HomeMy WebLinkAboutRouge Watershed Task Force 2006THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE
MINUTES OF MEETING #1/06
AUTHORITY
MEETING #5/06
JUNE 23, 2006
e 4. .
Rouge Park
MINUTES OF THE ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #1/06
January 11th, 2006
TORONTO AND REGION .-
onserva t►on
for The Living City
The Rouge Watershed Task Force met in the Atrium Room at the Toronto Zoo, 361 A Old
Finch Ave.,Scarborough, Administration Building Toronto Zoo, on Wednesday, January
11th, 2006. Bryan Buttigieg, Chair of the Rouge Watershed Task Force, called the meeting to
order at 7:10 p.m.
PRESENT
Bryan Buttigieg Member
Christine Caroppo Member
Gay Cowbourne Member
Chris Darling Alternate for Alex Georgieff
Alex Georgieff Alternate
Paul Harpley Member
Murray Johnston Member
Virginia Jones Member
George McKelvey Alternate
Theresa Mckenzie Member
Kevin O'Connor Alternate
Terry O'Connor Member
Mike Price Member
Lionel Purcell Member
Jim Robb Member
Patricia Short-Galle Member
Lorne Smith . Member
Tracey Steele Alternate for Audrey Hollasch
David Tuley Member
Peter White Member
Anil Wijesooriya Alternate
STAFF
Sonya Meek TRCA
Bob Clay TRCA
Tim Rance TRCA
Sylvia Waters TRCA
L238 Rouge Watershed Task Force #1/06 January 11, 2006
GUESTS
Bill Snodgrass City of Toronto
LiIIi Duoba Town of Markham
Suzanne Barrett Barrett & Associates
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
Bryan Buttigieg announced there would be an added item concerning submission of a letter
regarding the Places to Grow: Draft Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. This item
will be dealt with under New Business, at the end of the meeting.
WORKSHOP
Suzanne Barrett will begin the meeting by leading members in completing the discussion of
the three remaining Goals ( Terrestrial Natural Heritage, Public Use, Sustainable Land and
Resource Use) from the Saturday December 3`d Workshop.
Members formed their previous break -out groups as follows with additions in bold:
Group A (blue) - Goal 5 (Terrestrial Natural Heritage) - Mike Price, Kevin O'Connor, George McKelvey,
Theresa McKenzie, Jim Robb (absent), Clyde Smith (absent), L/lli Duoba, Tracey Steele
Group B (green) - Goal 8 (Public Use) - Bryan Buttigieg (moved to Group C), Christine Caroppo, Maryam
Nassar (absent), Tupper Wheatley (absent), Jack Heath (absent), Bill Snodgrass, Gay Cowbourne, Lionel
Purcell, David Tuley, Murray Johnson, Anil Wijesooriya
Group C (yellow) - Goal 9 (Sustainable Land and Resource Use) - Peter White (absent), Lewis Yeager
(absent), Tim Rance, Patricia Short - Galle, Lorne Smith, Paul Harpley, Virginia Jones (moved to Group B),
Terry O'Connor, Alex Georg /eff, Chris Dar ling
An accounting of review of the three remaining Goals at this meeting will be compiled
with the December 3rd Workshop discussion and sent under separate cover as a
Workshop Report of Consolidated Management Actions.
January 11, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #1106 L239
RES. #L55/06 MINUTES #6/05 (of November 10, 2005)
Moved by: Alex Georgieff
Seconded by: David Tuley
THAT the Minutes of Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #6/05, held on November 10,
2005 be approved.
In the review of #6/05 Minutes:
Theresa McKenzie's name to be added as attending the above meeting, now as a Member for
the Richmond Hill Naturalists.
In the review of #6/05 Minutes:
AudreyHollaschnoted the following changes on L224 shown in strikeout and bold .
. To be explained further as
follows: We must distinguish between natural heritage open space lands vs
planned /programmed /active urban park lands.
.. IP
AMENDMENT MINUTES #6/05 (of November 10, 2005)
RES. #L56/06
Moved by: Alex Georgieff
Seconded by: David Tuley
THAT the Minutes of Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #6/05, held, November 10th,
2005 be approved as amended.
CARRIED
RES. #L57/06
Moved by:
Seconded by:
SCENARIO REPORT
Draft Report on the detailed scenario descriptions, assumptions and data
sources.
Gay Cowbourne
Christine Caroppo
THAT the Draft Report on the Rouge Watershed Planning Study - Detailed Scenario
Descriptions, Assumptions and Data Sources be received;
L240 Rouge Watershed Task Force #1/06 January 11, 2006
AND FURTHER THAT members advise staff of any further comments or questions on the
Draft Report by January 23rd, 2006.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
An important component of the Phase 2 (Analysis and Evaluation) component of the Rouge
Watershed Planning Study involves the identification, modelling and evaluation of eight future
scenarios, depicting future stresses and management approaches in the watershed. The
scenarios address different forms and extents of urban growth, stormwater retrofit schemes,
enhanced natural cover, and climate change. Modelling and analysis of the effect of each of
the scenarios on stream flow, water quality, habitat, and other indicators will provide the Task
Force with a basis for the formulation of an effective watershed management strategy, targets
and criteria.
The attached report documents the detailed descriptions and assumptions made in the
definition of each scenario. The report serves as a common basis for the various modelling
studies that are being undertaken to evaluate the scenarios from a range of perspectives.
Report prepared by: Bob Clay
For Information contact:: Bob Clay, extension 5624
Date: December 7, 2005
January 11, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #1/06 L241
Attachment 1
ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED PLANNING STUDY
PHASE 2 - SCENARIO ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
DETAILED SCENARIO DESCRIPTIONS, ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA SOURCES
Draft November 21, 2005
Robert T. Clay
Introduction
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority(TRCA) and the Rouge Park Alliance, in
cooperation with the Rouge Watershed Task Force, began the development of a plan that
would guide management of the Rouge watershed in the east - central portions of the Toronto
Area (see figure 1 - map). The watershed plan is being developed in three phases:
characterization of present watershed conditions, analysis of issues and opportunities and
development of a plan of action.
The second phase of the planning process involves analysis of possible future actions, events
and conditions and the potential response of the watershed system to those conditions. The
TRCA developed an innovative way of considering these relationships through the modeling of
various scenarios that might occur in the Rouge watershed in the future. The participants all
understood that models are useful to help understand environmental relationships and that the
greatest value of scenario model results arise when the results of the scenarios are compared,
rather than using the models to accurately try and predict actual future conditions. The intent
was to use the scenarios to examine the response of the watershed to a variety of human
development and conservation activities and then consider the effects on water balance,
terrestrial and aquatic ecological features, human cultural heritage, energy consumption, air
quality, agriculture, etc.
Specifically, the participants used land use scenarios for the Rouge that included present
watershed conditions, complete existing Official Plan build -out and complete potential urban
build -out of the watershed. Environmental measures such as enhanced natural heritage, better
storm water management, improved hydrological performance of the watershed were
superimposed on these basic situations. Finally, the effect of potential climate change was laid
over the development and environmental scenarios. The participants determined the
boundaries of the Rouge Watershed and its sub - watershed boundaries by use of 1:10000
Ontario Base Maps and digital elevation models (see Figure 1).
The participants used a total of eight scenarios to inform their consideration and development
of a plan that contains the most desirable course of actions (Table 1). Planning, modeling and
considering alternatives requires clear understanding and description of the scenarios,
including implicit and explicit assumptions. This paper provides those assumptions for the
eight scenarios used for the Rouge Watershed plan.
L242 Rouge Watershed Task Force #1/06
January 11, 2006
Rouge Watershed Scenarios Selected for Analysis
No.
Name
Description
Rationale
1
Watershed conditions
in 2002.
Conditions that existed in 2002.
Baseline for comparison.
2
Official plan (OP) build -out
Official plans completed and Ontario Realty
Corporation (ORC) and transferred to TRCA to
be managed as part of Rouge Park
Evaluate the effect of approved and
adopted OP completion.
3
Official plan build -out and
Stormwater retro -fit
Scenario 2 plus implementation of City of
Toronto's 25 year Wet Weather Flow
Management Master Plan and '905'
municipalities' stormwater retro -fit plans
Evaluate the effect of stormwater
retrofit on approved and adopted
OP completion
4
Official plan build -out and
enhanced natural cover
Scenario 2 plus implementation of the (1) TRCA
Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy and (2) the
draft ecological corridor for the Little Rouge
Management Plan for the Ontario Realty
Corporation lands north of Steeles Avenue.
Evaluate the effect of enhanced
natural cover on approved and
adopted OP completion
5
Official plan build -out,
stormwater retro fit and
enhanced natural cover
Scenarios 2, 3 and 4 combined
Evaluate the effect of stormwater
retrofit and enhanced natural cover
on approved and adopted OP
completion
6
Full build -out
Scenario 2 (OP build out) plus development of all
available areas to boundaries of the Oak Ridges
Moraine Protection and Greenbelt Protected
Areas
Evaluate effect of full development
of the Rouge Watershed
7
Full build -out with
sustainable communities
programs in new and
existing developments
Scenarios 5 and 6 plus more intensive
implementation of sustainable community
initiatives, more sustainable development in new
developments, including delineation and
protection of Rouge Park North corridors ,
enhanced natural cover and City of Toronto's
100 year stormwater retrofit plan
Evaluate the effect of sustainable
community design and enhanced
stormwater management on
complete development
0.3
Climate change 2050 with
full build -out
Scenario 6 with predicted 2050 climate
Evaluate impact of climate in 2050
on complete development
8b
Climate change 2080 with
full build -out
Scenario 6 with predicted 2080 climate
Evaluate impact of climate in 2080
on complete development
8c
Climate change 2050 with
full build -out and
sustainable communities
programs
Scenario 7 with predicted 2050 climate
Evaluate impact of climate in 2050
on complete development with
sustainable communities programs
implemented
8d
Climate change 2080 with
full build -out and
sustainable communities
programs
Scenario 7 with predicted 2080 climate
Evaluate impact of climate in 2080
on complete development with
sustainable communities programs
implemented
January 11, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #1/06 L243
Scenario 1. Watershed conditions in 2002.
This scenario provides the baseline against which all other scenarios were compared. We
chose 2002 because it was the latest year that complete land use, hydrological and planning
datasets were available. The participants recognize that developments have occurred in the
watershed since 2002 but felt that the conditions in 2002 would provide adequate
representation for future scenarios to be compared.
Scenario
Element
Description
Assumptions
a. Land use /land
•
interpreted from 2002 aerial ortho photos and the 2004 (ref. In Appx 1) MapArt Book
cover
to assign land cover and use classesl . Also see Appendix 1.
•
where ortho photo interpretation of determination of commercial or industrial was
difficult or differed from the Official Plan designations, the Official Plan designation
was used
•
assume that the effect of reclassification of a small 'industrial' area in Markham to
commercial effects on the modeling would be negligible
•
aggregate pits designated in plans but not apparent on ortho photos were classified
as natural cover because it was assumed they had been either decommissioned or
were not yet active
•
aggregate pits were assumed to function hydrologically the same as open space
b. Drainage
•
surface drainage patterns were taken from 1:10000 Ontario Base Maps digital
elevation model
•
% imperviousness factors for each land use were developed based on values in the
literature modified by past TRCA analysis of urban land permeability and the City of
Toronto's Wet Weather Flow Master Management Plan (WWFMMP)
•
streamflow data for 1995 -1998 were taken from the TRCA records, water survey of
Canada, Richmond Hill gauges and used to calibrate the HSP -F model (see section 2
of this report)
c. Municipal Water
•
based on information from York Region Water Use Assessment Draft Report, 2003.
Use
•
assume 2002 MOE Permits To Take Water reflect actual use, with recognition that this
is probably an over - estimate
d. Other Water
•
information from York Region Water Use Assessment Draft Report, 2003 and TRCA
Takings
water use assessment database (PTTW, non -PTTW required and domestic takings
verified by field inspection)
•
assume that PTTW reflect actual use where actual consumption was not verified
1 Land cover and use were placed into the following classes:
Cultivated agriculture, pasture, estate residential, low /med. density residential, high density
residential, recreational, golf course, zoo, highway, commercial, industrial, institutional,
mineral aggregate extraction, cemetery, railway, hydro corridor, airport lands, urban open space,
vacant land, open water, forest, wetland, meadow, beach bluff, and successional,
L244 Rouge Watershed Task Force #1/06
January 11, 2006
e. Sanitary Servicing
•
assume that built -up areas designated in Official Plans are serviced by municipal
sanitary sewer and treatment systems and rural serviced by private septic systems
f.
Stormwater
•
assumed that stormwater ponds operating in April 2002 (based on the TRCA
Official Plans especially in the case of commercial /industrial and final decisions
made on the basis of what seemed most reasonable;
c. Town of Markham uses designations of hamlet, rural residential and urban
residential and so., it was assumed that these were represented by the low /med
density residential cover class. It was also assumed that Markham's designations of
hazard land and ecological protection area were represented by the class of natural
cover. The Markham designation of open space included urban areas, existing
natural and agricultural covers . The former of these was classed as according to
the land use and the latter two were called urban open space.;
d. The detailed Town of Richmond Hill designations were generalized into commercial,
industrial, hydro corridor, and urban open space;
e. Classifications of Settlement Areas in the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan
were used in preference to the designations in the Town of Richmond Hill land use
classes because the information seemed to be more up to date;
f. The designations in the City of Toronto Official Plan and Ontario Municipal Board
restrictions in effect in 2002 were used with the exception of Morningside Heights
Management
Stormwater Management Pond Database, review of design reports and the TRCA
permit files) function as described in design reports
g. Climate
•
•
Environment Canada daily weather records of precipitation, temperature and
evaporation for 1999 -2002 for Buttonville Airport were used and assumed
representative
missing data for tipping bucket samplers was assumed to be zero
Scenario 2. Official Plan Build -out.
This scenario provides conditions that might prevail when development provided for in the
Official Municipal Plans in effect in 2002 (including existing development) is complete. We
chose 2002 as the baseline because that was the most current information available. There is
no time horizon for completion of the plans contemplated in this scenario, rather the focus is on
the end point condition of the landscape regardless of time required for the development to
occur. The intent is to allow study of the effect of full implementation of municipal Official Plans
on present day watershed conditions.
Scenario.
Element
Description
Assumptions
a. Land use /land
1. assumes the same land uses /land cover as scenario 1 with the following exceptions:
cover
a. implementation of the adopted, approved and potential Official Plans, so
designations for areas yet to be built out were derived from Official Plans;
b. ortho photo interpretation was used to decide on designation of existing land cover
classes including urban areas. The interpretations were finally cross - checked with
Official Plans especially in the case of commercial /industrial and final decisions
made on the basis of what seemed most reasonable;
c. Town of Markham uses designations of hamlet, rural residential and urban
residential and so., it was assumed that these were represented by the low /med
density residential cover class. It was also assumed that Markham's designations of
hazard land and ecological protection area were represented by the class of natural
cover. The Markham designation of open space included urban areas, existing
natural and agricultural covers . The former of these was classed as according to
the land use and the latter two were called urban open space.;
d. The detailed Town of Richmond Hill designations were generalized into commercial,
industrial, hydro corridor, and urban open space;
e. Classifications of Settlement Areas in the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan
were used in preference to the designations in the Town of Richmond Hill land use
classes because the information seemed to be more up to date;
f. The designations in the City of Toronto Official Plan and Ontario Municipal Board
restrictions in effect in 2002 were used with the exception of Morningside Heights
January 11, 2006
Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #1/06
L245
Scenario 3. Official Plan Build -out and Stormwater retro -fit.
This scenario provides the conditions that might prevail when the municipal Official Plans and
which was updated using the Toronto Official Plan designations;
g. The land use classes of 2002 for the City of Pickering were used
h. any urban natural cover (open land, forest, wetland, meadow, successional) that
was present in Official Plans in 2002 was assumed to remain present when the
development is complete and that in new urban areas assume that the TRCA valley
and stream corridor would be implemented;
i. agricultural areas in the TRCA valley and stream corridor in the urban area in 2002
were assumed to become meadow when development is complete;
j. assume that areas in the Rouge park planted to trees will become forest;
k. assume that the Draft Little Rouge Ecological Corridor Plan (including the Rouge
North Plan boundary) is implemented on the Ontario Realty Corporation lands and
that natural cover (forest and /or wetland ) and agricultural and present in 2002 will
remain as is or become meadow, respectively;
I. Assume that Greenbelt and ORMCP countryside areas will remain as 2002
conditions which is approximately 50% each of agriculture and natural cover and
that natural cover in corridor areas will remain at 2002 proportions of approximately
50 %;
m.assume that the conditions present on the Federal lands will remain the same but it
was not assumed that these would be delineated or implemented as part of the
Rouge Park;
n. We used the land use designations for settlement areas in the most recent Oak
Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and assumed that other areas in the Moraine
remain the same as they were in 2002;
o. assume that low /medium residential land use has an imperviousness factor of 30%
b. Drainage
•
assume similar surface drainage patterns as Scenario 1.
c. Municipal Water
Use
•
•
•
•
assume current water demands will continue to be supplied by existing sources, as in
Scenario 1
assume consumption will rise by 17% ( based on daily rates in York Region Long
Term Water Project Master Plan Update, April 2004) and that these increases will be
supplied by sources outside the Rouge watershed:
no additional groundwater will be drawn from Rouge sources, but there may be
expanded draws from groundwater wells located in the Duffins watershed for the Town
of Stouffville
additional Markham and Richmond Hill water would be supplied from Lake Ontario
d. Other Water
Takings
•
•
assume no surface withdrawals
assume no private wells in the urbanizing areas (all will be connected to municipal
supplies) but private wells will continue to exist where areas remain rural
e. Sanitary
Servicing
•
•
•
assume septic systems in urbanizing areas are retired and replaced by expanded
municipal services.
all municipal services would be provided by the Duffins Creek facility
rural private services would remain in place where areas remain rural
f. Stormwater
Management
•
assume that new stormwater management practices meet MOE/TRCA standards
• Quantity control (flood): 2 -100 year post to pre where required
• Erosion control: 48 hour detention of 25 mm storm
• Quality control: level 1
g. Climate
•
same assumptions as scenario 1
Scenario 3. Official Plan Build -out and Stormwater retro -fit.
This scenario provides the conditions that might prevail when the municipal Official Plans and
L246 Rouge Watershed Task Force #1/06 January 11, 2006
storm water management retro fit plans are fully implemented. The intent of this scenario is to
allow participants to study the effect of implementing modern technology on new and
upgrading existing storm water management facilities. There are no assumptions about length
of time required to reach these watershed conditions.
Scenario Element
Description
Assumptions
a. Land use /land cover
•
same assumptions as scenario 2.
b. Drainage
•
same assumption as scenario 2.
c. Municipal Water Use
•
same assumptions as scenario 2.
d. Other Water Takings
•
same assumptions as scenario 2.
e. Sanitary Servicing
•
same assumptions as scenario 2.
f. Stormwater
Management
•
•
•
•
assume that retro -fits will be implemented as planned by municipalities
assume that retro -fit ponds will have characteristics and perform as in municipal
stormwater retro -fit reports:
• Markham - Stormwater Retro -fit Study Final Report (TRCA and ABL, February
1999
• City of Toronto, Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan (WWFMMP),
2003
• Richmond Hill, Stormwater Retrofit Study Phase I and II Final Report, (TRCA,
February 2000)
• Richmond Hill and TRCA Stormwater Management Retrofit Study Phase 111
Component (ABL, May 2002)
assume 'end -of -pipe' retro -fit facilities (e.g. SWM ponds) display operational
characteristics that are consistent with municipal retro -fit study recommendations
assume new SWM facilities in urbanizing areas meet MOE and TRCA
specifications
• quantity control: 2 -100 year post to pre where required
• erosion control : 48 hr. detention of 25mm storm
• quality control: level 1
g. Climate
•
same assumptions as scenario 1
Scenario 4. Official plan build -out and enhance natural cover.
This scenario is intended to allow comparison of the effects of implementation of the municipal
Official Plans, the Rouge Park Natural Heritage (RPNH) plans, provincial government initiatives
(Greenbelt, ORMCP) and TRCA Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy (NTHSS). The
scenario assumes that all are fully implemented, although there is no assumption about the
time over which implementation occurs. The intent of this scenario is to examine the impact of
maximum reasonable protection and restoration of natural cover on the watershed.
January 11, 2006
Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #1/06
L247
Scenario Element
Description
Assumptions
a. Land use /land
cover
•
used data bases in TRCA TNHSS and, for existing Ontario Realty Corporation lands,
use the Ecological Corridor from the Little Rouge Corridor Plan.
b. Drainage
•
assume similar land uses as in scenario 2 with the exceptions below:
c. Municipal Water Use
.•
assume that the TNHSS is implemented
d. Other Water Takings
•
assume that urban and rural land use in areas not targeted by the TNHSS will be as
outlined in scenario 2
•
It was assumed that natural cover outside of (1) the TNHSS; or (2) areas protected
by municipal or provincial policy; or (3) ORC lands, would be converted to
surrounding land uses;
•
aggregate extraction sites present in the targeted terrestrial areas were not included
as natural heritage cover •
•
assume that all land uses /cover types in the targeted area of the TNHSS, including
lands north of Steeles Avenue that are designated for transfer from the ORC to
Rouge Park, will become forest and /or wetlands
•
assume Rouge Park restoration sites are same as scenario 2;
•
assume the Canadian Federal government lands ownership and cover remain in
2002 status
b. Drainage
•
same assumption as scenario 2.
c. Municipal Water
•
same assumptions as scenario 2.
Use
d. Other Water
•
same assumptions as scenario 2
Takings
e. Sanitary Servicing
•
same assumptions as scenario 2
f. Stormwater
•
same assumptions as scenario 2
Management
g. Climate
•
same assumptions as scenario 1
Scenario 5. Official plan build -out, stormwater retro fit and enhanced natural cover.
The intent of this scenario is to allow study of the combined effect of Official Plan
implementation along with modern stormwater management and maximum natural cover
across the Rouge watershed. In essence, this scenario will model the response of the
watershed if all extant development and environmental protection /enhancement plans are
implemented.
Scenario Element
Description
Assumptions
a. Land use /land cover
•
same assumptions as scenario 4
b. Drainage
•
same assumption as scenario 2.
c. Municipal Water Use
•
same assumptions as scenario 2
d. Other Water Takings
•
same assumptions as scenario 2
L248 Rouge Watershed Task Force #1/06
January 11, 2006
e. Sanitary Servicing
•
same assumptions as scenario 2
f. Stormwater
Management
•
same assumptions as scenario 3
g. Climate
•
same assumptions as scenario 1
Scenario 6. Full build -out
This scenario covers all lands in the watershed might potentially be developed, whether they
are included in current Official Plans or not. The scenario assumes that legislation and
regulation associated with the Oak Ridges Moraine and Greenbelt will remain and be
implemented as planned. The intent of this scenario is to allow study of the effect of full human
development on the watershed under the normal types of development that occur in 2005 with
some reasonable assumptions around future development characteristics. The scenario does
not include any ecological or environmental protection beyond existing Official Plans and
provincial /municipal legislation /regulation nor does it assume that any aggressive sustainability
assumptions are built into developments. There is no assumption regarding the time frame
over which such development may occur.
January 11, 2006
Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #1/06
L249
Scenario Element
Description
Assumptions
a. Land use /land cover
1. same assumptions as scenario 2 plus urban expansion into remaining
developable areas with following exceptions:
2. assumes Provincial Greenbelt and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plans
policies are implemented. In particular, within these planning areas
a. assume a 600 m corridor wide along the Little Rouge River as defined in the
Greenbelt Plan and OPA 116 is undevelopable. The corridor width along other
streams in the Greenbelt area were 100 m.;
b. Consistent with the Provincial Greenbelt Plan, assume that principles of the
Rouge North Management Plan (RNMP) are implemented through OPA 116 in
the areas of Greenbelt delineated as RNMP;
c. countryside areas will remain as 2002 conditions which is approximately 50%
each of agriculture and natural cover;
d. natural cover in corridor areas will remain at 2002 proportions of approximately
50 %;
e. TRCA Valley and Stream corridor areas are not developable and the cover is
assumed to be remain in 2002 conditions;
f. all areas not protected by policies in effect in 2002 or agency /private
ownership were assumed to be potentially developable;
3. assume that trees planted in the Rouge Park Restoration sites become forest,
4. assume that the Draft Little Rouge Ecological Corridor Plan is implemented on the
ORC lands north of Steeles Avenue East that were transferred to the TRCA for
Rouge Park purposes and that:
a. agricultural land present in 2002 becomes meadow
b. natural cover (forest and wetlands) present in 2002 remains,
5. assume that ownership and condition of Canadian government owned lands north
of Steeles remain as they were in 2002
6. assume that 60% of human population growth will be settled in 'greenfield' areas
and 40% will be settled in already developed areas (as per Ontario Places to Grow
strategy 2005)
7. assume that the density of low/medium residential' residential dwellings in the
new development areas north of Major Mackenzie Drive will double because of
decrease in lot width from 40/50 feet to 20/30 feet. It was assumed that this
increase in density will result in the impervious area rising to 55 %. Low /medium
residential south of Major Mackenzie Drive remains at 30% as in scenario 2
8. assumes that the new developments north of Major Mackenzie Drive will be
similar to the type of development common in 2002 with exception of density
9. assume that north of Major Mackenzie the only potential:
a. industrial complex would be the extreme northeast corner of Markham along
Highway 404 and the west side of 404 in Richmond Hill
b. commercial complex north of Major Mackenzie would be near McCowan and
Elgin Mills
b. Drainage
• same assumption as scenario 2. -
c. Municipal Water Use
1. assume current water demands will continue to be supplied by existing sources
2. assume consumption will rise by 40% ( based on daily rates in York Region Long
Term Water Project Master Plan Update, April 2004) and that these increases will
be supplied by sources outside the Rouge watershed:
a. no additional groundwater will be drawn from Rouge sources, but there may be
expanded draws from groundwater wells in the Duffins Creek watershed for the
Town of Stouffville -
b. additional Markham and Richmond Hill water would be supplied from Lake
Ontario
d. Other Water Takings
• same assumption as scenario 2.
L250 Rouge Watershed Task Force #1/06
January 11, 2006
e. Sanitary Servicing
•
same assumption as scenario 2.
f. Stormwater
Management
•
assume same as scenario 2
g. Climate
•
assume same as scenario 1
Scenario 7. Full build out with complete implementation of all elements of a sustainable
community plan.
The intent of this scenario is to examine the effect of implementing a full package of activities
that may approximate sustainable communities. The scenario would include things like
improved water permeability, terrestrial vegetative cover, wetlands, etc.
The details and assumptions of this scenario are being developed and will appear in a
companion report.
Scenario 8. Climate change (2050 and 2080) with full build out with and without complete
implementation of all elements of a sustainable community plan.
The intent of this scenario is to examine the effect of climate change on the results of
implementing a full package of activities that would aim to achieve completely sustainable
communities. There are 4 different scenarios included: full build out in 2050 and 2080
(scenarios 8a and 8b) and full build out with sustainable communities in 2050 and 2080
(scenarios 8c and 8d).
January 11, 2006
Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #1/06
L251
Scenario 8a. Full build out in 2050.
Scenario Element
Description
Assumptions
a. Land use /land cover
•
assume same as scenario 6
b. Drainage
•
- assume same as scenario 6
c. Municipal Water Use
•
assume same as scenario 6
d. Other Water Takings
•
assume same as scenario 6
e. Sanitary Servicing
•
assume same as scenario 6
f. Stormwater Management
•
assume same as scenario 6
g. Climate
•
assume climate conditions predicted by Environment Canada climate
change model for 2050
Scenario 8a. Full build out in 2080.
Scenario Element
Description
Assumptions
a. Land use /land cover
•
assume same as scenario 6
b. Drainage
•
assume same as scenario 6
c. Municipal Water Use
•
assume same as scenario 6
d. Other Water Takings
•
assume same as scenario 6
e. Sanitary Servicing
•
assume same as scenario 6
f. Stormwater Management
•
assume same as scenario 6
g. Climate
•
assume climate conditions predicted by Environment Canada climate
change model for 2080
Scenario 8c. Full build out with sustainable community (all opportunities) in 2050.
Scenario Element
Description
Assumptions
a. Land use /land cover
•
assume same as scenario 7
b. Drainage
•
assume same as scenario 7
c. Municipal Water Use
•
assume same as scenario 7
d. Other Water Takings
•
assume same as scenario 7
L252 Rouge Watershed Task Force #1/06
January 11, 2006
e. Sanitary Servicing
•
assume same as scenario 7
f. Stormwater Management
•
assume same as scenario 7
g. Climate
•
assume climate conditions predicted by Environment Canada climate
change model for 2050
Scenario 8d. Full build out with sustainable community (all opportunities) in 2080.
Scenario Element
Description
Assumptions
a. Land use /land cover
•
assume same as scenario 7
b. Drainage
•
assume same as scenario 7
c. Municipal Water Use
•
assume same as scenario 7
d. Other Water Takings
•
assume same as scenario 7
e. Sanitary Servicing
•
assume same as scenario 7
f. Stormwater Management
•
assume same as scenario 7
g. Climate
•
assume climate conditions predicted by Environment Canada climate
change model for 2080
January 11, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #1/06 L253
Appendix 1. Classification Guidelines /Parameters
- Rouge Land Use Digitizing, 2004 -
Kristen Harrison, TRCA
All land classification was completed through on- screen digitizing using the Orthophotography
collected during the spring of 2002. On- screen digitizing was completed at scales between
1:5000 and 1:10000 unless otherwise stated.
ESTR - estate residential
Very low density residential areas with at least one of the following additional criteria: large
manicured lawn areas, long private drives off of residential roads (not concessions, regional
roads, etc), private recreational areas (eg. Tennis court).
MDR - medium -low density residential
Classification range is quite large. Includes regulated lots for single detached homes with
moderate manicured areas, semi - detached homes through to town house complexes within
mixed subdivisions. Manicured lots must exist.
HDR - high density residential
High density town house complexes in segregated subdivisions /contained development units
which may not have any existence of manicured lots visible on the orthophotography through
to apartment and condominium complexes and their property (includes manicured areas and
parking areas if part of the complex).
IND - industrial
Industrial areas are demarcated by grey blocks in MapArt books. Using these areas as shown
in a current 2004 MapArt book as a guide, visual interpretation was used to verify and classify
industrial areas. Characterized by large warehouse and factory buildings with flat paved roofs,
the existence of storage yards, railway transfer stations, transport truck storage and loading
and large office building complexes are also key indicators of these areas.
COM - commercial
The `commercial' class incorporates a wide variety of building types including box -store
complexes, variety stores, restaurants, etc. MapArt uses purple blocks to indicate commercial
areas. Using a 2004 MapArt book and through visual verification using orthophotography,
these areas were identified. Visual indicators for commercial areas included parking Tots, flat
paved roofs, proximity to street, level of road (arterial roads vs. residential or minor streets) and
a lack of manicured areas. Single office buildings were classified as commercial where not
adjacent to industrial areas, and where indicated by MapArt as being part of the commercial
class.
L254 Rouge Watershed Task Force #1/06 January 11, 2006
INS - institutional
Schools (including Universities), hospitals, landfills, churches and other public facilities were
classified as institutional. Visual interpretation of the 2002 Orthophotography provided the
basis for classification. This interpretation was augmented with the use of MapArt which
identifies institutional areas with orange blocks and unique symbols. All property associated
with the institutional facility were included in the classified land area.
AGG - aggregate extraction
Aggregate extraction includes areas of current or past aggregate extraction where evidence of
their removal is still identifiable. Visual identification criteria including the following: large light -
coloured excavation pits, heavy industrial equipment, scree piles from debris removal,
aggregate storage piles or stalls, transport activities (trucks, loading conveyors, etc) and
proximity to suggestive physiographic features (Oak Ridges Moraine, major water courses,
surficial geology). Aggregate extraction can be on a large industrial scale or a small scale on
private property identified by small areas of slope removal with evidence of aggregate piles.
MapArt shows large aggregate removal operations and was used as a verification tool. Land
Classification for this category extended as far as there was evidence of influence on the
landscape or other property markings (fences, roads, etc).
ZOO - zoo lands
The nature of the Metro Toronto Zoo land area made it impossible to classify in any of the
existing land use categories. As such, it was separated into a unique category. The property
is composed of many naturalized areas of varying types, as well as manicured and semi -
manicured regions. Throughout the area there is also the existence of maintenance buildings,
roads, pathways, and various other building and infrastructure types. Zoo lands were
delineated primarily using the 2004 MapArt book, and with verification through visual
interpretation on orthophotography.
HWY - highway
Highways were restricted to 400 series highways and other major highways. This does not
include regional highways. On and Off ramps were included as part of this category, and as
such, adjoining roads up to the edge of the cloverleaves were included in this. No other
roadways were included. Significant green areas within cloverleaves was separated out into a
more appropriate category such as urban open space (UOS) or meadow (M).
AP - airport lands
These were identified primarily using a 2004 MapArt book where airport lands are identified
separately and labeled. Airport lands include terminal and maintenance buildings, runways,
parking areas, and green areas between them unless vegetation community indicated a natural
classification such as meadow. Visual verification was conducted using the 2002
orthophotography and for on- screen delineation.
AGC - cultivated agriculture
January 11, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #1/06 L255
Based on the existing state at the time of the orthophotography. These areas were visually
identified as areas that showed current or recent use for production of cultivated crops. Such
areas were identified by the following visual indicators: till tracks (mechanized planting,
harvesting), hay /stalk piles, manure spreading, freshly turned soils, rowed plant growth.
AGP - pasture agriculture
Based on the existing state at the time of the orthophotography. Pasture agricultural areas
were visually identified as areas that have no recent evidence of cultivation, have been left
fallow, and show other evidence of use as pasture such as adjacent horse paddocks, animal
barns as evidenced by feed troughs, trampled areas, tracks and paths. These areas contain a
combination of short grasses, and some shrubs and are different from meadow in the
combination of vegetation and in that they are not fully naturalized.
CEM - cemetery
Visually cemeteries appear as well manicured areas often with visible grave markers,
monuments, some trees and small winding roads. Smaller cemeteries are more difficult to
identify and were identified primarily using the MapArt and verified visually.
GC - golf course
The Golf Course category includes driving ranges, all manicured areas of golf courses (greens,
fairways), cart paths and all associated buildings (club house, maintenance, etc.). Golf
Courses are easily identifiable by visual interpretation - their bright green colour contrasts with
surrounding land areas. Golf Courses are also identified in MapArt books, and was used as a
verification tool.
REC - recreational
Areas were classified as recreational if there was a recreation - specific facility such as an arena
or recreation centre and or the existence of more than one sports play area (baseball diamond,
soccer field, track, etc). School grounds or parks with one sports area /field were not classified
separately as recreational, but instead were included with their counterpart. Arenas are
distinguishable by their roof structure from buildings of similar size. Recreation and community
centres were identified using MapArt symbols as they are difficult to distinguish using visual
interpretation.
UOS - urban open space
Urban open space is composed of manicured urban areas. These include treed areas with
evidence of grounds- keeping, open park areas, and large boulevards. These may be directly
adjacent to school yards and were differentiated based on evidence of dominant use, by
grounds keeping marks, or using an existing pathway.
L256 Rouge Watershed Task Force #1/06 January 11, 2006
HC - hydro corridor
'Hydro corridor' was used as a secondary land class. They intersect many other land cover
classes but are not often the dominant land cover. Where a primary and use (all others listed
here) existed, it was used as the land use for representation. In areas where there was no
primary land cover evident within the hydro corridor, the class of hydro corridor was used. The
hydro corridor class also includes transformer stations.
F - forest
Forest areas were obtained from the newly on- screen digitized natural heritage coverage
based on the 2002 orthophotography. This natural feature class was digitized at a scale of
1:4000 across the entire TRCA jurisdiction. For areas within the two kilometre buffer extending
beyond the TRCA jurisdictional boundary, forest coverage was digitized on- screen at a scale of
1:6000 based on 2002 orthophotography.. Visual interpretation of land cover was used as the
basis for this. Windrows were not included to follow procedures used in the natural heritage
digitizing. Forest areas must not show evidence of being manicured and have full canopy
coverage.
M - meadow
Meadow areas were obtained from the newly on- screen digitized natural heritage coverage
based on the 2002 orthophotography. This natural feature class was digitized at a scale of
1:4000 across the entire TRCA jurisdiction. For areas within the two kilometre buffer extending
beyond the TRCA jurisdictional boundary, meadow areas were digitized on- screen at a scale of
1:6000 based on 2002 orthophotography. Visual interpretation of land cover was used as the
basis for this. Meadow consists of naturalized, unmanicured areas of long grasses and few
woody shrubs.
S - successional
Successional areas were obtained from the newly on- screen digitized natural heritage
coverage based on the 2002 orthophotography. This natural feature class was digitized at a
scale of 1:4000 across the entire TRCA jurisdiction. For areas within the two kilometre buffer
extending beyond the TRCA jurisdictional boundary, successional land areas were digitized
on- screen at a scale of 1:6000 based on 2002 orthophotography. Visual interpretation of land
cover was used as the basis for this. Successional areas include mixed areas with long
grasses, significant coverage by woody shrubs, and small scattered trees.
W - wetland
Wetlands were obtained from the newly on- screen digitized natural heritage coverage based
on the 2002 orthophotography. This natural feature class was digitized at a scale of 1:4000
across the entire TRCA jurisdiction. For areas within the two kilometre buffer extending beyond
the TRCA jurisdictional boundary, wetlands were digitized on- screen at a scale of 1:6000 based
on 2002 orthophotography and the use of the MNR evaluated.wetland shapefile. Visual
interpretation of land cover was the dominant method of classification. Wetlands are
distinguishable through dominant vegetation types, vegetation transition, soil /ground colour
(signifying potential changes in soil /ground moisture), and the existence of open water with
these other key indicators.
January 11, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #1/06 L257
OW - open water
The open water category consisted of significantly wide river sections, storm water ponds,
man -made ponds /lakes, natural ponds /lakes. These were evaluated using visual interpretation
of the 2002 orthophotography.
RWY - railway
Rail lines were identified using visual interpretation. They are easily identifiable as they cross
the landscape. Railway transfer stations were also included in this category. Small access rail
lines in industrial areas that link individual buildings to the larger rail structure were not
included as railway, and instead were included within the larger industrial polygon. Verification
was done using the 2004 MapArt books.
V - Vacant Lands
Areas were classified as vacant lands where there is no evidence of vegetation cover (bare
soil), and is not part of an agricultural unit. This includes areas stripped prior to construction
and other land units without other land cover /use evident.
NOTE:
There are some areas that contain multiple land uses such as the existence of living quarters
above stores /restaurants or a variety store at the base of an apartment building. These are
often not possible to identify through orthophoto interpretation. All land use classifications
were based on the most prominent land use for a given location.
In cases where two land uses are easily evident such as cases where hydro corridors run
through institutional areas or over meadow. The primary land use was used for classification.
Roads were not classified as separate entities except in the case of highways. Roads were
incorporated without preference into adjacent land classification units. This will have a small
effect on the resulting land cover percentage within the classified area.
DISCUSSION
Gay Cowbourne Scenario 2 "land use as in the past ", this does not take into account
further growth or intensification?
Bob Clay In Scenario 2 (Official Plan) no assumptions have been made about
additional build out in the future; only what was approved under OP's.
Terry O'Connor Was the Growth Plan: Places to Grow considered when drafting Scenario
descriptions and assumptions?
Bob C /ay The Growth Plan was considered in Scenario 6 (Full Build out).
Bi / /Snodgrass How would we evaluate on a subwatershed basis? From a science
standpoint, we probably can't mitigate the effects of intensification shown
in Scenario 6 & 7. So how can we look at limits of intensification?
L258 Rouge Watershed Task Force #1/06 January 11, 2006
Bob Clay These are the questions which we feel the modelling will assist us in
answering. May need to go back and finetune.
Gay Cowbourne Spoke of the extreme intensification in England. That if intensification
occurs, it will destroy the watershed. We must learn from the history of
England.
Bob Clay
Paul Harpley
What is the impact of the growing population on our watershed? Again,
this question, we feel the modelling will assist us in answering.
Need coefficients, "fudge- factors" in modelling. Need to be aware that
stormwater ponds have a Iifespan and the extent to which they will be
able to maintain intensified areas.
Bob C /ay Must think of stormwater ponds on a hydrologic basis as well as a quality
basis and the long term maintenance of these ponds.
Lorne Smith What are the major points of concern with build -out which we should
focus on?
Bob Clay The transformation of surfaces that permeate water into hard surfaces
which water cannot penetrate.
Virginia Jones If we looked at pathways as well as parking Tots, will that help reduce
percent imperviousness?
RES. #L58/06
Moved by:
Seconded by:
THE PROPOSED CLEAN WATER ACT
The Proposed Clean Water Act and its implication on the Rouge
Watershed Plan.
Theresa McKenzie
Lorne Smith
THAT the Rouge Watershed Task Force receive the report on The Proposed Clean Water
Act;
AND FURTHER THAT the Rouge Watershed Task Force review the draft Watershed Plan in
the context of source water protection prior to the plan's completion in June 2006, and make
recommendations for the future integration of the source water protection planning
component to the extent possible.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
It has been five years since the Walkerton water tragedy and in that time, source water
protection has become an important issue in Ontario. On Monday December 5, 2005 The
Honourable Laurel Broten introduced the Clean Water Act into the Ontario Legislature. The
January 11, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #1/06 L259
proposed Clean Water Act is designed to protect existing and future sources of drinking water
through the local identification and assessment of drinking water threats and the development
of a source protection plan that addresses these threats. The Act is posted on the
Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR). Written submissions may be made between December 5,
2005 and February 3, 2006. It is estimated that the Act will go through two further readings in
the legislature and regulations will be released in the Spring of 2006.
A "Compendium" (Attachment 2)summarizing the proposed legislation is attached to this
report. Key features of the Act include:
provision for the establishment of source protection areas and regions for the purposes
of source protection planning;
requirement for the establishment of a multi - stakeholder committee for overseeing
plans in each region;
requirement to prepare source protection plans on a watershed basis;
provision for the effect of source protection plans with respect to other legislation and
decision - making forums;
regulation of drinking water threats; and
provision for the Minister to direct a source protection authority to undertake actions
pertaining to Great Lakes sources.
CTC Region
Source Water Protection is to be planned on a watershed basis with regions grouped by
Conservation Authority, where they exist. The Rouge Watershed exists in the CTC Region,
which is comprised of Credit Valley CA, Toronto and Region CA and Central Lake Ontario CA.
TRCA is the lead CA for this region.
Initial provincial start-up funding was allocated to the CTC and other source protection regions
earlier in 2005 to ensure conservation authorities had sufficient capacity to meet the aggressive
goals and objectives of the anticipated legislation. This funding supported capacity building,
such as the hire of a CTC Region Source Protection Project Manager, preliminary watershed
characterizations and water budget development for each of the individual conservation
authorities within the region.
Staff involved in the Rouge watershed planning study have been actively involved in the TRCA
source protection staff team, and have been assisting with proposed approaches for the
integration of source protection planning with the ongoing watershed planning studies.
Implications for Rouge Watershed Plan
The Final Rouge Watershed Plan is scheduled for release in June 2006 as a commitment to
York Region in order to fulfill its requirements under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation
Plan, and as a commitment to the City of Toronto as a major co- funder of the study . It is
unlikely that the source protection legislation and regulations will have been passed and
relevant committees established in adequate time to complete a source protection plan for the
Rouge watershed in concert with the watershed plan. Therefore, staff propose that once the
Rouge Task Force has developed a draft Watershed Plan, early in 2006, it would be reviewed
in the context of Source Water Protection to the extent possible. The Task Force would make
recommendations for the future integration of the source protection planning component of the
L260 Rouge Watershed Task Force #1/06 January 11, 2006
overall watershed plan and could ensure that every opportunity is taken to facilitate the
compatibility of the two documents.
As the Source Water Protection program unfolds, TRCA staff have proposed that the CTC
Region use the Rouge Watershed Plan as an ongoing case study for the integration of source
protection and watershed planning.
Report prepared by: Sylvia Waters and Sonya Meek
For Information contact:: Sonya Meek, extension 5253
Date: December 7, 2005
Sonya Meek
Bryan Buttigieg
We are proposing is that in the spring, once the Watershed Plan has been
drafted we will have Source Water Protection staff review the document to
confirm its compatibility with key areas of source protection and bring a
report to the Task Force to make recommendations for future integration of
the two plans.
If your role as a Task Force member is more Provincial, you may want to
look closer at these issues. However, it is not our mandate as a group and
our timelines make integration of source protection difficult.
ADDED ITEM
RES. #L59/06
Moved by:
Seconded by:
MOTION
Growth Plan: Places to Grow
The Growth Plan: Places to Grow and its implication on the Rouge
Watershed Plan.
Murray Johnston
Kevin O'Connor
THAT Jim Robb draft a letter commenting on the Final Growth Plan, on behalf of the Rouge
Watershed Task Force;
THAT staff circulate the draft letter on Monday January 16, 2006 to all Task Force members
for review, comment and approval by members no later than Friday January 24, 2006;
AND FURTHER THAT staff send the approved (by email quorum) letter by January 27, 2006
deadline to the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal.
CARRIED
January 11, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #1106 L261
Bryan Buttigieg
Kevin O'Connor
Bryan Buttigieg
The final Growth Plan has been posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights
(EBR) for comments (period ending January 31/06). As a Task Force we
sent an initial letter dated June 27/05 addressing several concerns. Jim
Robb has been approached and has agreed to review the final Growth
Plan and assess as to whether our previous comments have been
addressed and draft a letter for members review. This Growth Plan will
affect our Watershed Plan.
Is it not possible to form a Sub - Committee to comment?
Unfortunately, timing will not permit this. If we are all in agreement Jim
Robb will draft a letter, by Jan. 18 which would then be sent to Task Force
members by email. Motion was read and formally adopted.
York Durham Sanitary Sewer
Bryan Buttigieg
Sonya Meek
Bryan Buttigieg
have been able to hold a meeting concerning the members issues over
the YDSS projects with Jim Robb and Erin Shapero in attendance(E/io D
/iorio was unab /e to attend). We have been able to resolve many of the
underlying issues. With adopting Mike Price's recommendation with some
additions and modifications, I feel the group will be able to present to the
Task Force at the next meeting a list of recommendations which should be
able to be adopted and put into record.
Acknowledged Mike Price's hard work on the background information
which has been used to draft these recommendations surrounding this
difficult issue.
Echoed his appreciation to Mike and all members at the table for their
continued interest and diligence in the regular meetings, extra workshops
and review of information.
L262 Rouge Watershed Task Force #1/06 January 11, 2006
2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force Schedule
• Proposed meeting dates for the 2006 Schedule were sent out by email and further
discussed at the meeting. The confirmed dates of 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force
meeting schedule are listed below:
2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force Schedule
Week of February 6 -10;
tentatively Tuesday February 7th (Daytime
Mng. Summit)
Water Management Summit; interested Task
Force members are invited to attend
Thursday February 16th
Regular Task Force meeting
Saturday March 4th
Task Force Workshop (develop preferred
management strategy)
Thursday March 23rd
Regular Task Force meeting
Wednesday, April 12th
Regular Task Force meeting
Thursday, May 11th
Regular Task Force meeting
Thursday, June 22nd
Regular Task Force meeting
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:30 p.m., on Wednesday January 11th, 2006.
Bryan Buttigieg
Chair, Rouge Watershed Task Force
THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE
MINUTES OF MEETING #2/06
AUTHORITY
MEETING #5/06
JUNE 23, 2006
Rouge Park
MINUTES OF THE ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #2/06
February 16, 2006
TORONTO AND REGION " -
onserva tion
for The Living City
The Rouge Watershed Task Force met in the Council Chambers, Town of Whitchurch-
Stouffville ,4`h Floor, 37 Sandiford Drive, Stouffville on Thursday, February 16`h, 2006. Gord
Weeden, Chair, Rouge Alliance chaired the meeting on Bryan Buttigiegs' behalf. The meeting
was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT
Elio Di Iorio Member
Murray Johnston Member
George McKelvey Alternate
Kevin O'Connor Alternate
Terry O'Connor Member
Lionel Purcell Member
Jim Robb Member
Erin Shapero Member
Patricia Short -Galle Member
Clyde Smith Member
Lorne Smith Member
Peter White Member
Gord Weeden
STAFF
Sonya Meek TRCA
Bob Clay TRCA
Tim Rance TRCA
Ryan Ness TRCA
Don Ford TRCA
Sylvia Waters TRCA
GUESTS
Bill Snodgrass City of Toronto
Lilli Duoba Town of Markham
Tracey EhI- Harrision Ehl Harrison Consulting Inc.
L264 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2/06 February 16, 2006
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
Gord Weeden announced there was not quorum at the commencement of the meeting. We
have staff here tonight to give approximately 45 minutes of verbal presentations. It will not be
an official meeting. He asked whether members wished to proceed with the presentations
keeping in mind the weather conditions or call the meeting off. Through a show of hands a
consensus decision was made to continue the meeting.
The Agenda items below were not discussed at this meeting. They will be brought forward to
the next meeting. However, the Sustainable Community Scenario Report was at the meeting
available for members present.
1.0 MINUTES OF MEETING #1/06 enclosed herewith on blue
6.3 CONSOLIDATED POTENTIAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND
IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS REPORT- from December3' /January 11`h
Workshop
6.4 SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY SCENARIO REPORT - Report to follow
MANAGEMENT SUMMIT - Tracey Eh/- Harrision (verbal report)
Sonya Meek
Introduced Tracey EhI- Harrison who facilitated the Tuesday February 7`h Management Summit
for Suzanne Barrett.
Tracey Ehl- Harrison
The Management Summit had attendance of 40 people (municipal reps, Rouge Task Force
and Humber Alliance members);
The session included presentations on the modelling processes and assumptions and three
presentations on water management issues and implications including storm water
management, erosion and water balance policy;
Key Management Issues discussed were:
Margin of Error
Water Policy
How far off are past predictions (this will assist with current plans);
What are people willing to accept;
Will take time for people to change.
Make mandatory;
% imperviousness negotiated;
Current roles of TRCA & Municipality;
Integration of the Growth Plan into the OP will assist.
February 16, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #2/06 L265
Long term Funding of the Maintenance of Storm Water Management Facilities
Revenue stream to fund maintenance;
Fee to reward owners;
Jurisdictional matters (provincial, federal should be involved)
Improved Storm Water Management Technologies and Performance
Need for improvement; Monitoring is critical;
Pond performance improved (stronger performance guides for TRCA,
Municipality).
DISCUSSION
Lorne Smith
Observed that there is currently a lack of a dedicated budget stream for stormwater
management ponds /infrastructure rehabilitation. This is a critical issue for the watershed.
Clyde Smith
Also agreed with this statement.
George McKelvey
There is no budget for SWM, but there could be a charge added to the Development Charge
Clyde Smith
Whitchurch- Stouffville should be setting budget aside for SWM maintenance, now.
Tupper Wheatley
Noted that John Nemeth's presentation at the Management Summit identified major cost
implications of stormwater pond maintenance. That when ponds get to a point they must be
completely reconstructed.
Jim Robb
Workshop was great. Observed a degree of consensus among consultants, staff and others
present regarding erosion problems. Despite good work implementing stormwater
management standards, not enough is being done. Erosion controls are failing miserably.
The problem is how you look at management and maintenance. We really need a different
funding structure, a line item.
Erin Shapero
Ponds are end of pipe, not lot level solutions. The focus should be at the lot level.
Patricia Short -Gal /e
Richmond Hill's presentation provided many tangible items for consideration. Developers are
just doing what they are required to do. Noted John Nemeth's recommendation to take
stormwater maintenance out of capital and establish a new, dedicated budget stream.
Elio Di lorio
First, we need to calculate long term present value costs of stormwater facilities /infrastructure.
L266 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2/06 February 16, 2006
He recommended that municipalities assess what long term costs are going to be so they can
establish appropriate budgets for long term operations and maintenance and replacement so
these costs are not coming out of capital or from the tax base.
Bill Snodgrass
Municipalities do not have money for operations and maintenance. In Toronto, all stormwater
and stream restoration was rolled into the water rate when the former municipalities were
amalgamated. Kitchener - Waterloo is currently reviewing the prospect of establishing a
stormwater levy.
Lionel Purcell
Is there anything being done about infiltrating stormwater using perforated pipe systems?
Bill Snodgrass
Yes. One example is work being done by Vaughan and the TRCA with leaky pipes. The
problem with this is that some municipalities Building Code pose legal barriers that prohibit
these types of practices. Also, subdivision boulevards are getting crowded by underground
utilities. When these systems are on public property, municipalities are able to maintain and
manage them ; if they are on private property the owner must maintain.
Don Ford
TRCA is supportive of infiltrating clean roof water; and we are studying the value of infiltration in
scenario 7.
Tupper Wheatley
Noted that big box stores have acres of roof and parking Tots. Roofs are often too flimsy to
hold a green roof.
MODELLING
Four verbal reports that were made by staff to explain the modelling process they are using to
study the Rouge Watershed . Two reports (Don Ford and Ryan Ness) were summaries of
presentation made at the water balance summit and included new results.
Bob Clay: Verbal report to explain how models are used.
The presentation dealt with :
Models as tools used to represent a more complex system.
Models are not the real entity. The simulate but simplify the system.
Models should be used with care, we must think about what models are saying in order
to understand the real system and used within their limits.
Models are PART of the information used. Other information is needed too.
February 16, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #2/06 L267
DISCUSSION
Jim Robb
Would really like to see the model peer reviewed for strengths and weaknesses. Suggested
that Gary Hunter and Ken Howard should be involved in the peer review because of their
expertise in this area.
Bob Clay
Let's discuss this when we are setting up the peer review.
Kevin O'Connor
Municipalities approve developments based upon results of models, and then they're left with
the problems after it is determined that the models were not accurate. For this reason, the
precautionary principle must be applied.
Bob Clay
Models should be used "with thought ". The precautionary principle is a good idea in this
context.
Gord Weeden
Local knowledge needs to be brought to the table, in addition to modelling results.
Ryan Ness: Verbal report on modelling of surface water quality and stormwater
The Presentation dealt with:
The surface water modelling is being used to study the impacts to surface flow, quality
of surface flow and temperature with changes in land use;
The modelling will not simulate major changes in flow such as flooding
Modelling Software used is HSP -F a complex United States Geological Service program
Water quality modelling - HSP -F assigns a concentration value to a pollutant.
Calibration is reasonably good; well within the calibration level of the Toronto Wet
Weather Flow
DISCUSSION
Jim Robb
Noted graph on E. Coli. Observed that it is showing results that are 10 times over the
Provincial Water Quality Objectives. How do the observed vs. simulated results compare? It is
interesting that the Main Rouge vs. Little Rouge show opposite patterns. Why is there no value
under "wet" for the Rouge River? Please explain this slide.
Erin Shapero
What time of year does the monitoring take place? Is it done during different seasons? I am
L268 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2/06 February 16, 2006
asking because am questioning specifically the level of dieldrin.
Ryan Ness
The results are from MOE monitoring stations, which operate spring through fall. The results
for dieldrin are very poor. Dieldrin is an organic compound commonly associated with
pesticide use.
Jim Robb
Sample results regarding the annual surface runoff (scenarios 1, 2 and 4). One can't put much
reliance in this output because the differences are within the margin of error for the model and
are not statistically significant. The results for TNH are not intuitive. How can flow increase
with reforestation? Tony Price at the University of Toronto should review these results. The
science is strong that reforestation decreases peak flows.
Kevin O'Connor
The modelling seems off. I live in an area where the land has been stripped, and the erosion
and runoff has increased greatly.
Ryan Ness
The difference between forest vs. agriculture is more narrow than urban vs. forest. You must
realize these results are 6 hours old. We are going to investigate the results, especially those
that are counter intuitive. These results are very new to us.
Bob Clay
These results must be considered in context with the rest of the modelling results.
Elio Di lorio
Are the model and the assumptions including the computer code and fundamental computer
assumptions made by the consultants going to be made available for review?
Ryan Ness
We will be producing a technical document that includes our assumptions and the process that
was followed. This will be similar to the documentation for the City of Toronto's Wet Weather
Flow Management Master Plan.
Bill Snodgrass
HSP -F is in the order of 60,000 lines of computer code, with 10,000 lines of input code. It is
supported by the US Environmental Protection Agency and is publicly available.
Lionel Purcell
Are model output points 4 and 5 upstream of the forks by the same distance?
Jim Robb
We can't make any conclusions based on these slides, because the difference between
scenarios is so small.
Erin Shapero
We need to be careful about the "build out" scenario. Full build out may not be viable for this
February 16, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #2/06 L269
watershed and it should not be assumed.
Ryan Ness
This is certainly true and will be very important in the development of the Watershed Plan.
Scenario 2 represents build out of the existing Official Plans.
Lionel Purcell
Were there test holes above Kingston Road where the two rivers come together? Are the two
points up the two rivers the same distance? This could show us where pollutants are coming
from.
Ryan Ness
Localized areas (points) can do some of that. These results, however, are computer simulated
test results.
Jim Robb
We need more monitoring so there are actual measures. We need more stations with
continuous monitoring. The YDSS assumption for baseflow was 274 I /s. The estimate was
incorrect, as the actual number is 201 /s. It is difficult to rationalize an error of this magnitude.
We need to look at extreme drought events to look at impacts on aquatics.
Ryan Ness
The model includes values from 1991 to 1996. This period was chosen because it had a good
range of events.
Murray Johnston
We the Task Force need to examine these results and information critically. Agrees that more
peer evaluation of the model results is needed.
Tim Rance: Verbal report on modelling of the aquatic ecological system
The Presentation dealt with:
Distribution of fish in the watershed
summary of field results
Explanation of the Stanfield model and how it is being used
DISCUSSION
Lorne Smith
Impressed by the amount of data there is to draw on. It is outstanding that this project is
pulling it all together.
L270 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2/06 February 16, 2006
Tim Rance
TRCA does regional monitoring every 3 years of approximately 20 -30 sites on the Rouge.
Kevin O'Connor
How many red dace specimens are represented by each dot? Are you looking at the number
of Redside Dace or Trout that are at each site? What is the trend over time?
Tim Rance
One of our next steps is to go back through the data and develop a system to indicate trends
and numbers of a particular species.
Jim Robb
How far does brook trout data go back in time? In the eastern Rouge, they have been
squeezed to the northeast part of the watershed. Are there tributaries where brook trout have
disappeared all together?
T/m Rance
Yes, however, if we can improve cool water habitat, we may be able to do some adult transfers.
Jim Robb
This information is great. Fish and bugs tell the story better than anything else. Are you
sampling during the same season each year?
Tim Rance
Yes, all samples are taken during the summer. This practice dates back to the 1950s.
Lorne Smith
Has the TRCA had access to the dewatering information related to the York - Durham sanitary
sewer project? Is it consistent with TRCA data? We haven't seen the data yet.
Tim Rance
Yes, TRCA has had access to this data, but it hasn't been analyzed yet.
Don Ford: Verbal report on water balance modelling
The Presentation dealt with:
• Methodology being use to integrate surface water and ground water models.
• Presentation of most recent calibration results (to February 10th).
• Surface water model software is WABAS a simpler to use model that does everything
that HSP -F does except for quality simulations and groundwater model is MODFLOW a
complex
• United States Geological Service program
• Everything_is modelled in steady state that is the conditions that would exist once the
changes
February 16, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #2/06 L271
• have been made and the water system had a chance to reach a new
equilibrium.
DISCUSSION
Elio Di lorio
When will the aquifer water level response occur in relation to full build out? What is the period
of adjustment?
Don Ford
We don't know. The model only runs in a steady state (i.e. average annual conditions in
response to end state of full build out). We need to make sure the steady state is working
properly before looking at transient adjustments.
Lionel Purcell
What is the definition of "full build out" in this model?
Don Ford
The model shows the full build out scenarios to demonstrate responses under extreme
conditions.
Erin Shapero
What assumptions went into the analysis of change in aquifer levels? When you do full build
out, are you consuming less ground water because there are no more wells?
Don Ford
Not necessarily. We need to determine an average water use component. The assumptions
were consistent with those used in the surface water model (i.e. % imperviousness of cover
changes).
Erin Shapero
Are you looking at imperviousness on a residential lot? Have you done this level of analysis?
Don Ford
The model results are based upon imperviousness changes within a particular land us. They
are not considered as far down as lot level.
Jim Robb
This needs to look at water withdrawals too, not just % imperviousness. How does the 5 year
massive withdrawal, associated with YDSS, factor in to this model?
Don Ford
We are trying to determine what "water taking" will take place. We need to determine factors
such as whether Stouffville will be taken off line. This model used water well levels up to about
1980 for calibration and is run in steady state, therefore, it is not affected by YDSS dewatering.
Don Ford
L272 Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2/06 February 16, 2006
We haven't factored in the sewer network into the model yet. This work needs to be done.
Eio Di lorio
Until we have a chance to see the assumptions, we shouldn't discuss this in much more depth.
Lionel Purcell
Is Stouffville drawing from the Rouge or Duffins aquifers?
Don Ford
Both
Tupper Wheatley
The assumptions related to full build out are of a concern. This is a key. This could be used as
a tool against what we are trying to achieve.
Don Ford
This is a process of looking at "if we did this, then this would happen."
Eio Di lorio
We want to stay away from the worst case scenario. Do we have any teeth to say that this can't
happen?
TERMINATION
Gord Weeden upon receiving a weather updated determinated the meeting terminated at 9:30
p.m., on Thursday February 16th, 2006.
Gord Weeden on behalf of Bryan Buttigieg Chair, Rouge Watershed Task Force
THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE
MINUTES OF MEETING #3/06
AUTHORITY
MEETING #5/06
JUNE 23, 2006
too--
Rouge Park
MINUTES OF THE ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #3/06
March 23`d, 2006
TORONTO AND REGION Th-
onserva tion
for The Living City
The Rouge Watershed Task Force met at the Rouge River Community Centre, 120 Rouge Bank
Drive, Unit 2, 9`h Line and 14th Avenue, on Thursday March 23`d, 2006. Bryan Buttigieg, Chair of
the Rouge Watershed Task Force, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT
Bryan Buttigieg Member
Christine Caroppo Member
Paul Harpley Member
Natalie Helferty Member
Virginia Jones Member
George McKelvey Alternate
Kevin O'Connor Alternate
Lionel Purcell Member
Jim Robb Member
Frank Scarpitti Member
Patricia Short-GaIIe Member
Clyde Smith Member
Lorne Smith Member
Tracey Steele Alternate
David Tuley Member
Gord Weeden Member
Tupper Wheatley Alternate
STAFF
Sonya Meek TRCA
Bob Clay TRCA
Tim Rance TRCA
Sylvia Waters TRCA
L274 Rouge Watershed Task Force #3/06 March 23, 2006
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
Bryan Buttigieg opened the meeting by announcing that there was a revised Agenda and that
copies could be obtained from Sylvia. The first order of business will be the previous two sets
of minutes, as there was not quorum at the February 16`h Task Force meeting. Bryan thanked
Gord Weeden for chairing the last meeting in his absence and extend his appreciation for all
the condolences which were sent to him by members.
RES. #L60/06 MINUTES #1/06 (of January 11, 2006)
Moved by:
Seconded by:
David Tuley
Christine Caroppo
THAT the Minutes of Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #1/06, held on January 11, 2006
be approved.
RES. #L61/06 MINUTES #2/06 (of February 16, 2006)
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Clyde Smith
Lionel Purcell
CARRIED
THAT the Minutes of Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2/06, held on February 16,
2006 be approved.
In the review of #2/06 Minutes:
Tupper Wheat /ey's name to be included in the Minutes as attending Meeting #2/06.
AMENDMENT MINUTES #2/06 (of February 16, 2006)
RES. #L62/06
Moved by: Clyde Smith
Seconded by: Lionel Purcell
THAT the Minutes of Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #2/06, held, February 16, 2006
be approved as amended.
CARRIED
March 23, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #3/06 L275
CORRESPONDENCE
Bryan Buttigieg
The letter regarding comments on the draft Golden Horseshoe Growth Plan went through
several revisions before being finalized into the abbreviated version included in the
Agenda. It got the message out, got the Task Force's name out. The other messages were
sent out by other groups. Concerns were raised by some Task Force members and municipal
members with the letter being sent out not having been reviewed by their management, and
not having been further discussed at a regular Task Force meeting. The timing of submission
would not allow for this, therefore this abbreviated version allowed the Task Force to submit
comments for the record.
DISCUSSION
Jim Robb
Letter lost a lot of value by being abbreviated.
Bryan Buttigieg
agree that it lost a lot of value. Several members thought it was premature to commit to this
position. It was felt that it was in the best interest of the Task Force as a group to come to
consensus and the abbreviated version would accomplish this. It would not have been in the
best interest of the Task Force to show a split in interest.
Sonya Meek
Of the several Task Force members who expressed concerns, it was not that they disagreed
completely with the recommendations, but more that they were concerned of such substantive
recommendations being sent to the Province without the opportunity for further discussion.
We would not have been able to accommodate this and keep within the deadline. Also, it was
felt that several comments were not applicable across all watersheds. The key we thought
would be to emphasize the development of the Watershed Plan, as our vehicle for providing
further guidance to the Province in the issues raised.
Bryan Buttigieg
I believe that if some of these recommendations go on into our final watershed plan that we
should have further discussion and be clear of their implications.
Patricia Short -Galle
Surprised this letter went out without a full recorded vote. I would have liked to be able to have
declared myself as not participating. As a Federal representative on this Task Force I would
ask that in the future we bring these items back to meetings for a recorded vote. Concerned
that as a Federal representative this letter was sent out without giving her the opportunity to go
through proper federal government channels.
Bryan Buttigieg
Appreciate your position as a Federal representative. It was my recollection that it was
discussed at the January 11th meeting and due to the short comment period, the letter was to
L276 Rouge Watershed Task Force #3/06 March 23, 2006
be reviewed by members through email. For future items being sent by email, would you be
able to decline to participate by email?
Patricia Shorte -Galle
Yes this would be fine.
David Tuley
Can these types of letters have a single statement at the bottom that both Federal and
Provincial members of the Task Force decline to participate.
Bryan Buttigieg
The Task Force was formed as a multi stakeholder group and I am at a loss as to why all
members should not be afforded the openness to review and comment on behalf of the
agency which they represent.
Sonya Meek
There were several members, including municipal representatives, which felt that they needed
to discuss the letter further with their management. We will try to provide as much lead time as
possible to accommodate a thorough review.
RES. #L63/06
Moved by:
Seconded by:
DECEMBER 3, 2006 WORKSHOP REPORT AND DRAFT
CONSOLIDATED MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND
IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
Workshop Report and consolidated Draft Management Strategies and
Implementation Actions for the nine Goals discussed at the Saturday
December 3, 2005 Workshop and the January 11, 2006 Rouge
Watershed Task Force meeting.
George McKelvey
Clyde Smith
THAT the Workshop Report be received;
THAT members advise staff of any further comments , corrections or additions;
THAT staff be directed to continue incorporating Management Summit recommendations
and further comments received into the draft consolidated management actions;
AND FURTHER THAT the Consolidated Management form the basis for development of the
Rouge Watershed Management Strategy /Plan along with further modelling results at the
Saturday March 4th Rouge Watershed Task Force Workshop.
CARRIED
March 23, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #3/06 L277
BACKGROUND
On December 3, 2005, the Rouge Watershed Task Force participated in a workshop designed
to contribute to the development of the Rouge Watershed Plan. The workshop included three
components: a discussion of the sustainability scenario that will be used in the modeling
process; a discussion of potential management strategies and actions to implement the
Watershed Plan; and a brainstorming session on public use experiences and opportunities.
There was insufficient time at the workshop to complete the discussion of management
actions, so this work was continued at a regular Task Force meeting on January 11th, 2006 at
the Toronto Zoo Administration Building.
The attached is the Workshop Report, including an appendix containing the revised draft
management strategies and implementation actions (herein referred to as "consolidated
management actions ") that arose from the workshop discussion.
Report prepared by: Sylvia Waters
For Information contact: Sonya Meek
Date: February 16, 2006
Attachment 1 (sent under #2/06 February 16, 2006 Agenda)
NOTE: Christine Caroppo later in meeting noted two changes to be made to Consolidated
Management Action report
(1) Page 16- Objective 18. #2. Would suggest we don't just monitor trail use, but
develop and encourage trail uses ...
(2) Page 14- Objective 16. #12. Unsure of the meaning of this sentence ( "walking
20 years with interpreters ") Investigate and change or delete.
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY SCENARIO REPORT (from meeting #2/06; verbal update by
Sonya Meek)
Sonya Meek
• At the January 11th meeting Bob Clay presented an Overall Scenario Report minus
Scenario 7, the Sustainable Community Scenario, because it was such a unique and
separate report.
• A draft Sustainable Community Scenario report was circulated at the February 16th meeting,
with the notation that there were still assumptions to be completed.
• There are copies of that Report here tonight, for those members who did not make the
February 16th meeting.
• Revisions are in progress and a fully revised Report will be sent out by mail when
completed.
• The key role of this Report is to document assumptions of what that Future Sustainable
Community might look like by incorporating elements for the purposes of modelling.
L278 Rouge Watershed Task Force #3/06 March 23, 2006
• We have made assumptions at the various scales from individual to building to lot level and
community to the watershed scale.
• This Report must reflect our common vision as a Task Force.
• I would invite members to wait and comment on the revised version of the report which will
be mailed to you shortly. We will address these comments at the next meeting.
Bryan Buttigieg
would suggest once members have a copy of the revised Sustainable Community Scenario
Report they email comments to TRCA staff.
Lorne Smith
A would direct a comment and question to George McKelvey, regarding the Markham Small
Streams study in relation to the draft Sustainable Community Scenario Report. Will the
Markham Small Streams Study be released soon?
George McKelvey
Its release depends on whether it is appealed which would mean it would then go to the OMB.
However, the majority of developers are supportive of the report.
I would think that this is a positive step forward for our Watershed Plan that one of the
municipalities is going forward with a study as this. It has gone through much planning and
am glad to see it going forward.
Jim Robb
Mark Schollen, in developing the Markham Small Streams Study, has done great work.
However, I feel that the Small Streams Study is premature. The sequencing should be the
Watershed Plan, followed by the Subwatershed Plan, then the Small Streams Study.
Tupper Wheatley
sat on this Committee and I would have to agree with Jim. I have great concerns. They are
identifying streams that are smaller, that may be ok to pipe, but you must be careful of the grey
areas. However, there is the concern that the Watershed Plan will come out too late and then
Markham will have nothing and development will continue. Markham may benefit from having
the Small Streams Study.
Paul Harpley
Is there a Final Report available?
George McKelvey
The Final Report will come out shortly. I feel Markham has made great strides with the
development of this Study. The stream study has to be done at the planning stage, this study
goes beyond this. You must have something to be able to work with the developers. If you
give something that is totally unacceptable, they will just go to the OMB.
Jim Robb
Would ask the municipality to pass a Motion that there would be no further development before
the Watershed Plan is finalized. The Rouge Alliance has passed a Motion to this effect. Believe
that endorsing the Small Stream Study will give the developer the ability to build without the
March 23, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #3/06 L279
completion of the Watershed Plan.
George McKelvey
Legislation advises that the municipality advise of planning every 5 years. The developer can
appeal to the OMB at that point. If the municipality does not file a plan the developer can
appeal to the OMB on this matter as well.
Jim Robb
The Province still does hold the hammer on this issue.
Bryan Buttigieg
If I could synthesis the thoughts on this issue. While the Markham Small Streams Study is a
very good piece of work, we may want to place a disclaimer within the Watershed Plan
recommendations which emphasize the importance of looking to the Watershed Plan is
directions before the Markham Small Streams Study.
Sonya Meek
Neglected to mention that the Scenario Report describes what the Watershed would look like
in the end this may be in 2030. We have not necessarily talked about the process of how you
would get there, for eg. whether certain design aspects would be implemented in the first five
years or the last five years. We hope that we have captured all that members have expressed
to us. If we agree the sustainable community scenario is desirable, then our watershed plan
should reflect how we get to this point.
Jim Robb
I would also ask that we must also realize that the Clean Water Act and the source protection
issues will take precedence over all these studies. This is another reason I believe we are
premature with the Markham Small Streams Study.
Bryan Buttigieg
That is a very fair comment and staff will ensure that the importance of the watershed planning
process in achieving a sustainable community is incorporated into the report.
MODELLING STATUS - (verbal report by Bob Clay)
Bob Clay
• We hoped we could have brought you the water budget modelling tonight, but were unable
to and we are sorry for that.
• We came to that conclusion after a meeting with our Technical staff this past Monday.
• We have been trying valiantly to get results to present to you at meetings and hold to the
meeting schedule
• Frankly, the process of modelling on this size of watershed scale, trying to predict surface
water and ground water has proven much more complex, more time consumptive and
fraught with small unpredictable matters.
• We appreciate your patience. We feel it is better to come to you with a completed array of
1280 Rouge Watershed Task Force #3/06 March 23, 2006
well thought out analysis. Want to assure you that staff has been trying very hard
• We have had a few key jams that have held up the whole story.
• For example our staff found a couple of small errors in input data to the surface water
model that means we don't have quality or temperature data for the fish or water folks to
use. Some of these issues have arisen just in the past day.
• I have spent much of today talking with technical staff to evaluate what time frame they
require - to bring as complete a product as possible to you for your consideration.
• I expect to have that schedule available by the end of next week and will share that with you
then.
DISCUSSION
Jim Robb
I have asked about a Peer Review and having Gary Hunter review this work. I would like it if
you looked at his data, particularly in the Stouffville well fields.
Sonya Meek
Once our technical staff have some preliminary modelling results and some of their own
questions answered we will begin that process. We have enough questions of our own which
we are attempting to resolve right now. We spoke of your suggestions at a internal meeting
and a preliminary peer review teleconference meeting was suggested once we had results to
send out so people have time to review before meeting.
Jim Robb
do understand. You need to have more complete results before going forward.
Bob Clay
Would suggest we organize a meeting off line to discuss this matter further.
Jim Robb
Spoke of the history of the Rouge watershed and what has happened since deforestation.
Anecdotal and historical reports from early settlers indicated how reliable the streams were.
They ran mills on them. "Sparta" was where schooners disembarked.
Lionel Purcell
Are there any records of what happened to wells during the construction of the 1st big pipe?
Jim Robb
None
Lorne Smith
I would suggest that Lewis Yeagerwould know what happened. But you must remember that
that first pipe was not nearly as deep.
Kevin O'Connor
What has been the major issue in delay of the modelling?
March 23, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #3/06 L281
Bob Clay
We have had a great deal of problems with balancing the recharge parameter in the modelling.
While investigating this we have discovered that there is more water coming in from the ORM at
the north end than was initially thought. Another issue was the scenario reports. As you can
see we are still trying to finalize the Sustainable Community Scenario. We are comfortable that
the software is talking well, now we need the time to run the modelling scenarios and give staff
time to interpret the results and establish recommendations. I want to be sure we present
clearly thought out interpretation to the Task Force to make sure we use time best.
Lorne Smith
am not as confident that the model will work. The watershed is very complex, there are so
many variables including the ORM and the underlying geology.
The pumps have been shut off at C8. There is 15 -20% recovery. This verifies that both the
hydrologists and engineers were completely wrong with their prediction of this project.
I applaud what you are trying to accomplish with this modelling. However, I am not confident
of the outcome because of the complexity of the watershed.
Bob Clay
understand, but we must remember that through the modelling so far we will have a better
understanding of the watershed and how the ORM contributes to the watershed. We have a
better definition of the upper reaches in the Lake Simcoe Region.
Lorne Smith
There is more water coming from the ORM to the north of the boundary?
Bob Clay
The models suggest that there is significant recharge from the ORM in the watershed but also
well north of the watershed boundary. The groundwater and surface water boundaries do not
line up.
Paul Harpley
Would suggest you speak with John Westgate of the University of Toronto. He could assist
with peer review.
Bob Clay
We may be calling this more a Preview, than a Peer Review.
Bryan Buttigieg
• If I may wrap up the discussion. I sense a consensus in the room that members would
rather delay matters and get things right, than move forward too quickly. Would like to
elaborate on Jim Robb's comment on ensuring we capture the historical aspects of the
watershed. There is a quote from Alexander Von Trumboldt 1802. There was a huge lake
and a theory that it had a hole in the bottom, because the water continually disappeared.
They concluded that there was actually no hole, but that it was the deforestation that
caused the loss of water.
• We are at the point now with the plan that we don't want to lose those historical lessons.
But we are also at a in history where we have computers and modelling and this is
cutting edge work. I was at a Conference earlier this month where they were speaking of
L282 Rouge Watershed Task Force #3/06 March 23, 2006
the Clean Water Act and how the work we are doing here and now with the Watershed Plan
is going to have to be done across all watersheds. The lessons learned here with this
cutting edge work can be used across the Province.
• So I believe the message is that members are OK with it coming in late. Let's do it right.
Lorne Smith
With this knowledge, should we be now changing our Rouge maps?
Bob Clay
We will identifying areas which contribute ground and surface water to the Rouge Watershed.
Lorne Smith
This would suggest to me that the boundary shading of the watershed must change.
Sonya Meek
When we initiated this study we adopted a map which illustrated the most up -to -date surface
water boundary in the Rouge watershed. It was actually further south than thought. We
suspected the groundwater boundary was further north. Now we have realized that it is even
further north than what we originally predicted. Currently, we have a call in to Lake Simcoe
Region Conservation (LSRC), because they are also working on a watershed plan that is
looking at potential future land uses to discuss these matters.
Bob Clay
We have also discovered with our preliminary investigations that there may be a significant
amount of water discharging to Lake Ontario, underneath the base of the river in what they call
an underground valley.
Bryan Buttigieg
Thank you Bob I believe that update was very helpful.
RES. #L64/06 MANAGEMENT ISSUES STATUS REPORT
Status of work and proposed upcoming meetings.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
George McKelvey
Christine Caroppo
THAT the Management Issues Status Report be received;
THAT TRCA staff be directed to proceed with arrangements of proposed follow -up
Management Summit Workshops;
AND FURTHER THAT Task Force members advise staff of any comments on the scope of
upcoming work and areas where they would like to be involved.
March 23, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #3/06 L283
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In 2005, the Rouge Watershed Task Force, upon recommendation from the Implementation
Sub - committee, identified a set of key management issues facing the Rouge watershed and
directed staff to convene a series of "management summit" workshops to discuss the issues
and what the Rouge watershed planning study could do to address them. Management
summits have been held during the period September 2005 to February 2006 on the topics of:
enhanced natural cover, agricultural vitality, sustainable community implementation barriers,
water management and aggregate rehabilitation. Task Force representatives, local
stakeholders and other experts have participated in these sessions, which have contributed
valuable input to the watershed plan's development. Other discussions on the topics of
cultural heritage, public use, and other management issues have occurred throughout the
planning process either at Task Force meetings or in a subcommittee meeting format.
That attached table summarizes the strategic management elements that have been identified
within each of these broad key issue areas, and summarizes the progress to date and planned
work. Task Force members are asked to comment on the scope of ongoing work and confirm
with staff how and where they wish to be involved in these initiatives.
Report prepared by: Sonya Meek
For Information contact: Sonya Meek
Date: March 22, 2006
Attachment 1
L284 Rouge Watershed Task Force #3/06 March 23, 2006
March 23, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #3/06 L285
Sonya Meek
• Upon the realization that we would have no significant technical information to bring
forward, we thought we would take this opportunity to update you on other ongoing
activities .
If you remember our Phase 2 work had two main elements, one being the modelling the
other being the Management Summits.
Earlier last year we worked with the Implementation Committee to identify Key
Management Issues (the issues that we know exist regardless of the modelling) and have
held several Management Summit meetings to discuss these matters.
Sonya presented highlights from the Table entitled Rouge and Humber Watershed
Planning Studies - Status of Work on Key Management Issues
Sonya noted the recently released Request for Proposal for a "Social Marketing Study" and
distributed copies of the Terms of Reference for Implementation Strategies for Sustainable
Practices. Members were asked to keep it confidential. This study is designed to
investigate attitudes of the existing residential and commercial (big box stores) landowners
toward the implementation of lot level stormwater management and naturalized
landscaping. These two groups were felt to represent a significant makeup of the urban
part of the watershed. The study will produce recommended implementation strategies.
David Tuley has been representing the Task Force on this study.
In addition to the Social Marketing Survey, the TRCA has been afforded the opportunity to
add a few questions to an existing Internet Survey of New Home Buyers, by JD Powers.
The sample size will be about 1000. The survey questions were distributed.
Questions and comments were discussed during the presentation.
DISCUSSION
Lorne Smith
Is there documentation of recharge areas delineation?
Sonya Meek
There is a first cut of some mapping .
Bob Clay
We will be mapping the recharge areas, and the differences in recharge between scenarios.
We will be doing the similar process with discharge. These recharge areas become very
important for the purposes of source protection.
Jim Robb
Must realize that the ORM is only 15% of the watershed. The other recharge areas are on the
table lands, which we are now developing. Therefore, we must protect the table lands as well.
Bob Clay
The Watershed Plan will illustrate where the watershed is sensitive, etc. to assist in decision
making.
L286 Rouge Watershed Task Force #3/06 March 23, 2006
DISCUSSION
Natalie Helferty
Has there been any investigation of topsoil depths, infiltration rates?
Sonya Meek
If you look at the Sustainable Community report it speaks to topsoil depth, etc.
Lionel Purcell
Would suggest looking at Best Management Practices which is under the Federation of
Agriculture.
Tupper Wheatley
Would be careful how you word the matter of low maintenance landscape on the JD Power
Survey. People may think this means to use interlocking brick on everything. Small Stream
Study talks of Lot Level infiltration. Take offence to inclusion of encroachment on same line as
urban stewardship, move to the invasive area.
Paul Harpley
It is good to be doing the social science research. We have a lot of people coming and we
should be looking at changing the attitudes of the public, now. However, would suggest
establishing an ethics committee.
Sonya Meek
If any members know of an academic in the social marketing area who would be willing to sit
on the review committee, please let us know.
Jim Rob
Comment on #8 - this question should focus on the infiltration of this rainwater. Note that rain
harvesting may result in a Toss to the watershed.
Sonya Meek
Would take some of that water and use for infiltration.
Jim Robb
Would suggest that stormwater ponds need to be increased in size and fountains installed to
promote ET and to keep geese away.
Bryan Buttigieg
The survey Tacks the question of how much would you be willing to pay for these
environmental enhancements, benefits, etc. If this is not addressed, it will be a missed
opportunity.
Clyde Smith
Have heard it is suggested that on a $300K home that there may be a $20K increase for some
March 23, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #3/06 L287
aspects. The important thing is the return on investment.
Kevin O'Connor
Have the municipalities offer a rebate if they save the municipality cost on various items.
Bryan Buttigieg
Some of it is just a matter of education.
Frank Scarpitti
Some of the environmental items pay for themselves, they will be incentive enough.
Jim Robb
There has been no value assigned to water, as yet.
Tupper Wheatley
Are we expanding our scope too far. I wonder sometimes what some of these issues have to
do with the Rouge watershed.
Sonya Meek
We look at a full integrated approach. The shift to green power, for example, will contribute to
reducing climate change and improving air quality.
Tupper Wheatley
agree, but feel the Rouge is such a micro area. Still not sure that it is going to make a
difference on a larger scale.
Jim Robb
I think it is great what TRCA is doing in terms of sustainability.
RES. #L65/06
Moved by:
Seconded by:
STATE OF THE WATERSHED REPORT - Status of Part 1 and Revised
Part 2 Existing Management Strategy Framework
Status of Part 1 and revised Part 2 Existing Management Strategy
Framework
Christine Caroppo
Lionel Purcell
THAT Task Force members receive the revised draft Part 2 Existing Management Strategy
Framework;
THAT Task Force advise staff of any comments on the revised draft Part 2 Existing
Management Strategy Framework;
AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be directed to proceed with edits of the Part 1 State of the
L288 Rouge Watershed Task Force #3/06 March 23, 2006
Watershed, with revisions being brought to upcoming Task Force meetings.
CARRIED
BACKGROUND
In June 2004 a first draft Rouge Watershed State of the Watershed Report was circulated for
Task Force, stakeholder and peer review comment. A report summarizing the comments
received was presented to the Task Force in early 2005. Except for selected chapters, which
needed to undergo substantial revisions, the State of the Watershed Report was deliberately
intended to remain as a draft report until results of the modelling studies and further analysis
could be drawn upon to confirm a full understanding of current conditions and ensure that the
finalized SOW Report would be consistent with the final watershed plan document. Revisions
to the document have been underway and a verbal report on status will be provided at the
meeting.
Part 2 of the draft SOW report was very preliminary in nature and was intended to provide a
summary of the existing management framework and implementation tools. A revised, re-
organized approach has been adopted for presenting this information (attached). This
approach attempts to present the existing management tools in the context of the key issues
and objectives which they address. It also provides a brief critique of their strengths and
weaknesses. This will serve as a summary of the SOW report and a reference guide for
developing the final Watershed Plan. Task Force members are invited to review and comment
on this approach and the content of the revised draft.
Report prepared by: Sonya Meek
For Information contact: Sonya Meek
Date: March 22, 2006
Attachment 1
March 23, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #3/06 1289
Part 1 - Introductory Remarks
Bob Clay
• In February staff began to address the external comments on the State of the
Watershed Report. Comments were mostly on infrastructure.
• Terrestrial chapter has been broadened to incorporate birds, reptiles, etc.
• Will be working on Public Use chapter next.
• Surface Water Quantity and Quality will be on hold until the modelling is completed.
• Would Task Force members like to see each Chapter as it is rewritten or once all
chapters are complete?
• consensus seems to be to send chapters as completed.
ACTION: Chapters to be sent out as completed.
DISCUSSION
Jim Robb
The Terrestrial chapter must look at big patches.
Bob Clay
It must also look at the patches in- between, as well.
Jim Robb
Would suggest the Ecological Gift Tax be looked into. This would allow developers to donate
the land that they are not going to develop.
Part 2 - Introductory Remarks
Sonya Meek
Part 2 of the SOW, (Table labelled - Summary of Objectives & Associated Management Tools)
was released in the 2004 draft as an inventory of all the available Management Tools and was
very loosely put together. A new tabular format is proposed as a means of presenting the
available management and implementation tools in relation to the watershed objectives.
Jim Robb
Would suggest that the area allocated for the critique of policy be further expanded in another
area. Don't think this sort of critique lends itself to a column.
Bryan Buttigieg
Is this meant to be a shortened version and it will be expanded upon?
Bob Clay
Yes.
L290 Rouge Watershed Task Force #3/06 March 23, 2006
REVISED TASK FORCE SCHEDULE - (verbal report by Bryan Buttigieg)
• The Task Force term was extended for 6 months recently, and so currently is to go to
the end of June.
• As we have heard from Bob tonight the modelling results have been delayed.
• We have also talked earlier about the Clean Water Act and other deadlines.
• It is likely we will need to discuss a further extension of the Task Force term.
• As it stands we would like to announce the cancellation of the March 29th Water Balance
meeting; and to ask if members would like to use the Saturday April 1' meeting to cover
any topics or shall we cancel that meeting?
• It was suggested by members that the Saturday April 1 S' meeting be CANCELLED
NOTE: NEXT Meeting will be the Wednesday April 12th Task Force meeting.
Jim Robb
Would suggest that an Archeological Master Plan.be done for the Rouge North of Steeles.
Tupper Wheatley
The Markham Small Streams Study will be finalized in May.
Frank Scarpitti
Would suggest that we have a presentation brought to the Task Force on this Study.
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:40 p.m., on Thursday March 23, 2006.
Bryan Buttigieg
Chair, Rouge Watershed Task Force
THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE
MINUTES OF MEETING #4/06
AUTHORITY
MEETING #5/06
JUNE 23, 2006
`t1'
etp,
Rouge Park
MINUTES OF THE ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #4/06
April 12`h, 2006
TORONTO AND REGION mv -
onserva tion
for The Living City
The Rouge Watershed Task Force met in the Atrium Room at the Toronto Zoo, 361A Old
Finch Ave.,Scarborough, Administration Building Toronto Zoo, on Wednesday, April 12h,
2006. Bryan Buttigieg, Chair of the Rouge Watershed Task Force, called the meeting to order
at 7:20 p.m.
PRESENT
Bryan Buttigieg Member
Gay Cowbourne Member
Elio Di lorio Member
Paul Harpley Member
Jack Health Member
Murray Johnston Member
George McKelvey Alternate
Tom Melymuk Alternate
Kevin O'Connor Alternate
Terry O'Connor Member
Lionel Purcell Member
Jim Robb Member
Frank Scarpitti Member
Patricia Short -Galle Member
Clyde Smith Member
Tracey Steele Alternate
Gord Weeden Member
Tupper Wheatley Alternate
Peter White Member
Anil Wijesooriya Alternate
STAFF
Sonya Meek TRCA
Bob Clay TRCA
Andrew Bowerbank TRCA
Anne Reesor TRCA
Sylvia Waters TRCA
L292 Rouge Watershed Task Force #4/06 April 12, 2006
GUESTS
Bill Snodgrass City of Toronto
Wayne Green York Region
Lilli Duoba Town of Markham
Marianne Yake Richmond Hill Naturalists
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
Bryan Buttigieg announced that following the regular business matters, Sonya Meekwould
introduce item 6.1 Sustainable Community Scenario report followed by a presentation by
Andrew Bowerbank, TRCA which would assist members in putting the report into context.
RES. #L66 /06 MINUTES #3/06 (of March 23, 2006)
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Jim Robb
Terry O'Connor
THAT the Minutes of Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3/06, held on March 23, 2006
be approved.
In the review of #3/06 Minutes:
Bryan Buttigie9 referred to a statement made by himself on page L279 to be changed as
follows:
Bryan Buttigieg
If I could synthesis the thoughts on this issue. While the Markham Small Streams Study is a
very good piece of work, we may want to place a dis er comment within the Watershed
Plan recommendations which emphasizes the importance of looking to the Watershed Plan's
directions before the Markham Small Streams Study.
AMENDMENT MINUTES #3/06 (ofMarch23, 2006)
RES. #L67/06
Moved by: Jim Robb
Seconded by: Terry O'Connor
THAT the Minutes of Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #3/06, held March 23`d, 2006 be
approved as amended.
CARRIED
April 12, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #4/06 L293
RES. #L68/06
Moved by:
Seconded by:
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY SCENARIO REPORT
Discussion of full draft report documenting the assumptions that
comprise the "sustainable community" scenario for the Rouge
watershed.
Peter White
Frank Scarpitti
THAT the March 24`h draft Report entitled Development of a Sustainable Community
Scenario for the Rouge River Watershed be received;
THAT staff be directed to proceed with the hydrologic modelling and evaluation of this
scenario based on the assumptions in the report;
AND FURTHER THAT members advise staff of any further comments or questions on the
draft report by April 21, 2006.
BACKGROUND
A range of future land use and management scenarios are being analysed and evaluated as
part of the Rouge watershed planning study. The "sustainable community" scenario is based
on a full build out of urban land use in the watershed, but assumes that the urban growth
occurs within the context of an expanded natural heritage system; that innovative, sustainable
designs are incorporated in new urban communities; and that sustainable behaviours,
practices and designs are adopted at all scales - community, lot, building, and individual -
throughout all existing and new land uses in the watershed.
The attached draft report entitled Development of a Sustainable Community Scenario is the first
full compilation and documentation of all the assumptions that make up this scenario. The
concept for this "sustainable community" scenario and the sustainable land and resource use
goal, objectives, indicators and targets have been discussed several times in previous Task
Force meetings and workshops over the past year. Staff have attempted to reflect the ideas
from these discussions and other identified "best practices" and management directions that
have arisen from Task Force meetings in the report.
The land cover and water management assumptions will be the primary focus of the hydrologic
modelling and evaluation. Other assumptions that make up this scenario, such as those
practices that address air quality and other sustainable land and resource use objectives (e.g.
waste reduction, energy conservation, etc.) will be evaluated using literature references of
benefits and performance, as initially compiled in Appendix F of the report.
As noted in the report, one of the roles of this scenario is to provide a basis for discussion of
what the future vision of the watershed might be and what might be the implications to achieve
it. Task Force members are therefore asked to. cotilnUt on the report and the practicality of
the assumptions proposed.
Report prepared by: Sonya Meek
For Information contact: Sonya Meek
Date: April 5, 2006
L294 Rouge Watershed Task Force #4/06 April 12, 2006
Sonya Meek
• Expressed clearly that the Sustainable Community Scenario report is being introduced to
Task Force members in a draft form to be used as a starting point for discussion.
• The report has been discussed with a few municipal staff in regards to targets and
assumptions. It has not as yet been through an exhaustive review.
• It was emphasized that this is a first time documentation of what a sustainable community
may look like within the Rouge Watershed, how it may be structured, how one may
visualize a sustainable community.
• The audience of this report is the Task Force members for discussion about the
implementation implications; the technical staff to enable them to model the scenario; and
our partners, to allow them to begin to envision a sustainable community.
• With assumptions and targets established we can record, document and evaluate the
response of the watershed and recommend what would have to be done to reach targets.
• The report can be described in three main parts: Sustainability concepts, and management
philosophies, and case examples; assumptions of future land cover and water
management practices in the Rouge watershed, and then all other assumptions that
address our broad range of objectives.
• Sonya, introduced Andrew Bowerbank, to give examples of sustainable community and
green building designs around the world and to highlight severaF TRCA projects being
initiated.
DISCUSSION
Tom Melymuk
Requested a brief recap of why the Task Force was looking at scenario development within
developing the watershed plan.
Sonya Meek
• The scenarios were developed to define potential future stresses and management
approaches which may be applied in the watershed.
• The modelling was then designed to assist with the comprehension of how the watershed
system responds to those various management issues and approaches (eg. water,
terrestrial, etc.).
• To investigate where the watershed is sensitive. This in turn will assist the Task Force in
putting forward effective and strategic recommendations. It will give some scientific
evaluation for municipalities to base their recommendations.
Tom Melymuk
It is not then a selection of a preferred scenario? This will basically help members when
formulating recommendations.
April 12, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #4/06 L295
Sonya Meek
Suggested that the Sustainable Community Scenario is trying to take the concept of
sustainability and describe how it might be applied on the ground and as such, provide a basis
for evaluating its benefits. The modelling of the scenarios is only one piece of the equation in
building the watershed plan. The ongoing Management Summits will also give the Task Force
direction to build the watershed plan.
SUSTAINABILITY PRESENTATION (Andrew Bowerbank)
• Andrew began by expressing a sense of pressure between the built and natural areas
of the environment.
• Medical statistics of the damage to the general population due to the increase in air
quality pollution alone are alarming.
• Andrew reviewed the definition of a LEED Rating System - Leadership in Energy &
Environmental Design
• LEED is a rating system to coordinate and evaluate the best in green building design. It
is proven successful for institutional & commercial buildings. It has demonstrated
dramatic reduction in lifecycle costs.
• The system has broken through the capital cost barrier. There is government
leadership in green buildings and an application of new integrated design process for
building design.
• Vision: A transformed built environment contributing to a sustainable future
• Mission: Promote buildings that are environmentally responsible, profitable, and
healthy places to live, work and play by engaging a national coalition of industry
leaders to accelerate the mainstream adoption of green building principles, policies,
practices, standards and tools
• There exists 4 levels of LEED certification: Certified, Silver, Gold, Platinum
• Creating green buildings means a new way of doing things. These new methods for
production requires an investment in education, up front costing and life cycle costing
must be considered together. The integrated design process must replace the
traditional linear process.
• TRCA is developing partnerships and expanding its focus. We are exploring our role to
move society towards a healthy community.
• TRCA is currently in visioning sessions with regards to a Living City Campus, which will
be the block of land at Pine Valley and Rutherford where Kortright Centre exists and the
new Earth Rangers Building. The Campus will also be the site of the Restoration
Services Centre (new TRCA Nursery) and a Sustainable House, and the Kortright
Centre will go through a major restoration.
• The Sustainable House is currently in the design stage. Judges will be choosing an
architect shortly and construction is expected to commence in the Fall 2006.
• Andrew spoke of a sustainable community including five attributes: a healthy
environment; green planning and building; economic vitality; leadership, education,
awareness and community health and social well being.
• British Columbia, specifically Vancouver and Victoria where it has been legislated that
all buildings must be LEED certified.
• TRCA has engaged the developers of Vaughan Block 39, located directly across from
Kortright Centre on Pine Valley Drive. The developer was approached with the concept
L296 Rouge Watershed Task Force #4/06 April 12, 2006
of building a sustainable community and has been open to incorporating some
sustainable attributes.
In closing Andrew reviewed the steps in developing a sustainable community: (1)
Education; (2) Collaboration; (3) Application; and (4) Implementation. Implementation
being the very crucial point where all involved must feel comfortable with final concept.
DISCUSSION
Elio Di lorio
You have spoken tonight of LEED certification and the concept of a Living City; have you
investigated the concept of the Living Building?
Andrew Bowerbank
The Living Building is the concept of a building actually giving something back to its
surroundings, its environment. This would be the next step past platinum , probably 10 years
in the future. We need to get to platinum, first.
Jim Robb
Commented that this does not deal with the issue of the carrying capacity of the watershed.
This is a major issue. The percentage of pollution created by the growth in population will still
create an environmental crisis in the watershed. These concepts may even be used to
rationalize population growth. We must work within the existing footprint, and improve how we
do business.
George McKelvey
Stated that actually the cost of utilities have decreased. The size of houses have increased
dramatically over time.
Andrew Bowerbank
Yes, the average size of a house currently is 2,500 sq.ft.
Tupper Wheatley
Can you elaborate on the construction industry's contribution to our landfills?
Andrew Bowerbank
The construction industry contributes approximately 25% of the waste in landfills.
Tupper Wheatley
In Markham Small Stream Study the size of houses and the use of basements had to be
considered due to the topography of the land. Building houses slab on grade without
basements was considered. Will the design of the Sustainable House have any features
adaptable to land type? Also, I would question what is being done in York Region.
Jack Heath
The new Markham Town Centre is LEED certified in addition to several other buildings.
April 12, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #4/06 L297
Lionel Purcell
Andrew, earlier in your presentation you spoke of the application of Green Roofs. What types
of buildings could support the weight of a Green Roof?
Andrew Bowerbank
Green roof technology is applied mostly in new building design. Could be used in Big Box
stores for example.
Peter White
With these new applications are you having to move away from wood, to steel and concrete for
more structural integrity? And is this a problem due to the fact that at this time cement cannot
be recycled.
Andrew Bowerbank
Applications can be used with both materials; and we are currently working with the cement
industry on the matter of recycling.
Sonya Meek
Brought the members' attention back to the Report. Chapter 5 details the principles of this
scenario, as follows:
Principles:
protection and enhancement of natural systems
restoration and net gain
source and demand management
from waste to resource /re -use
integrated management at multiple scales
The report presents the assumptions about design practices and behaviours at different scales
for each of five major land uses as follows:
Multiple Scales - Integration of Systems
• watershed - natural system
• community /lot - new greenfield community forms; retrofits of existing land uses
• building - green buildings; integration of natural cover (shade; energy), water,
waste
• individual behavior
Land uses:
• Urban greenfield
• Urban retrofit and redevelopment
• Agriculture /rural areas
• Transportation corridors
• Natural areas
The assumptions are organized under the goals and objectives for the watershed.
Sonya identified three specific areas of assumptions for Task Force discussion:
1298 Rouge Watershed Task Force #4/06 April 12, 2006
1. Potential Greenfield land use
2. Water balance
3. Other assumptions associated with the Sustainable land and resource use goal
Potential Greenfield Land Use
Sonya stated:
• Ontario is in a state of flux in growth planning. There is population growth expected in the
GTA, and so it was assumed there would be pressure for additional development.
Population numbers which were used in the report were from York Region's approved
Official Plan population growth projection numbers. These population numbers are
currently being evaluated by York Region in response to the provincial Growth Plan's new
population growth targets. Thus, the numbers may change. However, they will provide a
basis for us to estimate the extent of associated development.
• In the Sustainability Scenario we have assumed that a functional natural heritage system
would be established at the watershed scale. To this end, we have assumed the TRCA
Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy is applied, the ORM and Greenbelt area is protected,
Rouge Parks lands are established, Markham Small Streams study is applied and TRCA
Valley & Stream Corridor program is adhered to. Once these assumptions are applied to
the Rouge Watershed there remains 1,580 hectares for greenfield development. To
accommodate the projected population in a mixed use compact community form, we have
assumed (400 ha residential; 400 ha roads, schools, parks; 254 ha industrial commercial;
526 ha agriculture on parks).
• Average residential lot size is assumed to be 25 feet wide by 75 feet deep, resulting in an
average of 58 lots per hectare.
Sonya, invited Task Force members' comments.
Jack Heath
Questioned how the calculations were derived and was this the area north of Major
MacKenzie? Where would agriculture exist in this scenario?
Sonya Meek
Illustrated points in question on the Sustainable Scenario map, and discussed that the land use
would be blended in equal proportions across the area for the purposes of modelling.
Jack Heath
Pointed out that the land in question in many cases has third party ownership.
Lilli Duoba
Expressed the opinion that the designated area may not all be developed and emphasized that
development would occur over the next 20 -30 years.
Sonya Meek
Also emphasized strongly that this Scenario is set in the future, year 2031. The potential area
for development in this scenario may not actually be developed out by that time, but we are
modelling it as if it was. While we are developing the watershed plan, we felt it appropriate to
evaluate the application of sustainability concepts.
April 12, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #4/06 L299
Bob Clay
Remember the scenario is being developed to see how the watershed would react.
Jack Heath
Agree, however, think the % of agriculture is too high.
Lill/ Duoba
Expressed concerns over discussing this scenario in the absence of concrete population
numbers for growth from the Province. Is it not possible to wait til the Province's population
numbers are firm. We may be premature in developing this scenario.
Sonya Meek
Development of the watershed plan is to be completed to meet the Province's deadline under
the ORM Act. The scenario may proceed to be modelled and then if the Province's projected
growth is higher, we will at least already have a benchmark against which to comment on the
likely differences in effects that may be experienced in the watershed.
Tracey Steele
Questioned whether the population numbers matter. If the current population projection is
used and it illustrates that the watershed cannot sustain that growth.
Sonya Meek
The modelling will provide the information. Also, the model does not rely heavily on the
population estimates: it is our assumptions about the associated developed area that affects
the model.
Bill Snodgrass
That is correct. The main driver for the model is the imperviousness of the land, not the
population numbers.
Elio Di lorio
All the areas we are speaking of are actually suburban. The issue which must be addressed is
the carrying capacity of the watershed. This scenario development is the opportunity to go one
step further in the watershed plan. The region will have to direct growth in the areas upon
which the Province suggests. The watershed plan must focus on the facts if the population
numbers are such, the plan must recommend that the watershed be built out in a certain
manner to maintain the watershed's integrity. The report has not overlooked any aspect, it is
extremely complete, and I compliment staff.
Sonya Meek
Should the Province allocate growth by watershed, the scenario modelling results may give
municipalities information to make better informed land use planning decisions.
Jim Robb
Was also very complimentary of the report. It was suggested that desired canopy would be
30 %. Would this be 30% by subwatershed?
L300 Rouge Watershed Task Force #4/06 April 12, 2006
Bob Clay
No, the urban greenfield tree canopy percentage is on a community basis regardless of area or
sub - watershed.
Jim Robb
Would suggest that the TRCA TNH target is only habitat based, this is not strong enough. We
need to write to the Province. The new government is not supportive of the Greenbelt. 25x75
feet lots will be the death of the Rouge.
Jack Heath
A 25x75 lot is an average lot size. Not sure if LiIli's not right that the number is off. Would be
useful to do a comparison of older lot size and newer lot size.
Sonya Meek
Agree, relatively speaking the higher transit - supportive density would be along Hwy 7 and
other major routes. In comparison to current land use the sustainable scenario would assume
greater transit use overall. York Regions long term transit plan was reviewed.
Wayne Green
Suggested building a scenario that would give the areas of the highest imperviousness.
Sonya Meek
Scenario 6 addresses this suggestion and will provide a comparison for this Scenario 7.
Bob Clay
The majority of the points and issues members have been discussing are covered in the report.
The report was developed to allow people to imagine a visual image of what a sustainable
community may look like in the Rouge watershed.
Bryan Buttigieg
Proposed to the YDSS Committee that, due to the time of night and the interest in discussing
the Sustainable Scenario report further, the YDSS item be deferred to the next meeting to allow
for adequate time for discussion on both items.
RES. #L69/06
Moved by:
Seconded by:
York - Durham Sanitary Sewer (YDSS) AND LESSONS
LEARNED FOR FUTURE SERVICING PROJECTS
Recommendations regarding the planning and construction of future
servicing projects for inclusion in the watershed plan.
Jim Robb
George McKelvey
Deferred
April 12, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #4/06 L301
RES. #L70/06
Moved by:
Seconded by:
EXTENSION OF ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE TERM
Extension of the Rouge Watershed Task Force mandate for a further
period of six months to December 31, 2006.
Gay Cowbourne
Patricia Short-Galle
THAT the Rouge Watershed Task Force request that The Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority extend the term of the Rouge Watershed Task Force by six months to December
31, 2006;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back at the next possible meeting with a proposed set of
Task Force meeting dates and updated workplan for 2006.
AMENDMENT
RES. #L71/06
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Gay Cowbourne
Patricia Short-GaIIe
THAT the Rouge Watershed Task Force request that The Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority extend the term of the Rouge Watershed Task Force by five months to November
30, 2006;
BACKGROUND
At meeting #5/05 on September 15, 2005, Res. #L45/05 was passed to extend the mandate of
the Task Force to June 2006. As discussed at the last Task Force meeting, held on March 23,
2006, complexities in the modelling studies have caused delays in the ability of the technical
team to bring forward the results of this component of the analytical work. To avoid putting the
Task Force members in the position of developing their draft/final plan in a very compressed
time frame, and risking inadequate discussion time for key decisions, it is recommended that
the term of the Task Force's mandate be extended. It is expected that there would be an
additional three to four Task Force (in addition to the ones already scheduled) meetings
required to complete the work, in addition to the already expected topic specific working group
and management summit meetings.
Report prepared by: Sonya Meek
For Information contact: Sonya Meek
Date: April 5, 2006
L302 Rouge Watershed Task Force #4/06 April 12, 2006
DISCUSSION
Gay Cowbourne
Would suggest the date of November 30th be considered, for the reason that some members
may not be available to continue membership past that point, due to an election.
Bill Snodgrass
Suggested a more realistic target date may be February 2007, to allow adequate time for
modelling results and analysis.
Tupper Wheatley
I concur that a further 3 months may not be enough to complete what is needed.
Sonya Meek
The project is required to be completed and to York Region in order to meet the April 2007
ORM deadline, and it is our aim to deliver the final plan to them as much in advance of that
deadline as possible so they can take it through their appropriate process. We also recognize
and appreciate the commitment of time, dedicated by members and would like to wrap up by
year end
Bryan Buttigieg
Would like to put forth the dates of December 3151 and November 30th to a vote.
Through a show of hands 9 for November 30th and 3 for December 31', an amendment was
made to the original recommendation.
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY SCENARIO REPORT- Sonya Meek continued
Water Balance Assumptions
• Sonya referred members to page 52 of the Sustainable Community Scenario report and
Appendix E.
• There is a push to maintain current water balance, as discussed at our water management
summit.
• Sonya brought members attention to the assumptions of the HSP -F model, including
pollution prevention assumptions; residential source control (eg. infiltration, rainharvesting,
pervious pavement); and industrial source control (eg. Green roofs oil -grit sepaarators).
• She invited comments on the practicality of these example BMP assumptions.
Jim Robb
• Suggested that the assumptions of the Sustainable Community are much too "rosy ", must
be more precautionary.
• High density living on clay soils (as in Markham) will lead to yet a further increase in
imperviousness.
• The cultural aspects of the population must also be addressed; some cultures do not see
the value in trees and are cutting trees down on their property. A small lot is not enough
space to have a play set and a pool and have trees too.
April 12, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #4/06 L303
Bob Clay
Requested input from members as to a suggested lot size to be modelled in the Scenario.
Elio Di /orio
Yes, the plan is "rosy ". However, this is the right path to follow, we must plan for the needs of
the future, we must look for and push for balance. If a brown field area to be developed has
soil which is impervious, the development on that land must look to the future and
compensate.
Lilli Duoba
Viewing this matter from the municipal perspective, one must recognize that public behaviour
cannot be regulated. The public behaviour component of these plans are going to take a long
time to change.
Bob Clay
Please recognize that this is a Scenario, and the question to be answered is "is this concept
reasonable ?"
Clyde Smith
Scenario 6, I would speculate the watershed could not sustain.
Scenario 7, I would like to see us stay with the existing population numbers. The watershed
can not with stand an increase in population numbers.
Peter White
Spoke of Institutional Energy Policies; the need to be realistic, is it attainable within the
structure. The social (behavioural) aspect must be considered.
Marianne Yake
Recommended that municipalities mandate Front Yard Landscape and promote this concept
with the developers.
Murray Johnston
A sustainable plan must be developed, one that will maintain the watershed's integrity. What
are the limitations of the watershed?
George McKelvey
• The population is going to increase, we need to move more water back into the watershed.
• The regulations must be set, so the economics make it feasible.
• There are the economic drive's to accomplish some aspects, but it has to be done a little
bit at a time.
• If new standards are not set, they can never be reached.
Bill Snodgrass
Lot level design is being investigated. One design being for each individual lot to retain its own
runoff water and infiltrate it on the spot (eg. no runoff from residential lot for 25 mm storm,
condos recycle 25% through rainharvesting).
L304 Rouge Watershed Task Force #4/06 April 12, 2006
Tom Melymuk
Suggested categorizing attributes as required and /or optional. Then base your sustainable
neighbourhood on these attributes. Decide how many of the required attributes and optional
attributes are needed to obtain a sustainable neighbourhood.
Jim Robb
A sustainable community should be a quarter of the foot print of what is being suggested.
Establish a smaller community, thus not using as much agricultural land.
Other Assumptions
Sonya Meek
• Asked members to turn to page 67 of the Sustainable Community Scenario report, section
5.6. (the Sustainable Land and Resource Use Goal) and Appendix F (Preliminary Analysis
of Non - Modellable Assumptions)
• Sonya introduced Anne Reesor, TRCA staff member who pulled together research on the
various assumptions.
• Have proposed the adoption of already existing targets, where available from municipal,
provincial or federal governments, or proposed new ones where none were available.
Kevin O'Connor
On page 51, the report speaks of house density and lot size.
We need to limit people to a smaller foot print. Need to push high density, not low density.
Sonya Meek
When drafting the report we did adopt the Provincial Growth Plan target of 40% of projected
growth to be accommodated through intensification of existing urban areas. The density would
likely occur along existing corridors.
Kevin O'Connor
As a group we could put forth the recommendation to stop growth, stop development, take a
step back and look at what we are doing before we move forward.
Tracey Steele
Spoke of the history of mixed use development; that this piece is missing.
Anne Reesor
The aspect of mixed use development was addressed, however, no targets were set.
Murray Johnston
Spoke of a concept to move the growth of the province to under utilized areas such as
Kingston. Suggested we consider inviting Gord Miller, Environmental Commissioner, to
present his ideas about growth to us.
April 12, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #4/06 L305
Paul Harpley
Would suggest breaking the criteria out even further. There are any number of scenarios which
we could,investigate. Could recommend to the province this be investigated further.
Tupper Wheatley
Not sure how with all the data and information which has been compiled, how you have
reached your conclusion. When the Watershed Plan is complete we want it to be as fault less
as possible. Therefore, suggests we move some assumptions to be a bit more realistic (eg.
Assume say 80% porous driveways instead of 100 %)
Elio Di lorio
A number of assumptions need to moved from idealistic to realistic, otherwise the product will
be challenged.
Clyde Smith
The agricultural land must be protected, Whitchurch - Stouffville is continuing to fight to preserve
their agricultural lands. Whitchurch - Stouffville has asked the province to include the south end
in the Greenbelt.
Elio Di lorio
Agriculture is going to change with time and municipalities in the future are going to have to
pay more attention to agriculture. The concepts of mixed land use will take time, although it
will be faster in places which are serviced. Therefore transit must be evaluated. Areas
(communities) must designed around their environment (soils, topography, etc.). As members
of this Task Force it is our job to point out the optimal development for specific areas through
our current information.
Frank Scarpitti
• I would like to compliment staff. This report is providing the "meat" of what sustainable
development is in the region.
• The region is being asked to increase the population in the area by 600,000. This will have
a great impact on the watershed and the surrounding environment.
• I would Motion to ask the Minister to hold a Summit on the Growth Plan. We are not going
to solve this problem in this forum.
• In terms of principles and goals, it would be difficult under today's regulations to enforce,
however, if the Watershed Plan could help us get the authority to do this and give some
"teeth" with the developers that, municipalities may be able to implement.
Bryan Buttigieg
The comments in general on the scenario report have been based around economics. I would
put to you, how do you deal with a population which wants to buy everything.
Elio Di lorio
Economic vitality; this is out of the scope of this group, it is more economic to pollute, etc. to
not be sustainable.
L306 Rouge Watershed Task Force #4/06 April 12, 2006
Frank Scarpitti
We are seeing today the economic and environmental waves coming together. The biggest
topic is Climate Change.
Jack Heath
It is reasonable to set these targets in this Report. Remember, that these are targets for 20
years out. Think we should be targeting intensification high, need 60% greenfields. I am very
optimistic about the report and may suggest even making it tighter.
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 9:30 p.m., on Wednesday April 12`h, 2006.
Bryan Buttigieg
Chair, Rouge Watershed Task Force
THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE
MINUTES OF MEETING #5/06
AUTHORITY
MEETING #6/06
JULY 28, 2006
i
onservation
TORONTO AND REGION "yam
Rouge Park
MINUTES OF THE ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #5/06
May 11', 2006
for The Living City
The Rouge Watershed Task Force met at Bruce's Mill C.A.,3292 Stouffville Road, on Thursday
May 11"', 2006. Bryan Buttigieg, Chair of the Rouge Watershed Task Force, called the meeting
to order at 7:05 p.m.
PRESENT
Bryan Buttigieg Member
Wendy Burgess Member
Christine Caroppo Member
Paul Harpley Member
Jack Health Member
Murray Johnston Member
Virginia Jones Member
George McKelvey Alternate
Kevin O'Connor Alternate
Terry O'Connor Member
Lionel Purcell Member
Jim Robb Member
Frank Scarpitti Member
Erin Shapero Member
Patricia Short-GaIIe Member
Lorne Smith Member
David Tuley Member
Gord Weeden Member
Tupper Wheatley Alternate
STAFF
Sonya Meek TRCA
Bob Clay TRCA
Don Ford TRCA
Lewis Yeager Rouge Park
Tim Rance TRCA
Sylvia Waters TRCA
GUESTS
Bill Snodgrass City of Toronto
Suzanne Barrett Barrett & Associates
L308 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5/06 May 11, 2006
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
Bryan Buttigieg announced relatively short Agenda, starting with the YDSS Report, followed by
2 verbal reports.
RES. #L72 /06
Moved by:
Seconded by:
MINUTES #4/06 (of April 12, 2006)
Lionel Purcell
Murray Johnston
THAT the Minutes of Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #4/06, held on April 12, 2006 be
approved.
CARRIED
RES. #L73/06
Moved by:
Seconded by:
RECOMMENDATION
YORK - DURHAM SANITARY SEWER YORK - DURHAM SANITARY
SEWER (YDSS) AND LESSONS LEARNED FOR FUTURE SERVICING
PROJECTS AND LESSONS LEARNED FOR FUTURE SERVICING
PROJECTS
Recommendations regarding the planning and construction of future
servicing projects for inclusion in the watershed plan.
George McKelvey
Jim Robb
WHEREAS the Rouge Watershed Task force is charged with developing a watershed
management plan and ensuring that the interests of all stakeholders are considered;
AND WHEREAS the goal of the plan is to recommend effective management strategies that
will guide land use and resource use decisions such that the overall health of the Rouge
Watershed is protected and enhanced;
THAT the Rouge Watershed Task Force hereby recommends that future servicing
infrastructure projects in the Rouge Watershed adhere to the following Best Practices:
1. that an Environmental Assessment (EA) be undertaken for the possible complete
project so that the public and approving agencies see the possible overall impacts;
2. that the construction of any underground service should strive to minimize or avoid
groundwater withdrawals;
3. that carrying capacity, need (sizing) and "alternatives to" the undertaking must be fully
assessed to avoid impacts wherever possible through demand management and
innovative alternatives;
May 11, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5/06 L309
4. that all options for different horizontal and vertical alignments be considered for their
impact on underground aquifers;
5. that all construction options be explored to demonstrate to the public and agencies
that the proponent has considered viable alternatives;
6. that the decision making matrix be clearly defined to balance the needs of the various
stakeholders and ensure the principle of the `Quadruple Bottom Line';
7. that the preferred solution clearly identify the impacts on the underground water
regime and that the construction tender documents include the requirements;
8. that any changes in undertaking design or construction technique should require
further public and agency notice and consultation and an addendum to the EA;
9. that the construction method be monitored to ensure that the predicted impacts are not
exceeded by the actual impacts;
10. that the proponent adjust the construction phase if the monitoring determines that
any predicted negative impacts have been exceeded;
11. and that after construction is completed the proponent verify that conditions have
been restored, or improved, to those that existed before construction started.
AND FURTHER THAT these recommendations be incorporated in the Rouge watershed plan.
AMENDMENT YORK - DURHAM SANITARY SEWER YORK - DURHAM SANITARY
RES. #L74/06 SEWER (YDSS) AND LESSONS LEARNED FOR FUTURE SERVICING
PROJECTS AND LESSONS LEARNED FOR FUTURE SERVICING
PROJECTS
Recommendations regarding the planning and construction of future
servicing projects to minimize adverse impacts on groundwater for
inclusion in the watershed plan.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
George McKelvey
Jim Robb
THAT the Rouge Watershed Task Force members discussions at meeting #5/06, on May 11,
2006 and subsequent alterations of the recommendations (below underlined) and additional
recommendations (also underlined) be approved;
WHEREAS the Rouge Watershed Task force is charged with developing a watershed
management plan and ensuring that the interests of all stakeholders are considered;
AND WHEREAS the goal of the plan is to recommend effective management strategies that
will guide land use and resource use decisions such that the overall health of the Rouge
L310 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5/06 May 11, 2006
Watershed is protected and enhanced;
THAT the Rouge Watershed Task Force hereby recommends that future servicing
infrastructure projects in the Rouge Watershed adhere to the following Best Practices:
1. that an Environmental Assessment (EA) be undertaken for the possible complete
project so that the public and approving agencies see the possible overall and
cumulative impacts; * see for instance page L325 paragraph 2 for further reference.
2. that the construction of any underground service should strive to minimize or avoid
groundwater and surface water withdrawals and transfer of water across watersheds;
3. that carrying capacity, need (sizing) and "alternatives to" the undertaking must be
fully assessed to avoid impacts wherever possible through demand management and
innovative alternatives and application of precautionary principle;
4. that all options for different horizontal and vertical alignments be considered for their
cumulative impact(s) on underground aquifers;
5. that all construction options be explored to demonstrate to the public and agencies
that the proponent has considered viable alternatives;
6. that the decision making matrix be clearly defined to balance the needs of the various
stakeholders and ensure the principle of the `Quadruple Bottom Line';
7. that the preferred solution clearly identify the impacts on the underground water
regime and that the construction tender documents include the requirements;
8. that any changes in undertaking design or construction technique should require
further public and agency notice and consultation and an addendum to the EA;
9. that the construction method be monitored to ensure that the predicted impacts are
not exceeded by the actual impacts;
10. that the proponent adjust the construction phase if the monitoring determines that
any predicted negative impacts have been exceeded;
11. that after construction is completed the proponent verify that environmental
conditions have been restored, or improved, to those that existed before construction
started.
12. and that a performance bond of sufficient magnitude be held by the MOE and /or
TRCA or other appropriate public body to ensure that conditions are restored or
improved, if the proponent fails in their obligations.
AND FURTHER THAT these recommendations be incorporated in the Rouge watershed plan.
BACKGROUND
May 11, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5/06 L311
At Rouge Watershed Task Force meeting #5/05, held on September 15, 2005, Task Force
members discussed information regarding the York - Durham Sanitary Sewer project, as tabled
in a report, "YDSS Project and Rouge Watershed Plan ", prepared by Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff and additional information presented by Jim Robb. There
was a strong interest in reviewing the project in more detail and developing recommendations
for future servicing projects, that could be incorporated in the final watershed plan. The
following resolution (RES. #49/05) was passed:
THAT the YDSS PROJECT AND ROUGE WATERSHED PLAN report be received for
review;
THAT a Sub - Committee of interested Task Force members be established and charged
with the tasks of reviewing and revising the YDSS PROJECT AND ROUGE
WATERSHED PLAN report recommendations for consideration by all members of the
Rouge Watershed Task Force at the next possible Task Force meeting;
THAT Sub - Committee members consist of Task Force members, Elio Di %r /o, Erin
Shapero, Jim Robb and Mike Price;
THAT Jim Robb's draft letter brought to the September l5"', 2005 Rouge Watershed
Task Force meeting be received as a late delegation;
AND FURTHER THAT the Sub - Committee, established, review Jim Robb's draft letter,
make revisions as necessary, and prepare a recommendation for the Task Force's
consideration.
Subsequent to this resolution, Mike Price prepared a background report, "Rouge Watershed
Groundwater - A report for the sub - committee on future groundwater planning ", which reviews
the history of the YDSS project, relevant European practice and sets out in the following Best
Practices for consideration on future servicing infrastructure projects in the Rouge River
catchment (see attached report). The report was previously circulated to the Task Force
members and discussed to some extent at the November 10, 2005 Task Force meeting. Since
then the report has been further discussed among members of the subcommittee, and they
wish to bring it forward at this time with the recommendation that the Best Practices in the
proposed resolution be endorsed by the Rouge Watershed Task Force, as providing
appropriate guidance for future servicing projects in the Rouge River watershed.
Report prepared by: Sonya Meek on behalf of the Subcommittee of Mike Price, Jim Robb,
Elio Di'lorio, Erin Shapero and the Task Force Chair, Bryan Buttigieg
For Information contact: Sonya Meek
Date: April 5, 2006
L312 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5/06 May 11, 2006
DISCUSSION
Bryan Buttigieg
• Reviewed the background on the subject of de- watering related to the YDSS project.
Through various discussions it was realized that members had varying views on the
subject. A subcommittee was formed and met several times to establish a set of
recommendations that all Task Force members could support and that would be
consistent with the mandate of the Task Force.
Bryan acknowledged that Task Force members were in agreement that the issue must
be addressed and that lessons could be learned, so that these lessons could be used
when the next large infrastructure project proposal was initiated.
Mike Price's initial report that was introduced to the Task Force in October and that
recommended 10 Best Practices was acknowledged, modified and brought forth the
recommendations presently in front of the Task Force.
Bryan read aloud the recommendations; thanked the subcommittee members for their
work and opened the floor for comments and discussion.
Murray Johnston
Questioned where the recommendations would go now?
Bryan Buttigieg
Suggested that the recommendation will stand as a record in the Rouge Watershed Task Force
minutes and these minutes will go forward to the TRCA Authority Board. Bryan also
commented on the possibility of these recommendations being noted in the Final Watershed
Plan in a Lessons Learned section, similar to Morningside Heights.
Murray Johnston
Enquired as to whether there would be anything more proactive.
Bryan Buttigieg
Suggested that members as individuals were open to pursue this further.
Sonya Meek
Informed the members that at a York Region meeting on the S.E. Collector, she had the
opportunity to comment on the Rouge Task Force's development of recommendations and
lessons learned on the de- watering projects.
Kevin O'Connor
Pointed out the exclusion of a recommendation that groundwater not be taken from one
watershed and put into another watershed. This movement of water allows the possible
transfer of species, waste, etc. to areas which may cause detrimental affects.
Bryan Buttigieg
Questioned whether the transfer of surface water is a larger issue than groundwater.
Jim Robb
Stated that the movement of groundwater was also an issue. One must consider the fact that a
May 11, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5/06 L313
portion of the groundwater dewatered is being pumped to Lake Ontario thus by passing the
ecological points in the watershed.
Paul Harpley
Alluded to the issue being one of the sustainability of a watershed. The UN has been
commissioned to look at the taking of water from one area to supplement another. This issue
is being investigated around the world. The issue is not just moving water, also the concept of
moving sewage through a watershed from another watershed could be problematic.
Erin Shapero
Suggested that discussed changes be made to #2 as follows:
2. that the construction of any underground service should strive to minimize or
avoid groundwater withdrawals and transfer of water across watersheds;
AGREED
Frank Scarpitti
Questioned the wording of #1 ... that an EA be undertaken for the possible complete project...
Would suggest the wording ... the entire proposed process ... Not sure if it will be understood
what possible complete project means.
Bryan Buttigieg
Suggested that some members may be sensitive to this change. It is important to not have the
proponent alone define the project.
Christine Caroppo
The wording was chosen to prevent EA's which were connected to one another to not be
reviewed individually. That the project be reviewed as a complete project, and not in isolation.
Bryan Buttigieg.
Agree, the process should be inclusive. The word possible leaves the recommendation open
to view the project in a holistic manner.
Jim Robb
Mike Price was looking at this from an engineering perspective.
Bryan Buttigieg
Expressed concern of the fact that there are several members who have problems with the
wording of #1. One must be careful that it is not worded in a fashion which will allow for
something we don't want to happen. The word possib /e gives leeway for matters to be
addressed later, and opens the breath of scope.
Bill Snodgrass
Gave members a brief history of the YDSS project. York Region developed a Master Plan in
the 90's which would have been for the complete project. What they did not set was the depth
of the pipe thus which aquifer the pipe would move through. I would suggest this is Mike
Price's reasoning for the wording of #1.
L314 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5/06 May 11, 2006
Erin Shapero
Would suggest that if 3 members are concerned with aspect of the wording of #1, that it
should be re- examined. The suggestion was made to define "possible complete project ".
Christine Caroppo
Suggested a section of Mike Price's report (attached 1 page L325 paragraph 2) would capture
detail enough to explain the wording "possible complete project ".
Bryan Buttigieg
This satisfies the current problem being addressed, which is what was perceived to be one of
the fundamental problems with YDSS. However, by trying to define this issue you have
narrowed the problem at the same time. Would suggest that an asterisk be placed at
recommendation #1 saying see for instance attached report page L325 paragraph 2.
Frank Scarpitti
Proposed a further change as follows ... "that an EA be undertaken for all phases of the entire
project" instead of the words "possible complete ". Commented that from the municipal
perspective, EA's are not started for possible projects.
Bryan Buttigieg
There exists a level of security in the word "possible ". If it is possible within the scope of the
project, then it would be seen to be necessary to review. Bryan asked and received
confirmation of applying an asterisk referring the reader to paragraph 2 on page L325 of the
report.
Murray Johnston
Suggested that if there was a possibility of the recommendations going further into legislation
at any point, that the recommendations should be kept loose.
Frank Scarpitti
Commented on #11. Suggested adding the wording which is underlined as follows to #11 to
read as follows: ... proponent verify that condition of the watershed have been restored ...
Lewis Yeager
Suggested for #1 lusing the word ... environmental (which covers the social cultural, natural
and built environment) conditions...; because this is the language in the Environmental
Assessments: AGREED.
Pau/ Harpley
It is very difficult to define the carrying capacity of the watershed. Thus, it would be beneficial
to add the concept of "precautionary principle" to #3 in addition a temporal aspect. It must be
recognized that society can no longer look at the past to predict the future.
Jim Robb
Suggested adding the words underlined as follows to #3 to cover this point, ...innovative
alternatives, and application of precautionary principles. AGREED
May 11, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5/06 L315
Lewis Yeager
Commented how the biggest problem is dealing with the cumulative affects. The EA process
deals with matters on a project by project basis, never reviewing the cumulative affects of
projects. It would be beneficial to deal with this issue, possibly in the preamble.
Jim Robb
Suggested adding the word underlined as follows to #1 to cover this point, ... agencies see the
possible overall and cumulative impacts; AGREED
Tupper Wheatley
•
Stated in regards to #2; by minimizing groundwater impact we may inturn disrupt surface
water. For example placing fill to interrupt groundwater may inturn contaminate surface water.
Jim Robb
Suggestion to add surface water in addition to groundwater to this point.
Erin Shapero
Concerned that by this addition to #2, may be opening a door; for example is there away to
put infrastructure in without disturbing groundwater that could still have an impact on the
watershed.
Lewis Yeager
Expressed that these other aspects are covered by the EA process.
Bryan Buttigieg
Suggested adding to #2, ...strive to minimize or avoid groundwater and surface water
withdrawals or impacts; AGREED
Don Ford
The entire focus of this document is groundwater. Surface water could be added, however, it
is covered on the EA process, as are the other biological aspects.
Bryan Buttigieg
Would you suggest we leave the surface water aspect out, because by this addition it may take
away from the importance of the groundwater.
Jim Robb
Brought forth an additional point of recommendation adding a statement of a performance
bond.
Bryan Buttigieg
The proposal is to add another recommendation drafted by Jim as follows:
that a performance bond of sufficient magnitude be held by the MOE and /or TRCA or
other appropriate public body to ensure that conditions are restored or improved, if the
proponent fails in their obligations.
Bryan opened this point for discussion.
L316 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5/06 May 11, 2006
Lewis Yeager
Questioned how this would be done when the proponent is the municipality.
Jim Robb
The consultant hired to do the work would take out a bond.
Bryan Buttigieg
Unsure as to whether the municipality would feel comfortable holding a bond.
Lewis Yeager
Suggested to engage the Ministry to design a model to encompass these factors.
George McKelvey
Jim's statement of an additional #11 should be more general.
Bryan Buttigieg
At the higher level Jim is trying to assure proponent is liable. What if the word assurity was
used in place of bond.
After further discussion, suggested the following change:
that the proponent post performance assurity of sufficient magnitude to be held by. AGREED
Bryan also commented on wording changes to #2 ... minimize or avoid groundwater and
surface water withdrawals or adverse impacts and transfer of water across watersheds;
AGREED
Erin Shapero
Suggested the addition to #4 as follows, ... considered for their cumulative impact) on
underground aquifers. AGREED
Lewis Yeager
Suggested a wording in the KEY ISSUE stating ... future servicing projects to minimize adverse
impacts on groundwater for inclusion in the watershed plan. AGREED
Bryan Buttigieg
Asked members to now move the amended recommendations. All members were in
agreement and motion was carried by George McKelvey and Jim Robb. We had consensus.
Erin Shapero
Acknowledged Bryan for his help through this difficult issue.
SEE page L309 for Amended Recommendation.
May 11, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5/06 L317
GROUND WATER MODELLING RESULTS
Bob Clay
• Expressed that the focus will be to look at how the water budget (especially
groundwater) model results and the opportunity to set the stage for management
recommendations.
• There are three main components, which Don will cover.
How do aquifers respond to the various scenarios ?;
How do the discharge areas respond to the various scenarios ?;
Where does it appear that groundwater is close to the surface so that we might
consider where wetlands might be created for example?
Don Ford
• The challenge with groundwater is it cannot be seen until it comes out of the ground
and only a few measurements can be taken because of this. Thus modelling allows for
predictions and understanding.
• By running models we are able to explore what might happen in the various scenario's
established by the Task Force members. For example, what might occur if an area was
built up or natural cover was established
• The primary influences on groundwater are: surficial geology, precipitation.
The following is a brief summary of a Power Point Presentation made by Don. (The full
presentation was retained in project files at the TRCA.)
Recharge in middle parts of the watershed (on the Peel Plain) vary and seem closely
correlated to precipitation, despite relatively homogeneous soils.
A considerable amount of recharge appears to enter the watershed at the north end
from Lake Simcoe region and at the west end from the Humber watershed.
Groundwater flow was observed to obey the boundaries in the watershed, groundwater
follows the flow of surface water.
Groundwater discharge - scenario 2 vs 4
Increase in groundwater discharge with the enhancement of increased natural cover
but effects are relatively subtle.
Decrease in groundwater discharge - scenario 2 vs 6
Results suggest that it is very easy to decrease the aquifer level with development but
that planting natural cover has little potential to increase aquifer levels. .
Sonya Meek
Reminded members that with the Full Build -Out scenario there was assumed NO improved
water management practices in place. Only the current practices, not the improved
management ideals which have been discussed at management summits.
L318 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5/06 May 11, 2006
Bob Clay
Reminded members of the soil types and the infiltration bands across areas, that the middle
band of the watershed where one may think there is little chance of infiltration, there may
actually be a chance with appropriate management actions.
General discussion
A discussion ensued regarding stream flow data and stream temperature as they are affected
by natural cover, and how to predict cool and warm water habitats to allow for habitat
restoration. Bob suggested that the conversation was evolving into more of a fisheries
discussion and it be held until such time as the fisheries data was presented.
Bryan Buttigieg
Brought the discussion back to the presentation and subsequent final discussion.
Pau/ Harp /ey
Questioned whether any of the locations under discussion will be verified by field staff.
Don Ford
Yes, some are being done currently. Jamie Duncan is looking at groundwater discharge and
has found good correlation. We have looked at verifying the model results with the YDSS data.
It will take time to sift through all the analysis.
Gord Weeden
Concerned about how you compared Scenario 6 vs 4. It appears that some of the Rouge Park
future land use especially near Steeles Avenue is illustrated as forest not agricultural.
Bob Clay
We are not predicting or planning land use,,we are looking at how the watershed might
respond with forest in place of agriculture. It's a question of understanding the hydrology not
making planning decisions or recommendations.
Tupper Wheatley
Wish to confirm that the view is that in Full Build Out we would have aquifers discharging Tess
and there would also be less infiltration.
Erin Shapero
Raised a concern about not developing enough scenarios to illustrate a range of implications.
All the scenarios show a version of development. Should look at more positive versions of
scenarios, especially those that might mimic more undisturbed characterisitcs.
Bob Clay
We have put forth a variation of scenarios to show a range of development. For example
Scenario 2 shows the Official plan build -out. We could illustrate full re- forestation, however,
this is probably not realistic.
Erin Shapero
Concerned that the scenario information may be used to actually justify what members are
May 11, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5/06 L319
actually trying to prevent.
Bryan Buttigieg
This concern has been raised repeatedly, this concern regarding the scenarios. Members
must be diligent with the language in the Final Watershed Plan; it must be clear about how the
scenarios are presented.
Frank Scarpitti
We must make clear, it is not realistic to think that the standards will stay as they are today,
they will improve.
Bob Clay
This comment speaks to the recommendations of the assumptions of the Sustainable
Scenario which were passed at the previous meeting.
Jim Robb
With regards to that scenario, I raise concerns again as to the low percentage of agriculture in
a watershed described to be sustainable.
Murray Johnston
I don't think any of us have signed off on the scenarios
Tupper Wheatley
Asked whether there is a % of discharge that can be predicted for north of the moraine, south
of the moraine and actually on the moraine.
Don Ford
Not accurately. I am hesitant on making this prediction prior to completing the source
protection work underway.
Bill Snodgrass
However, the model will produce the results in question.
Erin Shapero
Asked why it is looked at the aquifer recovering to only 80 %.
Jim Robb
Stated that the aquifer recovery is not happening as quickly as predicted. Gary Hunter has
supporting data.
Don Ford
Mentioned he had not seen this data and would be interested to review it.
Bob Clay
Urged members to recall that an increasing in natural cover is beneficial for groundwater and
surface water. However, an increase in natural cover to increase the level of the aquifer, cannot
be relied upon. The results suggest that while an increase in trees are beneficial. Planting
additional trees will not increase the aquifer water levels.
L320 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5/06 May 11, 2006
Bryan Buttigieg
Expressed the extreme level of complexity in the groundwater results. That the technical team
now has the tools developed to ask the questions and analyse the results, for example what
would it look like if this area was all forested or completely built out?
Bob Clay
Commented to members that they have only seen a thin sliver of what the technical team will
be doing. Bob also thanked Don Ford for all his good work and a comprehensive
presentation.
Lorne Smith
Spoke of the history of Mills in the Rouge Watershed and showed a map of historical mill
locations. Lorne's presentation suggested that the Task Force might consider using this
information to understand past hydrology and compare with current hydrological conditions.
PEER REVIEW WORKSHOP - Sonya Meek
Sonya reviewed the purpose of the preliminary peer review. The full day workshop will review
scenario modelling results and preliminary analysis; engage participation in the interpretation
and discussion of management implications; and update municipal staff and colleagues on
overall study status. Possible dates of June 15th or 16th are being discussed. A summary of the
modelling results will continue to be brought forward at the June 22 Task Force meeting.
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 10:15 p.m., on Thursday May 11th, 2006.
Bryan Buttigieg
Chair, Rouge Watershed Task Force
May 11, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5/06 L321
ROUGE WATERSHED GROUNDWATER
A report for the sub - committee on future groundwater planning.
321
L322 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5/06 May 11, 2006
Executive Summary
The need for improved groundwater management, or 'ground rules'.
A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE.
For many countries around the world groundwater is a vital source of drinking water. It is
estimated that close to 2000 million people around the globe depend on water from aquifers for
their supply. Within Ontario 80% of the population draw their drinking water from surface
bodies such as the Great Lakes while the remainder relies on spring and borehole sources.
The World Bank technical papers 390 (1998) Groundwater in Urban Development and 463
(2000) Groundwater in Rural Development were part of an in -depth assessment of groundwater
issues and needs that preceded the 2' World Water Forum and the World Water Vision Report
launched there. The Vision concluded that there was pressing need for raising political awareness
about groundwater, and to define, disseminate and apply best practices in groundwater
governance and management.
A key issue was that the provision of and investment in, management and protection options for
groundwater had lagged far behind the usage of the resource. Many aquifers suffer from
uncontrolled pumping, and pollution is widespread because of failure to control land use and
effluent discharges in aquifer recharge areas. Thus countries need to become as proactive in
groundwater administration as they have in well drilling and groundwater use and abuse.
To encourage this move the World Bank established, in the year 20000, a Groundwater
Management Advisory Team (known as GW- MATE).
322
GW -MATE
The GW_MATE aims to promote groundwater management in a
number of ways:
• Supporting and consolidating the components of the
World Bank financed projects, especially those focused
on strengthening resource management source
protection at pilot level
• Providing leadership on groundwater issues for project
development at country or sub - national level, including
the definition of key government functions and policy
options
• Evaluating global experience in groundwater
management and protection, taking into account
hydrogeologic and socioeconomic diversity, and to
On the urban front it has become clear that urbanization and industrialization have a profound
effect on urban groundwater resources which are inextricably linked with land use plus effluent
and waste disposal practices in a complex fashion. Moreover cities evolve rapidly, and
consequently patterns of groundwater use, waste disposal and industrial development change.
Sustainable development and effective management of groundwater in urban areas will require
reconciling the different interests of well yields, safeguarding water quality, handling solid waste
and liquid effluents effectively, and protecting the engineered infrastructure.
Over - abstraction and excess pollution entering the subsoil threaten these objectives and the costs,
both to the environment and socio- economic, can be enormous — as a result of saline intrusion
and /or land subsidence and /or pollution of potable water sources. It is clear from experience that
there is no single blueprint for action as groundwater systems are inherently variable, as are
related socio- economic environments. Thus management measures must be flexible and
reviewed regularly.
The original YDSS was primarily constructed within the Rouge River valley through
much of Markham. It is a gravity system from top to bottom and consequently passed
through the underground aquifers. The contractors used dewatering methods to remove
the groundwater along the alignment of the trunk sewer and in several areas, such as
Milne Park, the sewer was laid in open trench excavation rather than in tunnel. Currently
within Milne Park there are two six inch diameter stand pipes that were left running after
construction of the YDSS and all with the approval of the MTRCA.
During the.construction through the rouge valley in Markham and up to Unionville the
dewatering for the YDSS caused private wells to run dry and septic tile bed effluent to be drawn
down to the aquifer used by the private wells for potable water. Only the well owners complained
and various temporary potable water supplies were provided. Little or no attention was paid to
the impacts on the aquifers or the surface environment and ecosystems.
323
L324 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5/06 May 11, 2006
In 1997 York Region completed the YDSS Master Plan Update and identified the need for
upgrades to the existing sewage system to provide for the long -term needs of the Region. These
facilities included several trunk sewer projects that were planned for construction between 2002
and 2006. (Obtained from York Region's website in 2004.) In reality the elements described
amount to a twinning of the YDSS or at least the creation of a parallel trunk sewer.
The EA approach being followed by the Region appears to be a project by project assessment and
using the Class EA process for each element. This is not appropriate as the EA Act clearly states
that if a total project concept is to go from A to Z then the proponent cannot split it into multiple
pieces and do EA's on the individual elements. The rational behind this is that the public, review
agencies and the approving agency need to be aware of the total impact or else, an approval of a
minimal impact section could predetermine the next section and possibly limit the options to be
considered. While the YDSS Master Plan update for the whole Region may have considered the
ultimate build -out, each project or section of trunk sewer may predetermine the next section's
start and/or end points.
The key issue is whether the alternatives considered for the complete `route' in the Master Plan
has demonstrated that the depth of the trunk system has minimized its extent in the middle
aquifer, and maximized its extent in the Northern Till (the aquitard).
The present section of the 16th Avenue sewer is in the middle of the Thorncliffe Acquifer and
also this middle acquifer is thickest and has coarser material at this location which means that
there has to be far more water to pump. To have kept the sewer out of this layer of material it
would have been necessary to raise it 10 to 20 metres. Given the fact that this project had its start
and end elevations preset, plus the requirement for no sewage pumping stations, then the vertical
alignment had to be a straight line between these two vertical points.
Intuitively there would have been much less impact on the ground water regime if the tunneling
had been in the Northern Till rather than the Thorncliffe Aquifer. This option could only have
been addressed had the complete system proposal been examined during a preliminary design
review by undertaking the EA from end to end.
When the 9th Avenue trunk sewer was first tendered it went out as a tunnel under a regional road
with the assumption that compressed air tunneling would be used to reduce the need for massive
dewatering. The work was tendered as a designfbuild project so that the bidders could submit
their most economical solution. An alternative bid was received from a contractor that would
eliminate the need for air pressure during construction. It was a cheaper bid but would require
extensive dewatering to allow tunneling above a lowered water table. This alternate bid was
accepted without any public discussion of impacts on the aquifers nor, whether the alternate
compromised the EA process in so far as the public and approving agencies may not have been
made aware of the increased environmental impacts.
The cost benefit analysis of alternative vertical alignments along with alternative construction
methods has to be considered during the EA process so that the optimum solution is obtained for
the benefit of the whole watershed. Consequently an alternative construction method bid might
not be entertained or, if it is, an addendum to the EA may be required.
324
In the urban environment you cannot afford to ignore groundwater management even where the
city does not use the underground aquifer for potable water. All cities around the world should be
concerned about this since the issue of drainage and sanitation are so closely linked to the
groundwater.
In the European Union (EU) there is a Directive that the core aim is to administer all Community
ground and surface waters on the basis of river basin management plans. While we use the term
`watershed' in Ontario it needs to be stressed that underground systems boundaries do not mirror
the surface watershed boundaries. Thus the world generally uses the term `river catchment area'
when referring to the combined underground and surface water regimes.
Water resources should not be managed in isolation from other ecosystem components such as
land, air, living resources and humans present in the watershed.
Considering the need for guidance on future servicing infrastructure projects the following top
ten Best Practices are put forward for consideration.
1. that an EA be undertaken for the possible complete project so that the public and
approving agencies see the possible overall impacts
2. that the construction of any underground service should strive to minimize or avoid
groundwater withdrawals
3. that all options for different horizontal and vertical alignments be considered for there
impact on underground aquifers
4. that all construction options be explored to demonstrate to the public and agencies that
the proponent has considered viable alternatives
5. that the decision making matrix be clearly defined to balance the needs of the various
stakeholders and ensure the principle of the `Quadruple Bottom Line'
6. that the preferred solution clearly identify the impacts on the underground water regime
and that the construction tender documents include the requirements
7. that any change in construction technique require an addendum to the EA
8. that the construction method be monitored to ensure that the predicted impacts are not
exceeded by the actual impacts
9. that the proponent adjust the construction phase if the monitoring determines that any
predicted negative impacts have been exceeded, and
10. that after construction is completed the proponent verify that conditions have been
restored, or improved, to those that existed before construction started.
325
L326 Rouge Watgrslicd Tar* force #5/06 May 11, 2006
t_., - -rr. x
THE HISTORY OF THE ORIGINAL YORK DURHAM SANITARY SEWER (YDSS)
With the planned population expansion in Durham and York Regions it was clear that
development could not take place using wells and septic systems and the sanitary and stone
sewers in North York and Scarborough could not handle the expected flows when York Region
• was fully built out. Consequently the Province acted as the project proponent to hire consultants
and undertake the EA's, planning and construction of a new trunk sanitary system and treatment
plant. The plant was constructed in Pickering and both Regions would be served by it. The plan
was to eventually eliminate as many small sewage treatment plants as possible within both
Regions. Water was to be provided to York Region from Metropolitan Toronto through many
water main extensions across the Steeles Avenue boundary. Durham was to provide for its own
potable water needs.
To a degree the original concept proposal complied with current thinking regarding keeping
water within its own catchment area. Thus if the potable water comes from Lake Ontario then the
wastewater effluent should go back to the same source, Lake Ontario.
Some of the general design criteria used for trunk sewers in that era was as follows:
1. Keep the pipes as shallow as possible to reduce capital cost of the trunks and feeder
pipes. (This is why many older sanitary sewer systems are at the bottom of river valleys.
A purely cost based decision matrix with little review of impacts on the natural
environment.)
2. Keep the pipes away from the existing roads to reduce construction capital costs and
minimize traffic disruption.
3. Minimize use of compressed air construction in tunnels as it was felt that the health of the
workers would suffer in the long term.
4. Dewatering during construction was usual but environmental groups were not organized,
the public were not well informed, and it was up to the contractors to deal with any irate
well users.
5. The groundwater regime was not well understood and thus construction in aquifers was
just a construction hazard.
6. Pumping stations were to be minimal in number, or none at all, as their cost to operate
and maintain increased the operating budget of the owning municipality. As well, it
required extra trained staff which was difficult to justify to Councils in the next budget
cycle.
As a result the YDSS was primarily constructed within the Rouge River valley through much of
Markham. It is a gravity system from top to bottom and consequently ran through the
underground aquifers. The contractors used dewatering methods to remove the groundwater
along the alignment of the trunk sewer and in several areas, such as Milne Park, the sewer was
laid in open trench excavation rather than in tunnel. Currently within Milne Park there are two
six inch diameter stand pipes that were left running after construction of the YDSS and all with
326
the approval of the MTRCA. Given the pressure head on the aquifer the two pipes have run year
round since the original construction and discharge straight into the Rouge River. The flows have
visually appeared to decrease over the past few years. Given the fact that the YDSS is below the
water table for much of its length the water pressure on the outside is greater than the partial
flows inside and thus ground water will get in rather than sanitary sewage getting out. A spill of
sanitary sewage will only occur if the pipe is broken and /or undermined by deep scouring of the
river valley.
During the construction through the rouge valley in Markham and up to Unionville the
dewatering caused private wells to run dry and septic tile bed effluent to be drawn down to the
aquifer used by the private wells for potable water. Only the well owners complained and various
temporary potable water supplies were provided. Little or no attention was paid to the impacts on
the aquifers or the surface environment and ecosystems.
The access points to the YDSS are mostly within the Rouge River valley and unless maintenance
and repairs can be done from within the trunk sewer, access for repair equipment will cause
destruction to areas of the natural environment. The access points have either sealed maintenance
access covers or tall metal stand pipes that act as breathers and extend above the regional flood
elevation of hurricane Hazel.
327
L328 Rouge WatQ1he
rcd r T r TaGt. j(c orce #5/06 May 11, 2006
I ' . ��
CURRENT TWINNING OF THE YDSS
Given the population expansion in York Region has exceeded the original planning horizon of
the YDSS design it has been necessary for the Region to address options for servicing to
accommodate growth. Water supply has been negotiated with both the City of Toronto and the
Region of Peel which are both using Lake Ontario based sources. Sanitary sewage is to be treated
at the Regions of Durham and York jointly owned Duffins sewage treatment plant in Pickering.
The Official Plan process and EA public consultation and review process has been described by
the report to the Task Force created by Beth Williston of the TRCA staff What 's missing are the
technical details that relate to the sewers vertical and horizontal alignments plus design
principles.
In 1997 York Region completed the YDSS Master Plan Update and identified the need for
upgrades to the existing sewage system to provide for the long -teen needs of the Region. These
facilities included several trunk sewer projects that were planned for construction between 2002
and 2006. (Obtained from York Region's website in 2004.) In reality the elements described
amount to a twinning of the YDSS or at least the creation of a parallel trunk sewer. Specifically
the web site stated that the 16th Avenue trunk sewer project will also service Richmond Hill,
Aurora, Newmarket, Vaughan and Whitchurch - Stouffville.
At a public meeting on January 23rd 2004 a concept route map was shown that identified trunk
sewer projects all the way from Newmarket to Lake Ontario. The EA approach being followed by
the Region appears to be a project by project assessment and using the Class EA process for each
element. This is not appropriate as the EA Act clearly states that if a total project concept is to go
from A to Z then the proponent cannot split it into multiple pieces and do EA's on the individual
elements. The rational behind this is that the public, review agencies and the approving agency
need to be aware of the total impact or else an approval of a minimal impact section could
predetermine the next section and possibly limit the options to be considered. While the YDSS
Master Plan update for the whole Region may have considered the ultimate build -out, each
project or section of trunk sewer may predetermine the next sections start and /or end points.
The key issue is whether the alternatives considered for the complete `route' in the Master Plan
has demonstrated that the depth of the trunk system has minimized its extent in the middle
aquifer, and maximized its extent in the Northern Till (the aquitard).
The present section of the 16th Avenue sewer is in the middle of the Thorncliffe Acquifer and
also this middle acquifer is thickest and has coarser material at this location which means that
there has to be far more water to pump. To have kept the sewer out of this layer of material it
would have been necessary to raise it 10 to 20 metres. Given the fact that the project had its start
and end elevations preset, plus the requirement for no sewage pumping stations, then the vertical
alignment had to be a straight line between these two vertical points.
328
Intuitively there would have been much less impact on the ground water regime if the tunneling
had been in the Northern Till rather than the Thorncliffe Aquifer. This option could only have
been addressed had the complete system proposal been examined during a preliminary design
review by undertaking the EA from end to end.
In January 2002 the Region initiated a Class EA for the section of new trunk sewer known as the
expansion of the YDSS Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer. The Region has embarked on a Value
Engineering process to identify a viable and preferred solution to meet the servicing needs of the
Region. Staff has stated that conceptually the project could involve either twinning the current
sewer alignment or considering new alignments such as road or rail corridors. Alternative
alignments would also look at sewage pumping stations with forcemains, or gravity sewers.
However, the same problem exists in that the project has fixed start and end points that may
eliminate options had the whole system been examined in an initial EA from Newmarket to
Pickering.
While the written documents state that all options will be considered, the Region's staff
representative at a recent RWTF meeting stated that staff will not support a design that includes a
sewage pumping station as staff is legally responsible for their safe operation and could go to jail
if there is a spill. Staff acknowledged that a system with shallow trunk sewers and pumping
stations has lower capital cost but higher operating and maintenance costs. What has not been
factored in is the environmental damage and, in the case of the 16th Avenue sewer, the costs
associated with mitigation of the environmental impairment.
When the 9'h Avenue trunk sewer was first tendered it went out as a tunnel under a regional road
with the assumption that compressed air tunneling would be used to reduce the need for massive
dewatering. The work was tendered as a design/build project so that the bidders could submit
their most economical solution. An alternative bid was received from a contractor that would
eliminate the need for air pressure during construction. It was a cheaper bid and would require
extensive dewatering to allow tunneling above a lowered water table. This alternate bid was
accepted without any public discussion of impacts on the aquifers nor, whether the alternate
compromised the EA process in so far as the public and approving agencies may not have been
made aware of the increased environmental impacts.
This same method of construction is being used on the 16`h Avenue project where the dewatering
has to continue for extended and excessive periods of time due to the fact that the tunnel is bored
completely from end to end before the sewer liner is constructed. Other construction techniques
allow the sewer to be lined closely behind the tunneling machine which minimizes the period of
dewatering. Thus again the question arises of whether the approving agencies were aware of the
construction options and their various impacts on the environment.
The cost benefit analysis of alternative vertical alignments along with alternative construction
methods has to be considered during the EA process so that the optimum solution is obtained for
the benefit of the whole river basin. Consequently an alternative construction method bid might
not be entertained or, if it is, an addendum to the EA may be required.
FUTURE `GROUND RULES' !
329
L330 Rouge W ?terched Tack Force #5/06 May 11, 2006
•
i
The world has taken a look at sustainability in the water sector and at a conference in Sydney in
November 2004 there was a move to expand the normally accepted triple bottom line. Water
infrastructure solutions should not merely be environmentally benign, economically feasible and
socially acceptable, but also embrace the additional benefits of sustaining institutional and
organizational learning. We need to learn from our experiences and build on our knowledge base.
Therefore the Rouge Watershed Planning has to ensure that there are policies in place to address
these elements.
On the urban front it has become clear that urbanization and industrialization have a profound
effect on urban groundwater resources which are inextricably linked with land use plus effluent
and waste disposal practices in a complex fashion. Moreover cities evolve rapidly, and
consequently patterns of groundwater use, waste disposal and industrial development change.
Sustainable development and effective management of groundwater in urban areas will require
reconciling the different interests of well yields, safeguarding water quality, handling solid waste
and liquid effluents effectively, and protecting the engineered infrastructure.
Over - abstraction and excess pollution entering the subsoil threaten these objectives and the costs,
both to the environment and socio - economic, can be enormous — as a result of saline intrusion
and /or land subsidence and /or pollution of potable water sources. It is clear from experience that
there is no single blueprint for action as groundwater systems are inherently variable, as are
related socio- economic environments. Thus management measures must be flexible and
reviewed regularly.
GW -MATE promotes the view that government, particularly through local agencies, should play
the central role of guardian of the groundwater resource. Management systems will involve
putting in place restrictions on access, reducing pumping and controlling contaminate loads in
selected areas. Augmenting resources where required has to be considered as an option. Because
groundwater is a decentralized resource that does not follow political boundaries, and often
developed by private initiative plus vulnerable to private land -use practice, social participation is
essential for effective management and protection.
The key initial steps in groundwater management and protection set out by GW -MATE, which
have to be undertaken in close collaboration with stakeholders include:
1. Profiling groundwater users and potential polluters, and thus under - standing the socio-
economic dynamics of their interests
2. Defining the priority services required from specific aquifer systems, such as low -cost
potable water supplies, improving agriculture irrigation, sustaining ecosystems and
environmental features
3. Defining potential entry points to the groundwater management process, taking into
account probable cost /potential outcome and the need to reconcile `bottom -up' with `top -
down' actions
4. Selecting pilot areas to try out participatory groundwater resource management and
quality protection
330
In the urban environment you cannot afford to ignore groundwater management even where the
city does not use the underground aquifer for potable water. All cities around the world should be
concerned about this since the issue of drainage and sanitation are so closely linked to the
groundwater.
In the European Union (EU) there is a Directive that the core aim is to administer all Community
ground and surface waters on the basis of river basin management plans. While we use the term
`watershed' in Ontario it needs to be stressed that underground systems do not mirror the surface
watershed boundaries. Thus the world generally uses the term `river catchment area' when
referring to the combined underground and surface water regimes.
The European Water Sector has developed a Vision for 2030 and the following is a shortened
and abbreviated summary that may be worth reviewing.
• A participatory approach is used for water resource development and management.
• Water and sanitation are managed as integral parts of the water cycle on a river basin
scale.
• Expand the industry's capacity to deploy integrated solutions that cut across individual
sectors and disciplines, thus achieving more efficient and economic solutions than
possible with separate sectors.
• Development and implementation of water projects are guided by the concept of
Integrated Water Resources Management to ensure a proper balance between the
demands of the various stakeholders.
• The public is fully aware of the importance and impacts of changes in aquatic
ecosystems. It insists that alternatives have been considered and the demands of all water
users, including nature, are treated in an equitable way.
• Each household uses water saving equipment and appliances
• In agriculture more accurate estimations of crop water requirements are available,
enabling water savings. Sensors are used to control irrigation schedules and detect leaks
in irrigation systems.
• Re -use of water for non - potable applications is the norm in water scarce areas.
• Rainwater is captured in the most economic means and stored effectively.
• Effective Risk Management assures water quality within the framework of innovative
and cost effective legislation.
• Quality monitoring and control at critical points in water cycles in supply, industry and
agriculture are common practice.
• Materials from water and wastewater treatment are reused.
• Sustainable treatment methods reduce energy and chemical consumption and the
production of sludge.
• Due to the aging infrastructure the replacement of assets by innovative solutions is
extensive.
• Social, economic and environmental considerations underpin water resources
development and management.
Water resources should not be managed in isolation from other ecosystem components such as
land, air, living resources and humans present in the watershed.
331
L332 Rouge Watershed Task Force #5/06 May 11, 2006
Considering the need for guidance on future servicing infrastructure projects in the Rouge River
catchment, the following top ten Best Practices are put forward for consideration.
1. that an EA be undertaken for the possible complete project so that the public and
approving agencies see the possible overall impacts
2. that the construction of any underground service should strive to minimize or avoid
groundwater withdrawals
3. that all options for different horizontal and vertical alignments be considered for there
impact on underground aquifers
4. that all construction options be explored to demonstrate to the public and agencies that
the proponent has considered viable alternatives
5. that the decision making matrix be clearly defined to balance the needs of the various
stakeholders and ensure the principle of the `Quadruple Bottom Line
6. that the preferred solution clearly identify the impacts on the underground water regime
and that the construction tender documents include the requirements
7.- that any change in construction technique require an addendum to the EA
8. that the construction method be monitored to ensure that the predicted impacts are not
exceeded by the actual impacts
9. that the proponent adjust the construction phase if the monitoring determines that any
predicted negative impacts have been exceeded
10. that after construction is completed the proponent verify that conditions have been
restored, or unproved, to those that existed before construction started.
332
THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE
MINUTES OF MEETING #6/06
AUTHORITY
MEETING #10/06
JANUARY 5, 2006
1.333
Rouge Park
MINUTES OF THE ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #6/06
June 22, 2006
TORONTO AND REGION "Y
onserva tion
for The Living City
The Rouge Watershed Task Force met at the Town of Markham, Anthony Roman Centre, 101
Town Centre Blvd., York Room, on Thursday, June 22nd, 2006. Gord Weeden, Chair, Rouge
Alliance chaired the meeting on Bryan Buttigiegs' behalf. The meeting was called to order at
7:15 p.m.
PRESENT
Elio Di Iorio Member
Paul Harpley Member
Natalie Helferty Member
Murray Johnston Member
Virginia Jones Member
George McKelvey Alternate
John Pisapio Member
Lionel Purcell Member
Jim Robb Member
Frank Scarpitti Member
Erin Shapero Member
Patricia Short -Galle Member
Lorne Smith Member
Tracey Steele Alternate
Gord Weeden Member
Anil Wijesooriya Alternate
Lewis Yeager Alternate
STAFF
Sonya Meek TRCA
Bob Clay TRCA
Tim Rance TRCA
Ryan Ness TRCA
Sylvia Waters TRCA
GUESTS
Bill Snodgrass City of Toronto
Lilli Duoba .... Town of Markham
Lina Ariza York Region
Tracey Patterson Freeman Associates
Mike Gregory Totten Simms Hubicki Assoc.
Ray Tufgar Totten Simms Hubicki Assoc.
L334 Rouge Watershed Task Force #6/06 June 22, 2006
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
Gord Weeden announced that Bryan Buttigieg was unable to chair tonight's meeting. There
will be several presentations this evening followed by brief discussions.
RES. #L75/06 MINUTES #5/06
Moved by: Frank Scarpitti
Seconded by: Lionel Purcell
THAT the Minutes of Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #5/06, held on May 11, 2006 be
approved.
In review of #5/06 Minutes:
AMENDMENT #L74/06 YORK - DURHAM SANITARY SEWER (YDSS) AND LESSONS LEARNED
FOR FUTURE SERVICING PROJECTS change moved by George McKelvey to moved by Erin
Shapero.
AMENDMENT
RES. #L76/06 MINUTES #5/06
Moved by: Frank Scarpitti
Seconded by: Lionel Purcell
THAT the Minutes of Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #5/06, held on May 11, 2006 be
approved as amended.
CARRIED
June 22, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #6106 L335
J.D. POWER SURVEY OF NEW HOMEOWNERS AND COMMUNITY -BASED SOCIAL
MARKETING STUDY: IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES FOR SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES -
Verbal report of status and upcoming presentation of results
Sonya Meek
• Briefly discussed the role of residents and businesses in the context of watershed
management, and reviewed the several management summits where this concept
arose.
• During the Natural Cover Management Summit the key issues highlighted were the
need to enhance natural cover; the need to foster urban backyard and ravine /natural
areas stewardship (re- naturalization, Tess invasive exotic species, avoid encroachment
etc.); and discussions of engagement of residents and businesses.
• The key issues brought to Tight at the Water Management Summit were the need to
protect and restore water balance; implications for lot level /backyard SWM (rain
gardens, porous paving, green roofs, naturalization, rain - harvesting etc.).
• Sustainable Practices Management Summit discussed the barriers to implementation of
a range of sustainable practices by homeowners and businesses; and how we motivate
the public.
• With this in mind Freeman Associates was contracted to lead a Community -based
Social Marketing Study, which Tracey Patterson from Freeman Associates, will give a
brief update on tonight. This study of homeowners and businesses is asking them
about motivating factors re backyard naturalization, lot level and roadside SWM and
other sustainable practices to some extent.
• A second study, a survey of new home buyers in the GTA, was also carried out by
TRCA through J.D. Power. Sonya will speak briefly to this study following Tracey's
presentation.
PRESENTATION
Tracey Patterson gave a detailed powerpoint presentation (attached 1) of the preliminary
results of the Market Research for the Development of an Action Plan for Sustainable Practices.
The market research began with a literature review and NGO /Municipal workshop to identify
residents and businesses in the watershed regions. The residents research was to determine
intrinsic motivations, attitudes and behaviors of owner- occupants of single family dwellings
related to stormwater management and naturalization. Research forums are almost complete
and half the participants are signing up to participate in a demonstration naturalization project.
The survey questions are performed with a facilitator, and answers are timed to assure answers
are off the top of your head. Pictures were shown of a naturalized landscape and participants
were asked to rate them. They were asked to draw a picture of a naturalized landscape vs an
ideal landscape. Participants had a low level of knowledge of words used in the literature.
Public is overwhelmed, but are willing to help, with assistance. Most do not know what
watershed they live in. The perception is that they will not have the type of yard that reflects
who they are, most people surveyed take great pride in their yard and feel it is a reflection of
themselves.
L336 Rouge Watershed Task Force #6/06 June 22, 2006
Interviews were done with owners /managers of large box stores or other businesses with large
roof and parking area to determine opportunities and barriers to on -site stormwater
management. Comments were, a need for a collaborative approach among municipalities,
building code changes, an integrated approach to environmental management. Their views
were the focus is on development for tax revenue, therefore environmental considerations are
secondary; water rates are low and therefore, no incentive for homeowners to make better use
of rainwater.
DISCUSSION
Q. When will the Report be complete and will it contain specifics?
A. The Final Report will be available in August and will be complete with individual survey
responses.
Q. In the preliminary surveys what differences are you seeing?
A. There has been very little difference ethnically, however, finances seems to make a
difference in responses.
Q. Will this Report go to area council?
A. The Report initially will go to the Advisory Committee established. If members wish it to
go to their councils that is possible.
Sonya Meek
Briefly spoke of the JD Power Survey of new home buyers. Results show that 1500 residents
were voluntarily surveyed, when we were only expecting 1000. The survey was established to
obtain what new buyers wanted in a new home, in the way of sustainability.
There will be a presentation of complete results of both studies on Wednesday June 28th 9:30-
10:30 (JD Power) 10:30 -12:00 (Social Marketing Study) at Black Creek Pioneer Village.
RES. #L77/06
Moved by:
Seconded by:
STORMWATER FEE CONCEPT
Consideration of stormwater fees as a potential source of funding for
municipal stormwater infrastructure maintenance and retrofit programs,
and the role of the watershed plan in advancing this concept.
THAT the draft watershed plan incorporate recommendations regarding the need for
dedicated municipal stormwater infrastructure maintenance programs and retrofit programs
(details of retrofit strategies to be confirmed pending modelling results) and associated
funding to support these programs;
THAT the stormwater fee concept merits further investigation;
June 22, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #6/06 L337
AND FURTHER THAT discussion be convened with municipal staff partners regarding the
concept of stormwater fees and the current status of their work in reviewing potential funding
sources for stormwater maintenance and retrofit programs within their municipality.
AMENDMENT
RES. #L78/06
Moved by:
Seconded by:
STORMWATER FEE CONCEPT
Consideration of stormwater fees as a potential source of funding for
municipal stormwater infrastructure maintenance and retrofit programs,
and the role of the watershed plan in advancing this concept.
Murray Johnston
Jim Robb
THAT the following recommendation be added at the beginning of the main motion:
WHEREAS monitoring and research shows we will need better maintenance and upgrading
to maintain and improve water quality and reduce damage from flood and erosion.
THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED WAS CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At the Water Management Summit, held on February 7, 2006, a number of key management
and implementation issues were identified as being matters that should be advanced through
the Rouge and Humber watershed plans. That Summit meeting was convened as a joint
workshop of the Rouge Watershed Task Force and Humber Watershed Alliance, and therefore
involved representatives from each watershed advisory group, as well as municipal and TRCA
staff and other invited guests.
Within the long list of key water management and implementation issues that were identified at
the summit, the following issues were identified for discussion during the afternoon workshop
at the meeting and in follow -up work:
• margin of error in modelling, precautionary principle and interpretation
• water balance policy
• funding
• inadequacy of conventional management - need for improvement
Further consideration of the modelling margins of error, the precautionary principle, and water
balance policy directions will be brought to bear during the Task Force's review of modelling
results and development of the management strategy. The focus of this report is on the other
two short- listed water management issues of funding and need for improvements in
conventional management (in this case we are focussing on stormwater management).
Sustained source of funding are needed for stormwater infrastructure maintenance programs
and retrofit projects (i.e. upgrades to existing stormwater management designs to bring them
L338 Rouge Watershed Task Force #6/06 June 22, 2006
up to currently desired objectives and standards). There are in the order of 600 stormwater
management ponds in the TRCA's jurisdiction, many of which are approaching their design life
and will need to be cleaned out (e.g. sediment removed and properly disposed of) in order to
maintain their design function for flood control, downstream erosion control and water quality
treatment. Of course there are other forms of stormwater infrastructure, including municipal
catchbasins, swales, and other "gray infrastructure" practices (not to mention the green
infrastructure). There is currently no municipality that has a dedicated funding source for this
work. However, a number of local municipalities have begun to review options for establishing
sustained sources of funding. The watershed planning process may offer a means for
fostering the public understanding of the need for this funding by putting stormwater
management programs in the context of their role in contributing to watershed health.
A presentation has been arranged from Totten Sims Hubicki, who will provide an overview of
the concept of stormwater fees, experience from other jurisdictions in Ontario and North
America, and examples of possible rate structures and approaches.
Task Force members are asked to consider how the watershed plan may advance this concept
and the appropriate next steps.
Report prepared by: Sonya Meek
For Information contact: Sonya Meek
Date: June 15, 2006
STORMWATER FEE CONCEPT AND EXPERIENCE IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS Mike
Gregory, Totten Sims Hubicki
PRESENTATION
Sonya Meek
• Spoke of the important role of SW ponds, swales and other infrastructure in mitigating the
effects of runoff. The infrastructure needs to be maintained if it is to continue serving its
design function.
• Most municipalities do not have a formalized stormwater management program, nor
funding to support it.
• Furthermore, studies show the need for improvements in SWM in older urban areas, and it
is likely that public sector funding will be needed to pay for all or part of this work.
• Have invited Totten Sims Hubicki to share their fee concept presentation with Task Force
members.
• Would like this presentation to lead to a discussion and decision whether members all
agree the watershed plan needs to address stormwater management, retrofit and funding
mechanisms. Obtain feedback on whether the fee concept has merit and how to advance
this in the context of watershed management, e.g. discuss further with municipal staff.
June 22, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #6106 L339
Mike Gregory of Totten Sims Hubicki gave a brief overview of stormwater management
programs, user fee methods and funding options, and specifics of the Kitchener - Waterloo
study.
• Stormwater function is not always obvious in dry weather. When stormwater runoff occurs
debris, erosion, water quality and flooding problems occur.
• municipalities are responsible for managing the operations maintenance and monitoring of
stormwater facilities.
• This management is limited by available funding
• The Kitchener- Waterloo study investigated a User Fee method and funding option.
• Initial steps were to calculate the Stormwater Rate
• Look at what the program cost for the current level of service and to what extent that
program needs to increase.
• As services have become more expensive property taxes went to User Fee. With
stormwater it is difficult to measure amount of stormwater coming from a property; thus the
use of measure of imperviousness.
• Imperviousness is a measure of development used to indicate adverse environmental
impacts and can be managed and controlled through land use policies and design
standards.
• The relationship is intuitive - the higher the imperviousness the higher the runoff.
• The Kitchener - Waterloo study established a rating based on imperviousness for single -
family residential, multi - family residential, non - residential properties.
• This would become the base -fee and there could be credits applied for stormwater plans
(green roof, rain barrel).
DISCUSSION
Q. Why are not each and every property measured? Need individual resident charges and
associated credit component to provide lot level incentives.
A. Is very expensive to measure each property, there is only one area in the States which does
individual measurements of property.
Q. We do have standards e.g. PWQO; we need to get message out that - current SWM is not
working and we need to improve it. Also, need to maintain it. Can you comment on the
credit system?
A. Usually credit systems apply to large commercial institutions, which have a greater impact
on the system, municipality have listings, an example of credits would be for a green roof or
education program. An example for single family dwellings would be a tax credit. The
project in Waterloo is based on retrofit areas.
Q. Infrastructure Aging - what is the benefit to a municipality in separating out SWM - why not
integrate all other infrastructure into a life cycle costing.
A. Municipalities are looking for ways to enhance their SWM programs (retrofit, stream
rehabilitation, stewardship) - so they establish user fees. Waterloo wants to fix
infrastructure; Kitchener wants to remediate. In the States this process is top driven, where
government establishes legislation, here the environmental groups are driving the
environmental issue to manage stormwater management.
L340 Rouge Watershed Task Force #6/06 June 22, 2006
Q. Who pays for road runoff?
A. Regarded as part of public conveyance.
STATEMENT - Residents raise red flags to wording "user pay ", suggest referring to this as
"stormwater rate ".
Q. The social marketing study has shown us that people don't understand stormwater
management. When municipalities initiate a new stream of funding do they become more
aggressive on concepts such as education, which is not currently done.
A. Yes, the increased revenue allows for future planning.
STATEMENT - Are we learning - so 30 years from now we won't be fixing decisions made
today?
Q. What is the difference between the taxes going up $50 and charging each resident $50?
A. The fee concept is all about equity for the home owner and business owner. The resident
would simply see another line item on their current bill.
Q. How does this fit into climate change?
A. This does not directly Zink to climate change. It is studies like the Watershed Plan which the
Task Force is developing that would make recommendations regarding those needs and
priorities. Then this Fee Concept program would help implement the watershed plan.
STATEMENTS -
• Can we integrate into the recommendation to look at not just retrofitting or maintaining?
Must state clearly that SWM is not controlling erosion. Need to note that current stormwater
management practices are not adequate. Studies from Maryland illustrate that BMP's
aren't working. If we can't get clean water, maybe we are over developed. We should not
become lost in the concept of increasing funding.
• Stormwater fee concept very interesting. Municipalities should be given more information.
Should this be a broader outlook than just the area municipalities of the Rouge watershed?
This is a good opportunity to discuss with more municipalities, however, this will be a hard
sell.
• Appreciate the idea of fair and equitable assessment. Markham has retrofits and
rehabilitation needs, and have some dollars already (development charges, life cycle fund)
which is topped up from taxes. This could be an opportunity to capture more dollars
upfront through taxes. Put it in and get feedback from municipal staff - need money, by
area or assessment or tax.
• It is beneficial to spend a bit of money every year, rather than neglect infrastructure and
• then have a major retrofit.
• Some philosophy in presentation is not a bad thing - maybe by area rather than by
property in industrial land uses.
• City of Toronto is investigating using percentage area of imperviousness.
June 22, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #6106 L341
• By establishing recommendations in the Watershed Plan - may be a model for other plans.
Should include a lessons learned of failed structures, which could be improved. This
program should include education, it must be packaged well to present to the public.
• Suggestion was given of an additional WHEREAS statement be added as the initial
recommendation, WHEREAS monitoring and research shows we will need better
maintenance and upgrading to maintain and improve water quality and reduce damage
from flood and erosion
• Consensus - Direction to come back to Task Force with another report, following
discussions with municipalities.
AGREED
ROUGE WATERSHED SCENARIO MODELLING RESULTS FOR STREAMFLOW AND
CHEMISTRY (HSP -F model) - Ryan Ness
Bob Clay
• Ryan Ness tonight will share with you the Surface Water results (erosion & stream flow),
there will be a separate future discussion on chemistry. Recall that the Phase 2 Workplan
set up scenarios to look at various land uses. Scenarios to examine impact of urban
growth, climate change, enhanced natural cover, stormwater retrofit, recognizing that
surface and ground hydrology are fundamental to the system. At the last meeting key
groundwater results were discussed.
• It is difficult to present all results at once - therefore we will highlight some areas of interest.
If you are interested in a deeper discussion of an aspect we will take that off line.
• The Task Force designed objectives for stream flow as follows: Protect and restore natural
variability in stream flow; Maintain and restore natural channel morphology and stability.
• We have compared HSP -F results for: Erosion, Flow - scenarios 2002 Baseline, OP Build -
Out, Full Build -Out; Natural cover; Stormwater ponds.
• Questions to consider for discussion around recommendations - Does development
increase erosion? Does natural cover & /or ponds help?
Ryan Ness presented results as follows:
• The effect of future scenarios on erosion was examined by calculating an Erosion Index,
which is a parameter that reflects the total erosion potential of a stream over a period of
time. The greater the erosion index, the greater the potential for erosion. Increase in
erosion index indicates an increase in the risk of unnatural erosion.
• For each hour of the 6 years that each scenario is modeled, the calculation considers
whether or not the minimum flow for erosion is exceeded and how much it is exceeded by.
Even natural watercourses have periods where the erosion threshold is exceeded by flows
- this is required for rivers and streams to maintain the essential natural rates of erosion
and sediment transport.
• Factors for erosion threshold include the size of the material on the channel bed (sand,
gravel, boulder), the composition of the banks (sand easily eroded, clay not as much),
L342 Rouge Watershed Task Force #6106 June 22, 2006
vegetation also gives banks greater strength. By using the erosion threshold in the
calculation of erosion potential, we account to a degree for both the effects of flows and the
sensitivity of the watercourse.
OP Build -Out vs. 2002 Conditions
• The modeling assumed SWM ponds would be incorporated into new development and that
they are included in the model.
► Erosion index increases significantly on watercourses where a large portion of the
upstream drainage area is subject to new development. However, erosion index also
increases significantly on the Main Rouge, particularly through Markham, even though a
smaller proportion of its total upstream drainage area becomes developed in OP Build -Out.
This likely indicates that the main Rouge River through Markham is relatively sensitive to
erosion so that hydrologic changes caused by a relatively small amount of development
could have a significant effect. The Little Rouge appears to be less affected by
development, in part because there is relatively little development in the total watershed.
Full Build -Out vs. OP Build -Out
► Generic ponds using the standard erosion control criteria were modeled for new
development.
► Additional development associated with the full build -out scenario further increases the
erosion potential and risk of erosion.
► Most affected are watercourses with the greatest proportion of development in their
drainage area. Main branch of Rouge through Markham and also through City of Toronto
is also significantly affected. Virtually no effect on Little Rouge because there is little new
development proposed between scenarios 2 and 6.
OP Build -Out w/ TNH System Cover vs. OP Build -Out
• The terrestrial cover generally provides a reduction in erosion index, has more benefits
where there is more cover. The reduction in erosive energy from more natural cover is
counteracted as you move downstream by the effects of development.
► The benefits are generally minor for the main Rouge through Markham, in part because
there is relatively little cover in the TNH strategy in the upstream parts of the watershed.
Benefits are significant in the Little Rouge, can potentially improve from existing conditions
even with additional development upstream.
OP Build -Out w/ Retrofit Ponds vs. OP Build -Out
• Ponds were modeled where locations had been identified in the stormwater retrofit studies
for Richmond Hill and Markham (where land had not already been lost).
► Ponds have a minor effect on erosion on the watercourses on which they are installed.
► In most cases, this is as expected as there are relatively few retrofit pond locations and the
main objective for the design of those ponds is for water quality control.
► Results suggest ponds may actually increase erosion potential in the Main Rouge through
Markham — because the Rouge in this area is relatively sensitive to erosion the change in
hydrology timing caused by only a few ponds can have a dramatic effect.
► Suggests that retrofit ponds if implemented should be designed with caution in
consideration of potential downstream impacts.
June 22, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #6/06 L343
Summary
► Development will increase risk of stream erosion above existing and /or natural rates
► Natural cover will reduce the risk in some areas.
► Stormwater retrofit ponds may have local benefits but require downstream assessment
► Conventional stormwater management is likely not enough to eliminate erosion risk.
► Solutions are likely needed to manage the increased runoff volume from new development.
► These results give us another piece of information to our understanding of the effects of
development and management decisions on erosion in the Rouge watershed.
► It is encouraging that it is consistent with observed data from other developed watersheds,
with the literature and with our own professional judgment.
► Scenario 7 investigates the potential benefits of improved stormwater management (lot
level infiltration, green roofs, large scale infiltration technologies). Modelling results are
pending.
DISCUSSION
Q. Morningside Tributary pond was not shown on the map as "significant erosion ", which,
Schollen suggests. There exists a serious erosion problem downstream of this pond.
A. This pond is captured in existing conditions further build -out of its catchment may happen.
Q. With the new technologies being researched, what can be done to improve these ponds?
A. Ponds alone cannot be the only solution - size can be increased and release water slower,
however, this may not even decrease erosion. Need to address total amount of water.
Could investigate the concept of allowing the water to percolate into the ground better
(infiltration), remove water so it doesn't go down, also evapotranspiration.
Q. Does OP Build Out include Rouge Park objectives?
A. Yes, where the bars are larger the area is forested, where the bars are smaller the area is
developed. Scenario 2 has the ecological criteria already assumed, Little Rouge already
protected, OPA 140 implemented by Markham. The positive benefit is from increase in
forest cover.
Comment on legend - negative values suggest "bad ", but the negative value here is "good ".
Q. John Willison, University of Toronto looked at effects of clearing watersheds 1800's to 1950-
1970. Showed how river changed and came back. Will we model 50 years from now - the
geomorphology of river systems and how it will shift in response to an increase in erosion
index.
A. That will come out in analysis and professional judgement.
Q. What would happen if Whitchurch - Stoufville lands were continued as agriculture?
A. It would be zero value - status quo.
Comment - suggested that the potential of erosion is underestimated; need to make results
more clear for the public.
L344 Rouge Watershed Task Force #6/06 June 22, 2006
RES. #L79/06 ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE FUTURE MEETING DATES
Confirmation of future Task Force meeting dates.
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Tracey Steele
Patricia Short-Galle
THAT the future Task Force meeting dates be set as follows , and
AMENDMENT
RES. #L80/06
Moved by:
Seconded by:
ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE FUTURE MEETING DATES
Confirmation of future Task Force meeting dates.
Tracey Steele
Patricia Short-Galle
THAT the above recommendation be revised as follows:
THAT the future Task Force meeting dates be set as follows: September 14th, 2006, October
19th, 2006 and November 30th, 2006;
THAT the future Task Force Workshops be the week of July 24th, 2006 and /or the week of
August 14th, 2006.
THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED
BACKGROUND
At Rouge Watershed Task Force meeting #4/06, held on April 12, 2006, the Task Force passed
the following resolution:
THAT the Rouge Watershed Task Force request that The Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority extend the term of the Rouge Watershed Task Force by five
months to November 30, 2006. (RES. #L71/06).
A recommendation to that effect will be tabled at the TRCA's Watershed Management Advisory
Board meeting on June 16, 2006, and if approved by that Board, it will be forwarded for
consideration by the Full Authority at their meeting on June 23, 2006.
In anticipation of support by the Authority for the extension to the Task Force's term, a set of
future meeting dates must be established. It is proposed that monthly -fall Task Force meetings
be held, as proposed in the chart below. In addition, workshops and management summit
discussions would be convened on specific topics to provide forums for greater discussion
among members and with other stakeholders. It is hoped that at least one workshop could be
convened in late July to discuss the emerging overall management strategy. The peer review
workshop that had tentatively been set for the week of June 15th, but which had to be
postponed due to consultant unavailability, will be rescheduled in the summer and members
June 22, 2006
Rouge Watershed Task Force #6/06
L345
will be so advised. Additional, formal public and stakeholder consultation will take place
during the fall, after the preparation of a full draft watershed plan.
DATE
Meeting Type
week of July 24th or 31'
Workshop
AND /OR week of Aug. "h
Workshop
Thursday
September 14t
Task Force
Thursday
October 19t or 26th
Task Force
Thursday
November 23rd or 30th
Task Force
Report prepared by: Sonya Meek
For Information contact: Sonya Meek
Date: June 15, 2006
FINAL PROVINCIAL GROWTH PLAN FOR THE GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE - Verbal
Report
Bob Clay
We have had a brief look at the Final Provincial Growth Plan, and are pleased with the out
come.
THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE
MINUTES OF MEETING #7/06
1.316
CTORONTO AND REGION
o ton
Rouge Park for The Living City
MINUTES OF THE ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #7/06
September 14, 2006
The Rouge Watershed Task Force met at the Richmond Hill, OMB Board Room, 1st Floor, 225
East Beaver Creek Road, on Thursday, September 14th, 2006. Bryan Buttigieg, Chair Rouge
Watershed Task Force chaired the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT
Wendy Burgess Alternate
Bryan Buttigieg Member
Christine Caroppo Member
Gay Cowbourne Member
Chris Darling Alternate
Brian Denney Alternate
Paul Harpley Member
Jack Heath Alternate
Natalie Helferty Member
Audrey Hollasch Alternate
Murray Johnston Member
Rimi Kalinauskas Member
George McKelvey Alternate
Dick O'Brien Member
Kevin O'Connor Alternate
Terry O'Connor Member
John Pisapio Member
Michael Price Member
Jim Robb Member
Patricia Short-Galle Member
Clyde Smith Member
Tracey Steele Alternate
Gord Weeden Member
Tupper Wheatley Alternate
STAFF
Sonya Meek TRCA
Bob Clay
TRCA
Sylvia Waters TRCA
Ryan Ness TRCA
Don Ford TRCA
Jamie Duncan TRCA
Tim Rance TRCA
Christine Tu TRCA
September 14, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #7/06 L347
GUESTS
Suzanne Barrett Barrett & Associates
Bill Snodgrass City of Toronto
Lilli Duoba Town of Markham
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
Bryan Buttigieg announced that tonight's meeting would encompass several presentations
followed by brief discussions.
RES. #L80/06 MINUTES #6/06
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Murray Johnston
George McKelvey
THAT the Minutes of Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #6/06, held on June 22, 2006 be
approved.
In review of #6/06 Minutes:
AMENDMENT #L343/06
Q. John Willison, University of Toronto looked at effects of clearing Lake Simcoe
watersheds 1800's to 1981 1950 -1970. Showed how river changed from forest clearing
and came back. Will we model 50 years from now - the geomorphology of river
systems, landscape and how it will shift in process /response to an increase in erosion
index.
AMENDMENT
RES. #L81/06
Moved by:
Seconded by:
MINUTES #6/06
Murray Johnston
George McKelvey
THAT the Minutes of Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #6/06, held on June 22, 2006 be
approved as amended.
CARRIED
L348 Rouge Watershed Task Force #7/06 September 14, 2006
PRESENTATIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS ARISING FROM TECHNICAL INTERPRETATIONS - Bob Clay
• Would like to provide Task Force members tonight with enough information regarding the
modeling to understand and assess conclusions and recommendations that will be forth
coming in the Watershed Report.
• Staff will give presentations on Surface water, Ground water - Water budget, recharge,
aquifer, Ground water - discharge to streams, Aquatic community. You will notice that
presentations will follow how precipitation hits the ground and gets carried through the
ecosystem.
• Staff will present the data collected and modeling analysis in both tabular and map form as
seen through the simulated land use development scenario's.
• Recall that earlier in this process 8 land use scenarios were chosen to be modeled in order
to assist in the understanding of how the Rouge watersheds hydrology responds to
changes in land use. Staff when presenting will focus on the comparison between
scenarios and not on the results of one specific scenario.
These scenarios were Existing Landuse, OP - Storm Water Retrofit, Expanded Natural
cover, Full Build -out - existing and future climate, Sustainable Community - existing and
future climate.
• As we moved through the analysis process staff saw the Little Rouge acting very differently
than the Main Rouge.
INTERPRETATION OF SURFACE WATER MODELLING RESULTS - Ryan Ness
• Data will be presented as it relates to the following:
1. Effects of Conventional development (Scenarios 2 and 6)
2. Role of Natural Cover in moderating effects of development on surfacewater
(Scenario 4)
3. Effects of Retrofit Stormwater Ponds (Scenario 3)
4. `Sustainable' Communities Effects (Scenario 7)
5. Climate Change Effects (Scenario 8)
• Recall that the SURFACE WATER FLOW OBJECTIVES are: Protect /restore natural
variability of seasonal /annual stream flow; Eliminate /minimize risks of flooding;
Maintain /restore natural channel morphology /stability
CONVENTIONAL DEVELOPMENT (Scenarios 2 and 6)
Conclusions & Implications
Increases in annual flow volumes can be expected in proportion to degree of upstream
development and impervious cover.
• Summer flow volumes are most dramatically increased.
• Erosion potential may also increase proportionally despite stormwater management ponds
in new development.
September 14, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #7/06 L349
• Main Rouge and tributaries are more significantly affected than Little Rouge.
• Development beyond the OP boundary could increase the severity of flooding.
ROLE OF NATURAL COVER (Scenario 4)
Conclusions of Role of Natural Cover
• Implementation of Terrestrial Natural Heritage Strategy may somewhat reduce total annual
flow volumes.
• Significant reductions in erosion potential may occur, primarily on the Little Rouge.
• Benefits are proportional to the amount of reforestation.
• Flow volumes and erosion potential may be reduced below existing (2002) levels but only
where substantial reforestation is involved.
Little Rouge accrues most benefit, some benefit to Middle Tributaries but effects are diluted
downstream.
STORM WATER RETROFIT PONDS (Scenario 3)
Conclusions & Implications
• Due to the small number of opportunities available, retrofit ponds have little effect on overall
surface flow patterns or erosion potential.
• Some potential for erosion mitigation on Beaver Creek.
• Timing effects may result in minor increases in duration of erosive flows on Main Rouge, but
these are negligible in comparison to effects of future development.
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY (Scenario 7)
Conclusion & Implications
• Combination of "sustainable" new development, `retrofit' of sustainable technologies to
existing development and enhanced natural cover may substantially reduce flows and
instream erosion potential.
• Reductions are more substantial with new development than in existing areas where retrofit
opportunities are limited.
• Flow volumes and erosion potential could potentially be reduced below existing levels at
some locations.
• BUT - benefits depend on the success of sustainable technologies whose long term
performance is not known.
L350 Rouge Watershed Task Force #7/06 September 14, 2006
CLIMATE CHANGE (Scenario 8)
Conclusions & Implications
• Total flow volumes and instream erosion potential could decrease significantly
throughout the watershed despite precipitation increases.
The modelling does not account for the potential increase in the number of future
intense rainfall events i.e. big storms.
Changes to surface flows will be highly dependent on the pattern of climate change,
and cannot be confidently predicted with current information.
Increases in intense rainfall events may increase flood risk.
• If the distribution of rainfall is different, modeling results will vary.
DISCUSSION
Q. Climate change modelling was done on a global basis. How did you extrapolate to a
regional level?
A. The regional level was on a 200km by 200km grid, this is why the accuracy is variable.
Q. Has a history of storm events been reviewed?
A. No, however, there is a proposal submitted to Environment Canada for this work.
Q. Would the intensification in built out areas have an affect on these analysis? For
example Markham Centre has a great deal of parking area; what if this area was
converted to apartment buildings?
A. One of the assumptions within the scenario's was that any intensification would
maintain a similar imperviousness.
Q. In the analysis the most current Storm Water Management practices are being used;
however it has been suggested that these practices are inadequate, is there anything
else that can be done?
A. Yes, the suggestion is to use a combination of Storm Water Management and more
innovative techniques.
STATEMENT from the floor
Suggest using caution when placing any weight of reliance on the modelling. When in the field
you can see more intense storms, climate change modelling is inaccurate.
Q. Would really question performing intensification in the retrofit areas of Toronto.
A. One of the assumptions in the scenarios was that intensification would occur on
brownfield areas. This issue could be investigated at the implementation stages.
STATEMENT from the floor
Concerned we are ignoring the issue of water quality, must look at mitigation.
Response: This issue is being dealt with by another staff member. It is possible that
conventional Storm Water Management ponds, when in new areas may not
mitigate biological and water quality issues.
September 14, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #7/06 L351
Q. Will there be any investigation of existing river morphology. Areas where erosion is
intense (eg. Reesor Road)? Would suggest reviewing a thesis out of University of
Toronto, Scarborough.
A. There will be monitoring suggested as a follow -up, which will cover some of these
issues. The Watershed Plan will highlight some of these points.
Q. At the 20 location points, could there be measures developed (example %
imperviousness) which could be used to say that, this % imperviousness should not be
exceeded with intensification of this area?
A. Could provide the information that is fed into the models and suggest that these levels
( %) be maintained as a recommendation.
STATEMENT from the floor
Remember the precautionary measures. Still very sceptical of modelling. Would like to see all
proven before intensification.
INTERPRETATION OF GROUNDWATER AND DISCHARGE MODELLING RESULTS - Don
Ford
Overview - effects of future scenarios on groundwater measures
• Recharge & Aquifer water levels were not affected from an increase in terrestrial natural
cover.
• Recharge Scenario 1 found that there was an additional recharge area influencing the
Rouge watershed from north of the watershed and one from the Humber Watershed
• Recharge was affected in OP Build -out Scenario, if you develop an area, it will affect
recharge.
• There was a decrease in Oak Rideges Aquifer (ORA) water level in the OP Build -out
Scenario, and recharge further dropped with Full Build -out.
• There was also shown a decrease in ORA level in the Full Build -out Scenario.
• Recharge decreased in the Sustainable Community Scenario which is different from the
benefit this scenario showed for surface water.
• A decrease in ORA level in the Sustainable Community Scenario was a drop of three
quarter of metre from baseline. To put this in perspective a seasonal variation is a one
metre drop.
• The effects of Climate Change illustrated a 10% increase in recharge.
DISCUSSION
Q. Did the modeling incorporate the affects of the Big Pipe on recharge and aquifer levels?
A. Hydrologists do not feel the pipe will have a significant effect on the aquifer long term.
Monitoring of the Big Pipe is mandatory and if effects are illustrated mitigation is
required. Pipes are not permitted to cross aquifers.
L352 Rouge Watershed Task Force #7/06 September 14, 2006
Q. Should the possible leakage of the big pipe not be incorporated into this modeling?
A. Unfortunately, the modeling cannot show pipe leakage.
Q. Would it be reasonable to monitor these areas as a recommendation?
A. Yes, however a lot of leakage comes from older sewers which are concrete. The newer
pipes are made from plastic and are better sealed.
Q. Would you suggest the highly hummocky areas not be developed, because of their
imperviousness?
A. Should maybe proceed with caution and balance sustainable technology
implementation with infiltration measures.
Suggestion from the floor
Would suggest this as an implementation measure. There are several Pit and Mounds areas in
the Rouge Park.
Suggestion from the floor
Would caution that archaeology be investigated first.
INTERPRETATION OF DISCHARGE TO STREAMS - Jamie Duncan
Data Sources /Methodology
Groundwater discharge analysis has been based entirely on WABAS /MODFIow
Groundwater Model. The strengths of the modelling include spatial distribution of
groundwater discharge based on geology.
The primary assumption is that groundwater discharge equals baseflow. Typical
baseflows and or low flows have other influences. This assumption is a conservative
one, where groundwater discharge is typically the primary inputs to baseflow.
Numbers generated reflect mean annual groundwater discharge. Annual baseflows
typically fluctuate highly from the mean.
All groundwater withdrawals, municipal and private, are included in modelling runs, and
accounted for in outputs.
Modelled Effects of Build -out Scenario 1
Scenario 1 vs. 2 shows increases in urban cover in the middle portions of the
watershed, more importantly a lot of development in the headwaters of the Little Rouge
and the Upper Rouge.
• Scenario 1 vs. 6 shows much more localized changes to urban cover, primarily in the
middle reaches.
September 14, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #7/06 L353
• As we move to the OP Build -out from current conditions we can see decreases to
groundwater discharge across the watershed. The range is highly varied, with the
largest changes occurring in the middle reaches. These reductions are primarily due to
the lowering of the ORM aquifer water levels due to reduced infiltration in the Upper
Rouge subwatershed.
• As we move from the OP Build -out to Full Build -out we can see that additional
reductions to groundwater discharge are negligible. This is true for entire watershed
with the exclusion of Robinson Creek where a 36% decrease is shown most likely due
to urbanization of its headwaters.
• The more discrete spatial changes to groundwater discharge show how the watershed
functions. With changes to the high recharge areas in the north, impacts are
widespread. With changes localized to the middle reaches, where infiltration is
generally low, the impacts are also localized.
• The implementation of the TNHS showed mixed gains and losses across the
watershed. Reductions were mainly noted in the Middle reaches. Overall the changes
to groundwater discharge were negligible. Generally speaking the TNHS would not
mitigate the impacts of development or provide noticeable benefits to the baseflow
system.
The Sustainable Communities Scenario measures aim at intercepting runoff and
converting it into evapotransporation and infiltration and shows that implementation of
this type does a relatively good job at getting water into the ground.
While the sustainable measures show a benefit to groundwater discharge, it falls short
of mitigating the impacts of the Full Build -out Scenario.
• The benefits observed in groundwater discharge were generally localized in the central
catchments. However, areas which showed minor decreases under the Full Build -out
now show minor increases.
• One area reacts quite differently from the rest with the Sustainable Community
Scenario. Since the benefits noted primarily occurred in the catchments where
implemented, it can be assumed that benefits would be higher if this type of
development was focussed in the headwaters and high recharge areas.
Climate Change Scenario
• Overall Climate Change Scenarios input more precipitation into the system and
because of this groundwater discharge was shown to increase.
• Under climate change conditions the Sustainable Scenarios continue to infiltrate more
water into the ground.
DISCUSSION
Concern from the floor
Concerned about combining OP Build -out with Full Build -out and saying it is the same.
Because if we say that the Full Build -out is not any worse than the OP Build -out why not
just go all the way?
Concern from the floor
Still very concerned about drawing conclusions and assumptions from the modelling.
Must be in the field to see reality. Climate change predictions are not accurate. Field
observations are more accurate and would recommend more monitoring.
L354 Rouge Watershed Task Force #7/06 September 14, 2006
ANNOUNCEMENT
Bryan Buttigieg announced congratulations to Gord Weeden on the birth of his first grandson.
INTERPRETATION OF AQUATIC ECOLOGY ANALYTICAL RESULTS - Tim Rance
The rationale for determining Fish Management Zones (FMZ) are that they identify similar
habitat for similar fish communities across a given geographic area. This was based on
physiographic conditions which give rise to ecological function and also allowed for continuity
between the Watershed Plan and Fisheries Management Plan.
Aquatic Analysis Background
1. Determined Fisheries Management Zones: 10 zones for Rouge Watershed
2. Determination of Target Fish Species (12)
3. Identification of Key Target Fish Species: Brook Trout and Redside Dace
4. Existing Conditions and Aquatic Issues Identified: 10 data sources integrated
5. Future Scenario Analysis: 5 model results integrated
Aquatic Analysis Background
1. 10 Data Sources Interpreted for Determining Existing Conditions and Aquatic Issues
2. Locations of Fish Communities (historic and existing)
3. Location of Target Fish Species
4. High groundwater discharge and recharge areas
5. Underlying geology
6. Predicted Fish CA Scores (deviation from expected)
7. Flow regime (empirical data)
8. Thermal habitat mapping
9. Thermal Stability scores
10. Benthic Invertebrate Aggregate Scores
11. Instream Barriers
Aquatic Model:
• The LSAT model predicted fish community shifts and loss under various development
scenarios S1, S2, S4, S6, S7 (modified). Model results were interpreted as general
trends and were secondary to "predictions" based on biological understanding of
existing watershed conditions.
Model results from TNHS, HSP -F and WABAS /MODFLOW were also integrated with the
LSAT results and biological understanding. This provided insight around predicted
changes in tree cover, surface flows, groundwater regimes, baseflow, temperature, and
water quality.
September 14, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #7/06 L355
Aquatic Results - Existing Conditions
• Abundant populations of target species inhabit the watershed, largely occupying low
order streams in the upper half of the watershed.
• High quality cold and cool water habitat is present in the upper and middle watershed
reaches. There is a biodiverse, warmwater fish community present in lower reaches of
Little Rouge and coastal wetland.
• Key Target species are linked with sensitive habitat features and hydrological
requirements that are currently present and adequate in the watershed, including:
groundwater discharge, surface flows, thermal regime, sedimentation /erosion.
• Cumulative impacts associated with urbanization identified as contributing to decline in
aquatic habitat and health of the fish community in lower reaches.
• Mid -Lower reaches of the watershed are vulnerable to spread of aquatic invasive
species
• Habitat fragmentation in Brook Trout habitat.
• Angling opportunities identified (FMZ 5 and FMZ 9).
• Aquatic Issues focused on potential impacts related to increasing urbanization
• Linked to sensitivity to impacts by Key Target Species
• Loss of groundwater discharge /baseflow
• Increasing stream flow velocities
• Frequency and duration of peak storm flows
• Increased sedimentation /erosion
• Increasing stream temperatures
• Decline in WQ (TSS in particular)
Aquatic Results - LSAT
S1 vs S2:
• Majority of fish communities shift to reflect highly degraded, warmwater systems across
the watershed; cool water communities may persist in isolated headwaters; all cold
water communities are lost
S1 vs S6:
All fish communities shift to reflect highly degraded warmwater systems, supporting low
biodiversity of only the most tolerant fish species across the watershed.
S1 vs S4:
The application of TNHS may maintain or improve fish habitat and associated
communities across the top of the watershed only (FMZ 1,2,3,4)
S1 vs S7:
• The only modeled benefit appears in upper Little Rouge (FMZ 4)
Aquatic Conclusions
• Protection of small stream habitat across the headwaters and throughout watershed is
highest priority to maintain Brook Trout and Redside Dace populations and address
cumulative impacts.
• Existing habitat conditions and hydrology that currently support healthy, abundant
communities of key target fish species should be maintained or improved:
• Specifically it is the maintenance (or increase) of relative contribution and seasonal
distribution of baseflow (i.e., groundwater) to total stream flow.
• Increasing the amount of tree cover along stream corridors and the total proportion of
upland forest is considered beneficial to aquatic community health.
L356 Rouge Watershed Task Force #7/06 September 14, 2006
Mitigation of cumulative impacts through the watershed is considered critical to
maintaining important aquatic habitat conditions, biodiversity and angling opportunities
in the lower watershed.
DISCUSSION
O. Was it twelve target species?
A. Yes, and 75 species in total.
Statement from the floor
Your conclusions are supported in the field. There are areas which stay 17 °C through the
summer. However, have seen communities be affected by the big pipe.
Statement from the floor
Presentations were great. Am convinced staff has been working very hard. Although,
conclusions are still spoke of as MAY. Is there not a system from another jurisdiction which
can be used as an example of what will happen?
Bob Clay led members through the CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS that are
coming forward are:
1. Protect recharge areas, infiltration (especially Robinson, Morningside, NW-
Humber, N- Moraine)
2. Implement expanded terrestrial cover (Wetlands, stream conservation)
3. Ensure sustainable community (Greenfield - water balance, lot - level, Retro fit
existing - lot level, End of Pipe Storm pond retrofit, esp Beaver Creek)
4. Test, prove then promote innovative sustainable technology
5. Monitor effects of sustainable community
6. Develop, implement, fund SWM facility long term operation, maintenance
7. Flood management (evaluate effects of future development pre - approval, ensure
design and floodplain management )
8. Other - water quality, construction practices
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 10:00 p.m., on Thursday September 14th, 2006.
Bryan Buttigieg
Chair, Rouge Watershed Task Force
THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE
MINUTES OF MEETING #8/06
row--
Rouge Park
MINUTES OF THE ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #8/06
October 5, 2006
L357-
TORONTO AND REGION "Y-
onserva t►on
for The Living City
The Rouge Watershed Task Force met in Council Chambers, Town of Whitchurch- Stouffville,
4th Floor, 37 Sandiford Drive, on Thursday, October 5, 2006. Bryan Buttigieg, Chair Rouge
Watershed Task Force chaired the meeting.
PRESENT
Bryan Buttigieg Member
Jack Heath Alternate
Murray Johnston Member
Virginia Jones Member
Rimi Kalinauskas Member
George McKelvey Alternate
Kevin O'Connor Alternate
Terry O'Connor Member
Lionel Purcell Member
Jim Robb Member
Patricia Short -Galle Member
Clyde Smith Member
Lorne Smith Member
Gord Weeden Member
Tupper Wheatley Alternate
Anil Wijesooriya Alternate
STAFF
Sonya Meek TRCA
Bob Clay TRCA
Sylvia Waters TRCA
Tim Rance TRCA
Dean Young TRCA
GUESTS
Suzanne Barrett Barrett & Associates
Bill Snodgrass City of Toronto
Lilli Duoba Town of Markham
L358 Rouge Watershed Task Force #8/06 October 5, 2006
Bryan Buttiegleg
• Called the meeting to order at 7:15, by addressing that tonight's meeting would be
devoted solely to commenting on the draft Watershed Plan with one resolution at the
end of the night giving staff direction to proceed with revisions.
Purpose of Tonight's Discussion and Next Steps - Sonya Meek
• Expressed to Task Force members that staff would like their high level comments
tonight, and to know, is the tone of the report right, are the messages all there? Also,
once revisions are made, based on comments tonight, are Task Force members
prepared to send the report out for further, broader stakeholder consultation?
• Comments tonight and comments sent up to October 11th will be incorporated into the
draft which will then be sent out for broader consultation the week of October 16th.
The next Task Force meeting will be on October 19th where we will bring back the
revised draft and convene further discussion on mnagement and implementation
recommendations.
TRCA staff would like to offer their assistance to any members who are planning
meetings to facilitate consultation on the draft plan.
In addition, if any members would like to arrange a meeting outside of the regularly
scheduled Task Force meetings to discuss their comments on the report further, they
should advise the Chair.
The consultation process will extend until November 15th
• A tentative "NEW" Task Force meeting is proposed for November 16th in case any
conflicting comments need to be resolved.
• A final revised draft will be sent out prior to the Final Rouge Task Force meeting on
November 30, 2006.
Overview of Draft Watershed Plan - Suzanne Barrett
Expressed the fact that the report was longer than was anticipated; was difficult to
condense so many years of work.
Several other documents produced of similar length were shown as examples of what
the final product may look like.
The structure of the document was reviewed briefly for Task Force members. Basic
introduction, Chapter 2 consisting of many lists containing members goals and
objectives for the Rouge Watershed. Chapter 3 is based on the State of the Watershed
report and Chapter 4 looks at future conditions, knowledge of trends and professional
judgement. The Strategies are discussed in Chapter 5 and Conclusions in 6.
Suzanne spoke of the evening's agenda being organized to discuss the Strategies;
taking some time initially to gather general comments on the Watershed Plan, then
using break -out sessions to gather comments on all 3 sets of strategies. Each group
was asked to comment on all 3 sets of strategies. The group as a whole will then
reconvene and give comments on the conclusions.
October 5, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #8/06 L359
RES. #L82/06 PRELIMINARY DRAFT ROUGE WATERSHED PLAN
Preliminary Draft Rouge Watershed Plan for review
Moved by:
Seconded by:
RECOMMENDATION
George McKelvey
Murray Johnston
THAT comments provided by Rouge Watershed Task Force members during their meeting
on October 5, 2006 and following the meeting up to October 10, 2006 be incorporated into a
revised Draft Rouge Watershed Plan;
THAT copies of the revised Draft Rouge Watershed Plan be distributed to Task Force
members and released for broad public and stakeholder consultation the week of October
16, 2006;
THAT Task Force members assist in facilitating consultation on the revised Draft Rouge
Watershed Plan among members of their various constituencies;
AND THAT TRCA and Rouge Park staff proceed to arrange community open houses,
meetings with municipal staff, and other appropriate forums for consultation on the Draft
Rouge Watershed Plan.
BACKGROUND
A Preliminary Draft Rouge Watershed Plan has been prepared by our writer, Suzanne Barrett,
based on a synthesis of the extensive work completed to date by the Rouge Watershed Task
Force, TRCA and Rouge Park staff, consultants, and participation by various other watershed
partners. This background work has included a review of current conditions, formulation of a
working set of watershed principles, goals, objectives and targets, modelling and analysis of
potential future scenarios, management summit workshops convened around key issues,
information compiled from other jurisdictions, and discussion at Task Force meetings and
workshops. Our writer has reviewed all of this material and has worked with TRCA and Rouge
Park staff to prepare a preliminary draft plan. Rouge Watershed Task Force members are
asked to review this draft document and provide further input to assist in shaping a plan that
will provide guidance toward the achievement of the watershed objectives.
With the recent emergence of information from our modelling work, this is the first opportunity
we have had to put forward strategic management recommendations for the water and natural
heritage related objectives and view these recommendations together with the full set of
strategies for all the remaining objectives. We have drawn on draft management and
implementation actions, previously developed by the Task Force, and are now in a position to
convene more discussion on how to strategically implement the recommendations and refine
the watershed plan and supporting documents accordingly. Some of this discussion will carry
on concurrent with the consultation process, described below under Details of Work to be
Done.
L360 Rouge Watershed Task Force #8/06 October 5, 2006
AMENDMENT
RES. #L83/06
Moved by:
Seconded by:
RECOMMENDATION
PRELIMINARY DRAFT ROUGE WATERSHED PLAN
Preliminary Draft Rouge Watershed Plan for review
George McKelvey
Murray Johnston
THAT the following recommendation be added to the end of the main motion:
AND FURTHER THAT November 16, 2006 be reserved for a further Rouge Task Force
meeting if necessary to resolve any conflicting directions in the Draft Rouge Watershed Plan.
THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED
THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED WAS CARRIED
GENERAL COMMENTS on draft Watershed Plan
• Suggest Executive Summary to retain critical information will still allowing document to
be short in length.
• Make sure other technical documents are referenced clearly.
• Concerned about technical statements re water quality, bacteria does not get enough
attention.
• Province did not do the science; they just gave growth targets. We know that existing
build -out causes problems, our plan shouldn't just accept that the growth happen.
• Increase the strength of the document
• The Sustainable Community Report will be produced on a CD.
• Ensure that the Little Rouge and the Main Rouge are distinguished clearly. Conclusion
#1 Rouge is relatively healthy (what is relatively ?) The Little Rouge is healthy, the Main
Rouge is not.
• Document has a tone of acceptance of Full Build -out, and acceptance of degradation.
Should turn this around cite "carrying capacity ".
• Task Force reached consensus that prefer the name Little Rouge River.
• Precautionary Principles - improve or keep same
• Report could be read and viewed in 2 different ways, need general guiding principles to
be clear.
• Make sure the Strategies reflect these guiding principles
October 5, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #8/06 L361
BREAK OUT SESSION #1- led by Sonya Meek; Sylvia Waters note taker
Bryan Buttigieg, Tupper Wheatley, Anil Wijesooriya, Jack Heath, Lorne Smith, Lionel! Purcell
People (incl. Infrastructure
• There are places in the document which are Toronto centric eg. Solid sewage waste
dispoal strategies for Toronto aren't necessarily the same as those for York and
Durham.
• Will all Councils support this document?
• We must realize that the timing of Full Build -out is critically important. Each one of us in
the future, 5 or 10 or 15 years from now will be doing something different than what we
are doing now. Which will put a different pressure on the environment, could be worse
could be better.
• Remember environmental restrictions are much stronger now than they were 10 years
ago.
• There is a recognition that what we have done in the past was incorrect. The issue
(concept) of timing is very important in all areas of concern. Timing of implementation
is critical.
• Suggestion that the document have an "escape lane "; a clause which would say
relevant within a time frame. If we find our recommendations aren't working we can
change direction.
Be clear on what we are trying to protect; end point.
The document's words of protect and restore are very "black and white ". If you build -
out too fast, there will be consequences.
Would suggest that the document is NOT a static document, should be•somewhat of a
"living document ". Need to be able to update the data and upgrade the modelling over
time.
• Would suggest we recommend that more people (and golf courses) be taken off
groundwater and put on lake water. We could look at use of sustainable techniques,
such as rain barrels, etc. to compensate.
• Through a discussion of taking more care of groundwater crossing watersheds, it was
recommended that when communities establish sewers they move to lake water.
• The group spoke of educating land owners and the government that these immediate
(maybe costly) decisions made will have long term benefits.
• There was a discussion of dramatically decreasing the use of groundwater. And
whether this may promote more pipes, bigger pipes and give the message of
acceptance of Build -out. This suggestion was then countered with the fact that the
pipes are expensive and that if the condition of allowing Build -out is to be "off
groundwater ", this may slow development.
• Lower costs over the long term for doing sustainable practices (don't) just look at short
term costs)
• p61 #2 should be "avoid or minimize ... "
Public Use and Cultural Heritage
Would suggest placing an emphasis on education.
There is a uniqueness (from a naturalist's point of view) to the Rouge Watershed which
is not captured in this section. This value should be recognized.
• Staff realize the incompleteness of the public lands section, and we do recommend that
L362 Rouge Watershed Task Force #8/06 October 5, 2006
more be done.
The completion of development in the Cornell lands was discussed, and that Rouge
Park will be forced to deal with public use at that time or the public will make its own
trails.
Make sure that documentation of heritage buildings has equal attention as archeology
in the Report.
Aquatic Systems & Terrestrial Systems
• Comments were made on the table of "interesting species" which is to be inserted.
Clarify note of table. Why aren't deer and coyote listed? Birds are animals. The table
is not an inclusive listing and is therefore somewhat misleading and biased. Suggested
not having a table, however putting a few species in text and then referring to the
complete list in the SOW Report.
Water
• Spoke of SWM ponds and their use by animals; whether this should be used as habitat
and whether species are being monitored for contaminants.
• Define End of Pipe.
• Suggested that the Water Strategies should highlight better the improvements and
changes that the municipalities have made over the years. Add a statement
encouraging municipalities to adopt new standards.
• This isn't the end its an evolving process.
BREAK OUT SESSION - led by Suzanne Barrett; Dean Young note taker
Bill Snodgrass, Jim Robb, Rimi Kalinauskas, Gord Weeden, Lewis Yeager, Patricia Short - Galle,
Terry O'Connor
Water
• Would like meeting PWQOs mentioned as what is to be achieved (target). Could be a
modification of objectives 7 and 8.
If water quality is forecast to get worse, perhaps future population growth (allocations)
should be scaled back.
Should relate scenario analysis findings to how likely it will be that objectives and targets
will be met if Full Build -out scenario is implemented.
If scenario analysis findings suggest violations of Federal Fisheries Act are likely with
implementation of Full Build -out could they be used as rationale for a recommendation
to scale back population growth (allocations)?
Regarding small stream /drainage features protection through planning process:
Stormwater drainage /conveyance systems and ponds should be designed so that
streams do not have to be lowered.
• Recommendation about whether or not buildings should have basements in some areas
(e.g. shallow groundwater zones, headwaters areas where there are Tots of small
streams /drainage features ?)
• Must make sure that Rouge Park delineation criteria (OPA -140) are approved and
adopted as this is a key assumption in the strategy.
October 5, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #8/06 L363
Regarding objective #5: Need to define what target /condition we are trying to restore
baseflow levels to. Need to define "natural" baseflow levels /targets.
Same as above for objective #9 regarding natural channel morphology and stability.
A subwatershed scale recommendation for Morningside Creek should be to address
flooding issue (flood flow infrastructure is undersized and /or not well designed for
routine maintenance /cleaning and /or routine maintenance cleaning is not being done).
Nature
• Management needs to protect amphibians, reptiles and other aquatic organisms are not
specifically mentioned (focus remains on fish).
Riparian zones: Targets should recognize that minimum stretches of 3km of continuous
riparian cover over the stream is needed for coldwater conditions.
Hummocky terrain: key to protect hummocky areas for recharge function. [Protect any
hummocky areas outside of ORMCP area for their recharge function in similar way as
hummocky terrain is protected within ORMCP area ?j.
Education / awareness should be a management stategy in all sections /components.
• Natural cover targets minimum % cover by subwatershed are needed.
• Imperviousness thresholds and forest cover need consideration at subwatershed scale.
• More stewardship on agricultural lands.
• Can TRCA staff provide a summary of quantity of recharge on ORM and on Markham
clay plain? Can we qualify the stat on 40 -60% of streamflow comes from groundwater
with where the recharge occurs.
• Managing the matrix; need to recognize that a balance between forest cover and
agriculture ... need to rephrase to not lump agriculture with transportation ... farmland is
less of a threat to nature.
• Sustainable Community - not enough agriculture ... not sustainable.
• Agriculture - does plan need to identify what needs to be done to make protected
agricultural lands sustainable (does not summarize GTAA recommendations).
• Does not provide direction about how much farm land should be protected (beyond the
Greenbelt).
• Agricultural working group includes regional staff and regional Federations of
Agriculture.
• Invasive species - cause of spread is mainly rail / road and construction corridors (deer
and people movement are a minor influence on spread).
• Need funds set aside to restore stream channels if maintaining water balance is not
achievable. (Off-site compensation).
• Transportation - need to stimulate local economies to reduce need for people to travel
long distances to work.
Water
Water conservation - should recommendation be for Stouffville to completely get off
groundwater based supplies (is withdrawn from watershed).
People
• Cultural heritage master plan needs to be done (archaeological master plan to stage 2
level).
• Nature -based recreation - should be "build upon Rouge Parks Trail Plan" as a lot of work
L364 Rouge Watershed Task Force #8/06 October 5, 2006
has already been done.
• Term - "public use" vs. "recreation" is one preferrable
• Or "nature -based experiences "?
• Sentiment of humans part of natural ecosystems rather than just not harmful to ... is
missing.
• Need 5 -10 years of monitoring /testing on new urban designs - should be a
recommendation.
BREAK OUT SESSION #3 led by Bob Clay; Tim Rance notetaker
Kevin O'Connor, Murray Johnston, George McKelvey, Lilli Duoba, Clyde Smith
• It is important that the report accepts that Full Build -out will happen. The population is
growing and we must base the report on this fact. We must anticipate the implications of
this population growth.
We need to spread urban growth to other areas of Canada. The current urban growth in
the GTA is not supported by the present infrastructure.
The current level of growth is not sustainable.
Growth is like cancer" we need forethought and to build sustainably. We must save
some green spaces for future generations.
The Watershed Plan can serve two purposes: (1) It can advise municipalities on how to
grow; (2) It can send a message to the Province "no growth ".
• Can the report do both? For example can the report say: " with this amount of growth,
here are the implications ".
• The Rouge Park which was created in 1990 is a good example of a significant change in
the mind set of people living and planning for the future growth in the Rouge
watershed. Prior to 1990 the expectation was that subdivisions would be built in the
normal manner in most of the Rouge watershed. However, when the various levels of
government created the Rouge Park, the land base that forms the park was protected
from urban sprawl.
• Is the watershed plan respecting provincial planning policy?
• The watershed plan will contain recommendations and advice to municipalities.
• Is there an assessment of the impacts of the different scenarios?
• The watershed plan should present the consequences of development occurring
through the different scenarios. It should then present the opinion of the Task Force
members as to how development should proceed.
• The watershed plan needs to be clear about the consequences of development. It
should present information on scenario by scenario analysis and consequences of the
level of development in each scenario.
• The executive summary should state that growth as proposed is not sustainable.
Water Strategies
• Water is not properly valued. It should be a fundamental principle in the watershed plan
to protect sources of water.
• I would like some clarification on the concept of phased greenfield development.
• The concern being addressed by this section had to do with too much land being
stripped of natural cover. Perhaps a target of 10% at any one time during the
construction phase.
October 5, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #8/06 L365
• There are many other impacts from the development process. These include :
dewatering for sewer construction and road construction including stream crossings and
construction of other infrastructure. It may be better to complete construction in one
area and then move to another area.
• The critical point is to limit the amount of sediment coming off the land. This should be
addressed at the subwatershed level.
• There does need to be much better control of sediment. For example areas stripped for
grading and infrastructure construction should be re seeded if there will be a delay
before houses are built.
• There needs to be much stronger penalties and much better monitoring of construction
practices.
• The issues related to the YDSS dewatering need to be incorporated into the watershed
plan. We need to check the information in the watershed plan related to this project
and contact staff knowledgeable about the impacts to confirm the material in the plan.
Suggestion of an issue with the Watershed Plan referring to reports which have no
status. For example the Markham Small Streams study has not been completed,
approved or accepted.
This problem can be addressed by going to the original source.
• With respect to the YDSS impacts, paragraph 5 on page 13 states that aquifer levels will
recover within two years of cessation of dewatering.
• The Mike Price report has many useful suggestions that should be included in the
watershed plan. Some of these suggestions are listed on page 61.
• The watershed plan does not need to include the YDSS information in paragraph 5 on
page 13.
• We need to decide if this issue should be dealt with in the watershed plan.
• If aquifer recovery takes 20 years then this impact should be considered in the
watershed plan.
Nature - Aquatic
• It was good to have all the actual field studies conducted in support of the watershed
plan.
• The amount of water flowing through the system seems to be decreasing. It is essential
to maintain water flow to support fish.
• The plan has selected Brook trout and redside dace as indicator species.
• Figure 10 needs to be clarified.
• This figure links back to the water section i.e. fish need discharge and therefore it is
necessary to protect the ground water system.
All the recommendations in the report need to be incorporated. We cannot pick and
choose only some of the recommendations.
Nature - Terrestrial
• The recommended strategies are somewhat general in nature however the priority is to
secure the targeted natural heritage system. The key areas to protect and establish the
targeted system are in the lands north of Major MacKenzie, in the Greenbelt zone and on
the Oak Ridges Moraine.
• The vanilla lands are the controversial zone.
L366 Rouge Watershed Task Force #8/06 October 5, 2006
On page 57 the second bullet addresses municipal tree preservation bylaws. Many
municipalities do not currently have tree bylaws to enforce. The plan should
recommend that tree bylaws are implemented.
There is no such thing as a natural heritage bylaw. The plan should not make
recommendations that cannot be implemented.
Perhaps there should be recommendation to the Province to create legislation to protect
natural heritage systems.
People
• Is this section intending to restrict the number of people that will live in the watershed or
to establish a threshold for the population?
• The intent is to determine what are the demands on the and by people? What is the
limit of human activity before the land is overused and degraded. For example many
unauthorized activities occur such as dogs off leash or ATV's travelling through sensitive
areas.
• Page 59 suggests that the Rouge watershed should accommodate rapid growth.
Perhaps the plan should send a message back to the Province that the municipalities in
the watershed should not be forced to grow rapidly. Maybe it would be better to have
slow or no growth.
• The watershed plan must be a strong document. It should provide direction on how to
develop sustainable communities. This would assist the local municipalities as they
,develop. The plan shouldn't try to do too much. It cannot be everything to everybody. It
needs to stay strong and must be realistic and solid.
• The plan should direct recommendations to the level of government which can
implement those recommendations.
• The plan needs to have more specific recommendations on how to create sustainable
communities.
• An implementation report will be prepared that contains additional information.
• We know that development will take a very different form in the future. There will be
more emphasis on sustainable transportation and infrastructure networks and
subdivision construction.
In the future there must be more emphasis on sustaining the water supply into the
aquifers. Currently there is too much impervious cover with the present construction
practices of interlocking brick, concrete and asphalt.
CONCLUSIONS
Suzanne referred to the three questions posed at the beginning of the draft conclusions
and asked if Task Force members thought the section adequately addressed them.
Even with best techniques now, growth would cause more deterioration, therefore, have
problem with paragraph which starts with "third, we know ... This document is too soft
pedalled.
• Is there consensus?
• Problem is with the amount of development /growth plan) - need to have strong
conclusions
• Should be moratorium on expansions til we have done source protection plans and
developed techniques.
October 5, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #8/06 L367
• Sustainability of the whole Rouge is dependent on growth patterns.
• Growth will eventually happen.
• Public does not want growth.
• If in this report we deny growth, this report won't mean anything.
• This plan needs to be realistic, growth will happen and this plan must speak to OP's.
• This city is based on immigration growth and people move to this city. But that doesn't
mean growth has to be on greenlands. Therefore you can have growth but question
timing and how by intensification.
• We can't deny growth already recognized in the official plan. This group has a
responsibility to outline the implications; what will happen if we do nothing. If we
embrace all sustainable community principles we can soften the effects.
• Agree with increasing density, but once that density is permitted without protecting
greenspace then that density will just get put on greenlands development.
• Conclusions are so critical because some people will only read conclusions.
• Rather than posing rhetorical questions why not just state conclusions (and restate
recommendations ?)
• We all came in here with general understanding of shape of watershed but concerned
this document is too general and doesn't bring forward enough technical detail.
• In conclusion answer the So What? The Rouge has the most to lose compared to other
watersheds.
• We're not at threshold we're at cross road.
• Has scenario analysis shown that any subwatershed should not be fully built out?
And /or should intensive growth be directed to certain subwatersheds to allow others to
remain non - urbanized ?.
• Not suggesting we stop OP build -out, I'm just saying we grow slower and smarter. Don't
give statements "relatively healthy watershed ", it is declining and further build out will
continue decline.
• Costs of degraded environment - health, travel time
• Message about timelines for Full Build -out is missing (mention future growth) needs to
occur through redevelopment intensification.
• Markham may not need to expand if it intensifies / infills
• Note intensification puts pressure on existing greenspaces
TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 10:00 p.m., on Thursday October 5h, 2006.
Bryan Buttigieg
Chair, Rouge Watershed Task Force
L368
Milestone Dates
Thurs., Oct. 5, 2006
Rouge Watershed Task Force #8/06
Rouge Watershed Planning Schedule
Activities
October 5, 2006
Task Force Meeting - discuss preliminary draft Watershed Plan -
agree on tone /management direction and authorization to seek
further input on revised draft from other stakeholders
Wk. of Oct. 16 Revised draft Watershed Plan - circulate to Task Force members
and release to other stakeholders for review
Thurs., Oct. 19
Task Force Meeting - further discussion on management and
implementation strategies for incorporation in draft Watershed
Plan and /or accompanying Implementation Guide
Oct. 16 - Nov. 15 Consultation Period (dates TBC) - seek further input and advice
on draft plan from broader group of stakeholders
Thurs., Nov. 9 ?
Thurs., Nov. 23
Thurs., Nov. 30
Meetings with each municipality (target wk of Oct. 30 +/- )
Two community open houses (north and south)
Other stakeholder group meetings TBC
Additional informal meetings of TF members?
New Task Force meeting? - review feedback from consultation;
resolve any conflicting directions
Revised Final Draft Watershed Plan - circulate to Task Force
members
Final Task Force meeting - recommend plan's adoption
THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE
MINUTES OF MEETING #9/06
Rouge Park
MINUTES OF THE ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #9/06
October 19, 2006
L3b9
TORONTO AND REGION" -
onserva tion
for The Living City
The Rouge Watershed Task Force met at Richmond Hill, OMB Board Room, 1s` Floor, 225 East
Beaver Creek Road, on Thursday, October 19`h, 2006. Bryan Buttigieg, Chair Rouge
Watershed Task Force chaired the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 7:15 p.m.
PRESENT
Bryan Buttigieg Member
Virginia Jones Member
Rimi Kalinauskas Member
George McKelvey Alternate
Tom Melymuk Alternate
Kevin O'Connor Alternate
Terry O'Connor Member
John Pisapio Member
Michael Price Member
Lionel Purcell Member
Jim Robb Member
Patricia Short -Galle Member
Lorne Smith Member
Tupper Wheatley Alternate
Lewis Yeager Alternate
STAFF
Sonya Meek TRCA
Sylvia Waters TRCA
GUESTS
Tracey Patterson Freeman & Associates
Suzanne Barrett Barrett & Associates
Lilli Duoba Town of Markham
Bill Snodgrass City of Toronto
L370 Rouge Watershed Task Force #9/06 October 19, 2006
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
Bryan Buttigieg announced that tonight's meeting would consist of a presentation of the Action
Plan for Sustainable Practices by Tracey Patterson followed by a brief question and answer
period. Following that members will be asked to provide input to Attachment #2 Target
Audience Considerations for Consultation on the Draft Rouge Watershed Plan and to discuss
the redrafted Conclusions and suggested revisions of Chapter 2 Guiding Framework.
At the beginning of the meeting quorum could not be met, therefore the Minutes were held,
until such time as all members were present.
RES. #L84/06 MINUTES #7/06
Moved by:
Seconded by:
THAT the Minutes of Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #7/06, held on September 14,
2006 be approved.
Held
RES. #L85/06
Moved by:
Seconded by:
MINUTES #8/06
THAT the Minutes of Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #8/06, held on October 5, 2006
be approved.
Held
Attachment #2
Target Audience Considerations for Consultation on Draft Rouge Watershed Plan
Sonya Meek and Suzanne Barrettlead Task Force members in a short discussion regarding
key messages for each target audience for the Watershed Plan. Members discussed the
questions of What's in it for them? and what are the priority recommendations for them? ie.
What may the various levels of government (Federal, Provincial and municipal) gain from this
plan, how will it assist and enhance some of their existing projects and programs. In addition
other audiences like TRCA, Rouge Park, NGO's, etc. were considered.
October 19, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #9/06 L371
Task Force members suggested a list of Federal Government, Acts, programs, etc. that would
benefit from the Watershed Plan focus such as: Fisheries Act, Net Gain, suggestions of
greenhouse gases reduction, reduction in pollution, potential future airport, support for
Transport Canada's Green Space Strategy; Plan will support RAP -water quality and 2008 is to
be the International Year of Lake Ontario so this is good timing.
Provincial Government has several Acts which will work hand and hand with the Watershed
Plan such as: Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Nutrient Management Act, Greenbelt Plan Act,
Growth Plan Act; and programs and plans such as Terrestrial Natural Heritage, Species at
Risk, Wildlife Habitat.
Regionally, the Plan will assist with: York Region Greening Strategy, York YDSS, all municipal
planning OP's, Toronto WWFMMP, Sustainable Community concepts to move forward.
Members suggested, its not just about saving, its about changing; look at how to do it, not just
where to do it. Sustainable Community will lower infrastructure costs for the municipality. The
Watershed Plan is the opportunity to set parameters for the Growth Plan; and address liability,
risk assessment, due - diligence.
The Watershed Plan will give agencies such as TRCA and Rouge Park clear direction and
support; it will be an advocacy tool.
Toronto Zoo has the opportunity to coordinate the regeneration project points through the
Zoo.
As for private business - agric., golf, UDI, etc. - UDI will have a problem with Plan. Agric.- will
benefit more from the Plan than from urbanization.
As for Schools this Plan may convince Province to reintroduce environment studies into the
curriculum.
PRESENTATION
SOCIAL MARKETING STUDY - Action Plan for Sustainable Practices - Implementation
Strategies for the Residential and Business Sectors in the Greater Toronto Area
Tracey Patterson gave a detailed powerpoint presentation of results of the Market Research for
the Development of an Action Plan for Sustainable Practices.
Residents
Market research was done of single family dwellings;
Key study area was identified;
Residents research performed was to determine intrinsic motivations, attitudes and
behaviors of owner - occupants of single family dwellings related to stormwater
management and naturalization;
L372 Rouge Watershed Task Force #9/06 October 19, 2006
The survey of 124 questions was given by a facilitator and answers were timed to
assure answers were off the top of your head;
Participants had a low level of knowledge of words used in the literature;
Most people surveyed take great pride in their yard and feel it is a reflection of
themselves;
Descriptions of landscapes given were beauty, pride, organized, tidy, manicured;
Pictures were shown of a naturalized landscape and participants were asked to rate
them. They were asked to draw a picture of a naturalized landscape vs an ideal
landscape;
After being shown a photo of a naturalized landscape - many would agree to develop
one, with education and professional help;
When shown a landscape which would promote infiltration, a high percentage of
participants would also implement;
Variance in street scapes, participants were split, probably because would block view of
their property.
Barriers were defined as requirement for landscape colour and organized appearance;
Would recommend that need to move society along the continuum from perception of
naturalized landscape as undesirable to desirable. Currently most people are at the
extreme opposite end of naturalized;
Must market colour and beauty; develop joint ventures with nurseries and Home Depot.
Use a phased implementation approach and would suggest repetition of
advertisements; focus message on colour; contract 3rd year landscape students.
The public needs to be able to go to municipalities and see naturalized landscapes.
Lead by example.
Businesses
Interviews were done with managers of large box stores or other businesses with large
roof and parking area to determine opportunities and barriers to on -site stormwater
management.
Comments include: a need for a collaborative approach among municipalities, Building
Code changes, an integrated approach to environmental management.
Retrofitting a building is not cost effective.
They viewed the focus to be on development for tax revenue, therefore environmental
considerations are secondary; water rates are low and therefore there is no incentive to
make better use of rainwater. Securing timely municipal approvals most important.
Green building in some areas is a barrier to approvals.
The recommendations involve a multi -level out reach to municipalities (Guide Book);
demonstration projects to promote green buildings; develop an award for Leader in
Sustainable Practices; Sustainable practices business outreach; sustainable practices
design competition; TRCA with municipalities host a Green Building Conference.
DISCUSSION
There is an increased cost with leasing of green buildings.
Green buildings can be marketed better - there are decreased operating costs, better
setting. Need to market and educate the developers and builders.
October 19, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #9/06 L373
•
Perhaps if sustainable practices were a condition of approval, then the builder would
build;
If there were faster approvals, they would build sustainable buildings;
Would seem builders and leasers had varying opinions of green buildings;
If you improve commercial landscape you will increase the market value;
However, then the commercial market value assessment increases and then goes onto
the rent.
Some municipalities do not accept rainwater harvest to be used in toilets;
Builders must be given incentives from the municipalities for implementing sustainable
practices (could be given permit to build several extra stories)
Ontario Building Code does not address sustainable practices; to change this will be
too long a process, will be faster to go through municipal change first.
Bryan Buttigieg thanked Tracey Patterson of Freeman Associates and encouraged further
work of this kind on additional implementation projects.
Sonya Meek announced further implementation funding possibilities from several potential
partners for a Pilot Project with Markham and Unionville residents and a workshop to build
strategies around these findings for the business sector.
Suggested Revisions to Chapter 2 Guiding Framework (Principles, Goals, Objectives)
Suzanne Barrettwalked the members through the suggested changes, shown in bold. Task
Force members supported all proposed changes, except those pertaining to the groundwater
objective. Task Force members discussion is noted below.
Introductory paragraph
Our guiding framework comprises an overall goal, a set of principles, nine specific goals and
22 objectives for different aspects of the watershed. We have also developed targets for the
objectives so that we can assess progress over time. The targets can be viewed in the
accompanying Rouge Watershed Plan Implementation Guide.
Principle #2
Protect and enhance the present: Many previous and current human activities are causes of
impaired conditions in the watershed, therefore we must critically evaluate and address their
impacts.
Principle #3
Plan to the future: Our capacity to see the past and present, identify our errors learn from
successes, and decide how to change will allow us to sustain watershed values into the future.
Principle #4
Adhere to broad ecological philosophies and adapt them to the watershed scale: These
include sustainable development, ecosystem management, precautionary principle, carrying
L374 Rouge Watershed Task Force #9/06 October 19, 2006
capacity, linkages, biodiversity, multi - dimensional management, the triple bottom line and net
environmental gain.
Principle #5
Make recommendations based on sound science: Watershed agencies and partners should
strive to develop scientifically defendable recommendations to assist in decisions about land
use.
Principle #6
Recognize the value of multi- interest, partnership: This Watershed Plan establishes a common
ground goals, objectives and priorities that can be used by the Task Force and other multi -
interest partnerships to energize the activities of many individuals and groups across the
watershed.
Principle #7
Maintain attainable work targets and projects: Each implementing group or individual should
be able to achieve actions within their capability and be able to celebrate both individual and
cumulative success (eg. "I planted 75 trees, our group planted 3000 trees and within the
watershed 15,000 trees have been planted ").
Our Specific Goals and Objectives address:
Fluvial Geomorphology changed to be referred to stream form
Public Use and Recreation changed to be referred to Nature -based experiences
Groundwater - Objectives
1. Protect, enragee -and restore groundwater recharge and discharge; 2. Protect, enhance
and restore groundwater quality. Technical staff continue to be concerned with the wording
"enhance ". Suggestion is to delete.
Members wish that "enhance" remain with a footnote suggesting that groundwater recharge is
not be enhanced to a level above past natural background levels.
Stream Form - Goal
Natural stable stream banks and channels that provide natural stream flow patterns, support
diverse aquatic habitat, limit sediment loading, and protect human life, property and
infrastructure from risks due to erosion and slope instability.
Stream Form - Objective
9. Maintain or restore natural channel form and stability.
Terrestrial System - Objectives
14. Increase native terrestrial biodiversity
Nature -Based Experiences - Objectives
17. Ensure that recreation activities in the watershed are compatible with ecological and
cultural integrity.
18. Provide opportunities for a variety of appropriate public uses and experiences in
representative natural and cultural landscapes.
October 19, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #9/06 L375
Sustainable Land and Resource Use - Objectives
20. Practice sustainable resource use by individuals, households, businesses and
governments.
RES. #L86/06
Moved by:
Seconded by:
CHAPTER 2 GUIDING FRAMEWORK - revisions
TRCA staff have proposed some "friendly amendments" to several of the
Guiding Principles which are intended to broaden them beyond the
current Task Force to include all implementing bodies.
George McKelvey
Lionel Purcell
THAT the suggested "friendly amendments" be made in addition to edits made by Task
Force members at meeting #9/06, held October 19, 2006 to Chapter 2 Guiding Framework
and incorporate Chapter into Draft Watershed Plan
APPROVED
CONCLUSIONS
Bryan Buttigieg opened the floor for discussion on the redraft of the Rouge Watershed Plan -
Conclusions, expressing that this would be the second to last meeting to discuss any
amendments.
COMMENTS
• Water quality doesn't come out enough; it is in a declining trend in urbanizing areas of
the watershed and predicted to decrease even more, even with BMP's further
expansion will cause further degradation;
• Suggest adding water quality reference to 2nd & 3rd conclusions paragraphs;
• Preferred the style of the previous version; not necessarily putting the questions right in
the document; but the answers to the questions in the document;
• This version does not give forth a "sense of urgency ";
Paragraph 1, Line 2 add bolded words "We wanted to make sure that the valuable
resources and opportunities of the Rouge Watershed would be protected restored and
enhanced for current and future generations of people, as well as for wildlife and their
habitats."
Paragraph 1, Line 3 "And we wanted to find ways to reverse and prevent the
deterioration of environmental quality and losses of natural and cultural heritage that
were increasingly apparent in the watershed' - concerned that we must provide some
hope that we can reverse the degradation or what's the use of trying; we can reverse
some systems (Terrestrial Natural Heritage); analysis was based on today's knowledge
and a prediction of the future;
• There was agreement that "it is not hopeless ";
• Comment of why only 2 species were given as an example in the conclusions;
• "business as usual" phrase - members suggested, we really need to promote
sustainable community, not just business as usual
• The largest risk is to aquatic systems because of water; the largest potential gains are
for the Terrestrial Natural Heritage system;
L376 Rouge Watershed Task Force #9106 October 19, 2006
Page 4, Paragraph 2, last line "The objective is to provide sufficient time to monitor and
evaluate the success of sustainable community measures and make adjustments if
necessary - suggest adjustments, when necessary;
Important conclusion that is understated top of page 4, first line - "We believe that it is
neither responsible nor sustainable to continue urban growth and watershed
management on a "business as usual" basis " - We need to say that WE KNOW, we
don't just believe - it is not strong enough; current practices are a problem, we need to
have a clear succinct statement we must plan differently and change how we do
business; we need substantive changes in the development forum
Page 4, 2nd paragraph - we must clean up our existing problems before we grow
further; we've reached our carrying capacity; don't expand further for at least 10 years
and if we can change trends, then look at extending urban boundary; otherwise the
only way to have growth and protect environment is 2 -5 acre lots and smart growth;
sustainable community design won't save anything.
MNR's experience with "precautionary principle" is that it is hard to define hence hard to
defend. Therefore, rather than conclusions with a "precautionary principles"
philosophical angle; end off with reference to our very stringent targets; it is critical that
conclusions are right on; this document won't demand compliance.
Sometimes you down play by putting a year moratorium; take out "we believe" - make it
stronger; need more enforcement recommendations (no sense in having bylaws if not
enforced)
Bryan Buttigieg expressed his reluctance to drastically alter the conclusions with mention of a
ten year moratorium at this late a date. The timing and pace is consistent with what is being
expressed; the Implementation Guide can reflect points further.
The Conclusions must be dead on because some may only read the conclusions. Do
not put any language in text which may make people throw the report out.
Suggest not using BMP's - they are not good enough
Would agree, in targets we are quite stringent and with existing technology we can
isolate the sensitive areas
The facts of intensification are worse than the facts of sprawl
Bryan Buttigieg asked for a resolution to go forward as follows:
RES. #L82/06 ROUGE WATERSHED PLAN - October 17/06 draft CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS
Moved by:
Seconded by:
Lionel Purcell
John Pisapio
THAT the comments received by Task Force members at meeting #9/06, held on October
19, 2006 be incorporated into the conclusions of the Draft Rouge Watershed Plan.
APPROVED
October 19, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #9/06 L377
.9 "tachment #1
ROUGE WATERSHED PLAN
October 17/06 draft
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS
We embarked on this planning process with ambitious goals and objectives for the Rouge
Watershed. We wanted to make sure that the valuable resources and opportunities of the
Rouge Watershed would be protected for current and future generations of people, as well as
for wildlife and their habitats. And we wanted to find ways to reverse and prevent the
deterioration of environmental quality and losses of natural and cultural heritage that were
increasingly apparent in the Watershed.
Before we could recommend strategies for future management of the Watershed, we needed
to improve our knowledge and understanding of the Rouge Watershed ecosystem, assess the
effects of human activities to date, consider potential future scenarios and analyze the likely
effectiveness of a range of management approaches. This process resulted in some key
findings.
First, we concluded that the Rouge Watershed is an extraordinary resource, especially given its
location in the highly urbanized Greater Toronto Area. The Little Rouge Watershed is still
relatively undeveloped with considerable natural cover and a water budget typical of a rural
watershed. The aquatic systems in the upper Little Rouge and parts of the Main Rouge are
healthy enough to support cold and cool water communities including species of concern such
as redside dace and brook trout. Natural areas cover about 24% of the Watershed and their
habitats support species such as Jefferson salamander, Cooper's hawk and others that are
rare or at risk in other parts of the GTA. Major blocks of publicly owned lands have been
reserved for conservation and greenspace purposes, most notably the 4000 ha Rouge Park.
The Rouge Watershed also has a rich cultural heritage, including many archaeological and
historic sites, landscapes, stories and artifacts from earlier inhabitants as well as the diverse
cultures of present day communities.
Second, we discovered that urban development has resulted in harmful changes to the water
budget, natural cover, aquatic and terrestrial communities, cultural heritage and air quality.
These changes include increased surface runoff, greater annual flow volumes in rivers and
streams, increased erosion and sedimentation, channel instability, reduced groundwater
discharge, smog, and losses of cultural heritage and biodiversity. Rehabilitation of
infrastructure and restoration of natural habitats to address these issues is underway, but is
expensive and time consuming.
Third, we found that, if future development proceeds with current approaches to community
design and stormwater management, we can expect further deterioration of environmental
conditions and associated quality of life. The anticipated effects of global climate change will
exacerbate these concerns.
We believe that it is neither responsible nor sustainable to continue urban growth and
watershed management on a "business as usual" basis. Instead, we recommend a suite of
measures to protect and enhance valued resources, regenerate damaged systems, and build
L378 Rouge Watershed Task Force #9/06 October 19, 2006
more environmentally sustainable communities. This will help to increase the resilience of
natural systems to human activities and climate change. It will also create healthier places for
people and wildlife and stronger support for economic activities. The emphasis in the relatively
healthy Little Rouge Watershed should be to protect and maintain its ecosystem functions and
valued resources. In much of the Main Rouge and its tributaries, the priorities are to restore
degraded conditions, prevent further deterioration, and bring about enhancements where
possible.
Most importantly, we believe it is essential to apply the precautionary principle to future
activities in the Rouge Watershed. The degree of sustainability of future growth will depend on
where and how it is implemented, as well as the pace of change. Furthermore, there is limited
experience with sustainable community measures in Ontario to date, so we do not have
adequate information about their effectiveness. Therefore we recommend that further
development of greenfield areas and intensification of existing urban areas should proceed
with caution, in increments that limit the amount of change at one time in each sub - watershed.
The objective is to provide sufficient time to monitor and evaluate the success of sustainable
community measures and make adjustments if necessary.
With this approach in mind, our recommended management strategies fall into four broad
categories:
1. Protect valued assets
Our strategies show how we can protect existing natural cover, conserve biodiversity,
maintain the water budget, and safeguard cultural heritage.
2. Regenerate degraded resources
Our assessment of the state of the Watershed enabled us to identify regeneration
priorities for stormwater retrofits and restoration of natural heritage systems.
3. Increase resilience of natural systems
We recommend major increases in natural cover, accompanied by measures to restore
and improve the water budget, to help increase the resilience of natural systems to
urban growth and climate change.
4. Build sustainable communities
We have identified more sustainable approaches to urban form, infrastructure,
transportation and resource use. An appropriate pace and extent of development
should be defined to allow sufficient time to test and evaluate the effectiveness of new
technologies and to make adjustments if the results do not meet our objectives for the
Watershed.
To accomplish these management strategies, we need a collaborative, integrated approach.
This begins with increased awareness. We need to ensure that Watershed residents,
businesses and agencies understand the importance of the Watershed, its water cycles,
natural systems and cultural heritage. This requires a long -term outreach program to provide
information and understanding, explain how people can act on this knowledge, and inspire
action. The results of our social marketing study, Action P /an for Sustainable Practices, are
October 19, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #9/06 L379
encouraging. The study shows that there is a modest basis of understanding and support for
sustainability, but the public needs more specific information, marketing campaigns and
assistance to inspire action. It also highlighted a number of barriers that reduce opportunities
for businesses to adopt sustainable practices, so we plan to identify ways to remove barriers
and provide incentives for the business community.
The coordinated efforts of government agencies and community leaders are also crucial to the
success of this Watershed Plan. They have many complementary tools available, including
plans and policies, permits and regulations, enforcement, infrastructure operations and
maintenance, stewardship and regeneration programs, and education and awareness
initiatives. We provide more details about how these existing tools can be used to help
implement the Watershed Plan in the accompanying Implementation Guide.
L380 Rouge Watershed Task Force #9/06 October 19, 2006
Attachment #2
Target Audience Considerations for Consultation on Draft Rouge Watershed Plan
Target Audience
What's in it for them?
What are the priority
recommendations for them?
Federal government
Province
Regional
Rouge Park, TRCA,
NGO's, T.O. Zoo
Toronto Zoo
Private business - agric.,
golf, UDI, etc.
Schools and other
institutions
Residents
THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE
MINUTES OF MEETING #10/06
Rouge Park
MINUTES OF THE ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE #10/06
November 30, 2006
TORONTO AND REGION Y,
onservation
for The Living City
The Rouge Watershed Task Force met at Black Creek Pioneer Village, Victoria Room, on
Thursday, November 30th, 2006. Bryan Buttigieg, Chair Rouge Watershed Task Force called
the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT
Bryan Buttigieg Member
Chris Darling Alternate
Elio Di lorio Member
Alex Georgieff Alternate
Paul Harpley Member
Natalie Helferty Member
Virginia Jones Member
Terry O'Connor Member
John Pisapio Member
Michael Price Member
Lionel Purcell Member
Jim Robb Member
Erin Shapero Member
Patricia Short -Galle Member
Clyde Smith Member
Lorne Smith Member
Tracey Steele Alternate
Jake Riekstins Member
Gord Weeden Member
Tupper Wheatley Alternate
Peter White Member
Anil Wijesooriya Alternate
Lewis Yeager Alternate
STAFF
Sonya Meek TRCA
Bob Clay TRCA
Sylvia Waters TRCA
Deborah Martin -Downs TRCA
Adele Freeman TRCA
GUESTS
Suzanne Barrett Barrett & Associates
Bill Snodgrass City of Toronto
Lilli Duoba Town of Markham
Lina Ariza York Region
Lou Wise citizen
L382 Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06 November 30, 2006
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
Bryan Buttigieg announced that tonight's meeting would cover several house keeping items,
comments on the suggested edits to the Watershed Plan followed by a presentation of Rouge
aerial photos by Lou Wise.
RES. #L84/06
Moved by:
Seconded by:
MINUTES #7/06
Lorne Smith
Erin Shapero
THAT the Minutes of Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #7/06, held on September 14,
2006 be approved.
CARRIED
RES. #L85/06 MINUTES #8/06
Moved by: Patricia Short -Galle
Seconded by: Clyde Smith
THAT the Minutes of Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #8/06, held on October 5, 2006
be approved.
CARRIED
RES. #L88/06 MINUTES #9/06
Moved by: Lionel Purcell
Seconded by: Gord Weeden
THAT the Minutes of Rouge Watershed Task Force Meeting #9/06, held on October 19, 2006
be approved.
CARRIED
November 30, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06 L383
RES. #L89/06
Moved by:
Seconded by:
REPORT ON CONSULTATION PROCESS FOR DRAFT ROUGE
WATERSHED PLAN
Report on consultation methods, participation and recommended
revisions to Draft Rouge Watershed Plan.
Elio Di lorio
Erin Shapero
THAT the staff report on the consultation process, dated November 20, 2006, be received;
AND FURTHER THAT the Draft Rouge Watershed Plan (dated November 2, 2006) be revised
as recommended in Table 1 of the consultation process report to produce the Task Force's
final Rouge Watershed Plan
AMENDMENT
RES. #L90/06
Moved by:
Seconded by:
REPORT ON CONSULTATION PROCESS FOR DRAFT ROUGE
WATERSHED PLAN
Report on consultation methods, participation and recommended
revisions to Draft Rouge Watershed Plan.
Elio Di lorio
Erin Shapero
THAT THE MAIN MOTION BE AMENDED as follows;
THAT the staff report on the consultation process, dated November 20, 2006, be received;
AND FURTHER THAT the Draft Rouge Watershed Plan (dated November 2, 2006) be revised
as recommended: (1) in Table 1; (2) in Table 1- ADDENDUM Summary of Comments on
Draft Rouge Watershed Plan as of Nov. 23 -28, 2006 and (3) as further discussed and
recommendations put forth by Rouge Watershed Task Force members at meeting #10/06 of
the Rouge Watershed Task Force held on November 30, 2006;
THE AMENDMENT WAS APPROVED
THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED WAS APPROVED
BACKGROUND
The Rouge Watershed Task Force's workplan contemplated the need to seek additional
feedback on the draft Rouge Watershed Plan, prior to its finalization by the Task Force.
Although the Task Force membership already represents a broad range of key stakeholders,
this additional consultation period would allow Task Force members to solicit input from their
various constituencies and to hear comments from the public at large. Due to the time
required to ensure the accuracy of the science and technical studies associated with this
project, a full draft Watershed Plan was only available for discussion at the October 5, 2006
Task Force meeting and approved, with revisions, for release to consultation at the October 19,
L384 Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06 November 30, 2006
2006 Task Force meeting. Subsequently, the time available for consultation and revisions
before the final Task Force meeting of November 30, 2006 was limited.
In recognition of the limited time frame available, the purpose of the public consultation
process was to seek initial feedback on the draft Watershed Plan from a range of stakeholders,
such that any major errors or omissions might be addressed and so that Task Force members
would have a sense of the likely reception of their final plan. The following report summarizes
the consultation methods, participation, comments received and recommended revisions to
the draft Watershed Plan.
Consultation Methods
Distribution of Draft Watershed Plan
Over 50 copies of the Draft Watershed Plan (dated November 2, 2006) were sent by courier on
November 3, 2006 to federal, provincial and municipal staff contacts and other key
stakeholders that were previously identified as liaison people for this study. "Initial staff
comments" were requested by November 17, 2006 and an offer to meet with staff to discuss
the draft plan was made in the covering letter.
A .pdf version of the full Draft Plan was posted on the TRCA website on November 3, 2006 with
a hotlink from the home page.
Hard copies of the Draft Plan were made available for viewing at the TRCA's Head Office,
Rouge Park office and Markham Central Library and the Pickering Public Library.
Public Notification and Open House
A Public Open House was held on November 8, 2006 (6:00 - 9:00 pm) at the Rouge Valley
Mennonite Church, 7452 Reesor Road, Markham. Given the short time frame to undertake a
range of consultation, only this one open house was hosted at this central location in the
watershed.
Advertising for this Open House and notice of the availability of the Draft Watershed Plan was
accomplished in several ways:
1. A Media Release was issued on November 2, 2006 to Toronto and surrounding
community (see Appendix 1 available upon request ).
2. Newspaper advertisements were intended to be published a week prior to the
meeting or on Sunday, November 4th at the latest in the following community
newspapers: the Richmond Hill Liberal, Markham Economist & Sun /Stouffville
Sun Tribune, Ajax- Pickering News and the Scarborough Mirror (see Appendix 2
available upon request ). Unfortunately, due to staff miscommunication, the ads
were not placed until Tuesday, November 7'h and in some cases these papers
were not delivered until November 8'h, which was the day of the meeting.
3. Copies of the meeting notice were sent by email to Rouge Watershed related
stakeholder lists of the TRCA and Rouge Park, including the list assembled for
the recent consultation on the Rouge Fisheries Management Plan.
November 30, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06 L385
4. Word of mouth and forwarded emails by Task Force members and staff.
Upon arrival at the Open House, participants were asked to register and were given two
handouts: 1) a copy of the Executive Summary of the Draft Plan and Excerpts from the Plan
including goals, objectives, key issues and key strategies for each theme; and 2) a comment
sheet (see Appendix 3 available upon request ).
The open house format provided the public with opportunities for viewing a presentation
overview of the draft Plan, display maps and one -on -one discussion with Task Force members
and technical staff. Bryan Buttigieg, Task Force Chair, gave a 10 minute presentation at 7:10
pm to welcome everyone and summarize key findings and recommendations of the plan.
Sonya Meek then gave a 25 minute presentation illustrating technical information supporting
each of the key issues and strategies, according to each of the themes (see Appendix 4
available upon request ). Opportunity was provided for questions after the presentation, but
the focus of the format was on providing maximum opportunity for questions and comments
through one -on -one discussion with Task Force members and staff.
Attendance at the Open House was limited to 17 members of the public or stakeholder
representatives. The low numbers are expected to be largely due to the short notice and
decision to limit the forum to one location in the watershed. Most attendees appeared to be
from the south Markham or north Scarborough area. In addition, there were 12 Task Force
members and 8 TRCA technical staff present to assist in hosting the participants (see
Appendix 5).
A summary of the verbal comments and questions received during the Open House event is
included in Appendix 6. Generally, the following themes emerged:
• positive and strong support for the principles and directions embodied in the plan
• acknowledgement of the amount of work done in support of the plan
• concern about the current capacity of various agencies to implement, especially in the
area of enforcement
• need to build greater public and political awareness of the plan and its findings and
recommendations through additional public meetings and presentations to municipal
councils
Participants were encouraged to view the full Draft Watershed Plan and submit their completed
comment form or any additional comments to TRCA by November 17, 2006. These comments
are summarized together with comments received through other mechanisms later in this
report in the Summary of Comments section.
Municipal Staff Consultation
As noted above, copies of the Draft Watershed Plan were sent to each of the municipal
departmental liaison staff previously identified for this study, with a covering memo requesting
"initial staff comments" by November 17, 2006 and offering the opportunity for a meeting with
TRCA staff to discuss the Draft Plan. A follow -up phone call was made to the main staff liaison
for each municipality reiterating the invitation to convene a meeting as a means of facilitating
staff review. Meetings have been arranged with the following municipalities at the earliest
possible times, on the dates shown:
L386 Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06 November 30, 2006
York Region - November 20, 2006
City of Toronto - November 23, 2006
Town of Richmond Hill - November 24, 2006
The Region of Durham and City of Pickering have both declined the need for a meeting, on the
basis that they are both very pleased with the directions of the plan and do not see a need to
meet at this time. The Town of Markham staff have not pursued arrangements for a meeting,
but have submitted a letter commenting on the Draft Plan. The Town of Whitchurch- Stouffville
has not yet responded at the time of writing this report.
Summary of Comments and Recommended Actions
Comments on the draft Watershed Plan that were received by November 17, 2006 have been
summarized in Table 1 (Appendix 7) with recommended revisions, if any. The comments in
this table are limited to those of a substantive nature (i.e. they would result in new or changed
information in the plan). Comments that were strictly of an editorial nature (e.g. punctuation,
spelling, suggestions for illustrations etc.) have been retained in a marked up working copy of
the document.
An updated table may be provided up to two days prior to the November 30th Task Force
meeting, pending receipt of additional comments and staff time available to collate them.
At the November 30th Task Force meeting, members will be asked to approve the
recommended revisions in this table, such that their incorporation in the November 2, 2006
Draft Watershed Plan will constitute the final Rouge Watershed Plan report of the Rouge
Watershed Task Force.
Report prepared by: Sonya Meek and Sylvia Waters
For information contact: Sonya Meek (416) 661- 6600 ext. 5253; or Sylvia Waters (416) 661-
6600 ext. 5330
November 20, 2006
ATTACHMENTS:
Appendix 1 - Public Open House and Draft Rouge Watershed Plan - News Release
Appendix 2 - Public Open House Notice - Newspaper Advertisement
Appendix 3 - Public Open House Handouts - Executive Summary
Package and Comment sheet (under separate file, available upon request)
Appendix 4 - Public Open House - Powerpoint Presentation Slides (under separate file,
available upon request)
(under separate file, available upon request)
Appendix 5 - Public Open House - List of Participants
Appendix 6 - Public Open House - Summary of Verbal Comments Received During Event
Appendix 7 - Table 1 - Summary of Comments on Draft Rouge Watershed Plan (Nov. 2,
2006) and Recommended Revisions
November 30, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06 L387
Appendix 5 - Public Open House - List of Participants
NAME ASSOCIATION /PUBLIC
Murray Reesor Citizen
Graeme Weston Citizen
Deirdre Kavanagh Citizen
Al Pickard LCRA- Legacy
Larry Lloyd Citizen
Hugh Lawrence RVMC
Deborah Lapp Citizen
Gary Mount Cedar Grove Community Club
A. McKinnon Citizen
Andrew Keies CRPA
Bernadette Manning President, Cedar Grove Community Club
Paul Reesor Markham
Al Roffey Citizen
Romila Verma Cnd. Inst. Env. Law & Policy
Horst Hofauer Citizen
Cathy Beatie Citizen
Elmer Harding Citizen
AnnMarie Farrugia Town of Richmond Hill
Karen Boniface Town of Markham
Bill Snodgrass City of Toronto
Wayne Green York Region
Soran Sito Town of Markham
Jack Heath Task Force Member
Paul Harpley Task Force Member
Alex Georgieff Task Force Member
Murray Johnston Task Force Member
Kevin O'Connor Task Force Member
Terry O'Connor Task Force Member
Gord Weeden Task Force Member
Frank Scarpitti Task Force Member
Lorne Smith Task Force Member
George McKelvey Task Force Member
Bryan Buttigieg Task Force Member
L388 Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06 November 30, 2006
Appendix 6 - Public Open House - Summary of Verbal Comments Received During Event
• Loss of wetlands at Beare Road landfill site
• Illegal hunting /poaching on TRCA lands in the Rouge
• Steeles /Reesor Cemetery - 20 trucks coming into cemetery to spray pesticides on lawn
• Inadequate reptile survey for Markham By pass EA (7 frog species)
• What is currently being done to prevent water quality impacts from Beare Road Landfill?
o Leachate and sediment laden runoff are both concerns
o What are implications of the landfill having been constructed on historic
wetland /groundwater discharge area?
• Concerns /questions on how Markham will plan sustainable communities and follow
recommendations of RWSMP
• How are lands chosen for reforestation?
o Concern that agriculture values of land might not be considered
• Interpretative Centre near the Zoo
• ValleyHalla - What are the plans for restoration?
• Cedar Grove
o past history of expropriation means there are large number of tenants in
historical homes. This has destroyed a sense of community
o suggestion to create /designate as historic area. Move heritage buildings /homes
to village and modernize and allow residents to own them.
• Rouge Valley Mennonite Church
o Historical Mennonite settlement area
o Potential for interpretive centre and themes
o Partnership with Rouge Park
Enforcement - ATV's, dumping, poaching on TRCA lands in Rouge south of Steeles
Hunting on TRCA land in Toronto - unclear of regulations (OK or Not ?); MNR
inadequate enforcement
City drained pond /wetland = Reesor & Sewells south of Steeles - why was this
allowed? Wood ducks were nesting there?
Backyard naturalization - he naturalized his parents backyard 10 years ago and has
great photos, that could be used for promotion
Note opportunity to consider how ongoing Regional infrastructure projects can
implement the recommendations
Access to Little Rouge trails from Cornell is limited - believe improved access would
help more people gain appreciation and respect for nature.
Concern about Markham's East Markham Secondary Plan where the Town's
proposing to reduce the originally agreed upon parkland dedication of 5 ha per
1000 residents to 3 ha especially given the proposed increased density from
approx. 20,000 to 40,000 residents.
November 30, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06 L389
Appendix 7 -Table 1 - Summary of Comments on Draft Rouge Watershed Plan (Nov. 2,
2006) and Recommended Revisions
Summary of Comments on Draft Rouge Watershed Plan (Nov. 2, 2006)
and Recommended Revisions
(as of Nov. 23, 2006)
Notes:
Significant comments are shown in bold.
Rev. = Reviewer (P = public; TF = Task Force; Mun = Municipal; Tech = tech team member)
Page;
paraq.
Rev.
Comment
Recommended Revision
and /or response
General Comments
TF This is a masterful document...This
needs a good implementation
program.
Further implementation details will be
developed in Implementation Guide
and 5 year implementation workplan.
Mun
It's turning out to be a very good
document — lots of valuable
information and strategies.
TF
Great document
P
My main concern is not so much
the ideas contained within it, it
seems well- researched and it is
hard to contradict the ideals it
represents...my question is how
do you intend to prevent further
damage, when you can't seem to
keep up with what's going on right
now. Well meaning ideals are
important but of little use if there is
no enforcement.
I hope that the TRCA will be able
to:
1. Appoint more people at ground
level (enforcement officers)
2. Be given greater powers to
enforce the rules put into place to
protect these sensitive areas from
those who damage them
3. Respond to members of the
public who make a report on
violations
4. Preserve Rouge Park mainly as
a conservation area, with no
further encroachment by uses
damaging to the ecosystem (i.e
golf courses, cemeteries) and no
public recreational facilities will be
built in the Park (e.g. indoor
recreation, paved trails)
Add a new management strategy
(under the general implementation
section (s 5.6) and cross - reference
in natural heritage and nature -
based recreation strategy
sections):
Increase enforcement capability
among responsible agencies (e.g.
TRCA, municipalities, MNR, MOE,
DFO, etc.
• Identify and secure necessary
resources
• Investigate means of improved
partnering among relevant
agencies
• Promote public awareness of
who to call and facilitate referrals
of misdirected calls
• Adopt protocols of feedback to
the reporter on action taken
Strategy #5 under nature -based
recreation calls for further study,
planning and guidance on
determination of the compatibility
of "appropriate" public uses of
L390 Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06
November 30, 2006
Page;
paraq.
Rev.
Comment
Recommended Revision
and /or response
sensitive areas. See also Rouge
Park plans.
P
The plan is admirable for the most
part, but how will you implement the
recommendations?
Commenter cited numerous
observations of illegal activities or
poor practices that did not appear in
keeping with policy and associated
concerns over inadequate
enforcement and inadequate,
untimely, or lack of response to a
report he made (e.g. poaching of
wildlife including fish, frogs used as
bait; field dressing of deer;
inadequate dog /cat control; draining
wetlands; dumping refuse at park
access points or along river; tree
cutting for firewood, ATV race
courses, etc.)
Signs to tell you what activities are
permitted in parks should not only be
in English. Also note there are no
signs, in English or otherwise,
prohibiting poaching in Rouge Park.
See above -noted recommendation
for new enforcement strategy. See
also other existing strategies for the
terrestrial system ( #5, p.74) and
nature -based recreation ( #4,5,7 and
8, p. 88) also speak to the need for
greater awareness, improved
practices and enforcement.
Add bullet points to above -noted
enforcement strategy:
Post signage about permitted
and non - permitted activities
in Rouge Park as a priority.
Post signage in multiple
languages.
P
Concerns were expressed over the
insufficient notice and insufficient time
allowed for review.
Further consultation period is
recommended.
Executiv
6; 1stfF
e Sum
mary
Development should be "designed "to
proceed at a pace and extent that
allows sufficient time to adopt, test... —
how about "permitted "?
Recommended wording:
Development should proceed at a
pace and extent that allows sufficient
time to adopt, test...
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Guiding Framework
14; P
4th
Nature -based recreation — needs to
be serious consultation about what
types are appropriate and
responsible. What kind of trails?
See strategies section p. 87.
Add bullet point under Strategy #2, p.
87 (re inter - regional trail network):
Consult with the public on trail
design.
14;
5th
Mun
Sustainable land and resource use —
goal includes transportation and utility
corridors, but it is noted they are not
included in the objectives. Suggest
an objective to establish and maintain
utility corridors necessary to support
Watershed Plan assumes they are
part of urban form and attempts to
address them under this heading.
November 30, 2006
Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06
L391
Page;
parag.
Rev.
Comment
Recommended Revision
and /or response
sustainable development and
coordinate with transportation
facilities and corridors.
3.0 Current Conditions and Issues
17; Tech
box
Change title of sidebar box from
Water Budget to Water Cycle. Add a
section titled Water Budget that
itemizes the major components of the
water cycle that we have quantified at
the watershed scale.
Add as requested.
20;3rdIF
This report makes light of the impact
of the dewatering on 16th Avenue...I
think the statements need to be much
stronger. I also think there needs to
be a statement somewhere in the
report that the matter of the recovery
of the aquifer must be closely
monitored by Rouge Park, TRCA or
someone. Possibly this should go on
page 55 under 5.3
Add recommendation in Sustainable
Infrastructure strategy section on p.
78 -79: Environmental agencies
including DFO, MOE, MNR and
TRCA should continue to work
together with the Region of York to
monitor aquifer water levels over the
long term to ensure that aquifer
recovery occurs.
See also next comment.
20;
3rd
Mun
Please modify this paragraph to read:
"Dewatering activities undertaken
along Ninth Line and 16th Avenue to
facilitate construction of the York
Durham Sewer System have
temporarily reduced water levels in
the Middle Aquifer (Thorncliffe).
Aquifer levels are predicted to recover
within two to five years of cessation
of dewatering, and monitoring shows
that water levels have recovered
along Ninth Line where pumping
has ceased and are beginning to
recover along the 16th Avenue
where pumping has been
significantly reduced.
Edit as requested.
20;4th
Mun
Modify first sentence: "...but high
concentrations of iron, hardness,
methane (in local areas) and other
naturally occurring local
parameters have been found in the
middle and lower aquifer.
Edit as requested.
20,
5th
Mun
Summary of Key Issues: Please
modify second and last bullet:
"...and potential shortage of local
well water supplies"
Local contamination of surface water
from excess nutrients (e.g.
agricultural activities) and
chlorides (e.g. road salting
Edit as requested.
This is addressed in the surface water
quality section.
L392 Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06
November 30, 2006
Page;
parag.
Rev.
Comment
Recommended Revision
and /or response
activities)
20;7
TF
What is the flow of the Little Rouge
relative to the Main Rouge? Critical
to the argument against abandoning
Main Rouge.
Add flow information as requested.
23;
2nd
TF
Can we not accept development as a
given in Special Policy Areas?
See revised `Manage flood risks"
section, p. 64
25
TF
3r° key issue bullet (re flood vulnerable
areas) — should liability be noted?
See revised "Manage flood risks"
section, p. 64
28;
3rd
Tech
Update fish species numbers with
new and more complete information,
as follows: Presently (2001 -2005) 54
species (7 introduced) have been
recorded. Historic records (1950-
1989) indicate a total of 56 species (6
introduced). While this may appear
that the Rouge has maintained
native /historic diversity, the
compliment of species sampled in the
historic records are not the exact
same as those sampled recently, due
to extirpation, introduction of exotics
and different sampling methods.
There is considerable overlap, but
there are species that occurred in the
historic record that do not appear now
and vice versa. The overall number of
fish species ever sampled since the
1950s is 68.
Edit as requested.
28;
3rd
P
The comment "the Rouge is relatively
healthy in comparison with others in
the GTA" is upsetting, because
comparing to these already damaged
river systems is setting a pretty low
standard.
Edit to avoid and /or qualify
comparison.
35
TF
Cultural Heritage map: replace the
W urtz Cemetery with Reesor Pioneer
Cemetery. Add in Victoria Square
and Headford on the west side.
Are you sure the trail shown went up
the Little Rouge. It was my
understanding that William Berczy in
1795 was clearing the Rouge up the
Bruce Creek as this was the
alternative route to the East Holland
river near its origins. It does not
make sense that it was going up the
little Rouge.
Edit as requested.
Add "unconfirmed route" note on
map. (There are few published
sources showing the Rouge Carrying
Place Trail. We do have a map
showing "Anishnabeg Trapline and
Native Trail Sites in Whitchurch"
which shows a route up the Little
Rouge and another one up Berczy
Creek crossing the upper Bruce
Creek.)
35
Tech
Replace term "Campground /Seneca
Edit as requested.
November 30, 2006
Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06
L393
Page;
paraq.
Rev.
Comment
Recommended Revision
and /or response
Village" with "Bead Hill National
Historic Site"
36;5th
TF
Should golfing be included in list of
nature -based recreational activities?
We included it because it is as much
nature -based as agri- tourism, in that
it uses the resources. There are 25
golf courses in Rouge, which is
significant and they aren't addressed
anywhere else in document. Another
option would be to include in land use
section, but that is currently focused
on urban issues.
37;
2nd
TF
Add Reesor's Farm Market
Add as requested.
37;
4th
P
If there are no MNR studies to
indicate the current numbers of fish,
how can you talk about a sustainable
fishery? Also how do you keep
people from taking the rare types of
fish?
See aquatic system strategies (p. 69)
for further monitoring and creel
surveys. See also fisheries
management plan.
37;
6th
P
Are cemeteries considered parkland
too? Did they have to learn about
IPM also?
See water quality strategies (p. 64)
recommending IPM programs for golf
courses and cemeteries.
37;
7th
TF
Add user stats for Milne Park.
Add if available.
42;
2nd
Mun
Urban Areas — this paragraph
describes city building requires
infrastructure, specifically pipelines,
[railways, highways,] sewers, water
supplies, etc. Text suggests this has
significant impacts on the function of
the valley or natural features in both
the short and long -term. The
Watershed Plan should expand on
this statement as properly designed
infrastructure works should not have
a significant impact on the function of
the valley or natural features.
Edit for clarification.
42;
3rd
Mun
The Watershed Plan seems to
present the discussion on
transportation infrastructure in a more
positive light (Page 42) versus pipe
infrastructure. The reasons for this
should be understood and presented
in the text.
This emphasis was unintentional.
Transportation infrastructure was
discussed along with pipe
infrastructure under urban form
section. Edit two sections to ensure
similar treatment where issues and
solutions are common among pipe
and transportation infrastructure in
sections 3.4.3 and 5.5.1.
43;
6th
Mun
Please reference where residents can
obtain more information on the
programs identified in the sixth
paragraph (i.e. water efficiency
program, etc.)
Water supply is presented in a
reasonable fashion including
Add municipal web site references.
Edit as requested.
L394 Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06
November 30, 2006
Page;
paraq.
Rev.
Comment
Recommended Revision
and /or response
reference to "York Region has
prepared a long -term water supply
infrastructure plan, etc." However,
under wastewater, a similar statement
of effective planning and forward
proactive work by the Region is
missing. It is suggested that
statement regarding long -range
planning and the proactive efforts of
the Region be included under
wastewater at the bottom of Page 43.
This should note the existence of the
YDSS Master Plan update (2002) and
the current work that is underway to
do a further update in 2006/2007.
The plan to develop a stage 2 Plan
for the Water Efficiency program and
the ongoing planning to continue with
the I/1 reductions in the local systems
as a co- operative study with the local
municipalities should be noted.
4.0 Future
Conditions
TF
5000 hectares of new urban lands
seems large
Will be verified
46;
1st
48
TF
Beginning on page 48 I note a variety
of uses of "we ". Is this term used to
represent the Task Force, technical
staff, residents or society in general?
Similarly the use of the word "us ". On
page 57 we find the use of "our" at
the beginning of the last paragraph.
Edit to specify "who" — usually refers
to studies conducted as part of this
planning project
5.0 Stra egies
58;
3rd
Tech
Current initiatives: Existing and
planned pilot testing in the Yonge
West Development area in Richmond
Hill will also provide information about
the performance of soakaway pits
and permeable pavement.
Add as requested.
58;
7th
Mun
1) Protect recharge and discharge
areas - Given that there is significant
recharge outside of the Rouge (i.e.
East Holland, East Humber) that
supplies the Rouge, perhaps the
statement about working with
municipalities should include
amending the OP to include the
delineation of significant recharge
areas in the Region's natural heritage
system.
Edit as requested.
63;
TF
Prevent pollution: No mention is
made of the huge numbers of wild
geese that spend the nights on the
Add action for municipalities:
Discourage use of stormwater ponds
by geese by naturalization of
November 30, 2006
Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06
L395
Page;
paraq.
Rev.
Comment
Recommended Revision
and /or response
storm water management ponds
shorelines and educational "Don't
feed the geese" signage.
64;
2nd
Mun
7) Prevent pollution — Another
recommendation would be that the
Towns and Region implement a
monitoring program that tracks the
deposition of road salt. Currently
there is no extensive monitoring
program. They only know how much
they used for the entire season. This
is becoming an important issue in
terms of source water protection.
Add new bullet as requested.
64
Mun
Tech
Concern expressed over clarity of
statements about Special Policy Areas
and potential pressure for intensification.
Replace the "Manage Flood Risk"
section up to the point indicated with
the following:
Flood risk management is achieved
through various means including
planning and development legislation
and municipal programs such as
infrastructure improvements. Under the
Planning Act, municipalities must be
consistent in their land use decisions with
the Natural Hazards policies of the
Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) to
ensure that any new development is
directed away from areas where there is
an unacceptable risk to public health,
safety or property damage. Throughout
the watershed and complementary to the
PPS, is the administration of the TRCA's
"Development, Interference with
Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines
and Watercourses Regulation ", Ontario
Regulation 166/06 under the
Conservation Authorities Act and TRCA's
Valley and Stream Corridor Management
Program.
Within the Town of Markham, the
historical Unionville Village and some of
the existing development along the
Highway 7 corridor between Warden
Avenue and McCowan Road were
established prior to the implementation of
a Provincial flood plain planning policy
and as such are located within the
Regional Storm flood plain of the Rouge
River. In 1990, through the provisions of
the PPS, the Ministers of Natural
Resources (MNR) and Municipal Affairs
and Housing (MMAH) designated these
lands as a Special Policy Area (SPA) in
Markham's Official Plan (Official Plan
Amendment No. 100). The intent of the
SPA designation is to provide for the
L396 Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06
November 30, 2006
Page;
paraq.
Rev.
Comment
Recommended Revision
and /or response
•
continued viability of existing uses to
sustain these communities provided that
flood hazard management measures are
taken, such as flood - proofing, flood
remediation and risk reduction. Any
change within the SPA, above and
beyond what has already been approved
by the province, must be supported by
both the MMAH and MNR. In this regard,
a comprehensive risk assessment plan
would be required to define how
additional risk to both life and property
that is created through land use changes
can be managed by the municipality. In
the absence of a risk management plan,
changes in land use and intensification
potentially increase the liability for all
public bodies.
Efforts to remediate flood risk in the
watershed are a priority, especially in the
SPA. We recommend that a flood risk
study be undertaken to identify
improvements to the hydraulic capacity
of road and rail crossings in the Markham
SPA. All road or rail reconstruction
projects, as well as applications for
development/redevelopment, should be
designed to incorporate opportunities to
remediate flood vulnerable roads or sites.
Given past practices of incremental filling
within the SPA, future applications that
propose filling as a flood proofing
measure should be reviewed in a
comprehensive manner that considers
the cumulative impact of filling on the
flood plain as well as compatibility with
site design of adjacent lands.
Intensification of historic communities in
the flood plain through the province's
Places to Grow initiative presents a
potential conflict with the avoidance of
development in flood prone areas. We
recommend that TRCA work with the
Province, municipalities and developers
to reconcile this conflict, through flood
studies, flood remediation and flood
proofing measures, and seeking
opportunities for intensification outside
the flood plain.
Tied to the municipal growth
management exercise, is the need to
evaluate the effects of development
beyond the existing Official Plan
designations and the potential to
increase the frequency and severity of
November 30, 2006
Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06
L397
Page;
parag.
Rev.
Comment
Recommended Revision
and /or response
flooding within existing flood vulnerable
areas, including the SPA. Regular
review of flood plain modeling
assumptions that trigger new updates is
required to ensure flood hazards are
accounted for and to confirm appropriate
stormwater management controls are
implemented as growth proceeds.
Advancements in the prediction of
regional and local climate change
No suggested changes to remainder of
this section as per the Nov. 2 Draft of the
Rouge Plan.
64;4th
TF
Stress liability to municipality re new
development in SPAs
See revised "Manage flood risks"
section, p. 64
65;2n
d
Tech
Change "A watershed -scale study" to
"An updated hydrologic and hydraulic
analysis"
Edit as requested.
65;
5th
Tech
Add bullet: Develop flood emergency
response plans at the local municipal
level
Add as requested.
67
Tech
Current initiatives: A fishway has
been installed on the Milne Dam and
has been in operation for three years.
Monitoring results indicate that a
variety of cold water species such as
rainbow trout and Chinook salmon,
and warmwater species such as
smallmouth bass, pumpkinseed,
shiners, suckers and bullhead have
successfully ascended the fishway to
gain access to upper sections of the
main Rouge River.
Add as requested.
68;5th
Mun
The second paragraph is inaccurate.
Some existing flow regimes in the
Rouge system are compatible with
supporting redside dace; most
existing flow regimes are not
compatible with supporting brook
trout.
The minimum goal should be to
enhance or increase the number of
locations with compatible flow
regimes for these species.
Edit as follows: Since existing flow
regimes in the headwaters and
middle reaches where groundwater
discharge is strong they are
compatible with supporting...
The Rouge Fisheries Management
Plan does recommend that we
enhance and increase the extent of
habitat for redside dace in the context
of a species at risk (SAR).
Suitable brook trout habitat is
naturally limited in its spatial
distribution (confined largely to
permanently flowing headwater
streams). Redside dace habitat is
more ubiquitous through the
L398 Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06
November 30, 2006
Page;
paraq.
Rev.
Comment
Recommended Revision
and /or response
watershed. Holding the status of a
SAR, redside dace benefit from the
provincial policy mandate to expand
current habitat; brook trout does not
have this specific designation and
would be better supported through
restoration efforts to target historic
distribution.
71;
4th
P
You can't call these areas reforested
yet, or "restored "... it will take
generations before these spindly little
trees will grow...
Edit as requested.
71;
4th
TF
What about landowner stewardship
programs and environmental farms
plans?
Add reference to these under current
initiatives.
72;
4th
Mun
Note: There will be challenges to
achieve the targeted terrestrial
natural heritage system together
with the assigned provincial
growth targets. However, new
approaches being undertaken
toward more integrated community
planning and design, whereby the
environmental and servicing
objectives are considered early in
the community planning process,
suggest greater likelihood of
achieving improved outcomes
overall as compared to past
approaches. For example, York
Region intends to undertake
Transportation, Water and
Wastewater Servicing Master
Planning concurrently with its
community planning exercise,
such that impacts on the targeted
system and other environmental
objectives can be minimized and
opportunities for net gain
explored. Therefore, it is expected
that the targeted terrestrial natural
heritage system for the watershed
will undergo further analysis and
refinement at more detailed scales
to integrate it with other
community planning objectives as
part of Growth Planning exercises
and optimize lands for all uses.
Add as suggested.
73
Mun
Delineate the Growth Plan lands on
the targeted TNHS map and add a
note "subject to further analysis,
Add map delineation and note as
requested
November 30, 2006
Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06
L399
Page;
paraq.
Rev.
Comment
Recommended Revision
and /or response
and refinement of the target
system to integrate with other
community planning objectives as
part of Growth Planning
exercises ".
74;5th
P
Much more vegetation planting
needed in parks, schools, street tree
locations. Grass in public lands cut
too close to watercourses. Leave at
least a 20 foot uncut margin.
Add examples to text as requested.
77;1st
Mun
Current initiatives: Refer to the work
Pickering is doing under "Sustainable
Pickering" initiative, including work on
Benchmarking Sustainability and
Sustainable Neighbourhood Plan.
See www.sustainablepickering.com
Add as requested
78;
6th
Mun
(2) Implement Sustainable
Infrastructure -- This section is very
specific and perhaps the most
specific section within the entire
document. When compared to 3)
Implement Sustainable
Transportation section on page 79,
there is a significant change in focus
between the two sections. I would
question why transportation is
handled differently than infrastructure
with the focus on infrastructure
specific requirements and issue
identification and mitigation versus
transportation.
It is suggested that a similar
introduction to that provided for the
transportation section on page 79 be
provided. This introduction section
should include not just York Region
issues, but the Cities of Toronto,
Durham Region and identify the long -
range infrastructure studies including
the Water and Wastewater Master
Plan and current update, similar to
the discussion provided for the
transportation section on pages 79
and 80. The question is why is the
emphasis on infrastructure (including
12 specific recommendations) and
not a more balanced view of
sustainability issues that apply to both
buried
infrastructure and transportation.
From a watershed perspective,
surface water impacts from
Edit two sections to ensure similar
treatment for common issues and
solutions, as noted above for section
on p. 42.
L400 Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06
November 30, 2006
Page;
paraq.
Rev.
Comment
Recommended Revision
and /or response
associated with transportation
corridors may be a greater source of
impacts on watershed sustainability
however the emphasis has been
placed on the buried infrastructure.
79;
2nd
Mun
Tech
Last paragraph under the 12
recommendations for sustainable
infrastructure indicates that "drinking
water supplied from groundwater
should not be diverted to lake -based
sewage treatment systems." This
statement needs to be clarified as to
what is intended relative to the
watershed plan. This comment may
relate to the Great lakes Watershed
objectives concerning the transfer of
water between watersheds.
Delete.
79;
2nd
Mun
The recommendation relating to
"groundwater should not be diverted
to surface water via such
mechanisms as foundation drainage
to surface ponds" requires
clarification as to what is intended.
This statement appears to contravene
the plumbing code regarding the use
of sump pumps.
Add clarification.
79;2nd
Mun
The last sentence specifically
describes anti - seepage collars for
utility trenches — this is very specific
and should likely just be included in a
list of construction best practices for
example rather than to be specifically
stated in the document.
79
Mun
Reference should also be made to
Appendix F — Summary of
Recommendations, page 126 to 128
regarding implement sustainable
infrastructure. Recommendations
should be reworded as they are
duplicates of the text provided on
page 79.
Edit Appendix to be consistent with
any changes made to text.
80
TF
Heard criticism of taking farmland out
of production to plant trees. Suggest
that tree planting will take place on
lands not suitable for agriculture
during the next few years.
Are agricultural crops considered
carbon sinks; if so, this should be
noted
Add cross - reference to acknowledge
the terrestrial natural heritage
strategy and clarify intent to begin
tree planting on lands not suitable for
agriculture. Similarly, add cross -
reference to this point in the
terrestrial strategy section.
81;
6th
P
What do you mean by the term infill?
Add infill to the glossary. (i.e.
development on a vacant lot of
November 30, 2006
Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06
L401
Page;
parag.
Rev.
Comment
Recommended Revision
and /or response
record)
84;
2nd
P
Get serious about energy
conservation. Use photosensor
switches and motion sensor controls.
Require speed limiters of trucks and
buses be turned on and be set at 100
km /h. Eliminate bulk metering of
utilities. Set a speed limit of 60 km /h
for the Toronto Subway and LRT.
Add examples as requested.
Add strategy to investigate additional
means of energy conservation
including: list examples as requested.
85;
5th
Mun
Current initiatives: Note the City of
Pickering has completed Milestone 1,
2 and 3 of FCM's Partners for Climate
Protection Plan and Council has
endorsed a Local Action Plan under
this program to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions at the community as
well as the municipal operational
level.
Add as requested
85;5th
TF
Add reference to Bullfrog Power
Add as requested.
87;
1st
TF
Add reference to Markham Trails
Study under current initiatives.
Check if Metro East Anglers
Association has any recreational
initiative.
Add: Markham is in the process of
developing both a Cycling and
Pedestrian Master Plan and a
Pathways and Trails Master Plan.
The plans will guide the development
of new trails on and off road, and will
help to create a network of connected
trails. There are a number of new
trails, pathways and cycling routes
proposed under the two plans.
Add reference to annual Urban
Fishing Festival and popularity of
Rouge Marsh and Milne Reservoir
sites.
89
TF
Markham Museum could be a good
partner for the archiving of First
Nations materials and interpretive
programs.
Add reference to Markham Museum
under current initiatives and as a
potential implementing partner for
strategy #4 (awareness programs).
89
Tech
Add to current initiatives: This is not
the only archaeological research
happening in the Rouge. In areas
experiencing new urbanization, such
as east and north Markham, south
Stouffville and north Richmond Hill,
private consulting archaeological
firms are identifying and documenting
archaeological sites and Post - Contact
farmstead landscapes at an
incredible rate. It is unfortunate, to
the heritage resources themselves
and our future understanding of the
activities conducted by the peoples
Add as requested.
L402 Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06
November 30, 2006
Page;
paraq.
Rev.
Comment
Recommended Revision
and /or response
there, that there are few opportunities
for avoidance and preservation in
their original landscape contexts. To
make the most from this situation, we
must encourage developers and
municipal governments to follow the
lead set by Rouge Park — to build
funding partnerships to preserve
more of the archaeological sites and
heritage landscapes, and to take the
information being gathered and make
it more available to the public. For
instance, some heritage buildings are
being made accessible to private
homeowners to be relocated and
restored at the Markham Heritage
Village, adjacent to the Markham
Museum lands. Plans should take
advantage of signage or other
information to help the public enjoy
and interpret the exterior architecture
and character of these unique
buildings. Municipalities should strive
to include public programming
whenever possible, such as trail
signage with heritage themes and
public events, among a myriad of
other opportunities, such as the
Stouffville Public Library's lecture
series and displays of local
archaeological and heritage
information.
90;5th
Tech
At end of Strategy #2, add... "that
would benefit current non - Aboriginal
residents and visitors as well as those
Add as requested.
Aboriginal groups with ancestral ties
and other interests in the Rouge
area."
Need to clarify what responsibility
governments have to consult with
First Nations groups in the EA
process. TRCA and our partners
need to be proactive and set an
example by firmly encouraging
(perhaps by offering our assistance
to) the Ontario Ministry of Culture to
establish a system of Nation -to-
Nation two -way meaningful
consultation, that individual
archaeologists and First Nations
communities can follow to share
November 30, 2006
Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06
L403
Page;
paraq.
Rev.
Comment
Recommended Revision
and /or response
information with each other.
91;2n
d
Tech
Strategy #4): add two new bullets:
Determine appropriate teaching sites
for archaeological field schools at a
Pre - Contact site, with First Nations
consultation and approval, and on a
Post - Contact site, with community
consultation and approval, partnered
with the TRCA Archaeology
Programme, the Ontario Heritage
Trust, the Ontario Archaeological
Society, local school boards, and
other stakeholder organizations.
Provide expertise and resources to
local ethnic groups to establish forms
of public recognition of their culture in
the watershed, including First Nations
groups, and the Mennonite
community as well as other 19`h
through 2151 century ethnic
communities and influences.
Add and edit as requested.
91;
2nd
P
Past expropriation has meant there
are a large number of tenants in
historical homes, and this has
destroyed a sense of community.
Designate Cedar Grove as a
historic area. Move heritage
buildings /homes to village,
modernize and allow residents to
own them. Recognize the
historical Mennonite settlement
and consider potential for using
Rouge Valley Mennonite Church as
interpretive center.
Add recommendation: Designate
Cedar Grove as a historic area and
develop interpretive programs.
Consider opportunities to move
additional heritage buildings to
this area and restore existing
heritage buildings for adaptive re-
use. Investigate new lease
arrangements or ownership
models that would foster
community.
93;
5th
Mun
5) Monitoring — Where is "adaptive
management" defined previously?
Add definition to page 95 and
glossary.
93;6th
Tech
Maintenance should be referenced as
well
Add a new section highlighting the
O&M recommendations overall.
94;2n
d
Tech
Add support to the Regional
Watershed Monitoring Program
(RW MP) by recommending that the
TRCA continue to implement the
RW MP in order to continue to provide
data on ambient conditions and long
term trends.
Add as requested.
94;
3rd
Mun
Groundwater — Does the proposed
monitoring on three major aquifers
include shallow system?
The YDSS monitoring network
Yes — clarify in text.
Add statement to review candidate
L404 Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06
November 30, 2006
Page;
paraq.
Rev.
Comment
Recommended Revision
and /or response
comprises > 50 -75 monitoring wells
shallow and deep. Perhaps there is
an opportunity to acquire monitoring
wells, subsequent to YDSS
construction monitoring.
sites for inclusion in long term
network.
94 -95
Tech
The specific recommendations for the
addition of groundwater, precipitation
gauges, stream gauges, aquatic sites
etc. need to provide the context of
the scale they are required to address •
(watershed, subwatershed, local etc.).
This is because these recommended
sites will have to be evaluated and
optimized in a regional context along
with requirements for other
watersheds to determine
implementation priorities as part of a
review of the overall RW MP.
Recommend that additional funding
or partnerships be sought in order to
achieve the addition of new sites.
Clarify scale /rationale for
recommendations.
Add as requested.
6.0 Conclusions
97;
1st
Tech
"development should proceed with
caution, in increments that limit the
amount of change at one time in each
sub - watershed. This will provide
opportunities to make any necessary
adjustments..." — this will be
problematic for municipalities in the
way they may need to service or
direct orderly community growth.
Suggest rewording this statement and
continuing to reiterate need to build to
higher standards than current
practice.
Edit as follows: "development should
proceed with caution and at a pace
that allows opportunities to make any
necessary adjustments..."
Appendix
B - G
Tech
ossary
Needs to be completed.
Add definitions, drawing from
standard, published documents to the
extent possible.
101
Appendix D — Goals, Objectives, Indicators and Targets
104
Mun
Groundwater Quality and Quantity—
Targets: The MOE Provincial Water
Quality Objectives are only applicable
to Surface Water.
Delete reference to PWQO.
105
P
Re ice jams, how would you maintain
number of sites and frequency? How
do you maintain peak flows and
balance flows? There is too much
jargon in plan which the average
person might have trouble
understanding or interpret differently
than is intended.
Clarify the link between the overall
set of management strategies (and
specific strategies, in particular) and
their role in achieving the goals,
objectives and targets.
November 30, 2006
Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06
L405
Page;
paraq.
Rev.
Comment
Recommended Revision
and /or response
106
P
W hen will sediment load targets be
determined?
Further study is underway as part of
the source protection planning
program.
L406 Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06 November 30, 2006
Summary of Comments on Draft Rouge Watershed Plan (Nov. 2, 2006)
and Recommended Revisions
(ADDENDUM as of Nov. 23 -28, 2006)
Notes:
Significant comments are shown in bold.
Rev. = Reviewer (P = public; TF = Task Force; Mun = Municipal; Tech = tech team member)
Page;
paraq.
Rev.
Comment
Recommended Revision
and /or response
General Comments
P
Overall let me say that I have no
problems with the plan, and
support it whole heartedly
No changes required
Executive Summary
5;5th
TF
"Worst case Scenario" seems
inaccurate and misleading and that
paragraph should be changed to:
Probable Scenario: TRCA studies
and modeling found that:
1. continued deterioration of
water quality and fish habitat
and increased flooding and
erosion are likely with the
development of areas within
approved Official Plans, even
with existing best
management practices;
2. with respect to Greenfield
development beyond existing
urban boundaries, even the
best foreseeable community
designs and environmental
management practices have
the potential to allow further
incremental harm to water
quality, streams, fish habitat
and ecosystem health;
3. additional time and studies will
be needed to identify,
evaluate, refine, adopt and
monitor new community
designs and technologies
which could accommodate
new development while
promoting progress towards
Watershed targets and
objectives such as clean
water, ecosystem health and
community health.
"Probable " may imply more certainty than
our study design intended. Our scenarios
were intended to examine the range of
potential effects without any statement of a
specific future certainty.
Add clarification that if future development
proceeds with the best foreseeable
community designs and environmental
management practices, there may be the
potential to maintain and in some areas
marginally enhance current conditions, but
this will be a particular challenge for the
hydrologic and aquatic systems, as many
of the new designs and technologies are
still evolving and being tested. There are
opportunities to achieve gains in other
systems.
TF
There should be a short
paragraph on carry[ing] capacity
in the Executive Summary —
similar to the one in the
Waterfront Report
"Regeneration ". The draft Rouge
Add reference to the concept of carrying
capacity. Consider including quote from
"Regeneration" (subject to advice from
writer):
"The assessment concluded that this is an
November 30, 2006
Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06
L407
Page;
paraq.
Rev.
Comment
Recommended Revision
and /or response
Watershed Report Executive
Summary fails to directly address
this crucial issue. The signs are
everywhere that we are already
exceeding our carrying capacity.
If we want to improve water
quality, air quality, public health
and watershed health, we need to
limit growth now and we will need
to stop growth at some point in
the near future. To state nothing
is to dangerously ignore a
fundamental law of nature.
ecosystem under considerable stress; one
that is, to a large degree, "disintegrated ",
in which the carrying capacity — the ability
of air, land, and water to absorb the impact
of human use — is clearly strained, and
cannot be sustained over the longer term
unless fundamental changes are made.
There is urgent need for regeneration of
the entire Greater Toronto Bioregion to
remediate environmental problems caused
by past activities, to prevent further
degradation, and to ensure that all future
activities result in a net improvement in
environmental health." (Ref. to Watershed
(1990) in Regeneration (1992), p. 11)
6 P
3) Recognize and develop a
regional open space system. I'm
glad to see this included.
No changes required
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Guiding Framework
12; #5,8,9
P
I'm particularly encouraged to see
that the TRCA is capturing the
requirement that decisions need to
be based on science, and that
education will be key. These are
sorely needed to ensure that
sound decisions are made, and
then communicated to the public.
All too often a user community is
excluded due to misconceptions
that are not founded on science.
No changes required
14
P
As a mountain biker, I appreciate
the inclusion of nature -based
recreation as one of the goals. I
also recognize that it is lower in
priority for TRCA then other goals
such as groundwater quality and
quantity, and rightly so. I hope
that the TRCA will include the
mountain biking community in the
process as this plan moves
forward....There are many
misunderstandings about the
impact that mountain biking has,
and we wish to clear these up by
being part of the solution. Also,
we have experience in the design
and maintenance of trail systems
that minimize erosion, siltation,
and user conflict...
No changes required
3.0 Current Conditions and Issues
36 P There is a footnote that states that Edit footnote to clarify that this plan does
L408 Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06
November 30, 2006
Page;
paraq.
Rev.
Comment
Recommended Revision
and /or response
this plan does not focus on local
municipal parks, trails, etc. but
elsewhere in the plan there are
numerous mentions of trails,
particularly the inter - regional trail
system that the Rouge should be
a part of. The footnote seems at
odds with the section. Could you
please clarify this? By trails do
you mean paved and crushed
gravel paths or natural surface
trails?
not focus on municipal (i.e. local
community) trail systems, except as they
may interface with the inter - regional trail
system.
Add bullet point under Strategy #2, p. 87
(re inter - regional trail network): Consult
with the public on trail design. (as
recommended in response to a previous
comment).
4.0 Future Conditions
50; 1st
Mun
First bullet — A statement is made
that "infrastructure construction
below the water table may require
perpetual dewatering, which
Note this is in the future conditions section
and is a statement to describe the
conditions and construction implications
which may be encountered if traditional
designs are pursued.
Edit to clarify, e.g.: infrastructure
construction below the water table, if
pursued, may require perpetual
dewatering, which would interrupt flow
patterns and may reduce local discharge.
Such dewatering would relate to safety or
risk of flooding (i.e., at underpasses) or for
structural design reasons.
would interrupt flow patterns and
may reduce local discharge ".
Continuous dewatering, if
approved would relate to a safety
reason (at underpasses) or for
structural design reasons. I am
not aware of any case where
perpetual dewatering is required
for construction purposes. This
point should be clarified.
5.0 Strategies
60; 3rd
Mun
Note that current development
submissions often do not address
current standards. Recommend
the need to prepare a consistent
set of development review
guidelines for achieving all
objectives. Coordinate this effort
among municipalities, TRCA and
other partners.
Add as requested.
Note also the Implementation Guide may
contribute toward addressing this
recommendation.
62; 1st
Mun
The Town of Richmond Hill has
been monitoring the performance
of many of its existing stormwater
management ponds, and believes
that due to limitations in stream
gauge data necessary to calibrate
models in headwater streams, the
resulting pond outlet oriface may
be too large relative to the size of
the pond (i.e. the pond may be
capable of storing more water).
The Town believes there may be
significant opportunities to
"recommission" (i.e. optimize)
existing ponds by constricting their
Add discussion as indicated.
Add cross - reference to the
recommendation for the installation of
additional stream flow gauges on p. 94,
and link to the rationale noted.
Add new strategy: Investigate
opportunities for recommissioning existing
stormwater management ponds to
optimize their performance with respect to
water quality and erosion control
objectives. Consider formalizing this
program as part of a regular operations
and maintenance program.
November 30, 2006
Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06
L409
Page;
parag.
Rev.
Comment
Recommended Revision
and /or response
outlet orifice and this type of
program may be relatively cheaper
and timely as compared to end -of-
pipe pond retrofit projects, as are
recommended on Beaver Creek.
Furthermore, the Town
recommends that additional
stream gauge data be collected
(they installed gauges c1998 and
this plan recommends additional
gauges) and used to recalibrate
headwater models to reconfirm
the benefits of end -of -pipe pond
retrofits and contribute to
improved designs if projects are
pursued.
Edit the strategy recommending that the
Town of Richmond Hill pursue
implementation of the retrofit projects on
Beaver Creek, to indicate that this initiative
should be reviewed in five years following
verification of the benefits of these
initiatives, based on additional flow data
and recalibrated models.
65; 7th
Tech
Add reference to Rouge Park
Management Plan
Add as requested.
65; 8th
Tech
Clarify that the recommendation is
to site road crossings at
appropriate locations to minimize
potential for alterations..." and the
Stream Crossing Guidelines
provide more detailed design
considerations. Make the
summary table of
recommendations in Appendix F
consistent.
Edit as requested.
66;1st
Tech
We should be advocating to avoid
valleys altogether, not just avoid
placing infrastructure "too close" to
a watercourse.
Edit as requested.
77 -78
Mun
Beware of supporting certain
private products (e.g. LEED),
when there are other similar
,products available such as the
Green Globes rating system.
Edit the text to be generic and include both
LEED and Green Globes as examples,
and cite both equivalent performance
standards where available and applicable.
77
Mun
Add reference under current
initiatives to "Making a Sustainable
City Happen — The Toronto Green
Development Standard July 2006 ".
This City of Toronto initiative
proposes the adoption of
enhanced targets for site and
building design that address
matters of sustainability for City -
owned facilities and to encourage
green development amongst the
private sector.
Add as requested.
77
Mun
Add reference to the City of
Toronto's Wet Weather Flow
Management Guidelines (Interim)
October 2006. The Guidelines are
a companion to the City's Wet
Add as requested.
L410 Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06
November 30, 2006
Page;
paraq.
Rev.
Comment
Recommended Revision
and /or response
Weather Flow policy which will
guide the design and
implementation of stormwater
management measures at source.
These interim guidelines may
provide a basis for implementation
of new information arising from
the Rouge watershed plan.
78;1st
Tech
"Natural heritage and agricultural
lands should remain protected
under...." — include Provincial
Policy Statement and TRCA's
Valley and Stream Corridor
Program to the list.
Edit as requested.
78 -79
Mun
Sustainable infrastructure - The
emphasis is on references to 16th
Avenue and York Region, not the
watershed as a whole. This
section is to be focussed on land
use and should discuss corridors
etc. as per transportation section,
however, the discussion focus on
issues and impacts to
groundwater and surface water,
including details of construction
techniques, mitigation, tendering,
construction, and monitoring,
including the requirement to
provide post- construction
monitoring.
The 12 recommendations in
page 79 are very specific and are
commented by item below. Most
of the recommendations are in
fact normally required at some
level in order to satisfy the TRCA
and /or the MNR and the MOE in
order to obtain the appropriate
construction approvals and
permits. These do not need to
be specifically identified and
outlined in the Rouge River
Watershed Plan.
Add an introductory paragraph that sets a
broader watershed context for sustainable
infrastructure directions, including
acknowledgment of some overlap with the
sustainable transportation section.
Support the need for consideration of
environmental and servicing objectives in
advance of the community planning
process, as is advocated in York Region's
recently adopted Sustainability Strategy
Toward a Sustainable York Region, 2006.
While true, the 12 recommendations are
specific, the study was trying to address a
major public concern in the watershed. No
changes recommended.
79; #1
Mun
The scope of the infrastructure
statement "for the possible
complete project" needs to be
clarified as to the
intent...reference should be
made to official plans for the
Region and local municipalities
and recent and current official
plan amendments, which control
development and land use.
Clarify that by "possible complete project"
we mean the infrastructure required under
the municipality's infrastructure servicing
master plan, as prepared to support the
municipal long term growth management
strategy.
Encourage all municipalities to follow a
similar approach as York Region has
recently adopted under it's Sustainability
November 30, 2006
Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06
L411
Page;
paraq.
Rev.
Comment
Recommended Revision
and /or response
Strategy, whereby the infrastructure
servicing master plans will be done prior to
the official planning process to ensure that
natural areas and agricultural areas are
protected and more sustainable
community growth can be planned.
79; #3
Mun
This statement should be clarified
regarding the wording of
"precautionary principle ".
Definition to be included in glossary.
79; #4 -6
Mun
Again these relate to the standard
Class Environmental Assessment
process and public consultation, for
which not all projects would be
included. In the watershed context,
there will be a number of projects
undertaken that are exempt under
the Municipal Class EA process
including those undertaken through
the development approval process.
No changes required.
79; #7 -12
Mun
All relate to items that are normally
undertaken following completion of
a Class Environmental Assessment
project during detailed design and
tendering, construction and follow -
up after construction.
No changes required.
79; #8
Mun
This item recommends that "any
changes in undertaking design or
construction would require further
public and agency notice and
consultation and an addendum to
the EA" Changes that may occur
during a construction phase are
normally managed through the
mitigation measures that have
been approved in the EA process
and through the conditions of
permits from the respective agency
approvals. Consequently, Further
"any changes" is subject to
interpretation. It would be more
appropriate to leave issue of
change conditions to the wording
used in the Municipal Class EA
process and not stipulated by the
Rouge River Watershed Plan.
Clarify the recommendation by adding the
following:
The EA study should provide
recommendations for preliminary detailed
design and construction technologies
based on the science that was completed
through the EA process. Through the
detailed design or construction processes,
if additional science dictates that the
preliminary detailed design or construction
technologies should significantly differ then
an Addendum should be completed as per
the requirements of the EA Act.
79; #12
Mun
This recommends that a bond be
held by TRCA or MOE to ensure
compliance with conditions to
restore or improve. It should be
noted that the Region as a matter
of practice requires such a
performance bond from contractors
to ensure the contractual
Performance bond only covers what is
stipulated in contract at time of tender. Will
not cover anything discovered during
construction, as in extended dewatering,
etc. No changes recommended.
L412 Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06
November 30, 2006
Page;
parag.
Rev.
Comment
Recommended Revision
and /or response
obligations are met. This
recommendation appears to
duplicate this requirement.
86
P
Nature -based recreation — The plan
highlights the appropriate issues in
this section. Two issues in
particular caught my eye: lack of
regional trails in the middle and
upper watershed and lack of
management agreement between
Rouge Park, TRCA and York.
When these are combined with the
increased pressures to use the
watershed, the result is likely to be
over use, unauthorized trails, and
incompatible uses. ...now would
be an ideal time to start to develop
a plan for how that trail system .
should be developed. However,
good cooperation needs to be in
place between all the parties so
that design and implementation can
proceed in a timely fashion,
preferably before the users start to
cut social trails haphazardly.
No changes required
87
Mun
Under current initiatives, add
reference to Port Union Waterfront
Park project as a recent significant
addition to the waterfront trail and
natural heritage in the vicinity of the
lower Rouge watershed.
Add as requested.
87
Mun
Under current initiatives, add
reference to the newly acquired
forest on Bayview Avenue in
Richmond Hill
Add as requested.
87
Mun
There seems to be no recognition
of the lack of financial resources by
member municipalities for
undertaking restoration and
management of natural lands in the
park. Given that we do not have
dedicated resources to apply to the
Rouge, it will be very difficult to
coordinate implementation.
See Strategy #1, p. 87 calls for long term
funding commitments and a funding
formula in support of a regional open
space system.
Edit to broaden this Strategy so that it
includes Toronto and Durham.
87; 4th
Mun
Add major municipal /community
trails, where they link to proposed
inter - regional trails to inform
prospective routes and
opportunities. Trails map needs to
be updated, as some proposed
trails are now built. Some
clarification and labeling is required
(e.g. label Lake St. George, add
grey shading to legend).
Edit as requested.
November 30, 2006
Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06
L413
Page;
paraq.
Rev.
Comment
Recommended Revision
and /or response
6.0 Conclusions
Appendix B - Glossary
1 I 1
Appendix D
— Goals, Objectives,
I
Indicators and Targets
1
DISCUSSION
Bryan introduced the Report on Consultation Process for Draft Rouge Watershed Plan as a
further demonstration of the democratic process which members have been following these
last few years in drafting their end product, the Watershed Plan. Bryan congratulated
members for a job well done. He expressed great admiration for municipal members of the
Task Force as well as other members at the table and staff for all their hard work. The time
frame for this consultation was compressed due to the time needed to get the modelling right;
however, even in this short time frame, numerous comments have been collected. Bryan then
opened the floor for members to discuss how comments made on the Watershed Plan will be
addressed.
DISCUSSION (the pages referred to are of the November 2 "d Draft Rouge Watershed Plan)
•
•
•
Comment regarding: Executive Summary - page 6; 1st para..- "Development should be
designed to proceed at a pace and extent that allows sufficient time to adopt, test and
evaluate the effectiveness of new technologies and to make adjustments if the results
do not meet our objectives and targets for the Watershed."
Discussion - Suggest rewording to include permitted. It is obvious that development
will proceed; however, this document should not show complacency. Should not
concede to development.
Proceed at a pace with meaningful public process and consultation. The word
"evaluation" sometimes refers to consultants and municipalities. Emphasize public
consultation.
Could use - development where permitted and with meaningful public consultation.
• Comment: under Conclusions section - add wording where permitted.
Comment regarding: Current Conditions - page 36; 5'h para. - reference to golf courses.
Discussion - Golf courses need to be seen as an evolving land use as this plan moves
forward. There exists 3 types of golf courses: golf courses surrounded by houses, ones
which are being used as a temporary land use and public domain golf courses. These
areas are still open spaces. Golf courses are not a neutral landuse, they can be
positive or negative; we should look at balance and capacity of use. Also, the plan
should document golf courses which have good environmental practices. Golf
courses should not be viewed as a nature -based recreational use; they are more like a
human culture activity.
Suggestion to place golf courses in document under land -use;
L414 Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06 November 30, 2006
suggested moving golf courses into separate section, and increasing the amount of
documentation. Review Greenbelt Legislation.
Comment regarding: Current Conditions - page 42; 2nd para. - Mun. Comment - Urban
Areas — this paragraph describes city building requires infrastructure, specifically
pipelines, [railways, highways,] sewers, water supplies, etc. Text suggests this has
significant impacts on the function of the valley or natural features in both the short and
long -term. The Watershed Plan should expand on this statement as properly designed
infrastructure works should not have a significant impact on the function of the valley or
natural features. - recommendation was to edit for clarification.
Discussion - This section needs to be clarified. Suggestion that sentence should read:
... this has caused significant impact. Agreement with this wording and the example
given that use of clear span bridges, would have less impact on the environment.
Suggested if the tense was changed "...new plans should avoid impacts."
Further comment was made that this will not review cumulative impacts; need to define
the impacts using an EA process approach; look beyond the impact of just the direct
foot print. This needs to be addressed somewhere, nothing can be done without some
impact on the environment.
Should assume municipality will be approving Watershed Plan and use language in the
document to that effect.
Ensure that you view this comment in the context of the section in the Current
Conditions chapter.
Would suggest that not every impact is negative; need to define "impact" in glossary.
Comment regarding: page 72; 4'h para. - There will be challenges in achieving the
targeted terrestrial natural heritage system together with the assigned provincial growth
targets.
Discussion - Unsure of why there is a problem achieving the targeted system? Through
the modeling exercise there were targeted areas, which when viewed on a more site
specific level did not make sense.
Is there a clear definition of natural cover? The background documents have details of
how percentage of natural cover was calculated. We are looking at function of natural
cover, not the fact that not all natural cover is native.
Suggestion to create a side box with definition of natural cover (that it is not necessarily
native) and an explanation of the percent natural cover.
Realize that the Terrestrial Natural Heritage system is a modelled system. Need a
clarification of the interpretation of the TNH model; put a qualifier around the TNH
model.
Comment regarding: page 84; 2nd para. - speed limits. - Recommendation - will
generically mention speed limits.
Comment regarding: page 79; 2nd para. - Last paragraph under the 12
recommendations for sustainable infrastructure indicates that "drinking water supplied
from groundwater should not be diverted to lake -based sewage treatment systems."
This statement needs to be clarified as to what is intended relative to the watershed
plan. This comment may relate to the Great Lakes Watershed objectives concerning
the transfer of water between watersheds. Recommended revision is to delete.
November 30, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06 L415
•
•
•
Discussion - Should be addressed under Resource Use section (page 83) looking at
sustainable use of groundwater. Suggest a recommendation to municipality to look to
the Watershed Plan for recommendations for manageing groundwater use. This text
should be retained because this addresses the sustainability of infrastructure and the
problems which occurred with the road collapse at Yonge St. It must be ensured that
groundwater use is at a rate to provide for both drinking water and fish.
Based on catchment management - water should be discharged to the same source it
was drawn from.
Comment - page 20; 3`d para. - Please modify this paragraph to read: "dewatering
activities undertaken along Ninth Line and 16' Avenue to facilitate construction of the
YDSS have temporarily reduced water levels in the Middle Aquifer (Thorncliffe). Aquifer
levels are predicted to recover within two to five years of cessation of dewatering, and
monitoring shows that water levels have recovered along Ninth Line where pumping
has ceased and are beginning to recover along 16th Avenue where pumping has been
significantly reduced."
Discussion - Member suggested is now ok deleting this paragraph, has heard that
recovery will be 5 -10 or 10 -15 years. Include the facts of how much groundwater is
being taken. Should include PTTW amounts for big pipe, if you are going to put in the
Ringwood Aquaculture groundwater takings.
It was suggested to retain the 1st sentence and delete the second.
Suggestion to take out the word temporarily.
Also to include a sentence regarding continued monitoring.
L416 Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06 November 30, 2006
RES. #L91/06
Moved by:
Seconded by:
TITLE FOR ROUGE WATERSHED PLAN
Approval of a title for the final Rouge Watershed Plan of the Rouge
Watershed Task Force.
Jim Robb
Elio Di lorio
THAT the title of the Rouge Watershed Plan be: Rouge River Watershed Plan: Towards a
Healthy and Sustainable Future
BACKGROUND
Staff invited Task Force members and the watershed plan writer to submit suggested titles for
the final Rouge Watershed Plan. While the name "Rouge Watershed Plan" would form part of
the title, an additional sub -title is useful to convey the passionate tone and directions of the
overall document.
More than twenty -five suggested titles were submitted by four separate individuals. Many of
the suggestions were variations on a theme, therefore staff have suggested the following short-
list of candidate titles that reflect each of these main themes in an attempt to facilitate
discussion among Task Force members. The following short -list is presented (in no particular
order) along with other related suggestions in italics for Task Force members review and
selection of a final title at their meeting on November 30, 2006.
ROUGE WATERSHED PLAN:
1. Choosing a sustainable future
Sustainable Rouge
Choosing sustainability
Towards a sustainable watershed
Moving to a sustainable watershed
Towards a sustainable watershed future
2. A time for change
Change for sustainability
Sustainable change
3. Taking sustainability from concept to action
Putting sustainability into practice
Making sustainability a reality
4. Focus on sustainability
Spotlight on sustainability
5. Rouge River restoration strategy
6. Watershed at a crossroads
Watershed under pressure
Paths to a sustainable Rouge
Now,mher 30, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06 L417
Pathways to a healthy Rouge
7. Living in an urban wilderness
Urban wilderness or wasteland?
8. A last chance to change
Planning for a change in attitude
Changing the urban future
Changing the future of an urban watershed
9. A time for sustainable action
Time to put sustainability into action
10. Leaving nothing behind but footsteps
Report prepared by: Sonya Meek
For information contact: Sonya Meek (416) 661- 6600 ext. 5253
November 21, 2006
RES. #L92/06
Moved by:
Seconded by:
FINAL ROUGE WATERSHED PLAN OF THE ROUGE WATERSHED
TASK FORCE
Approval of final Rouge Watershed Plan of the Rouge Watershed Task
Force and recommended follow -up actions.
Erin Shapero
Elio Di lorio
THAT the Rouge Watershed Task Force forward its final Watershed Plan to the TRCA for its
consideration;
THAT TRCA be requested to complete all supporting documents as soon as possible and
conduct further consultation, including an expert peer review, on the final draft Plan and
supporting documents;
THAT Rouge Watershed Task Force members be circulated a copy of the expert peer review
report;
THAT TRCA be requested in the finalization of this document to ensure that comments have
been addressed in keeping with the Task Force principles, tone and spirit of the final Task
Force Plan;
THAT TRCA be requested to facilitate the development of an Implementation Guide and a
five year Implementation Workplan and budget for the Rouge Watershed Plan, in
consultation with key implementing partners;
L418 Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06 November 30, 2006
THAT the TRCA be requested to establish an Implementation Committee as soon as
possible following the finalization of the Watershed Plan in order to promote and track the
implementation of the Watershed Plan;
AND FURTHER THAT the Rouge Park Alliance, the Municipal partners, the Provincial and
Federal governments as well as all residents, organizations and relevant interest
groups be requested to provide their ongoing support for the implementation of the
principles and goals of the Rouge Watershed Plan.
AMENDMENT
RES. #L93/06
Moved by:
Seconded by:
FINAL ROUGE WATERSHED PLAN OF THE ROUGE WATERSHED
TASK FORCE
Approval of final Rouge Watershed Plan of the Rouge Watershed Task
Force and recommended follow -up actions.
Erin Shapero
Elio Di lorio
THAT THE MAIN MOTION BE AMENDED as follows;
THAT the Rouge Watershed Task Force forward its final Watershed Plan to the TRCA for its
consideration;
THAT TRCA be requested to complete all supporting documents as soon as possible and
conduct further consultation, including an expert peer review, on the final draft Plan and
supporting. documents;
THAT TRCA and Bryan Buttigieg, Chair of the Rouge Watershed Task Force undertake
additional public meetings;
THAT TRCA circulate to Rouge Watershed Task Force members dates of public meetings;
THAT TRCA circulate to Rouge Watershed Task Force members comments arising from the
consultations;
THAT Rouge Watershed Task Force members be invited to the final presentation of the
Rouge River Watershed Plan: Towards a Healthy and Sustainable Future to the Watershed
Management Advisory Board and the Authority Board;
THAT Rouge Watershed Task Force members be circulated a copy of the expert peer review
report;
THAT TRCA be requested in the finalization of this document, in coordination with Bryan
Buttigieg, Chair of the Rouge Watershed Task Force to ensure that comments have been
addressed in keeping with the Task Force principles, tone and spirit of the final Task Force
Plan;
November 30, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06 L419
THAT TRCA be requested to present the findings of the Rouge Watershed Plan to the Town
of Markham and offer to present to all Rouge Watershed municipalities and solicit their
comments; and circulate further comments to Rouge Watershed Task Force members;
THAT TRCA be requested to facilitate the development of an Implementation Guide and a
five year Implementation Workplan and budget for the Rouge Watershed Plan, in
consultation with key implementing partners;
THAT the TRCA be requested to establish an Implementation Committee as soon as
possible following the finalization of the Watershed Plan in order to promote and track the
implementation of the Watershed Plan;
AND FURTHER THAT the Rouge Park Alliance, the Municipal partners, the Provincial and
Federal governments as well as all residents, organizations and relevant interest groups be
requested to provide their ongoing support for the implementation of the principles and
goals of the Rouge Watershed Plan;
THE AMENDMENT WAS APPROVED
THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED WAS APPROVED
BACKGROUND
The Rouge Watershed Task Force was formed in April 2004 by the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority with a mandate to develop a watershed plan to guide the management
of the Rouge River Watershed. The Task Force's original term was to have ended in December
2005, however complexities in the technical studies caused delays in the process which led to
two extensions. The Task Force passed the following resolution at their meeting held on April
12, 2006:
THAT the Rouge Watershed Task Force request that The Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority extend the term of the Rouge Watershed Task Force by five months to November 30,
2006 (RES #L71/06).
During the April 12th Task Force meeting discussion, it was noted that this date would still
roughly be in keeping with the term of elected members regardless of the outcome of the
November 13'h municipal election. This request was subsequently approved by the TRCA.
This watershed planning study has followed a three phase process, including:
1) assessment of current conditions (2004);
2) analysis of current and potential future issues through a series of "management summit
workshops" and scenario modelling exercises (2005- 2006); and
3)preparation of the Watershed Plan (2006).
Participation from municipal staff, stakeholders and other experts has been invited at various
stages of this work.
L420 Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06 November 30, 2006
Drawing on the information and directions arising from Task Force meetings, management
summits, modelling studies and background literature, a first draft watershed plan was
prepared and discussed at the October 5 2006 and October 19, 2006 Task Force meetings.
Additional input was sought during an initial consultation period in November, and
recommended revisions to the draft Watershed Plan have been made.
At their final Task Force meeting on November 30, 2006, members are now asked to deliver
their final Watershed Plan to the TRCA with recommended follow -up actions for the TRCA to
consider.
Follow -up actions
1. Completion of supporting documents - The following technical documents were integral to
the study and need to be finalized (status is noted in italics):
State of the Watershed Report (Draft 2004; revisions based on reviewers comments and
new information from modelling studies almost complete)
Rouge Watershed Scenario Modelling and Analysis Technical Summary Report (Draft Nov.
2006)
Rouge Watershed Scenario Definitions and Assumptions Report (Draft Jan. 2006)
Development of a Sustainable Community Scenario for the Rouge Watershed (Draft March
2006)
Rouge Watershed HSP -F Modelling Report (Draft Nov. 2006)
Action Plan for Implementation of Sustainable Practices (Final Nov. 2006)
2. Further consultation and peer review on the Watershed Plan and supporting documents -
In consideration of the constrained time period for public and stakeholder consultation and
expert peer review upon completion of the modelling studies, TRCA should be requested to
undertake further consultation, including additional public open houses throughout the
watershed and peer review workshops.
3. Preparation of Implementation Guide - This guide was envisioned to accompany the
Watershed Plan and serve the practitioner audience by compiling detailed technical
information with the strategic directions, according to the primary implementing mechanisms
(e.g. policy tools, regeneration projects (private or public lands), maintenance activities, etc.).
For example, the Policy Component of the Implementation Guide would assemble all policy -
related recommendations from the Watershed Plan into one place, and provide further
explanation with the relevant supporting technical criteria, maps, definitions etc.. Similarly,
strategic regeneration recommendations can be summarized from the Plan and with further
input from practitioners a set of possible project level opportunities can be identified.
Stakeholder involvement in this Implementation Guide initiative will essential to ensure a
successful outcome. Development of this Guide concurrent with consultation on the Draft
November 30, 2006 Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06 L421
Watershed Plan will further inform the review process.
4. Preparation of a five year Implementation Workplan and Budget - It is suggested that
TRCA facilitate workshops with key implementing partners to develop these documents early in
the new year and well in advance of everyone's budget preparations for 2008.
5. Final Plan Approval - Approval of the final Rouge Watershed Plan will be sought from the
TRCA, who will then request formal adoption of the Plan by the Rouge Park Alliance, municipal
councils and other stakeholders.
6. Formation of an Implementation Committee - Multi- stakeholder partnerships will be as
essential to the implementation of the plan, as they were to the development of the plan. TRCA
should be requested to form a committee, similar to the Task Force in membership, to oversee
implementation of the plan.
Continued participation by individual Task Force members in many of these follow -up activities
will be invited, by virtue of the member's affiliation with key stakeholder groups. It is hoped that
members will continue to provide guidance to ensure the work is consistent with the Watershed
Plan and in keeping with Task Force principles.
Tentative Schedule
January, 2007
February, 2007
March, 2007
May, 2007
Issue Final Task Force Watershed Plan for formal consultation and make
all supporting documents available
Further consultation forums, Peer review workshop
Municipal Consultation re Policy Component of Implementation Guide
Workshop re Regeneration Component of Implementation Guide
Workshop re 5 year implementation workplan and budget
Comment deadline
Final Watershed Plan to TRCA's Watershed Management Advisory Board
and Authority
Report prepared by: Sonya Meek, Adele Freeman, and Bryan Buttigieg
For information contact: Sonya Meek (416) 661- 6600 ext. 5253; Adele Freeman (416) 661-
6600 ext. 5238; or Bryan Buttigieg (416) 595 -8172
November 20, 2006
DISCUSSION
• Bryan Buttigieg read the last recommendation of the FINAL ROUGE WATERSHED
PLAN OF THE ROUGE WATERSHED TASK FORCE. He spoke about the general tone
of the Watershed Plan, the first meeting members spoke of the need for a plan to not sit
on a shelf.
Suggestion made that the TRCA and the Chair of the Task Force be charged with
holding further Public meetings and that the dates be circulated to Task Force
members. That members be sent any further comments. And further that the members
be invited to the Authority meeting at which the Watershed Plan will be presented.
L422 Rouge Watershed Task Force #10/06 November 30, 2006
It is the intention of staff to seek further consultation on the Watershed Plan and
Technical Reports starting in January, present the Plan to Municipal Councils and
incorporate any further comments. Following this process, a report will be taken to
TRCA's Water Management Advisory Board in April and to the Authority Board.
Concerns were raised that the Task Force must continue and have further input.
Alternate views were that the Task Force's mandate has been fulfilled and the plan must
move forward with the comments and the direction to go on with public consultation.
The Chair asked for a vote on the Motion on the table with clear consensus.
MOTION (tabled by Gord Weeden)
On behalf of the members of the Rouge Watershed Task Force, I want to thank our Chair Bryan
Buttigieg for his leadership and personal commitment to the development of the Rouge River
Watershed Plan. We also wish to acknowledge his patience in leading this very enthusiastic
group and making sure that, in most cases, our meetings ended before midnight. Bryan kept
us focussed and lead us to develop a leading document that will serve as a template for
watershed planning. I also want to thank TRCA staff for their dedication, expertise and
commitment to completing this task. We appreciate their patience in explaining your findings
and the studies conducted on the watershed that provided invaluable information to the Task
Force as they made critical decisions. Thank you Sonya Meek, Sylvia Waters, Bob Clay, Lewis
Yeager and all your support staff, for a job well done. And finally, thank you to TRCA for the
financial support for the development of the Rouge Watershed Plan. This document will
provide guidance and direction for our partners as they work "Towards a healthy and
sustainable watershed ".
Moved by:
Seconded by:
TERMINATION
Gord Weeden
Erin Shapero
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 10:30 p.m., on Thursday November 30th, 2006.
Bryan Buttigieg
Chair, Rouge Watershed Task Force