refer to information provided for the Bathurst - Langstaff Phase I project regarding this
technique). Dewatering will likely be required at the shaft locations. The Region will employ
shaft construction techniques that minimize and, where possible, eliminate dewatering. There
is no planned dewatering for the tunnel construction. However, provisions for short-term
contingency dewatering is required in case boulders are encountered or shaft bottoms need to
be secured. If boulders are encountered, the Region will exhaust other viable measures prior
to initiating any dewatering. Construction of the sewer along Leslie Street will be through the
use of open cut technologies. Localized dewatering will be required and two tributaries of the
Rouge River watershed will be crossed.
Extensive baseline data has been compiled. In order to address the potential impacts to the
natural environment that could occur through the dewatering, a mitigation and monitoring plan
has been developed. The Environmental Management Plan, dated November 4, 2005, has
been drafted and is under review by the agencies and the Peer Review Team, among others.
An application has been made to TRCA for permits in accordance with Ontario Regulation 158,
and to MOE for a PTTW. TRCA is reviewing the project under the habitat protection provisions
of the Fisheries Act and is consulting with DFO as required. It is anticipated that this project will
be brought to the Executive Committee in spring 2006 for approvals.
Southeast Collector
An Individual EA is underway for this project. Because the project crosses federal lands,
review under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEEA) has been triggered. A
harmonized federal - provincial EA is planned. In accordance with the Minister's letter and in
partnership with Durham Region, this project now extends from Box Grove in York Region to
Valley Farm Road in Durham Region. The Southeast Collector Stakeholder Advisory
Committee has been established by the regions, and TRCA, Rouge Park and City of Toronto
are all members. The Terms of Reference for the EA is pending approval by the MOE and staff
understand that work on the EA is about to commence. Extensive baseline data is being
collected within the study area. It is premature to discuss permitting requirements for this
project until the preferred alternative has been selected. The Peer Review Team is required to
review all technical documentation associated with this project as it proceeds. TRCA will be
actively participating in the EA.
Projects in the Duffins Creek Watershed
There are three sewer projects in the Duffins Creek watershed: 9th Line (East Branch),
Stouffville Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) Decommissioning and Duffins Water Pollution
Control Plant (WPCP).
63
9th Line (East Branch)
The construction of the east branch will be completed by spring 2006. A permit to take water
was issued by MOE, as were permits from TRCA. TRCA determined, in consultation with DFO,
that there was no HADD related to this project. The local forest is being monitored, and
mitigation contingency plans are in place should established trigger values be reached. TRCA,
in consultation with the YDSS Coordinator and MNR, has requested more intensive monitoring
and mitigation of the wetland in spring 2006, subject to further site visits and discussion. This
project is under on -going review by the YDSS Monitoring and Mitigation Coordinator.
Stouffville STP Decommissioning
With the construction of the new sewer lines to Whitchurch - Stouffville, the STP is no longer
required. Its decommissioning will remove a local source of stress on the upper reaches of
Reesor Creek, but will also result in decreases to stream flow. TRCA is currently reviewing a
permit application for the in- stream works that will be required when the sewage treatment
plant is decommissioned next year. The Class EA stipulates that natural channel design
techniques are to be employed in Stouffville Creek in order to accommodate the reduced
flows, and mitigate these effects on fish and fish habitat. TRCA is working closely with DFO and
MNR in this regard. It is anticipated that this project will be brought to the Executive Committee
in spring 2006 for approvals.
Duffins WPCP
The Duffins Creek WPCP, jointly owned by the regional municipalities of York and Durham, is
managed and governed by the "York Durham Sewage System (YDSS), The Regional
Municipality of York and The Regional Municipality of Durham Operating Agreement," which
was executed November 28, 1997. The existing facility treats sewage flows from both regions,
with approximately 80 percent of the flows originating from York Region.
A Class EA is underway for the Duffins Creek WPCP as an expansion in capacity was identified
in the YDSS Master Plan. TRCA is a member of the Stakeholder Advisory Committee and has
provided comments to the regions in that capacity. Staff understand that technical studies
have been developed and are currently being reviewed by the Peer Review Team. Staff
anticipate receiving the Environmental Study Report for review late in 2005 or early in 2006. It
has not been determined if the project will require TRCA permits.
Report Prepared by: Beth Williston, extension 5217
For information contact: Beth Williston, extension 5217
Date: November 22, 2005
Attachments: 2
64
Attachment 1
York Region
November 8, 2005
Mr. Gordon Miller
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario
1075 Bay Street, Suite 605
Toronto, ON M5S 2B1
Transportation and Mrks apartment
Office of the Conamss:oner
Fax (905) 65 -0260
Dear Mr. Miller:
Re: York - Durham Sewer System
I am writing in response to your deputation to the City of Toronto, Policy and Finance Committee on
October 20, 2005.
The York Durham Sewage System is a state -of -the art wastewater collection system within the Great
Lakes basin. It was constructed by the Province of Ontario in the late 1970s and early 1980s in response
to a 1965 decision that no additional sewage treatment plants could be built on the Humber, Don and
Rouge Rivers. The concern at the time was that the assimilative capacity of receiving streams could be
exceeded by continued local service. The project need was hasten through the execution of the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement (between the Governments of Canada and the United States of America)
in 1972, and subsequent amendments. It fulfills some of the obligations imposed upon the Province of
Ontario through the Canada - Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. What
evolved from these initiatives was the most environmentally respectful system in the entire Great Lakes
basin - far superior, for example, to the systems serving the City of Toronto,
In the mid- 1990s, the Regions of York and Durham assumed ownership of the York Durham Sewage
System from the province. In 1997, York Region embarked on a Master Plan Study for the York Durham
Sewage System to identify and review current conditions as well as future alternatives to service
approved growth within our urban communities. The Master Plan involved an extensive review of
servicing alternatives and public consultation opportunities as prescribed through the Environmental
Assessment process, The Master Plan identified priority (required imminently to sustain existing levels
of service) and strategic (required to accommodate planned growth) projects.
In March of 2002, the York Durham Sewage System Master Plan as updated to reflect current planning
forecasts (as reflected in the Region's Official Plan and, again, more recently in Ontario's "Places to
Grow "). The Master Plan process is recognized in the Environmental Assessment Act as the appropriate
public process used for consultation on a broad scale of servicing alternatives spanning a number of
years.
Based upon your comments made to the Toronto Policy and Finance Committee, it appears that you may
not be fully aware of the Region's ongoing efforts. I would 1 ike to address the concerns raised in your
deputation (for reference purposes, a recording of your presentation is enclosed on a CD):
65
1. Assessment of the YDSS in stages instead of one Environmental Assessment
Due to the magnitude of the York Durham Sewage System - wluch includes approximately 187 km of
sewer pipe and a major sewage treatment plant - different timeframes and varying conditions found
throughout the Region, an Individual Environmental Assessment is neither appropriate nor is it in the
best interests of the environment.
The Master Plan is recognized under the environmental assessment process as an appropriate mechanism
to examine broad alternatives to a proposed project and to meaningfully engage the public. Master Plans
typically identify a number of related projects which have different time frames and levels of complexity.
These projects are conceptual in nature, without a pre - determined location, technology or construction
method. Proponents are then required to further fulfill the requirements of the Environmental Assessment
Act and assess each project in accordance with its individual characteristics. In this way, further review
of alternative locations, technologies and construction methods can be thoroughly examined with full and
comprehensive public consultation in order to identify the actions appropriate to address, mitigate or
avoid environmental impacts. It also permits an efficient use of public funds for projects.
By employing this staged approach, the Region was able to engage the public (i) comprehensively on the
system and (ii) specifically on each project - to address long -term planning needs and benefit from
advancements in technology, mitigation and other practices. The staged approach also permits the
efficient use of public funds for project finances.
Based on our extensive experience with the environmental assessment process, it would have been
virtually impossible to complete an Individual Environmental Assessment for the entire York Durham
Sewage System series of projects in a meaningful, productive and timely manner that was not overly
cumbersome or confusing.
2. Use of Section 32 by the Ministry of the Environment to avoid posting approvals on the
Environmental Bi11 of Rights (EBR) Registry
As you indicated, the Minister of the Environment is not required to post approvals on the EBR Registry
that are connected to the implementation of a project approved under the Environmental Assessment Act.
We do not believe this to be a part of a nefarious effort to avoid press but rather a means to avoid
duplication in efforts subscribed under several provincial statutes. Notwithstanding the lack of specific
obligation, the Ministry of the Environment did post the Permits to Take Water (PTTW) for the 9th Line
and 16th Avenue Projects on the EBR - as acknowledged in your 2003 /2004 Annual Report (p.55).
Similarly, the York Durham Sewage System Interceptor Sewer Project PTTW will be posted on the EBR.
In addition, the Region is required, through conditions placed on it by the Minister of the Environment,
to consult the public prior to submitting the PTTW application and to do follow -up consultation upon
receiving notice from the Ministry that the PTTW application is approved.
3. Lack of public consultation
Like your office, The Regional Municipality of York shares the mandate of keeping the public informed
and protecting the natural environment. To this end, the Region routinely practices Constructive
Engagement - an exercise which proactively involves the public in the decision - making processes on our
York Durham Sewage System projects. On the York Durham Sewage System Interceptor Sewer project,
for example, a committee of stakeholders was invited to voice feedback, comments and concerns through
two charettes, in addition to three public meetings during the review of alternatives.
66
4. Satisfying the need and the requirement to look at "Alternatives To" the York Durham
Sewage System
In 2004, the Minister of the Environment received a Part II order ( "bump up" request) to make all
unfinished York Durham Sewage System projects subject to an Individual Environmental Assessment.
The Minister denied this request and acknowledged that York Region had committed to prepare an
Individual Environmental Assessment for the Southeast Collector and Upper Leslie Street projects if and
when these projects proceed. In addition, the Minister made an order under Section 16 of the
Environmental Assessment Act placing project specific conditions on the Region. In all, 44 conditions
were made that are being fulfilled as the projects progress.
The Minister's conditions for the York Durham Sewage System Interceptor Sewer Project required York
Region to comply with the following:
• Comprehensive review of alternative routing options and alternative sewer design and
construction techniques
• Proactive, strategic, and ongoing stakeholder relationship management
• Technical assessments sufficient for all permits and approvals
• Analysis of "cumulative effects" of dewatering combined with other Regional projects
• Independent Peer Reviews
• Technical resource for individual well complainants
• Additional monitoring and reporting requirements during and after construction
• More frequent, effective, interactive public communication
In the past, a Class Environmental Assessment would have cost between $150,000 and $200,000. York
Region has spent more than $2.5 million on a work plan that goes well beyond satisfying the conditions
setout by the Ministry of the Environment. Our work and experience is arguably advancing the standards
for environmental assessment and environmental mitigation to unprecedented levels in contrast with any
comparative endeavour elsewhere in the province or, for that matter, any other Great Lakes basin
jurisdiction.
The Region recognizes the benefit of having extensive baseline data early in the project to make certain
that potential impacts can be assessed during the evaluation of alternatives stage. This ensures that the
preferred solution is balanced when considering environmental, social and economic impacts. In the case
of the York Durham Sewage System Interceptor, the preferred alternative (along 19th Avenue and using
an Earth Pressure Balance Machine) has not only been determined to have the least impact to the Oak
Ridges Moraine aquifer, but also the least impact to the public and local businesses.
From a financial point of view, the technology recommended by the Region is not thc least expensive; it
would have been far more economical to use conventional open cut construction along 19th Avenue at a
cost savings of almost $12 million. However, the Region recognized the importance of protecting the
- natural features and recommended the use of "Earth Pressure Balance" technology, which does not
require dewatering during tunneling operations.
67
York Region is working closely with all regulating bodies to monitor environmental compliance with all
of our York Durham Sewage System projects and obtain all required approvals. In his report to the Policy
and Finance Committee, Mr. Robert Ashley, solicitor for the City of Toronto, noted, "York, the Ontario
Ministry of the Environment, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the federal Derartment
of Fisheries and Oceans all take the position that all necessary approvals and permits for the 16th Avenue
project are in place. With respect to the 19th Avenue Interceptor, the Class EA is complete; however, the
Minister required a re- evaluation of the preferred route and the consideration of design alternatives. With
respect to the SEC, its EA was bumped up to an Individual EA by the Minister. The regulators have
clearly addressed what they believe to be "proper" approvals or conditions to approval."
In closing, York Region was surprised when you stated to the Toronto Committee that your files are
"bulging" with 10 years of public concerns on the York Durham S wage System projects. We have no
record, prior to October 20th, 2005, of your office contacting the Region regarding your concerns. We
have reviewed Annual Reports from your office over this period and found no references to your
concerns.
I would be pleased to help you, or your office staff, become better informed with respect to our efforts.
The very essence of the EA process is to invite and receive constructive thoughts and suggestions. We
take criticisms from your office very seriously as we do our roles in protecting public health and the
environment. I look forward to the opportunity to share our concerns. .
Sincerely
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Bruce Macgregor, P. Eng.
Commissioner of Transportation and Works
BCM/PC /gl
Enclosure - CD video /voice recording of City of Toronto, Finance and Policy Committee deputation
Copy to: Bill Fisch, Regional Chair
Mike Garrett, Chief Administrative Officer
Dr. H. Jaczek, Medical Officer of Health
Patrick Casey, Director, Corporate Communications Services
Debbie Korolnek, General Manager, Water and Wastewater
Comm \W02 \G.Miller YDSS
68
NOBLETON STP KING 6
�t TOWNSHIP OF KING
Y033 MASTER PEAN
TOWN OF
NEWMARKET
TOWN OF
AURORA
11711.417
BMA
Y IMO
firi EON WHITCHURCH STOP UFFUILLE
ZI<Il��E• � Fr
wounir, wig■■e;' -�' X111,.
•
•
•
n
LEGEND
P ROP OSED SEWERS
EXISTING YO RK /DU RNAM
S EINE RS CUR RENTLY BEING CONSTRUCTED
Ir
•r►�.1 arani1��l k> 6 affi/ ���
CiF
s�C��,� //�I���� AN1
EXISTING PUMP MG STATL?N
METER STATE) N
FUTURE P UMP DC S'V■TION
STOUFIVILLESTP
UXBRID G E
9th
LI
1
lit., _ ga� J�I
YORKPEEL FORCEMAIN _ IT T: F' IT
TNEAST
LECTOR
BOFFIN
CREEK
WPCP
Lake Ontario
Z ;uew40e11d
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:33 a.m., on Friday, December 2, 2005.
Michael Di Biase Brian Denney
Chair Secretary- Treasurer
/ks
- 70