NOTICE OF CONSTRUCTION
Please be advised that the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), on behalf of the City of Toronto, is preparing to undertake the first phase of emergency works to protect public safety and municipal infrastructure in Wilket Creek Park against the hazards of stream erosion.
Phase I of the emergency works involves encasing an existing sanitary sewer in concrete prior to stabilizing and restoring the watercourse, which is scheduled to be done later in the year as Phase II of the emergency works. The general location of the work site is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Approximate location of sanitary sewer encasement work (circled in red).
The encasement work is tentatively scheduled to commence the week of April 26th, 2011 and is anticipated to be completed by May 16th, 2011.
To protect public safety, the section of trail within the limits of construction will be closed for the duration of the work; signage will be installed at both the north and south limits of the trail to advise the public of this interruption.
For more information on the project please contact:
Moranne McDonnell, Senior Manager • Environmental Engineering Projects • Toronto and Region Conservation Authority • Phone: (416) 392-9725 • Email: [email protected]
NOTICE OF STUDY COMMENCEMENT & PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE
WILKET CREEK CHANNEL WITHIN WILKET CREEK PARK REHABILITATION STUDY TO ADDRESS EROSION HAZARDS THREATENING INFRASTRUCTURE AND GEOMORPHIC SYSTEMS & HABITAT STUDY
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), on behalf of the City of Toronto, has initiated a study to assess the geomorphic systems and habitat of the Wilket Creek subwatershed in developing a long-term strategy to address ongoing hazards to municipal lands and infrastructure within Wilket Creek Park as a result of stream erosion.
The study is being completed as a Schedule B Master Plan of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment. Consultation with the public and government agencies will occur during each phase of the project in the form of Notices and Public Information Centres.
If you are interested in finding out more information about the study and/or would like to be added to the project mailing list, please contact:
Patricia Newland, Project Manager Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 1 Eastville Avenue, Toronto, ON M1M 2N5 Tel: (416)392-9690 Email: [email protected]
It is noted that during initial field investigations, three (3) priority areas were identified within Wilket Creek Park as requiring urgent repairs where erosion has exposed the existing sanitary sewer. Emergency repairs are proposed to be carried out over the next several months at these priority areas, to ensure the protection of municipal infrastructure while the overall strategy is being developed.
A Public Information Centre (Open House) to present the objectives of the study and the proposed designs for the emergency works at the first two priority sites in Wilket Creek Park is scheduled for:
June 29, 2011 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM Sunnybrook Park Pavilion 1132 Leslie Street, Toronto
Wilket Creek Channel within Wilket Creek Park Rehabilitation Study to Address Erosion Hazards Threatening Infrastructure, and Geomorphic Systems and Habitat Study Creating a long-term plan for the management of Wilket Creek
The Wilket Creek (within Wilket Creek Park) Rehabilitation Study to Address Erosion Hazards Threatening Infrastructure and Geomorphic Systems and Habitat Study is being undertaken by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), on behalf of the City of Toronto. The aim of the project is to develop a long-term management plan for Wilket Creek that takes account of natural processes, wildlife habitat and public amenities. In particular, the project will protect infrastructure at risk of erosion, including exposed manholes, pedestrian bridges and pathways while working with natural channel processes.
Why are we developing a Master Plan?
As a result of numerous significant storm events from May 2000 to June 2008, including the August 19th 2005 storm event, a tremendous amount of damage has occurred in the Wilket Creek tributary of the Don River Watershed, most notably within Edwards Gardens and Wilket Creek Park. After the August 19th, 2005 storm event the City of Toronto undertook a detailed inventory of the damage caused as a result of the storm, and identified 26 key areas of concern, for damaged and “at risk” infrastructure including, pedestrian bridges, pathways, manholes, and sanitary sewers within Edwards Gardens and Wilket Creek Park. In response to the findings of the inventory, the City of Toronto requested that TRCA assist in developing and implementing temporary repair works to ensure state-of-good-repairs, while working on obtaining approval and funding from City Council to commence a large scale study to aid in the development of a Master Plan for the Wilket Creek subwatershed. Subsequent repeated damage to several of the areas addressed by the state-of-good-repair works confirmed the requirement for a greater understanding of the natural forces taking place within the watercourse.
Geomorphology is the study of natural landforms and how they are shaped by natural processes. The Geomorphic & Habitat Systems Master Plan will develop an understanding of the processes operating within Wilket Creek, together with how they are being influenced by channel modifications, such as structures and changes to the creek itself. Based on an understanding of how the creek is behaving, we will be able to identify a long-term integrated plan to address the current erosion issues, as well as identifying opportunities for in-stream habitat improved.
What is the process?
The process of completing a large-scale study of this nature falls under the planning and approvals of the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act. The purpose of the Act is to ensure that possible environmental affects of a project are considered early in the planning stages and to select a preferred alternative that seeks to avoid or mitigate adverse effects to the environment. The broad definition of “environment” as defined in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act includes ecosystems, people and their communities, natural and physical resources, and social, economic and cultural aspects of the environment.
The Ontario Environmental Assessment Act identifies two types of planning and design processes under which Environmental Assessments (EAs) are carried out: Individual Environmental Assessments (Individual EAs) Class Environmental Assessments (Class EAs)
Individual EAs are typically carried out for the large-scale complex undertakings with a potential for significant environmental effects and major public interest. Class EAs on the other hand fall into a category knows as Streamlined Environmental Assessments for generally routine activities that have a predictable range of solutions and environmental effects that can be readily managed (MOE, June 13, 2011).
Projects undertaken by Municipalities vary in terms of potential environmental impacts. In the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA), projects are broken down by schedule as follows:
Schedule A - projects are limited in scale and have minimal adverse environmental impacts; generally these projects are related to routine maintenance and operational activities. Schedule A projects are pre-approved and may proceed to implementation without following the full Class EA process.
Schedule B – projects have the potential to cause some adverse environmental impacts. The proponent is require to undertake a screening process which includes mandatory consultation with the public and review agencies to ensure that they are aware of the project, and that any concerns raised have been addressed. When there are no outstanding concerns, the project can proceed to implementation. Schedule B projects require that the once finalized, a project file be created that is accessible to the public and relevant review agencies.
Schedule C – projects have the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts and must proceed under the full planning and design process of the Class EA document. Schedule C project require that an Environmental Study Report be completed and filed for review by the public and relevant review agencies.
Master Plans - in addition to identifying project level works, the Class EA also recognizes the need to begin the planning process by considering a group of related projects or an entire system. In this case the system under consideration is Wilket Creek subwatershed. By planning in this way, the need and justification for individual projects and the associated broader context are better defined.
Master Plans are long range plans which integrate infrastructure requirements for existing and future land use with environmental assessment planning principals. These plans examine an infrastructure system, or group of related projects in order to outline a framework for planning for subsequent projects and or developments.
What will be the outcomes?
The Master Plan will identify works to be completed along the length of Wilket Creek in order to address the stability and habitat issues that are identified. We do not anticipate that works will be required throughout the whole creek but rather at selected locations, in particular within Wilket Creek Park (see map on page 3). Although the works themselves will be localised, they will be planned within the context of the whole creek and with a long-term vision. Different alternative solutions will be developed and evaluated according to environmental, social and economic criteria in order to select the most appropriate solution. This will help ensure that works do not have undesirable upstream and downstream impacts and, is anticipated to reduce the need for future intervention.
How do the proposed Emergency Works fit in?
As part of the investigations for the Master Plan, three high risk areas were identified, whereby the existing infrastructure is prone to potential damage or complete failure if left in the current conditions, until the Master Plan is complete. At Sites 3, 6 and 7 (see map on page 3) the underlying sewer has been exposed due to erosion of the creek bed. Additionally, Site 3 is subject to massive debris jams during storm events putting the existing bridge structure at risk. Therefore, as a result of these risks Toronto Water has declared the requirement for Emergency Works at these sites. As such we are “fast-tracking” designs for channel works at these sites to protect the infrastructure. It should be noted however that these designs have been developed using the preliminary data collected as part of the study, are being designed within the context of the Master Plan, and therefore will form an integrated part of the long-term plan.
What are we planning in Wilket Creek Park?
The map below illustrates Sites 1 to 10 within Wilket Creek Park, which have been identified for rehabilitation works as part of the master planning process. At each of these sites infrastructure is currently at risk from creek erosion. The map also illustrates our vision for a wider, meandering river course, which has been developed based on geomorphological principles and would offer greater stability in the long-term. It is in this context that we intend to progress planning future rehabilitation works in Wilket Creek Park.
How can you get involved?
One of the key objectives of the Master Plan is to engage with local communities and identify opportunities for improving public interaction with Wilket Creek. This Public Information Centre provides a valuable opportunity for us to discuss the Master Plan with you and we strongly encourage you to provide us with your comments via the feedback questionnaire. If you have additional comments or would like to find out more about progress on this project at any time, please contact our Project Manager using the details below – we would love to hear from you!
Contact: Patricia Newland, Project Manager - Environmental Engineering Projects Address: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Waterfront Office, 1 Eastville Avenue, Toronto, ON, M1M 2N5 Phone: 416-392-9690 Fax: 416-392-9726 Email: [email protected] Wilket Creek Channel within Wilket Creek Park Rehabilitation Study to Address Erosion Hazards Threatening Infrastructure, and Geomorphic Systems and Habitat Study Creating a long-term plan for the management of Wilket Creek Why are we developing the Master Plan? The Wilket Creek (within Wilket - Significant storm events from 2000-2008 caused major damages to the Creek Park) Rehabilitation Study to channel and local infrastructure Address Erosion Hazards - After the August 19th, 2005 event the City of Toronto identified 26 areas of concern relating to infrastructure Threatening Infrastructure and - Infrastructure included bridges, pathways, manholes and sanitary sewers Geomorphic Systems and Habitat - The City requested that TRCA assist in developing and implementing an Study is being undertaken by interim repair and stabilization program while the City secured funds for a large scale study Toronto and Region Conservation - Following the temporary repair efforts, additional damages occurred during Authority (TRCA), on behalf of the subsequent storm events City of Toronto. The aim of the - The ongoing erosion and infrastructure damages confirm the need for having a project is to develop a long-term better understanding of channel processes management plan for Wilket Creek What will be the outcomes? - The Master Plan will identify what work is required to stabilize this section that takes account of natural of Wilket Creek processes, wildlife habitat and - Habitat and channel process issues will be incorporated into the plan public amenity. In particular, the - Works will likely be limited to sections with an eye to the long-term vision for project will protect infrastructure the creek - Alternative solutions will be developed that will take into account the at risk of erosion, including environmental, social and economic ramifications to ensure negative impacts exposed manholes, pedestrian of any works are minimized or eliminated bridges and pathways while How do the proposed Emergency Works fit in? working with natural channel - Three high-risk areas have been identified where infrastructure is at risk for processes. failure if left as-is for a significant length of time - These sites are 3, 6 and 7and involve the exposure of the sewer - Site 3 is subject to large debris jams during storm events which puts the bridge at risk - Due to the risks, these sites have been ‘fast-tracked’ as emergency works locations PARISH - The emergency works have been designed within the context of the Master geomorphic Wilket Creek Channel within Wilket Creek Park Rehabilitation Study to Address Erosion Hazards Threatening Infrastructure, and Geomorphic Systems and Habitat Study Creating a long-term plan for the management of Wilket Creek
What are the issues along Wilket Creek? -An increase in water volume due to stormwater run-off from the urban area has resulted in bank erosion and an widening channel. In order to create a more stable channel that is suited to larger flows, a larger channel is required. - Bank and bed protection measures that have been previously installed have been undermined and out-flanked during high flow events. - City of Toronto infrastructure, including sewer pipes and manholes, have been exposed as a result of creek bed erosion. - Pedestrian bridges have been undermined. - There are opportunities to improve in-stream habitat conditions for aquatic organisms Wide, shallow channel with minimal habitat.
Failed gabion baskets and valley slope erosion. Erosion at temporary bridge repairs.
Erosion threatening a pedestrian bridge. Widening channel and exposed infrastructure.
PARISH geomorphic Wilket Creek Channel within Wilket Creek Park Rehabilitation Study to Address Erosion Hazards Threatening Infrastructure, and Geomorphic Systems and Habitat Study Creating a long-term plan for the management of Wilket Creek
What are we planning in Wilket Creek Park? - The map shown below depicts Sites 1 through 10 located within Wilket Creek Park. - Each priority site is related to infrastructure which is in a state of jeopardy due to channel migration/erosion. - The map also depicts the overall vision of the channel planform as part of the long-term configuration of the creek. Within this context, current and future restoration plans are being developed.
SITE 10
SITE 7
SITE 8
SITE 6
SITE 9 SITE 5
Wilket Creek Park SITE 4
SITE 3
SITE 2
SITE 1
PARISH geomorphic Wilket Creek Channel within Wilket Creek Park Rehabilitation Study to Address Erosion Hazards Threatening Infrastructure, and Geomorphic Systems and Habitat Study Creating a long-term plan for the management of Wilket Creek
PARISH geomorphic Emergency Works Design - Sites 6-7 Wilket Creek Channel within Wilket Creek Park Rehabilitation Study to Address Erosion Hazards Threatening Infrastructure, and Geomorphic Systems and Habitat Study Creating a long-term plan for the management of Wilket Creek
PARISH geomorphic Emergency Works Design - Sites 6-7 (Phasing Plans) Wilket Creek Channel within Wilket Creek Park Rehabilitation Study to Address Erosion Hazards Threatening Infrastructure, and Geomorphic Systems and Habitat Study Creating a long-term plan for the management of Wilket Creek
PARISH geomorphic Emergency Works Design - Sites 6-7 (Restoration Plan) Wilket Creek Geomorphic Systems Master Plan Public Information Center #1 June 29, 2011 Sunnybrook Pavilion
Present Patricia Newland, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Joanna Eyquem, Parish Geomorphic Limited (PGL) John Parish, Parish Geomorphic Limited (PGL) Community members – Hugh Dove, Mark Mandlsohn, Paul Watzinger, Robert Cheung, Rendt Usher, Weighu Li, Patricia Watzinger, Laura Li
Outcomes The purpose of the Public Information Center (PIC) #1 was to present the objectives of the study and the proposed designs for the Emergency Works at two priority sites in Wilket Creek Park (Sites 6 and 7). The objectives presented included the development of a long-term management plan for Wilket Creek that takes account of natural processes, wildlife habitat, and public amenities and will protect infrastructure at risk of erosion, including exposed manholes, pedestrian bridges and pathways. It was outlined that the study is being completed as a Schedule B Master Plan of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment.
Comments made by the participants were primarily related to the Wilket Creek Park segment. The most prevalent concern was interruption to use of the trail running alongside the creek in the park. Its high usage was noted and it was made clear that the length of time that it is inaccessible must be minimized regardless of whichever rehabilitation option is selected. A summary of the primary concerns and comments made is provided in Table 1.
A feedback form was completed outlining the extensive bank erosion that has occurred along a private property upstream of Lawrence Avenue. It was indicated that the citizen felt that the safety of their house was compromised by the active erosion occurring along their property and suggested that the watercourse be re-directed away. This identified issue was added to the documentation of hazard areas along the length of Wilket Creek and will be used in the evaluation of mitigation alternatives.
Table 1. Summary of Comments Comment Response What is the purpose of completing this study, if it The purpose of the study is to examine all of the changes is already known that there is significant erosion, that are occurring in the subwatershed, and to determine and tree loss, and debris jams the appropriate way to manage the risks to infrastructure, property, and vegetative communities over the long term. What is going to happen to the sections of Wilket The findings of the completion of the Geomorphic Systems Creek North of Lawrence? Master Plan will result in recommendations to the City / TRCA regarding long term maintenance recommendations for the entire watershed, including the segments upstream of Lawrence Avenue Are there going to be trail closures in Wilket Creek There will be trail closures, but this will be minimized to the Park during construction? greatest extent possible, and alternative routes and trail closures will be identified on signage within the park, and at every entrance. What is the City / TRCA going to do about all of The study will look at all of these problems and develop the massive debris jams, and the large amount of recommendations based on the known problems within the erosion occurring upstream of Lawrence subwatershed Is anything going to be done regarding The analysis of stormwater management will be a key stormwater management? component of this study. How long will it take to complete the Geomorphic The completion of the Geomorphic Systems Master Plan will Master Plan, and when are you going to start take several years to complete. There will be some key sites doing construction where construction will take place prior to the completion of the Master Plan, where infrastructure including sanitary sewers, and bridges are at risk, and causing a risk to public safety.
NOTICE OF CONSTRUCTION
Please be advised that the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), on behalf of the City of Toronto, is preparing to undertake the second phase of emergency works to protect public safety and municipal infrastructure in Wilket Creek Park against the hazards of stream erosion.
Phase II of the emergency works involves realignment of the existing trail away from the watercourse, installation of two new bridge crossings, and modifications to the watercourse, including channel widening to reduce the risk to the sanitary sewer. The general location of the work site is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Approximate location of works (circled in red).
The emergency works are scheduled to commence the week of July 18th, 2011 and are anticipated to be completed by November 1, 2011, weather permitting.
To protect public safety, intermittent trail closures for the duration of construction are anticipated. Signage will be installed at all entrances to the park to advise the public of potential interruptions in trail access.
Information on this project can be found on the TRCA website at: http://www.trca.on.ca/protect/environmental-assessment-projects/wilket-creek-rehabilitation-project.dot or by contacting:
Patricia Newland, Project Manager • Environmental Engineering Projects • Toronto and Region Conservation Authority • Phone: (416) 392-9690 • Email: [email protected]
DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL #10/11
Thursday, November 10, 2011 7:00 pm
Coffee and cold drinks will be available.
FREE on-street parking is available The North York after 6pm on the Centre TTC stop south side of Park (west side) is Home Avenue, west located at the of Beecroft Road. southeast corner
of the North York Note: Always park City Centre. according to posted street signage. Availability of on- street parking may change without notice. Access the North York Civic Centre through any of Paid parking is these doors. available on the Follow signs for westside of Beecroft the committee Avenue. rooms located on
the Lower Level. Access to paid underground parking is on the east side of Beecroft Road.
Committee Room #3 North York Civic Centre 5100 Yonge Street
Please RSVP to Alexis Wood through yammer at www.yammer.com Or by email at [email protected]
AGENDA
PAGE 1. PRESENTATIONS
1.1 Patricia Newland, Project Manager, Restoration Services, TRCA Wilket Creek Rehabilitation Project
1.2 Laurian Farrell, Manager, Flood Risk Management and Infrastructure, TRCA Hogg’s Hollow (Yonge - York Mills Channel)
2. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DWRC MINUTES
2.1 Meeting #9/11 Minutes of Meeting #9/11, held Thursday, October 13, 2011.
3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE NATURE THEREOF
4. CORRESPONDENCE
INCOMING
4.1.1 Biodiversity Series 5 Letter from Gary Wright, Chief Planner and Executive Director, City of Toronto Planning Division, to Chair and Members of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council – Received October 24, 2011.
4.1.2 Toronto Official Plan Review 6 Letter from Suzanne Barrett, Chair, Etobicoke and Mimico Watersheds Coalition, to Gary Wright, Chief Planner and Executive Director, City of Toronto (cc: Phil Goodwin, Chair, Don Watershed Regeneration Council) – Received November 1, 2011.
OUTGOING
4.2.1 City of Toronto Official Plan Review 8 Letter from Phil Goodwin, Chair, Don Watershed Regeneration Council, to Gary Wright, Chief Planner and Executive Director, City of Toronto – Sent November 4, 2011.
Page 2 DWRC #10/11
5. INFORMATION ITEMS
5.1 Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project 10 Environmental Assessment Communication from Adele Freeman, Direction, Watershed Management, to Chair and Members of the Authority, Meeting #9/11 – October 28, 2011
5.2 Yonge-York Mills Flood Control Channel Major Maintenance 18 Communication from Nick Saccone, Director, Restoration Services, to Chair and Members of the Authority, Meeting #9/11 – October 28, 2011.
5.3 Ontario Regional Climate Change Consortium 21 Communication from Adele Freeman, Director, Watershed Management, to Chair and Members of the Authority, Meeting #911 – October 28, 2011.
6. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
6.1 Update re: Markham Islander’s Tree Planting Event Verbal update from Susan Sigrist, Member, Don Watershed Regeneration Council, to Chair and Members of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Meeting #10/11 – November 10, 2011.
6.2 Milne House Restoration Verbal communication from Adele Freeman, Director, Watershed Management, Watershed Management, to Chair and Members of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Meeting #10/11 – November 10, 2011.
6.3 City of Toronto Parks Plan 31 Communication from Amy Thurston, Project Manager, Watershed Management, Watershed Management, to Chair and Members of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Meeting #10/11 – November 10, 2011.
6.4 Outreach Strategy: Members of Provincial Parliament within the Don Watershed Verbal Communication from Tom Hopkins, Co-Chair, Policy and Advocacy Working Group, Don Watershed Regeneration Council, to Chair and Members of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Meeting #10/11 – November 10, 2011.
7. DWRC WORKING GROUP REPORTS
7.1 Policy and Advocacy Working Group Verbal Update
7.2 Community Outreach Group Minutes to Meeting #5/11 - Thursday, October 27, 2011 Report to follow
DWRC #10/11 Page 3
8. UPDATES FROM COMMUNITY WATERSHED GROUPS
9. SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS
9.1 2011 Meeting Dates 52 Schedule of 2011 Don Watershed Regeneration Council and Working Group meetings.
9.2 2012 Meeting Dates 53 Proposed schedule of 2012 Don Watershed Regeneration Council and Working Group meetings.
10. NEW BUSINESS
Page 4 DWRC #10/11 DWRC #10/11 Page 5
November 1, 2011
VIA EMAIL [email protected], HARD COPY TO FOLLOW
Gary Wright Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning City of Toronto, Toronto City Hall 100 Queen Street West 12th Floor, East Tower Toronto, ON M5H 2N2
Dear Mr. Wright,
Re: Toronto Official Plan Review
The Etobicoke and Mimico Watersheds Coalition (Coalition) would like to offer the following comments on Toronto’s current Official Plan during this review process. We are a watershed stakeholder group that works with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to achieve a shared vision of revitalized creeks and watersheds in our communities.
In 2006, TRCA and the Coalition published a Report Card called “Turning Over a New Leaf” which recommends a series of actions that would revitalize the watershed. These actions include advocacy, outreach and “hands-on” projects to improve the health of the watershed. More recently we completed a Technical Update Report on the watersheds that includes strategic policies and updated management directions.
The Coalition works in partnership with other watershed groups and supports the recommendations of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council, which urges the City to consider the following enhancements to the Official Plan:
• Ensure that TRCA is consulted in advance of major developments in order to encourage strategic planning and enhance the sustainability of urban form and use of resources.
• Incorporate the requirement that retrofits and regeneration of existing developments adhere to the same “green” sustainably designed building standards (e.g. LEED [Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design], Green Globes and Toronto Green Standard) as new developments.
• Require Master Environmental Servicing Plans (MESPs) for major redevelopments to ensure principles of sustainability are incorporated.
• Embed the City of Toronto’s target of a 30% tree canopy into the Official Plan and require new developments and redevelopments to contribute to achieving that target.
• Protect the city’s natural cover heritage, especially on historical lots of record that extend into our ravines by designating this valuable land as “open space” in the Official Plan.
• Strengthen the Official Plan’s requirements for flood control impact assessments for new development, redevelopment and intensification.
5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, ON M3N 1S4 416-661-6600, extension 5569
• Embed in the Official Plan as a core principle, the requirement that all new development not only protect and maintain Toronto’s natural heritage systems but serve to enhance and expand them, and ensure that principle is taken into consideration in the approval cycle.
We would like to make the following additional recommendations:
• Through the development and redevelopment processes, the City should make every effort to retain or secure public access to celebrate, and whenever possible daylight, buried creeks throughout the City. Specifically North, Jackson and Superior Creeks within the Lake Ontario Drainage Area as identified in the Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks Watersheds Technical Update Report (a copy of the this report can be found on-line at http://www.trca.on.ca/dotAsset/108092.pdf)
• That all opportunities be taken to provide more generous open space and access to the waterfront along Toronto’s shoreline and in particular in Etobicoke.
• That consideration is given to policies and programs that promote eco-business/industrial development within employment lands. Some specific recommendations were provided to City staff by the Partners in Project Green: A Pearson Eco-Business Zone Policy Harmonization Team of TRCA (a copy of the City of Toronto specific recommendations can be obtained from TRCA staff and a copy of the “Pearson Eco-Business Zone Policy Tool Kit” is available at http://www.partnersinprojectgreen.com/about-us/reports/pearson-eco-business-zone-policy- toolkit)
The Official Plan of the City of Toronto is a powerful document that can positively affect how Toronto can grow in a sustainable fashion that will support the health of its citizens, inspire economic growth, and protect and enhance the natural environment, all of which are necessary to a satisfactory quality of life. We believe the above recommendations will serve to support those goals.
Yours truly,
Suzanne Barrett Chair, Etobicoke and Mimico Watersheds Coalition cc: Phil Goodwin, Chair, Don Watershed Regeneration Council Chandra Sharma, Etobicoke-Mimico Watershed Specialist, TRCA
5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, ON M3N 1S4 416-661-6600, extension 5569
DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL
November 4, 2011
BY MAIL & EMAIL: [email protected]
Mr. Paul Bain Official Plan Review City Planning, Policy & Research Metro Hall, 23rd Floor City of Toronto 55 John Street Toronto, ON M5V 3C6
Dear Mr. Bain:
Re: City of Toronto Official Plan Review
The Don Watershed Regeneration Council (DWRC*) is pleased to offer the following comments on Toronto’s current Official Plan during this review process.
In 2009 the Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the DWRC published the Don River Watershed Plan, Beyond Forty Steps which summarized a series of recommendations that would protect and enhance the continued health and vitality of the 360 square kilometres of the Don watershed and the 1.2 million people living in it. The Plan’s policy directions inform the recommendations contained below.
The DWRC urges the City to consider the following enhancements to the Official Plan:
Embed the City of Toronto’s target of a 30% tree canopy into the Official Plan and require new developments and redevelopments to contribute to achieving that target;
Incorporate the requirement that retrofits and regeneration of existing developments adhere to the same “green” sustainably designed building standards (e.g., LEED, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; Green Globes; and Toronto Green Standard) as new developments;
Require Master Environmental Servicing Plans (MESPs) for major redevelopments to ensure principles of sustainability are incorporated;
Protect the city’s natural cover heritage, especially on historical lots of record that extend into our ravines, by designating this valuable land as “open space” in the Official Plan;
Strengthen the Official Plan’s requirements for flood control impact assessments for new development, redevelopment, and intensification;
5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, ON M3N 1S4 Page 8 416-661-6600, Ext. 5283 DWRC #10/11
Mr. Paul Bain - 2 - November 4, 2011
Embed in the Official Plan as a core principle, the requirement that all new development and redevelopment not only protect and maintain Toronto’s natural heritage systems, but serve to enhance and expand them, and ensure that principle is taken into consideration in the approval cycle; and
Ensure that TRCA is consulted in advance of major developments in order to encourage strategic planning, and enhance the sustainability of urban form and use of resources.
The Official Plan of the City of Toronto is a powerful document that can positively affect how Toronto can grow in a sustainable fashion that will support the health of its citizens, inspire economic growth, and protect and enhance the natural environment so necessary to a satisfactory quality of life. The DWRC believes the above recommendations will serve to support those goals.
Yours truly,
Phil Goodwin Chair, Don Watershed Regeneration Council
PG:TH:aw
cc: Alan Wells, Chair, Rouge Park Alliance Carolyn Woodland, Director, Planning and Development, TRCA Gary Wright, Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, City of Toronto Ian Craig, Chair, Humber Watershed Alliance Mark Rapus, Senior Planner, Planning and Development, TRCA Suzanne Barrett, Chair, Etobicoke and Mimico Watersheds Coalition
*Don Watershed Regeneration Council
The Don Watershed Regeneration Council (DWRC) is a formal community-based committee established by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) in 1994 to help restore the Don River watershed to a healthy, sustainable natural environment. The DWRC reports to the Authority on a regular basis and is composed of community members, elected officials and representatives from businesses, agencies, environmental groups and academic institutions located within or concerned about the future of the Don River watershed
A new, updated regeneration Plan “Beyond Forty Steps” was endorsed by the DWRC and approved by TRCA in 2009 and guides the DWRC in commenting to other government agencies (federal, provincial and municipal) on matters pertaining to the future of the watershed. The new Plan addresses the broad watershed issues of sustainability including water and energy efficiency and emerging challenges such as climate change.
DWRC #10/11 Page 9
Item AUTH7.2 TO: Chair and Members of the Authority Meeting #9/11, October 28, 2011
FROM: Adele Freeman, Director, Watershed Management
RE: DON MOUTH NATURALIZATION AND PORT LANDS FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ______KEY ISSUE City of Toronto has requested a review of the Port Lands revitalization including the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project Environmental Assessment (DMNP EA).
RECOMMENDATION
WHEREAS the City of Toronto has requested City of Toronto staff, in conjunction with Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC), and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) with input from the Toronto Port Lands Development Corporation (TPLC) to seek ways to accelerate the redevelopment of the Toronto Portlands;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA staff be directed to participate in the review of the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project Environmental Assessment preferred and other alternatives, and the implementation strategy, with the intent to clarify the economic value that will be generated by the careful redevelopment of the area and to make the project as attractive as possible for private sector investment while upholding the goal and objectives as approved by the Minister of the Environment as stated within the EA Terms of Reference (June 2006);
THAT TRCA staff be directed, in conjunction with TWRC, to notify the Province of Ontario of the addition of the City of Toronto as a co-proponent to the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project EA;
THAT TRCA staff be directed to ensure TRCA's interest in the Port Lands including Tommy Thompson Park, the linkage from Lake Ontario Park to Ashbridge's Bay Park, and other elements of Lake Ontario Park be suitably addressed within the context of the acceleration of the revitalization of the Port Lands;
THAT TRCA staff report back to the Authority on the outcomes of this review, adjustments to the preferred alternative for the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project EA or other actions, and any implications for flood plain management and naturalization and/or other matters based on the findings of the review and business plans, and that this reporting back be coordinated with the reports to City Council and the TWRC Board;
AND FURTHER THAT the authorized officials be directed to take the necessary actions including executions of documents and funding instruments.
Page 10 34 DWRC #10/11 BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #4/10, held on May 21, 2010, Resolution #A74/10 was approved, in part, as follows:
THAT the Authority supports the concept design for the preferred alternative as specified in the Individual Environmental Assessment for the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project (DMNP EA), subject to endorsement by Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC) and Toronto City Council;...
...THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to complete and submit the DMNP EA to the Ontario Ministry of Environment for consideration upon endorsement of the DMNP EA from TWRC and the City of Toronto to proceed;
THAT staff be directed to continue discussions with TWRC, City of Toronto and other applicable stakeholders regarding the required components for flood protection on privately owned lands identified in the DMNP EA;
THAT staff be directed to explore mechanisms such as a Memorandum of Understanding with TWRC outlining TRCA's continued involvement and funding as the responsible authority for ensuring that the function, and terms and conditions of the DMNP EA, are maintained beyond the approvals stage for the DMNP EA;
THAT staff be directed to develop targeted flood plain management policies for the Lower Don Lands which will continue to minimize flood risk while also supporting and facilitating meeting the vision for a new Don River mouth consistent with the City of Toronto's proposed Official Plan Amendment and/or Zoning Amendment;
THAT staff be directed to seek input from the Province of Ontario in developing these policies and to keep the City of Toronto and TWRC appraised of the development of these policies, and to report back to the Authority;
THAT staff be directed to pursue opportunities, in conjunction with TWRC, to adopt the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project, such as a "Project" under the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended;
AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever action may be required to implement the contract, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents.
Over the past 16 months following this resolution, TRCA staff in conjunction with TWRC and the City of Toronto has: finalized and submitted the EA to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) in December of 2010; worked with TWRC, Ministry staff and City staff to address comments and concerns raised by TPLC, Toronto Port Authority (TPA), Lafarge and Redpath Sugar; made minor amendments to the DMNP EA based on comments received and resubmitted the amended EA to the EA branch of MOE on April 8, 2011.
DWRC #10/11 35 Page 11 It became clear to TRCA and TWRC that due to a number of factors including the desire of the Mayor's office to accelerate the revitalization of the Port Lands (Attachment 1), interest from developers in the Port Lands including lands required for the DMNP, and the collective need to develop a viable business plan for revitalizing the Port Lands, that the City was re-evaluating its position on the Lower Don Lands and DMNP EA. TRCA and TWRC were asked in August 2011 to request a further pause or time-out in the government review to enable the City of Toronto to re-evaluate its preferred direction for the Port Lands This request was granted until January 13, 2012 by MOE staff. A full chronological summary of activities undertaken since May 2010 has been provided in Attachment 2 titled "DMNP EA Chronology May 2010 to October 2011".
City of Toronto Council on September 21 and 22, 2011, adopted, in part, resolution EX9.6: 1. City Council endorse the protocol for the revitalization of the Port Lands substantially in the form attached as Attachment 2 to the September 21, 2011 report from the City Manager [EX9.6a] and authorize the City Manager to execute the protocol on behalf of the City (September 21, 2011 - supplementary report from the City Manager on the Toronto Port Lands Revitalization Opportunities (EX9.6a) ( http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2011/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-41080.pdf) 2. City Council request the City Manager to report as soon as possible and no later than the January 3, 2012 Executive Committee meeting, on the anticipated costs of completing the review of the Port Lands for 2012 and beyond and also include Waterfront Toronto's costing of the Don Mouth Environmental Assessment Refined List of Alternatives, including flood protection, soil remediation, infrastructure improvements and other matters related to the cost of implementation. 3. City Council request the City Manager to prepare and submit a report to the Executive Committee within six to eight months on the business and implementation plan and related progress to date.
The protocol referenced in the Council report under #1 identifies that the City of Toronto will become a co-proponent on the DMNP EA with TRCA and TWRC, and recognizes that the " review of the plans for the Port Lands will be a significant undertaking that requires the cooperation and collaboration of the City of Toronto, TWRC, TPLC and TRCA."
The protocol incorporates two distinct pieces of work as being vital to the review of the Port Lands: a further review of the DMNP EA; and the completion of an economic analysis along with a business and implementation plan for the entire Port Lands area, and if necessary, incorporates a review of the planning framework to assess whether any changes will be required.
TRCA, the City and TWRC as co-proponents, with input from TPLC will undertake a re-examination of the DMNP EA. The DMNP EA review will be informed by costing and economic analysis from the business and implementation plan for the Port Lands. This analysis will use the existing adopted plans for the Lower Don Lands (Council endorsed/acceptance of Lower Don Lands Framework Plan, Don River Mouth EA Preferred Option, Lower Don Lands Infrastructure EA, West Keating Precinct Infrastructure EA, Council adopted Official Plan amendments 388 and 389 and the West Keating Precinct Plan Zoning By-law amendment) as a reference point for the economic analysis.
Page 12 36 DWRC #10/11 TWRC will lead and coordinate all public consultation for the review of the DMNP EA and Lower Don Lands plan to ensure that public consultation is provided at a standard consistent with the EA Terms of Reference and consistent with the standard and expectation in the Designated Waterfront Area. Public consultation shall consider formats that were previously utilized (facilitation, working groups, subcommittees, etc.) and others as available. TWRC will collaborate with the City and TRCA in carrying out the consultation.
TWRC in cooperation with the City will develop a business plan for the Port Lands with input from TPLC. This plan will be peer reviewed by an independent third party. The analysis will include a review of the development model, financial incentives and tools that could be used for the development of the Port Lands (Tax Incentive Financing, Development Charges, etc.), financing mechanisms (public and private) that are designed to offset the cost to the City of infrastructure requirements, a review of other development models (i.e. making land available through RFI/RFP processes etc); and other mechanisms for minimizing the City's obligation to fund the development of the Port Lands.
As the City and TWRC work towards the completion of the Port Lands business and implementation plan, the City will undertake, using a coordinated approach, a review of the Port Lands planning framework to assess whether any changes will be necessary.
The protocol establishes that the City, TWRC and TRCA will establish an Executive Steering Committee to guide the review, with input from TPLC. The protocol specifically identifies the role of TRCA as being a co-proponent of the EA with the City and TWRC and that TRCA will work with the City and TWRC through the re-examination of the EA and provide expertise and information throughout.
Brian Denney, as Chief Administrative Officer of TRCA, John Livey, Toronto Deputy City Manager, and John Campbell, Chief Executive Officer for TWRC have formed the core of the Executive Committee with appropriate staff support. Work has begun to develop the scope of work, costing, the initial re-evaluation of the DMNP EA and the development of a public consultation plan.
FINANCIAL DETAILS The City of Toronto and TWRC have directed TRCA and our consultant led by AECOM to develop a scope of work and budget to develop a framework for the review of the DMNP EA and to participate in the development of the Port Lands economic analysis, and Business and Implementation Plan.
Funding will be provided for the above work by TWRC through existing funds remaining in the DMNP EA and/or other appropriate instruments.
Report prepared by: Ken Dion, extension 5230 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Ken Dion, extension 5230 Emails: [email protected] Date: September 08, 2011 Attachments: 2
DWRC #10/11 37 Page 13 Attachment 1 - Map of the Port Lands
Page 14 38 DWRC #10/11 Attachment 2 DMNP EA Chronology May 2010 to October 2011:
May 5, 2010, the Board of Directors at TWRC endorsed the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project Environmental Assessment (DMNP EA) as part of their comprehensive planning package for the Lower Don Lands. July 6, 7,8, 2010, Toronto City Council adopted Resolution EX45.15, which identified Council support for the Lower Don Lands Framework Plan, including the DMNP EA, and directed TRCA and TWRC to submit the DMNP EA to the Ministry of Environment for approval. This Resolution also directed TWRC to the Waterfront Project Director as Business and Implementation Plan for the Lower Don Lands with priority for Phase 1 (the Don Mouth), and for TRCA to work with the Chief Planner to obtain planning approvals to ensure the protection of the proposed corridors for the new Don River Mouth. August 25, 26, 27,2010, Toronto City Council adopted Resolution TE36.19 which approved the draft amendment of the former City of Toronto Official Plan and Central Waterfront Secondary Plan through OPA 388 for the Lower Don Lands, which in effect, reflected TWRC's Lower Don Lands Framework Plan, including the new river mouth alignment defined through the DMNP EA, and protected those lands from development that were required for the proposed Don River Mouth. August 27, TRCA met with Toronto Port Authority (TPA) to discuss concerns regarding near final draft of DMNP EA as it related to port operations, including Lafarge operations at Polson Quay. September to December, TRCA and TWRC revised final draft of DMNP EA to address concerns raised by TPA. December 17, 2010, TRCA submitted DMNP EA to the Ministry of Environment (MOE) for approval. February 11, 2011, end of mandated public and stakeholder review period of the DMNP EA. A detailed summary of comments and how they were addressed is provided in the attached Disposition Table for Comments on Final EA Report_FINAL_04.08.11_MOE EAAB.pdf. In summary, at the end of the review period: 4 letters of concern were submitted to MOE from Toronto Port Lands Company (TPLC), TPA, Lafarge and Redpath Sugar. The letter from TPLC was subsequently retracted 2 weeks later. 6 letters of support were submitted to MOE from Ed Freeman, West Don Lands Committee, Task Force to Bring Back the Don, Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Dalton Shipway, and Madeleine McDowell; Comments from the following provincial agencies were received: MOE EAAB, MOE Toronto District/Waterfront Coordinator, MOE Noise and Air Quality Unit, MOE Water and Wastewater, Ministry of Tourism and Culture, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ministry of Natural Resources Aurora District, and Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. All concerns raised by provincial agencies were addressed in the Amended EA for the DMNP by April 11, 2011. Comments from the following other agencies were received: Transport Canada and Hydro One. No substantive changes were required based on these comments.
DWRC #10/11 39 Page 15 February 22, 2011, TRCA and TWRC submitted a request to MOE for a time-out to address issues raised by TPA, Lafarge and Redpath. MOE's regulated timelines to resolve issues and resubmit to MOE was March 18, 2011. The time-out sought a delay until April 8, 2011. March 3, 2011, Letter submitted by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing outlined the Province's support for the City's OPA 388, subject to approval of the DMNP EA, and resolution of outstanding appeals to the OMB. March 11, 20011, TRCA and TWRC submitted a second request to MOE for a time-out to provide additional time to address issues raised by TPA, Lafarge and Redpath. The new resubmission deadline was April 26, 2011. February 11 to April 8, TRCA and TWRC corresponded and met with TPA, Lafarge and Redpath Sugar on numerous occasions to try and resolve concerns raised. April 8, 2011, TRCA resubmitted the Amended DMNP EA to MOE for their review. The attached Disposition Table summarized how we proposed to address their concerns. May 30, 2011 - MOE had requested the following information from the City: Clarification on land use designations under Official Plans and zoning. Lafarge is raising the question about whether they are a permitted use (this is not a ministry interpretation) and also indicating part of their property is designed open space which seems to be under the master plan as well as designated silos as a historic resource - hence limited redevelopment potential which is not what they were told in your meetings. TPA is wondering what the uses are permitted adjacent the dock walls and how they can be reserved for commercial shipping when there may be adjacent residential land uses which are not compatible or consistent, resulting in inadvertently affecting dock wall usage. Although these issues are outside of what EA controls - they are issues which are not answered by the responses provided and may have an impact on decision making. City staff had drafted a response to these issues, but withheld release to MOE when it was apparent that the Mayor's Office and TPLC may have had another plan for the Port Lands area. June 1, 2011 - MOE informed TRCA that the Director of EAAB extended MOE's deadline for review to August 19, 2011 in order to accommodate comments from the Growth Secretariat. As such, it was anticipated that the MOE Senior Project Coordinator would have until Sept. 16, 2011 to complete the MOE Review of the Amended DMNP EA. July 20, 2011 - TRCA staff and AECOM Project Manager met with TPLC and City Staff to discuss new direction for Port Lands coming out of Mayor's office. Concerns about deadlines. Letter submitted to TWRC July 20th outlining transfer of lead agency from TWRC to TPLC. August 17,2011 - Director of MOE granted TRCA and TWRC's third request for a time-out to enable the City of Toronto to further re-evaluate their preferred direction for the Port Lands. Extention granted until January 13,2012.
Page 16 40 DWRC #10/11 City Council on September 21 and 22, 2011, adopted Resolution EX9.6 as follows: 1. City Council endorse the protocol for the revitalization of the Port Lands substantially in the form attached as Attachment 2 to the report (September 21, 2011) from the City Manager [EX9.6a] and authorize the City Manager to execute the protocol on behalf of the City. 2. City Council request the City Manager to report as soon as possible and no later than the January 3, 2012 Executive Committee meeting, on the anticipated costs of completing the review of the Port Lands for 2012 and beyond and also include Waterfront Toronto's costing of the Don Mouth Environmental Assessment Refined List of Alternatives, including flood protection, soil remediation, infrastructure improvements and other matters related to the cost of implementation. 3. City Council request the City Manager to prepare and submit a report to the Executive Committee within six to eight months on the business and implementation plan and related progress to date. 4. City Council request the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning to report to the Executive Committee on October 3, 2011, on any actions required to ensure that development to the north of the Keating Channel is not delayed by the actions set out in the report (August 22, 2011) from the City. City Executive Committee on October 3, 2011, adopted Resolution EX11.20 as follows: 1. City Council direct that staff continue with the previous Council direction to resolve appeals at the Ontario Municipal Board as they apply to the Keating Channel Precinct West and other lands north of the Keating Channel.
DWRC #10/11 41 Page 17 Item AUTH7.4 TO: Chair and Members of the Authority Meeting #9/11, October 28, 2011
FROM: Nick Saccone, Director, Restoration Services
RE: YONGE-YORK MILLS FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL MAJOR MAINTENANCE ______KEY ISSUE Approval to undertake major maintenance to Yonge-York Mills Flood Control Channel in the City of Toronto.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to proceed with major maintenance of the Yonge-York Mills Flood Control Channel in the City of Toronto.
BACKGROUND The Yonge-York Mills Flood Control Channel was constructed by TRCA in 1968 along the West Don River between Yonge Street at York Mills Road, and the Rosedale Golf Club to protect the community known as Hoggs Hollow from the hazards of flooding and erosion.
Along its approximately 1.75 kilometre stretch of the West Don, the channel has three distinct reaches (Attachment 1): Reach 1 is approximately 375 metres (m) long and consists of a fully lined concrete channel from Yonge Street to approximately 140 m downstream, and concrete/rip rap lined channel for the remaining 235 m to Mill Street; Reach 2 is approximately 175 m long from Mill Street to Donino Avenue, and consists of a fully lined concrete channel; Reach 3 is approximately 1,200 m long and consists of a gabion lined channel from Donino Avenue to the northern boundary of the Rosedale Golf Club.
In January 2009, TRCA retained Stantec to complete a hydraulic assessment and maintenance study of the Yonge-York Mills Flood Control Channel. The purpose of the study was to confirm/establish an existing conditions model of the flood control channel, and to recommend a maintenance strategy to ensure that adequate conveyance capacity through the channel is maintained to protect the surrounding residential community.
RATIONALE The results of the Stantec study indicate that sediment and vegetation accumulation in the channel has adversely impacted conveyance capacity, increasing floodlines on private property. To minimize this risk Stantec recommended that all sediment, vegetation and debris/obstructions within the limits of the channel be removed. Additional maintenance recommendations included the repair of extensive cracking and shifted concrete panels, and the replacement of eroded backfill and failed sections of concrete to restore structural integrity.
Page 18 52 DWRC #10/11 As the protection of life and property from the hazards of flooding and erosion is a key mandate of TRCA, and maintaining channel capacity is essential to protect the numerous houses constructed immediately adjacent to the channel, staff recommend carrying out the recommended maintenance immediately upon the receipt of the necessary approvals to the limit of available funding.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Given the extensive length of the flood control channel and limited funding, implementation of the maintenance works will be undertaken on a priority basis as funding permits.
Phase 1 - removal of sediment and vegetation from the limits of the gabion lined portion of the channel (Reach 3). Material will be moved mechanically from the limits of the channel and will be disposed of offsite. Phase 2 - removal of sediment and vegetation from the remaining sections of the channel (Reaches 1 and 2) in order to restore conveyance capacity to as close to original condition as possible, and to confirm the type and extent of concrete repairs previously identified by Stantec. As in Phase 1, all material will be disposed of offsite. Phase 3 - repair of concrete in Reaches 1 and 2.
Phase 1 is anticipated to commence in December 2011 pending the receipt of all approvals and is expected to be completed by March 31, 2012. Phases 2 and 3 will be scheduled in 2012 - 2013 as funding permits.
FINANCIAL DETAILS Phase 1 is estimated at $720,000 including taxes, project administration and a contingency of 10%. Funding is available from 2011-12 City of Toronto erosion capital in account 107-12, plus a grant in the amount of $250,000 from Ministry of Natural Resources' Water and Erosion Control Infrastructure (WECI) Program, 2011-2012.
Report prepared by: Moranne McDonnell, 416-392-9725 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Moranne McDonnell, 416-392-9725 Emails: [email protected] Date: October 11, 2011 Attachments: 1
DWRC #10/11 53 Page 19 Attachment 1
Page 20 54 DWRC #10/11 Item AUTH7.3 TO: Chair and Members of the Authority Meeting #9/11, October 28, 2011
FROM: Adele Freeman, Director, Watershed Management
RE: ONTARIO REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE CONSORTIUM ______KEY ISSUE Endorsement of Ontario Regional Climate Change Consortium (ORCCC) Strategy and approval of draft Terms of Reference and proposed membership for the ORCCC Advisory Board.
RECOMMENDATION
WHEREAS "Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change: TRCA Action Plan for The Living City" released in 2008 identifies the establishment of a regional climate partnership to foster academic, private sector and government collaboration to accelerate climate change research and action;
AND WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and York University established the Climate Consortium for Research Action and Integration (CC-RAI) in 2009 to facilitate the development of a pan-Ontario collaboration to enhance climate science and research services for our partner municipalities, Ontario public service and private sector end–users;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the “Ontario Regional Climate Change Consortium Strategy: Adapting to a Changing Climate”, be endorsed;
THAT the draft Terms of Reference and proposed membership for the Ontario Regional Climate Change Consortium (ORCCC) Advisory Board be approved;
THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as is necessary to execute agreements and to facilitate implementation of ORCCC partnerships and priority projects;
AND FURTHER THAT a copy of this report be forwarded to appropriate partners and stakeholders as appropriate.
DWRC #10/11 42 Page 21 BACKGROUND Following the approval of "Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change: TRCA Action Plan for The Living City" by the Authority in April 2008, York University and TRCA formed a partnership to support research and action on climate change. Building on the strengths of both organizations, the CC-RAI was formed to actively engage a range of stakeholders around these issues. Since February 2010, CC-RAI has been involved in furthering the development of a pan-Ontario initiative that began as the Ontario Regional Climate Modelling (RCM) Ad Hoc Committee (herein referred to as the Ad Hoc Committee). The Ad Hoc Committee was chaired by Dr. Gordon McBean from the University of Western Ontario (recently, nominated as the first Canadian President elect of the International Council for Science) and included representation from 12 universities, as well as a range of private and public sector organizations. Through an iterative, consensus building, consultation process, representatives of the Ad Hoc Committee have supported the development of the “Ontario Regional Climate Change Consortium Strategy: Adapting to a Changing Climate” (link for full report http://www.climateconsortium.ca/2011/07/20/ontario-regional-climate-change-consortium-strate gy/. Hard copies of the Strategy will be available at the meeting).
The Strategy outlines an approach to developing and enhancing capacity within Ontario to deliver cutting-edge climate research and modelling expertise to a wide array of end-users. Recognizing that not one organization or university has the capacity to provide the wide variety of information, data and expertise required – a collaborative approach to action took hold. The Strategy outlines an approach to mobilizing existing research around climate change in Ontario with an aim to strengthen opportunities for new research.
The Strategy calls for the establishment of an Ontario Regional Climate Consortium Advisory Board, a central secretariat and sector-specific nodes with enhanced climate modelling, research and collaboration capabilities. Considering the successful coordination of the development of ORCCC Strategy, TRCA and York University have been asked to continue the coordination of ORCCC acting as the central secretariat. Since the completion of the Strategy several organizations have agreed to participate on the Advisory Board. A draft Terms of Reference for the Advisory Board (Attachment 1) and proposed membership list are attached below (Attachment 2).
The Ontario Regional Climate Change Consortium (ORCCC) ORCCC represents a new model for networked, pan-provincial, inter-institutional excellence in science and research focused on providing end-users with targeted information, analysis and services they need to address the risks, uncertainties and extremes of climate change in the province. It is anticipated that scientists from all of Ontario’s universities as well as many ministries, municipalities, NGOs and industries will be actively engaged with ORCCC, providing a wide range of expertise.
ORCCC will be a one-window resource to help decision makers formulate strategic, coordinated and scientifically-informed responses to climate adaptation. ORCCC will deliver climate services to public and private end users through:
Page 22 43 DWRC #10/11 Climate Modelling & Analysis | Enabling a consistent, science-based approach to planning Filling a major gap for standardized, regionally-specific climate intelligence by serving as the lead vehicle for monitoring and adapting the latest global climate change science into consistent climate parameters, methodologies and impact assessments on strategic sectors that are key to the economic development, social well-being, and health of Ontario residents and eco-systems.
Research Integration & Mobilization | Streamlining climate change research and action Providing a unique platform for streamlining coordination among Ontario's climate change assets. Key deliverables will include a province-wide climate research network and meta database, in addition to collaborative forums and sector working groups to facilitate effective collaboration between researchers, science policy experts, and end-users.
End-User Services | Translating climate data into actionable intelligence Translating climate data into actionable intelligence by providing policy makers and private and nonprofit organizations with access to a resource for effective adaptation responses. ORCCC will play a critical role in maintaining dialogue between the science community and end-users to enable informed information exchange and possibilities for collaborative planning.
Service Agent Support | Supporting intermediary users through authoritative tools Serving as a source for reliable, authoritative climate modelling support by developing standardized, peer-reviewed methodologies and/or tools designed for intermediary users (i.e. professional services firms).
Regional Context and Alignment with Existing Initiatives
Environment Canada: Environment Canada (EC) is committed to ensuring that its global and regional climate model outputs and scenarios are available to all users. To this affect, EC has formal and informal arrangements with groups like OURANOS (Quebec’s Consortium on Regional Climatology and Adaptation to Climate Change) and PCIC (Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium), to facilitate the use of EC information by regional climate modelling consortia. EC is willing to support ORCCC with similar arrangements.
Ministry of the Environment: The ORCCC Strategy has been developed in consideration of the ‘Adapting to Climate Change in Ontario: Towards the Design and Implementation of a Strategy and Action Plan’ prepared by the Expert Panel Report on Climate Adaptation in November 2009. The Strategy also provides a purpose-built response to a number of the recommendations and actions identified in the government’s response to the Expert Panel report, ‘Climate Ready: Ontario’s Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan 2011-2014’. Under their Climate Change Monitoring and Modelling Program, the ministry has been providing support (through grants) to universities to carry out high-resolution dynamic/combined downscaling during the past several years. ORCCC will build on the data produced through the Ministry of the Environment's (MOE) previous work, will serve the Ontario public service and will seek support from MOE as appropriate.
DWRC #10/11 44 Page 23 Conservation Ontario: The ORCCC Strategy complements Conservation Ontario’s Strategic Plan Goal to be the “trusted science brokers for healthy Great Lakes and climate change resilience”. Conservation Ontario has participated in the development of the Strategy and will provide guidance to the future work of ORCCC. Other conservation authorities (CA)will be invited to participate as appropriate. While no formal process is in place, TRCA has informally agreed to represent the GTA-wide CA‘s based upon discussions through the GTA flood group.
Municipalities: TRCA’s regional municipalities are expected to represent a significant segment of the end-users in need of locally-focused climate information, analysis and services. Given their broad range of responsibilities, ORCCC continues to work alongside various municipalities including the Region of York, Region of Peel and the City of Toronto, in order to define the range of products, services and information they require to address adaptation planning now and into the future. While initial work may focus on the GTA, it is anticipated that ORCCC will expand to provide services throughout the province.
ORCCC is positioned to deliver on the priorities set out in the Region of Peel Climate Change Strategy released in 2011 and will also aim to serve the needs of York and Durham regions as their climate change initiatives progress.
City of Toronto and CivicAction recently launched the Toronto Region Action Group on Extreme Weather with about 50 major organizations representing the management of hundreds of billions of built assets across the Toronto region. ORCCC has been positioned as a key service provider to this major end-user group in the Greater Toronto Area.
Work Completed to Date A one-day Climate Science Workshop (February 5, 2010) hosted by TRCA and York University, which engaged more than 135 participants from academia and public and private sectors. Establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee (convened in October 2010) representing 12 universities, all levels of government, Conservation Ontario, NGOs and the private sector including: Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO); Carleton University; City of Toronto; Conservation Ontario; Environment Canada; Insurance Bureau of Canada; Lakehead University; McMaster University; OCAD University; Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources; Ontario Ministry of the Environment; Ontario Power Generation; Queen’s University; Quentin Chiotti (ACER); Region of Peel; Ryerson University; TRCA; University of Guelph; University of Toronto: University of Waterloo; University of Western Ontario; University of Windsor; and York University. Several steering committees consisting of scientists, researchers, policy and decisions makers that have identified needs for climate research/analysis in Ontario, as well as the need of potential intermediary and end-users through a series of scoping papers. Completion of ORCCC Strategy, Advisory Board Terms of Reference and confirmation of participation from all levels of government, private sector and universities. A user needs assessment workshop hosted by Ontario College of Arts and Design University in May 2011. Relationship building with Quebec and Pacific Climate Change Consortiums. Natural Resource Canada (NRCan) funding to develop water adaptation best practices and guidance.
Page 24 45 DWRC #10/11 DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Key Future Priorities Establishment of an advisory board and central secretariat. Establishment of three university nodes with enhanced modeling and research capabilities suited to end users needs. These will be Water, Agriculture and Forestry, Health and Air Quality. Standardized climate parameters and methodologies for Ontario public service and municipalities to equip them with precise information in order to address uncertainty, including information on local/regional drivers such as altered hydrology due to urbanization, impacts of great lakes micro-climate etc. Region of Peel funding is available to develop projections for the Region to support the implementation of Peel Climate Strategy. Web-based infrastructure/platform to enable province-wide collaboration with access to data, tools and targeted research. A meta-database of previous, ongoing and new climate research linked to provincial and federal government sites. Private sector partnerships to undertake specific projects i.e. Business Risk Management Approaches, etc. Initiate pilot project with CivicAction and City of Toronto's Extreme Weather Group on extreme weather affecting electrical power continuity.
FINANCIAL DETAILS The work leading to the development of the ORCCC Strategy has leveraged considerable in-kind contributions and collaborative efforts by participating partners. Cash contribution was provided by York University in 2010 and 2011, York Region in 2010 and Region of Peel climate change funding in 2010 and 2011 (account 120-88).
The Consortium will operate on a sustainable funding basis by drawing on a mixed base of funding that shifts increasingly towards user fees over time. In the short term, the ORCCC will more heavily leverage on core funding from government sources and grants, with an objective to amplify fee-for-service and project-based revenue streams as service offerings solidify in the near term. Of significance, ORCCC will leverage efficiencies across its membership by drawing upon considerable in-kind computing and staff contributions from founding members to establish and maintain operations.
Report prepared by: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237 Emails: [email protected] For information contact: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237 Emails: [email protected] Date: September 16, 2011 Attachments: 2
DWRC #10/11 46 Page 25 Attachment 1 Ontario Regional Climate Change Consortium Advisory Board
Draft Terms of Reference (TOR) 2012-2013
This document sets out the Terms of Reference for the Ontario Regional Climate Change Consortium Advisory Board and provides an overview of the background of this initiative, its purpose, membership, governance structure, and funding model.
1.0 Background
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and York University jointly hosted the “Climate Science Workshop: The State of Regional Climate Modelling in Ontario” on February 5, 2010, which was attended by more than 135 participants representing thirteen universities; federal, provincial, and municipal governments; conservation authorities; and the private sector. The workshop called for the creation of a “new approach to partnership” through a committee that would identify a means to harness provincial climate expertise and resources, and to cultivate connections between the research community and these stakeholders in order to address provincial climate change issues.
From September 2010 to March 2011, representatives of twelve universities, all levels of government, NGOs, conservation authorities, and the private sector met regularly to develop a proposal and business strategy for a Regional Climate Modelling Partnership. In the spring of 2011, the Ontario Regional Climate Change Consortium (ORCCC) Strategy was completed and planning began to operationalize the Consortium.
***Additional details can be found in the Ontario Regional Climate Change Consortium (ORCCC) Strategy, which can be found online at: http://www.climateconsortium.ca/2011/07/20/ontario-regional-climate-change-consortiu m-strategy/
2.0 Purpose
2.1 Mission
To equip public and private sector decision-makers with high-quality, regionally-specific climate intelligence to empower them to effectively assess and manage climate risks as well as invest in adaptation measures.
2.2 Mandate
The Consortium will deliver the following four primary services:
Climate Modelling and Analysis: Take the lead for monitoring and adapting current climate science into climate parameters, methodologies and impact assessments for key sectors in Ontario. Research Integration and Mobilization: Provide a pan-provincial climate research network and meta-database and use forums and working groups to facilitate collaboration between researchers, policy experts and end-users.
Page 26 47 DWRC #10/11 End User Climate Services: Translate climate data into actionable intelligence by providing public and private sector end users with a resource for posing specific questions and receiving sector-specific information to assist in adaptation. Service Agent Support: Provide authoritative climate modelling support to professionals serving public and private sector decision makers.
3.0 Governance Structure, Roles and Responsibilities
ORCCC will be managed at the strategic level by an advisory board, a science committee and three sector nodes - water resources, agriculture and forestry, and health and air quality. The nodes will lead sector specific projects and service those sector climate needs with climate modelling research and analysis. In addition, a central “Secretariat” (York U|TRCA) will provide coordination and logistical support among members and work closely with the sector nodes on projects. For instance, the secretariat will provide meeting coordination, facilitation, administrative support and communication.
3.1 Advisory Board
The Advisory Board will provide advice and strategic direction to Consortium staff. The Advisory Board will seek to develop strategic partnerships with public/private sector partners and help generate resources to support Consortium projects.
The Advisory Board will be made up of a maximum of 25 members. They may include participating universities, federal, provincial and municipal government representatives, Conservation Ontario, as well as sector specific stakeholders and industry representatives, for example, Engineers Canada, etc.
Term: The advisory board will hold a two year term with an option for renewal for another year. The board will be staggered to ensure a level of continuity and institutional memory is retained.
3.1.1 Advisory Board Chair and Vice Chair
The Chair and the Vice Chair will be elected by members of the advisory board for the two years. Dr. Gordon McBean has agreed to continue in his role as chair of ORCCC. The Chair and the Vice Chair will have the following responsibilities:
being the primary spokespersons for ORCCC at public and official functions; presiding over Committee meetings, setting the agenda and generally ensuring the effectiveness of meetings; and ensuring that the nomination and appointment of Committee members occurs through an effective process and in a timely manner.
3.2 Reporting Relationship
An annual report on its activities will be provided to all member organizations. Procurement and financial reporting will follow the established policies of TRCA, York University or the key partner institutions receiving the funding.
DWRC #10/11 48 Page 27 3.3 Science Committee
The Science Committee will provide technical advice on climate science, modelling and research priorities. Assist with peer review of methodologies and analysis to address questions from stakeholders, including issues like uncertainty, and scientific validity.
The science committee will be made up of lead scientists from Ontario universities, Provincial and Federal scientist and representatives of the Consortium nodes. Other individuals recognized for their work in specialized fields will also be invited to participate. A mechanism will also be developing to seek input and expert guidance and advice from other consortia (e.g. PICS, Ouranos).
3.4 Sector Specific Nodes
Representatives from universities that host a sector/issue specific node will be represented on the advisory board and asked to provide relevant issue specific guidance and expertise in support of projects focused on such issues, i.e., Water. Nodes may be co-hosted by universities with particular expertise in a given subject area. Sector nodes will lead Consortium research and modelling projects in coordination with the Central Secretariat.
3.5 Central Secretariat
The Committee, its Chair and Vice Chair will be supported by a secretariat led by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and York University. The secretariat will provide facilitation, project and program development and implementation, research and policy analysis, administrative support, financial management and communications. The secretariat will be responsible for coordinating interaction with the nodes and facilitating collaboration on projects.
4.0 Funding Model
4.1 General Overview
A variety of funding sources will support the Consortium, with the composition shifting between sources in the short to long term. The Consortium hopes to secure funding from government sources with additional support provided by the private sector. Over time the Consortium aims to support its activities through a fee for service model with a decreasing reliance on core, public sector funding.
Page 28 49 DWRC #10/11 Attachment 2 Ontario Regional Climate Consortium Advisory Board Membership ADVISORY BOARD – Potential List
DWRC #10/11 50 Page 29 Page 30 51 DWRC #10/11
TO: Chair and Member of the Don Watershed Regeneration Council Meeting #10/11, November 10, 2011
FROM: Amy Thurston, Project Manager, Watershed Management, TRCA
RE: City of Toronto Parks Plan
KEY ISSUE
To provide DWRC with background information regarding the development of the City of Toronto Parks Plan and to provide an overview of the City of Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation Division’s Parks Plan Consultation Toolkit 2011 which will be discussed at DWRC Meeting #10/11.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the following background information and overview regarding the development of the City of Toronto Parks Plan be received;
AND THAT DWRC members provide input into the development of the City of Toronto Parks Plan by submitting comments individually;
AND FURTHER THAT a letter be submitted on behalf of the DWRC.
BACKGROUND
On January 20, 2010 City of Toronto Council approved the development of a City-wide Parks Plan based on seven guiding principles: parks and trails as city infrastructure; equitable access for all residents; supporting a diversity of uses; nature in the city; environmental stewardship; and place making and community engagement. The Parks Plan will guide acquisition, development, management and operation of the system of public parkland in the City of Toronto over a five-year period.
As part of the consultation process, the City of Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation Division is asking residents to provide input into the development of the 5-year Parks Plan by:
Completing an online survey which is available until December 16, 2011on the City of Toronto website at: www.toronto.ca/parks/parksplan Attending one of the public consultation meetings which are being held throughout Toronto in November and December. Upcoming meetings are being held on: November 17, 2011 from 7 – 9 p.m. at the Mitchell Field Community Centre (89 Church Avenue) November 24, 2011 from 7 – 9 p.m. at the Wellesley Community Centre (495 Sherbourne Street) December 1, 2011 from 7 – 9 p.m. at the Amesbury Community Centre (15070 Lawrence Avenue West) Hosting a Parks Plan discussion and completing the Consultation Toolkit, available online at: http://www.toronto.ca/parks/pdf/serviceplan/parksplan_consultation_toolkit.pdf
In order to better understand resident’s concerns, comments , and ideas regarding each of the seven guiding principles, City of Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation has developed questions specific to each guiding principle. The questions are provided below:
1. Over the next five years, what should the City of Toronto focus on to improve the quality of its parks, trails and open spaces? 2. What do you think the barriers are to achieving equitable access for all residents and how can they be overcome? 3. What are the top two priorities that the City should focus on over the next 5 years to support the diverse park needs of Toronto residents? 4. As Toronto continues to grow and develop, what should the City do to protect and enhance its parks, trails and natural areas? 5. How can residents, community groups and businesses help to develop, sustain and maintain City parks? 6. Do you have any additional feedback related to the seven guiding principles?
Further information is available online at: http://www.toronto.ca/parks/engagement/parksplan/index.htm
Attachment: City of Toronto Staff Report, Development of a City-wide Parks Plan.
For information contact: Amy Thurston (x 5283) Date: November 4, 2011
Page 32 DWRC #10/11
STAFF REPORT ACTION REQUIRED
Development of a City-wide Parks Plan Date: January 20, 2010
To: Parks and Environment Committee
Brenda Patterson, General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation From:
Wards: All
Reference Number:
SUMMARY
This report seeks City Council approval for the development of a City-wide, multi-year Parks Plan, based on a set of Guiding Principles identified in this report. The Plan will guide decision-making in the acquisition, development, management and operation of the system of public parkland across the City.
This report outlines the principles, the planning approach, a proposed work plan and timeline, including community and stakeholder engagement to support the development of the Parks Plan. The report also outlines a draft Parks Classification system that will be developed further as part of the Parks Plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The General Manager of Parks, Forestry and Recreation recommends that City Council approve the development of a City-wide, multi-year Parks Plan guided by the following principles:
1. Parks and Trails as City Infrastructure 2. Equitable Access for All Residents 3. Nature in the City 4. Place Making 5. Supporting a Diversity of Uses 6. Community Engagement and Partnerships 7. Environmental Goals and Practices
Development of a City-wide Parks Plan 1
(Please refer to Attachment A: Parks Plan: Guiding Principles for details of specific principles and their related objectives.)
Financial Impact
This report has no immediate financial impact.
DECISION HISTORY
In 2004, City Council approved a strategic plan for Parks, Forestry and Recreation (PF&R), ‘Our Common Grounds,’ which set a direction for the future delivery of parks, recreation and forestry services. The strategic plan identified a vision for Toronto as the ‘City within a park’ whose diverse communities come together on ‘our common grounds,’ the City’s extensive system of parks, trails, urban forests and recreation facilities. The three key pillars of the strategic plan are: Stewardship of the environment around us Social and physical development of children and youth Lifelong physical activity among all Toronto residents
Our Common Grounds also identified 53 recommendations as part of an Action Plan. Included in this was recommendation #14: the preparation of a Parks Master Plan to guide the renaissance of the City’s parks and trails. In order to fulfill this recommendation, PF&R staff, in 2006, began work on the ‘Parks Renaissance Strategy.’ The research, consultation and initial findings from the draft Parks Renaissance Strategy will be used as the basis for the development of a comprehensive Parks Plan.
The Parks Renaissance Strategy was presented to Committee on two previous dates:
May 4, 2006 meeting of the Economic Development and Parks Committee: information update and presentation (received by the Committee for information. Report link: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2006/agendas/committees/edp/edp060504/it001.pdf
May 8, 2007 meeting of the Parks and Environment Committee: progress report and presentation identifying a preliminary list of recommended action areas where future investments and activities should be concentrated (recommended action areas were amended by Committee and adopted by Council). Report link: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2007/pe/bgrd/backgroundfile-3367.pdf
Committee Decision link: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2007/pe/decisions/2007-05-08-pe04-dd.pdf
Council recommendations for action areas have been incorporated into the Principles being presented as part of the current report (see Attachment A).
Development of a City-wide Parks Plan 2
City Council, at its meeting of August 5 and 6, 2009, approved the development of a city- wide multi-year Recreation Service Plan based on the principles of equitable access, quality, inclusion and capacity building. The Parks Plan and Recreation Service Plan are being developed concurrently to ensure a comprehensive, multi-year service-based approach to the delivery of parks and recreation services by the PF&R Division in the City of Toronto.
ISSUE BACKGROUND
Toronto’s system of parks is part of the green space fabric of the City, linking diverse cultures and communities together. With close to 8,000 hectares of public parkland representing 1,500 parks and over 225 kilometres of trails, the City’s Parks, Forestry and Recreation Division manages the largest amount of land found within the City limits, approximately 13% of the City’s land base.
The system of parks and trails in the city represent public assets that provide places for over 2.5 million residents to engage in play, to celebrate, to enjoy nature, to learn and to socialize. Parks and trails in the City of Toronto are part of a green space system that includes public and private open spaces and an extensive natural heritage system.
Parks and trails provide benefits to individuals on a physical and psychological basis and help to define the character of neighbourhoods across the City. Parks are an important component of the city’s system of natural areas and the City’s open space network and public realm. It is critical that the City’s planning for its system of parks and trails ensures that all user groups (including all levels of ability) and all communities will benefit from access to a system of quality parks and trails with appropriate amenities.
Diversity of race, religion and lifestyle help define and set Toronto apart from other world cities. Toronto is home to virtually all of the world's culture groups - more than 140 languages and dialects are spoken here. Toronto's rich multi-cultural diversity is expressed by the more than 200 distinct ethnic origins. Over thirty percent of City residents had a home language other than English or French. In the 2006 census, 47 per cent of Toronto's population (1,162,635 people) reported themselves as being part of a visible minority.
There clearly is a need to respond to and celebrate the diversity of needs in such a multi- cultural city, as well as recognize the needs of all ages and levels of ability through an appropriate planning approach.
Development of a City-wide Parks Plan 3
COMMENTS
Context
The public park assets managed by PF&R overlap with the natural area system across the City, which is made up of watercourses, forest, meadow, successional habitat, wetlands and beach and bluff areas. Approximately 42% of the City’s public parkland is made up of these natural systems. The natural heritage system is part of six regional watersheds and stretches beyond the City’s boundaries. The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is the owner of extensive natural areas in the City, most of which are managed by PF&R through a management agreement.
Public parkland is part of and helps to define the system of landforms and waterbodies that make up Toronto’s signature landscape that gives the City its unique character. This distinctive landscape is made up of the waterfront, ravines, river and stream valleys, including the network of lost streams and the old Lake Iroquois shoreline bluff that runs across the City.
Toronto’s natural system is part of a regional ecosystem that extends beyond the boundaries of the City, to the east and west along the Lake Ontario shoreline, to the north through six main watersheds (Etobicoke Creek, Mimico Creek, Humber River, Don River, Highland Creek and Rouge River) all the way to the provincially protected Greenbelt and the Oak Ridges Moraine.
Municipal parkland and trails are complemented by an extensive system of other open spaces, both private and public. These include: streetscapes and road rights-of-way; cemeteries; golf courses; hydro corridors; non-municipal parks such as Downsview Park; unique public places such as the Toronto Zoo, Harbourfront Centre, Fort York, Ontario Place and Black Creek Pioneer Village; publicly-accessible private open spaces such as courtyards and squares; university and college grounds; and an extensive system of schoolyards.
Parks and open spaces, along with streets and public buildings, are a significant part of the City of Toronto’s public realm. Together, these elements of the public realm unify our diverse communities and convey the ‘personality’ or image of the city and its neighbourhoods.
The system of public parkland is home to numerous facilities and amenities, including:
136 community centres 281 indoor and outdoor pools
Development of a City-wide Parks Plan 4
833 playgrounds 8 greenhouses & 3 conservatories 121 indoor arenas and outdoor ice rinks 2 alpine skiing centres 839 sports fields 756 tennis courts 40 ha. of horticultural displays 17 children’s learning gardens 47 allotment & community gardens 11 swimming beaches, including 7 ‘blue flag’ beaches 1 urban farm 3 animal farms 5 municipal golf courses 2.5 million trees
A key deliverable in the Parks Plan will be to confirm a classification system for parks which will outline the hierarchy of parks types and the roles that individual park types play in their respective communities and the City as a whole. As well, the classification system will identify specific planning and operational objectives for each park type. Fair and equitable allocation and programming of the City’s parks for a vast range of users with diverse needs, as well as the need to meet natural environment objectives, requires a balancing of competing interests. The Parks Plan, through a set of Guiding Principles and a Park Classification System, will have to address this full range of interests.
(A draft Parks Classification System is provided for information as Attachment B)
The Planning Approach
The Parks Plan will define a focused program of investment in the City's system of parks and trails. It will align service delivery with the social, economic and cultural needs of a diverse and changing population and will identify the role of parks and trails as key city infrastructure that is also part of the City’s natural and environmental framework. The Plan will guide decision-making over a five-year time frame, after which it will be reviewed and updated to keep its objectives current and ensure that it responds to a vision for Toronto as a vibrant and healthy city in the 21st century.
This planning exercise is a critical step for the Division to take to build a sustainable network of parks and trails, and to establish consistent processes and methodologies, including a framework to: identify current and desired service levels; articulate the diverse needs for parks-related services of the City’s many communities; provide a basis for decision-making; and establish priorities and principles for investments. As part of this, it will be important to balance the vision of an extensive, well-used and well- designed parkland system with the need for sustainable levels of maintenance and operation that meet standards. Expectations need to be matched with fiscal realities and available staff resources.
Development of a City-wide Parks Plan 5
Providing, developing, and maintaining a healthy system of parks and trails represents a key service delivery to City residents and visitors to the City and is a key driver in meeting overall City goals of social and physical health and environmental sustainability. Since parks host many of the City’s recreation facilities and programs, the parks system has a key role in promoting involvement in recreation programs that enrich people’s lives by building skills and linkages to their communities. As well, since parks are home to 2.5 million trees and extensive natural areas, the parks system has a key role in meeting the City’s tree canopy targets, providing residents and visitors with attractive and comfortable public environments and accommodating natural habitat.
It is critical that the Parks Plan ensure that Parks, Forestry and Recreation programs and services remain relevant to the diverse and changing needs of the City’s residents and communities. This approach will guide future planning, priority setting and investment, and will clearly articulate the core City services to be provided in relation to a set of Guiding Principles.
Guiding Principles
The principles provided below are presented in an order that does not imply that any of them take precedence over another when considering planning priorities for parks and trails. All are equally important as key principles that will drive future decision-making.
1. Parks and Trails as City Infrastructure
Parks and trails are vital components of city infrastructure and must be recognized for the contribution they make to a vital city. The system of parks and trails is part of a continuous city-wide green space system that also includes the natural heritage system, publicly accessible open spaces and streetscapes. This system provides recreational opportunities to residents and visitors and makes connections within the City and outside the city. As a green landscape component of city infrastructure, it provides relief from the built-up, urbanized environment typical of a large city like Toronto.
Parks and open spaces, along with streets and public buildings, are a significant part of the City of Toronto’s public realm. Together, these elements of the public realm unify our diverse communities and convey the ‘personality’ or image of the City and its neighbourhoods. Planning must address sustainability of the parks and trails infrastructure. To that end, adequate capital and operating budget investment in this component of city infrastructure should reflect the importance of a high-quality system of parks and trails.
2. Equitable Access for All Residents
The system of parks and trails is a valuable city resource that must be accessible to residents in all parts of the City and must respond to the needs of a diverse population regardless of age, level of ability, income or cultural background.
Development of a City-wide Parks Plan 6
3. Nature in the City
The natural heritage framework within the City is an important component of the City’s green space system which performs many ecological functions important to the health of the City and should be protected, restored and expanded. As well, this natural framework is a component of a larger bioregion of tree canopy, natural habitat and watersheds that extend beyond the City’s borders. The interaction of city residents, especially children and youth, with healthy and meaningful natural spaces should be protected and enhanced, as the City becomes an increasingly urbanized and structured environment.
4. Place Making
A high standard of quality and visual appeal must be emphasized in the planning, design and ongoing management of public parks and their associated assets. Attractive and comfortable spaces, when provided on a consistent basis across the City, invite use by residents and contribute to the overall quality of the public realm within the City. The unique identity of neighbourhoods can be celebrated through the design of local parks. Parks and open spaces should project a strong positive image within neighbourhoods and collectively should build the image of the City as a whole.
5. Supporting a Diversity of Uses
The parks and trails system must respond to a wide range of demands from active and passive users. Lifelong active living, fitness and active sports need to be encouraged as well as passive recreation and quiet enjoyment. As well as supporting the needs of active and passive users, parks also need to accommodate spaces for natural areas and habitat, tree canopy, community events, urban agriculture and cultural expression. Parks should be able to respond to a palette of uses appropriate to their location and role within the overall system.
6. Community Engagement and Partnerships
Community involvement is a key ingredient in the planning, design and operation of parks and trails which must be fostered. Stewardship and volunteer participation should be encouraged to complement existing city resources and help to provide high quality parks and trails that best serve their communities. An effective program of communication with the public on all matters related to parks and trails should be maintained on a regular basis.
Creative opportunities to engage community and business partners to complement existing funding through fundraising, partnerships and sponsorships should be explored and implemented.
Development of a City-wide Parks Plan 7
7. Environmental Goals and Practices
It is essential that environmentally responsible practices and green initiatives be incorporated into the day-to-day planning, design, operation and maintenance of the City’s system of parks and trails and the City’s key environmental goals as set out in the Official Plan and other supporting legislation are met. Parks and trails should be designed to meet current standards of environmental sustainability and green development.
Please refer to Attachment A: Parks Plan: Guiding Principles for details of specific principles and their related objectives.
Proposed Work Plan and Timeline The development of the city-wide, multi-year Parks Plan will engage staff, key stakeholders, and the broader community and will be guided by a comprehensive consultation and communication strategy. Through focus groups, public sessions and web-based engagement, the plan will be informed by key stakeholders and the general public. As well as the guiding principles and draft parks classification system included in this report, the plan will have, as one of its key deliverables, an implementation strategy for the key moves required over a five-year time frame to realize the plan. It is expected that a multi-year Parks Plan will be submitted to City Council in 2011.
CONTACT Anne Marra, Director, Parks Development & Infrastructure Management Tel: 416-394-5723, Fax: 416-394-8935; E-mail: [email protected]
Gary Short, Acting Manager, Planning, Design & Development Tel: 416-394-8504, Fax: 416-392-3355, E-mail: [email protected]
Alex Shevchuk, Acting Supervisor, Area Landscape & Planning Initiatives Tel: 416-392-0356, Fax 416-392-3355, E-mail: [email protected]
SIGNATURE
______Brenda Patterson General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation
ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Parks Plan: Guiding Principles Attachment B – Draft Parks Classification System
Development of a City-wide Parks Plan 8
Attachment A
Parks Plan: Guiding Principles
1. Parks and Trails as City Infrastructure
Parks and trails are vital components of city infrastructure and must be recognized for the contribution they make to a vital city. The system of parks and trails is part of a continuous city-wide green space system that also includes the natural heritage system, publicly accessible open spaces and streetscapes. This system provides recreational opportunities to residents and visitors and makes connections within the city and outside the city. As a green, landscape component of city infrastructure, it provides relief from the built-up, urbanized environment typical of a large city like Toronto.
Parks and open spaces, along with streets and public buildings, are a significant part of the City of Toronto’s public realm. Together, these elements of the public realm unify our diverse communities and convey the ‘personality’ or image of the city and its neighbourhoods. Adequate capital and operating budget investment in this component of city infrastructure should reflect the importance of a high-quality system of parks and trails.
City Infrastructure Objectives:
1. Promote the system of parks and trails as vital city infrastructure
Recognize the system of parks and trails as important elements of city-building along with other city infrastructure Ensure that investment in capital assets and in the operation and maintenance of these assets reflects the importance of an extensive, well-used and well-designed system of parks and trails within the City Strengthen the natural environment as a continuous connected green system within the city Celebrate the distinctive landscape that defines the image of Toronto through the development of a connected public green space system that highlights these key features
Development of a City-wide Parks Plan 9
2. Build the Public Realm as a continuous open space system
Connect the system of parks & trails to thepublicly-accessible Public Realm that includes streets, road rights-of-way, public buildings, natural heritage areas, and publicly accessible open spaces such as hydro corridors, cemeteries and schoolyards
3. Build a connected system of trails
Provide a connected off-road system of multi-use trails that accommodate recreation as well as transportation functions Connect the trail system to the on-road system of bikeways that are part of the Toronto Bike Plan network Connect the trail system to public sidewalks and the pedestrian environment within streetscapes and other open spaces Recognize the system of unpaved hiking and biking trails in natural areas as an important city-wide resource that needs to be managed
4. Support the regional green space system
Provide connections to the regional green space system and trails beyond the city’s borders Strengthen the natural environment within the city as a continuous connected system that supports the overall function of the regional green space system
2. Equitable Access for All Residents
The system of parks and trails is a valuable city resource that must be accessible to residents in all parts of the city and must respond to the needs of a diverse population regardless of age, level of ability, income or cultural background.
Access & Equity Objectives:
1. Ensure an adequate provision of a range of parkland and trail types across the city, to serve the range of needs of residents and visitors
Provide local neighbourhood parks that serve residents at a reasonable walk-to distance Provide larger and more active district parks as centres for sports and specialized facilities which are accessible to a number of neighbourhoods
Development of a City-wide Parks Plan 10
Provide a connected system of feature parks and more specialized parks and trails that serve the needs of residents on a city-wide basis and act as destinations that attract visitors from outside the city
2. Incorporate Universal Accessibility into the design of all parks and trails
Recognize Universal Accessibility as a key objective to meet in the planning and design of the parks and trail systems Promote parks and trails as inclusive environments that are welcoming to users of all abilities, including those with physical, sensory and intellectual disabilities
3. Celebrate the city’s diverse, multicultural city population
Recognize the needs and cultural customs of the city’s diverse, multicultural population within specific neighbourhoods across the citythrough an inclusive planning and design process Ensure that programming and events reflect the diverse population
3. Nature in the City
The natural heritage framework within the city is an important component of the city’s green space system which performs many ecological functions important to the health of the city and should be protected, restored and expanded. As well, this natural framework is a component of a largerbioregion of tree canopy, natural habitat and watersheds that extend beyond the city’s borders. The interaction of city residents, especially children and youth, with healthy and meaningful natural spaces should be protected and enhanced, as the city becomes an increasingly urbanized and structured environment.
Natural City Objectives:
1. Strengthen the framework of natural areas across the city
Incorporate natural areas as a component of parks and trails which complement other active and passive uses but are buffered from human use to protect natural integrity and function Enhance, protect and expand existing natural areas, wildlife habitats and corridors Encourage protection and stewardship of natural areas in adjacent private properties and other open spaces
Development of a City-wide Parks Plan 11
2. Expand the urban forest and the tree canopy
Work proactively to meet identified canopy targets for the urban forest across the city Maximize opportunities for tree canopy (new plantings, replacement of aging stock and protection of existing trees) in parks and trail corridors Co-ordinate tree planting, protection and management practicesto optimize the tree canopy in other open spaces especially streetscape and road rights-of-way, to complement and connect to the urban forest in the parks and trail system
3. Celebrate nature in the city
Incorporate interpretation and education of the natural system into promotion and communications about the parks and trails system Bring children and youth into the parks and trails system to learn the function and value of the city’s natural systems
4. Place Making
A high standard of quality and visual appeal must be emphasized in the planning, design and ongoing management of public parks and their associated assets. Attractive and comfortable spaces, when provided on a consistent basis across the city, invite use by residents and contribute to theoverall quality of the public realm within the city. The unique identity of neighbourhoods can be celebrated through the design of local parks. Parks and open spaces should project a strongpositive image within neighbourhoods and collectively should build the image of the city as a whole.
Place Making Objectives:
1. Promote quality and innovation in the planning and design of parks
Promote design quality on a city–wide basis to ensure that the design of all types of public parks and trails meet a consistent set of expectations Provide opportunities for design innovation through competitions and pilot projects that explore new ideas and approaches
Development of a City-wide Parks Plan 12
2. Promote parks, trails and open spaces as the physical and social focus of neighbourhoods and communities
Locate parks as prominent features in locations central and ‘up front’ within the neighbourhood and community which recognizes the important role of a parks and open space system to physically organize and provide focus to neighbourhoods Provide well-designed and well-managed parks and trails that foster a sense of community pride and ownership
3. Ensure that parks and trails are clean and well-maintained
Identify and communicate standards for maintaining and cleaning all types of parks and trails Promote public participation and pride in the cleanliness and well-being of public spaces Ensure that operating funding supports the needs of the existing system and that operating and maintenance needs for new parks and trails are properly anticipated in annual budget planning
4. Maintain standards for safety and health in the planning, design and operation of the parks and trails system
5. Ensure that parks and trails have the necessaryamenities to make them attractive and comfortable spaces
5. Supporting a Diversity of Uses
The parks and trails system must respond to a wide range of demands from active and passive users. Lifelong active living, fitness and active sports need to be encouraged as well as passive recreation and quiet enjoyment. As well as supporting the needs of active and passive users, parks also need to accommodate spaces for natural areas and habitat, tree canopy, community events, urban agriculture and cultural expression. Parks should be able to respond to a palette of uses appropriate to their location and role within the overall system.
Development of a City-wide Parks Plan 13
Diverse Use Objectives:
1. Accommodate active recreation, fitness and sport development in the system of parks and trails
Ensure that the system of parks can supportorganized sports by providing appropriate park types throughout the city which can accommodate active recreation facilities such as soccer fields, cricket pitches and baseball diamonds Ensure that the system of parks can support informal active sports by providing appropriate park types throughout the city which can accommodate facilities such as sports courts, skateboard parks and tennis courts Include connected and looped trails as part of the hierarchy of trail types to allow for fitness training
2. Accommodate passive and community uses in the system of parks and trails
Accommodate quiet enjoyment and passive uses such as picnicking, socializing, hiking, nature viewing and casual play as part of the program of usesfor parks Preserve areas for special community uses (e.g. meeting spaces, space for community gardens and farmers markets) within parks Ensure that walking routes and pedestrian uses are properly buffered from active cycling, rollerblading and commuting users on trails
3. Ensure that active or passive uses are appropriate for specific park and trail types and their communities
Preserve spaces in parks for natural areasand buffer them from other uses Locate active park elements and facilities in appropriate park types (e.g. larger neighbourhood parks, district and city-wide park types) that can handle the level of use and do not adversely affect adjacent residential areas Preserve neighbourhood parks as locally-serving spaces that focus on passive use and respect the neighbourhood character
4. Encourage Year-Round Uses for Parks and Open Spaces
Accommodate uses for winter and shoulder seasons in planning and design of parks spaces and parks facilities to promote use and enjoyment year-round Consider the provision of winter maintenance of parks, open spaces and facilities where possible to accommodate year-round use
Development of a City-wide Parks Plan 14
5. Promote cultural expression, heritagerecognition and the celebration of the arts
Provide for the celebration and interpretation of local history in parks and trails where appropriate Identify opportunities to incorporate public art in key areas Provide spaces for cultural expression and events within parksthat can support that level of activity Incorporate interpretation and education of natural heritage
6. Promote tourism and use of parks & trails by visitors to the City of Toronto
Support the use of appropriate destination parks and feature trails by outside visitors to promote tourism Communicate the system of parks and trails as attractive destinations for visitors to the city
6. Community Engagement and Partnerships
Community involvement is a key ingredient in the planning, design and operation of parks and trails which must be fostered. Stewardship & volunteer participation should be encouraged to complement existing city resourcesand help to provide high quality parks and trails that best serve their communities. An effective program of communication with the public on all matters related to parks & trails should be maintained on a regular basis.
Creative opportunities to engage community and business partners to complement existing funding through fundraising, partnerships and sponsorships should be explored and implemented.
Community Engagement and Partnerships Objectives:
1. Engage the public and stakeholders in the planning and design of parks and trails
Identify relevant community groups and special stakeholder groups to be included in regular PF&R communications and the consultation for all project scales and types Develop a consistent approach to communicating project information to the public and stakeholders and including them in planning and design processes
Development of a City-wide Parks Plan 15
2. Encourage volunteer participation and stewardship by local communities
Take advantage of opportunities for the participation of community groups to augment existing staff resources in the ongoing management and operation of parks and trails Develop a consistent approach to guide the activities of community groups as advisors and stewards in the management and operation of parks and trails city- wide
3. Build relationships with outside funding partners
Identify opportunities to build formal partnerships with corporate donors and foundations
4. Provide a comprehensive and inclusive program of communication with the public
Develop a comprehensive communications program to inform the public about current PF&R goals, strategies, projects and programs Make use of current media and technologies to reach as broad an audience as possible Develop communications to reach all communities and diverse cultures and languages across the city Market the system of parks and trails to potential visitors outside the city to promote tourism
7. Environmental Goals and Practices
It is essential that environmentally responsible practices and green initiatives be incorporated into the day-to-day planning, design, operation and maintenance of the city’s system of parks and trails and the City’s key environmental goals as set out in the Official Plan and other supporting legislation are met. Parks and trails should be designed to meet current standards of environmental sustainability and green development.
Environmental and Green Objectives:
1. Support the City’s environmental goals in planning & design
Incorporate current sustainability criteria and greengoals and objectives in the planning and design of specific parks and trails
Development of a City-wide Parks Plan 16
Promote the development of pilot projects to incorporate innovative environmental and green practices Promote Green Development Standards, LEED accreditation and other measures of sustainable design in the development of parks and trails
2. Actively support the City’s agenda to address Climate Change
Align divisional goals for the development and operation of the system of parks and trails with the City’s goals for greenhouse gas and air pollution reduction Enhance the tree canopy within parks and trail corridors to meet the City’s tree canopy coverage objectives and help to mitigate the effects of Climate Change Continue the development of infrastructure to promote cycling, walking and alternative transportation Incorporate community gardens, food markets and urban agricultureinto the development and programming of parks
3. Actively support the City’s goals for management of stormwater set out in the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan
Co-ordinate the development of stormwater management facilities with Toronto Water and identify opportunities for incorporating them into the system of parks to meet common goals Ensure that stormwater management facilities do not compromise core functions of the parks system and services provided to the public
4. Follow sustainable practices in the operation and maintenance of parks and trails
Incorporate water efficiency, energy efficiency and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants in operations and maintenance practices for parks and trails
Development of a City-wide Parks Plan 17
Attachment B
Parks Plan: Draft Parks Classification System Typical Park Types Description Examples Size Parks with unique or Varies, Toronto Island, High Park (multi- exceptional features, depending use); Rouge Park (natural specialized recreation on key heritage); Edwards Gardens / amenities and/or major features and Toronto Botanical Garden, DESTINATION events which are amenities; Toronto Music Garden promoted to tourists typically (horticulture); Centennial Park from outside Toronto. over 15 (sports and special events) hectares. Parks with unique or Varies, Earl Bales Park, East Point Park, exceptional features, depending Western Waterfront Park System, specialized recreation on key Sunnybrook Park, Bluffer's Park, amenities and/or major features and Eglinton Flats CITYWIDE events which draw users amenities; from across the city. typically over 15 hectares. Larger parks with a Typically 5 - Amesbury Park, Riverdale Park wider range of features 15 hectares. East, L'Amoreaux Park South, Jack and recreation amenities Goodlad, Stan Wadlow Park , (primarily sports- Eglinton Park, Memorial Park DISTRICT oriented) which draw users from beyond the local community.
Large neighbourhood- Typically 3 – Cummer Park, Stephen Leacock type parks but with a 5 hectares. Park, Monarch Park, Don Russell wider range of features Memorial Park , Dufferin Grove and recreation amenities Park COMMUNITY (including active uses not typical of a Neighbourhood Park) which draw users from the local community.
Development of a City-wide Parks Plan 18
Parks Plan: Draft Parks Classification System Typical Park Types Description Examples Size Small parks offering a Typically 0.5 Bickford Park, Burrows Hall Park, range of features and - 5 hectares. Roding Park , Cloverdale Park recreation amenities oriented to local users. NEIGHBOURHOOD
Very small parks with Typically Twenty-eighth Street Park, Frank limited amenities and under 0.5 Stollery Parkette, Wilson Heights user draw; includes hectares. Parkette, Raleigh Parkette traffic islands, PARKETTE boulevards and road allowances maintained by Parks, Forestry & Recreation. Linear parkland that Typically 10 CP PS Lead rail -trail, Belt Line focuses on trail use to 30 m Trail, CN Leaside rail-trail, Lower (recreation and width, Don Trail, Lake Shore Blvd. east transportation) with length north side R.O.W GREENWAY associated amenities to varies. support that use. Typically in utility corridors, road rights-of- way, lost creeks.
Development of a City-wide Parks Plan 19
2011 SCHEDULE
DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL Meeting Date and Time Location Number Thursday November 10, 2011 North York Civic Centre, 5100 Yonge #10/11 7:00 pm Street, Committee Room 3 Thursday December 8, 2011 North York Civic Centre, 5100 Yonge #11/11 7:00 pm Street, Committee Room 3
POLICY AND ADVOCACY GROUP Meeting Date Location Number Wednesday, November 23, 2011 North York Civic Centre, 5100 Yonge #4/11 7:00 p.m. Street, Committee Room 4
COMMUNITY OUTREACH GROUP Meeting Date and Time Location Number Thursday, November 24, 2011 North York Civic Centre, 5100 Yonge #6/11 7:00 p.m. Street, Committee Room 4
Page 52 DWRC #10/11
2012 SCHEDULE
DON WATERSHED REGENERATION COUNCIL Meeting Date and Time Location Number Thursday January 12, 2011 #1/11 TBD 7:00 pm Thursday February 9, 2011 #2/11 TBD 7:00 pm Thursday March 8, 2011 #3/11 TBD 7:00 pm Thursday April 12, 2011 #4/11 TBD 7:00 pm Thursday May 10, 2011 #5/11 TBD 7:00 pm Thursday June 14, 2011 #6/11 TBD 7:00 pm Thursday July 12, 2011 #7/11 TBD 7:00 pm Thursday August 9, 2011 #8/11 TBD 7:00 pm Thursday September 13, 2011 #9/11 TBD 7:00 pm Thursday October 11, 2011 #10/11 TBD 7:00 pm Thursday November 8, 2011 #11/11 TBD 7:00 pm Thursday December 13, 2011 #12/11 TBD 7:00 pm
DWRC #10/11 Page 53
CHAIR’S MEETING Meeting Date Location Number Tuesday, January 3, 2011 #1/11 Teleconference 8:15-8:45 Monday, January 30, 2011 Teleconference #2/11 8:15-8:45 Monday, February 27, 2011 Teleconference #3/11 8:15-8:45 Monday, April 2, 2011 Teleconference #4/11 8:15-8:45 Monday, April 30, 2011 Teleconference #5/11 8:15-8:45 Monday, June 4, 2011 Teleconference #6/11 8:15-8:45 Friday, June 29, 2011 Teleconference #7/11 8:15-8:45 Monday, July 30, 2011 Teleconference #8/11 8:15-8:45 Friday, August 31, 2011 Teleconference #9/11 8:15-8:45 Monday, October 1, 2011 Teleconference #10/11 8:15-8:45 Monday, October 29, 2011 Teleconference #11/11 8:15-8:45 Monday, December 3, 2011 Teleconference #12/11 8:15-8:45
Page 54 DWRC #10/11
POLICY AND ADVOCACY GROUP Meeting Date Location Number Wednesday, January 25, 2011 #1/11 TBD 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, February 22, 2011 #2/11 TBD 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, March 28, 2011 #3/11 TBD 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, April 25, 2011 #4/11 TBD 6:00 p.m. Wednesday, May 30, 2011 #5/11 TBD 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, June 27, 2011 #6/11 TBD 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, July 25, 2011 #7/11 TBD 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, August 29, 2011 #8/11 TBD 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, September 19, 2011 #9/11 TBD 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, October 24, 2011 #10/11 TBD 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, November 28, 2011 #11/11 TBD 7:00 p.m.
DWRC #10/11 Page 55
COMMUNITY OUTREACH GROUP Meeting Date and Time Location Number Thursday, January 26, 2011 #1/11 TBD 7:00 p.m. Thursday, February 23, 2011 #2/11 TBD 7:00 p.m. Thursday, March 29, 2011 #3/11 TBD 7:00 p.m. Thursday, April 26, 2011 #4/11 TBD 6:00 p.m. Thursday, May 31, 2011 #5/11 TBD 7:00 p.m. Thursday, June 28, 2011 #6/11 TBD 7:00 p.m. Thursday, July 26, 2011 #7/11 TBD 7:00 p.m. Thursday, August 30, 2011 #8/11 TBD 7:00 p.m. Thursday, September 20, 2011 #9/11 TBD 7:00 p.m. Thursday, October 25, 2011 #10/11 TBD 7:00 p.m. Thursday, November 29, 2011 #11/11 TBD 7:00 p.m.
Page 56 DWRC #10/11 Wilket Creek Rehabilitation Project
History of TRCA Involvement
2005: August 19, 2005 storm caused significant damage to the watercourses throughout the City of Toronto
AFTER
Edwards Gardens – August 19, 2005
1 History of TRCA Involvement
The North Entrance to Wilket Creek Park – August 19, 2005
History of TRCA Involvement
102 Damaged Bridges 160 Damaged Pathways, Trails and Embankments
AFTER
2 History of TRCA Involvement
• All of Edwards Gardens, and 10 sites within Wilket Creek Park were identified as priority areas based on the finding of the storm damage data collected
2007: City of Toronto Parks, Forestry and Recreation Department was granted a $5 million budget by City Council to address damage to parks and infrastructure City-wide, and to restore damaged areas to a state of good repair.
AND,
TRCA’s Restoration Services was requested to take the lead on managing the portfolio
Edwards Gardens Upper Channel
May 2009
During construction
3 Wilket Creek – Site 1
Collapsing vertical Terraced armourstone armourstone wall revetment May 2009
Wilket Creek – Site 5
Armourstone bank protection and restored trail Damaged riverbank and trail
4 AND then…
• June 23, 2008 there was another significant storm event that affected Wilket Creek Park
AND then…
• July 24, 2009 TRCA was notified that there had been additional damage as the result of a minor storm event
5 And as a result…
Priority Areas for Emergency Site 6/7 Works
Site 3
6 What’s happening now?
• In 2010 TRCA initiated a study under the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process on behalf of PF&R and Toronto Water with the following objectives:
• To develop designs for the long-term protection of “at risk” infrastructure within Wilket Creek Park
• To complete a full fluvial geomorphic assessment of the watershed to identify and implement works to allow the creek to reach a ‘stable’ state
• The title of the study is: “Wilket Creek Within Wilket Creek Park Rehabilitation Study to Address Ongoing Erosion Hazards Threatening Infrastructure, and Geomorphic Systems and Habitat Study”
• In July 2011 TRCA commenced emergency works within Wilket Creek Park at Site 6/7 to provide protection to two sections of an exposed sanitary sewer line, where they crossed the watercourse. The site represents the first major portion of the rehabilitation work that is to be completed as part of this project.
The Plan
7 Progress overview
Construction progress
8 Construction progress
For any questions please contact:
Patricia Newland Project Manager, Restoration Services (416) 392-9690 [email protected]
Thank you for your time
9 Ultimate stable 2. Wilket Creek Rehabilitation Project planform
• Following completion of all emergency repairs and Existing completion of the EA, large-scale channel planform rehabilitation efforts and anticipated to be undertaken within the next 3 – 5 years to stabilize and restore the remainder of Wilket Creek
10 CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS UPDATE March 2012
The Phase II emergency works being completed within Wilket Creek Park, are currently ongoing. It had been anticipated that this work would be completed by the end of 2011 but due to some site complications and delays in the delivery of key components of the project the revised anticipated completion date is May 2012. The general location of the work site is shown in the adjacent map.
Complete trail closure through the work area is in effect until the completion of the project, in an effort to protect public safety. This measure is necessary as there is active construction with heavy machinery, and two of the creek crossings within the works area are currently unsafe for use by the public.
During this time, there is no through access from Edwards Gardens to Sunnybrook Park via the Wilket Creek Park Trail. Leslie Street should be used as an alternate connection route during this time period.
Below are some photographs of the on-going construction at the site.
Figure 1. Backhoe working on the new trail, with the restored channel to the right (facing upstream). Source: McPherson-Andrews Contracting Ltd, March 23, 2012
Figure 2. New 30 metre pedestrian bridge being prepared for installation. Source: McPherson-Andrews Contracting Ltd., March 23, 2012
Figure 3. Reconstructed section of Wilket Creek (facing downstream) Source: McPherson-Andrews Contracting Ltd. March 23, 2012.
For more information on the project, please contact: Patricia Newland, Project Manager • Environmental Engineering Projects • Toronto and Region Conservation Authority • Phone: (416) 392-9690 • Email: [email protected]
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the City of Toronto will be holding a public meeting as a way to engage residents in the life of their city. Toronto thrives on your great ideas and actions. We invite you to get involved!
WILKET CREEK GEOMORPHIC SYSTEMS AND FISH HABITAT RESTORATION MASTER PLAN
Background
In 2011, the City of Toronto and TRCA initiated a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Study to identify preferred methods for enhancing the overall stability and function of Wilket Creek. Like many urban watercourses, Wilket Creek has been impacted by human activities and uncontrolled storm sewer discharges. This has led to extensive erosion causing impacts to trails and subsurface infrastructure, failure of previously constructed erosion protection measures as well as the degradation of the quality of aquatic habitat and the Creek’s riparian zone.
The Process
The study is following the Master Planning provisions of the Municipal Class EA process (amended in 2007). The study will define the problem, consider and evaluate alternative solutions, assess impacts of the proposed solutions, and identify measures to lessen any adverse impacts.
We Would Like to Hear From You
Public consultation is an important part of this study. If you have any questions or comments or would like to be placed on the study mailing list, please contact:
Patricia Newland, Project Manager Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Tel: 416-392-9690 [email protected]
You can also visit: www.trca.on.ca/wilketcreek
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Study Notice of Design Charrette
You are invited to attend a Design Charrette to find out more about the study, provide feedback on observed channel problems and solutions being considered, and the next steps in the process. You will have the opportunity to view displays, speak with and ask questions of project staff, and provide your input. Details are as follows:
Date: Wednesday, December 18th, 2013 Time: 7:00 pm until 9:00 pm Location: Banbury Community Center 120 Banbury Road Toronto
Wilket Creek Geomorphic and Habitat Systems Master Plan
Public Workshop #2 Background December 18, 2013 The Wilket Creek Geomorphic & Habitat Systems Master Plan is being under-
Banbury Community Centre taken by the City of Toronto and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 120 Banbury Road (TRCA). Toronto, ON The aim of the project is to develop a long-term management plan for Wilket 7:oo p.m.—9:00 p.m. Creek that takes account of natural processes, wildlife habitat and public amen- ity. In particular, the project will protect infrastructure at risk of erosion, including Agenda exposed manholes, pedestrian bridges and pathways while working with natural channel processes. 7:00 p.m. Workshop Begins Why are we developing a Master Plan?
As a result of the August 19, 2005 storm event, a number of elements of To- 7:00 - 8:45 p.m. ronto's infrastructure were exposed by creek erosion. Within the Wilket Creek Review of Materials subwatershed, particularly within Wilket Creek Park, major problems arose after the Aug 19th storm which required immediate remediation - several debris jams & occurred at pedestrian bridges, and several sections of pathways were eroded. Working Session In 2007-8, after compiling a list of approximately thirteen sites in Edwards Gar- dens and Wilket Creek Park, TRCA began to repair these areas on a prioritized
basis. Subsequent to completing repairs in May 2008, the June 23rd 2008 storm 8:45 p.m. destroyed the repairs just completed at 2 sites (pedestrian bridges near sanitary sewer crossings of the creek), requiring their immediate temporary repair. Summary & Wrap-Up
Geomorphology is the study of landforms and how they are shaped by natural processes. The Geomorphic & Habitat Systems Master Plan will develop an un- 9:00 p.m. derstanding of the processes operating Workshop Ends within Wilket Creek, together with how they are being influenced by channel modifica- tions, such as structures and changes to the creek itself. Based on an understanding of how the creek is behaving, we will be able to identify a long-term integrated plan to ad- dress the current erosion issues, as well as identifying opportunities for in-stream habitat improved. What will be the outcomes?
The Master Plan will identify works to be completed along the length of Wilket Creek in order to address the stability and habitat issues that are identified. We do not anticipate that works will be required throughout the whole creek but rather at selected locations, such as the works that have already taken place at Wilket Creek Park. Although the works themselves will be localized, they will be Exposed sanitary sewer planned within the context of the whole creek and with a long-term vision. Dif- crossing on Wilket Creek ferent possible solutions will be developed and evaluated according to environ- mental, social and economic criteria in order to select the most appropriate so- lution. This will help ensure that works do not have undesirable upstream and downstream impacts and, we hope, will reduce the need for future intervention. What has taken place so far?
Wilket Creek Park A number of investigations have occurred throughout Wilket Creek Park that have provided insight on channel evolution, sediment dynamics, and opportuni- “Protect what is ties for risk mitigation and stream restoration. Completed reports include: Wilket -Milne Creek Regeneration Concept Plan (Aquafor Beech Limited, 1999); the healthy and natural, Wilket Creek at Lawrence Ave. and Leslie St. Geomorphological Study (Parish Geomorphic Limited, 2001; Update 2003); TRCA Regional Monitoring Program rehabilitate – Geomorphic Component (TRCA, 2003); Wilket Creek-Edwards Gardens Flu- vial Geomorphological Study (2007). At Site 6/7 and Site 3 and Site 3 South, what is not.” infrastructure was deemed to be at high risk and mitigation ‘Emergency Works’ were implemented. Restoration designs have been developed for the remaining sites identified throughout the park.
Adaptive Management of Stream Corridors in Upstream of Lawrence Avenue Ontario, 2001. Rapid geomorphic assessments completed along Wilket Creek upstream of Lawrence Ave. have documented existing conditions and identified at-risk infra- structure, as well as locations along the water- course where infrastructure may be at-risk in the near future. Exposed sanitary sewer crossings in WC-R5 warrant immediate attention and therefore a detailed survey has been taken along the reach to allow for the planning and development of possi- ble mitigation works. Along the sinuous reach WC- R7, active channel adjustment and migration may lead to future risks to infrastructure and property. A detailed survey has been completed at WC-R7 in order to develop a preliminary sediment budget, Debris jams and bank further understanding of a ‘natural’ segment of the erosion on Wilket Creek watercourse, and build capacity to direct possible restoration recommendations. Board 1 Study Purpose and Objectives Board 2 Study Area ‐ Key Map Boards 3‐5 Study Process and Approach
Boards 6‐9 Wilket Creek Park: Proposed Solutions Boards 10‐14 Wilket Creek between Lawrence Ave. and York Mills Rd. Problems, Opportunities, Proposed Solutions Boards 15‐16 Alternative Solutions to be Considered Board 17 Evaluation Criteria Board 18 Next Steps Board 19 Contact Information
The Wilket Creek Geomorphic Systems and Why are we developing a Master Plan for Wilket Creek? Habitat Master Plan Class Environmental • Significant storm events from 2000‐2008 have caused major damage to the Assessment study is being undertaken by City of channel and local infrastructure Toronto and Toronto and Region Conservation • After the August 19th, 2005 event the City of Toronto identified 26 areas of Authority (TRCA). concern relating to infrastructure including bridges, pathways, manholes and sanitary sewers The purpose of the study is to develop a long‐ • The City requested that TRCA assist in developing and implementing an term management plan (i.e. Master Plan) for interim repair and stabilization program to address critical areas Wilket Creek that takes account of natural • Following the interim repair efforts, additional damage occurred during processes, wildlife habitat and public amenities. subsequent storm events • The ongoing erosion impacts and infrastructure damage confirms the need for the development of a longer term management plan that takes into account The key objective of the project is to protect natural channel processes. infrastructure, including exposed manholes, sewers, pedestrian bridges and pathways, which is at risk due to erosion impacts from large storm What will be the outcome? events. The Master Plan will: • Recommend projects to stabilize sections of Wilket Creek and protect infrastructure from future erosion impacts. • Incorporate habitat considerations to improve riparian and wildlife habitat within the channel • Prioritize projects (e.g. short‐term, medium term, long‐term) • Identify mitigation measures to reduce impacts of recommended projects to the greatest extent possible
1 This study is following the Master Planning provisions of a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
2 This study is following a process founded in the principles of Adaptive Environmental Management (AEM), as outlined in the document “The Adaptive Management of Stream Corridors in Ontario (2001)”
This process has Four Phases:
Confirm Assess Alternatives and Identify the Problem Implications
Explore Choose Explore the Problem Making the Choice
When making the choice of what to do, we can: 1. Do Nothing – monitor the situation 2. Use Land‐use Planning Tools – land‐use designations / zoning, protect the feature 3. Design – detailed analysis for planning and design 4. Manage the existing situation – best management practices, habitat restoration
Stream analyses must consider the reach scale (large) to the habitat / aquatic organism scale (fine)
REACH SCALE
HABITAT / ORGANISM SCALE
3 4 WCP Sites 3‐9
WCP Sites 6‐10
5 WC‐R6
6 WC‐R8
v
7 Bank Stabilization Options 1. Do Nothing Bioengineering Methods • No human intervention, creek conditions monitored.
2. Infrastructure Realignment • Relocate infrastructure away from creek.
3. Local Improvements • Repairs and bank stabilization • Reduce impacts on public infrastructure and private lands
Bed Stabilization Options Engineered Methods
8 4. Complete Channel Realignment – Re‐establish natural meandering pattern with pools and riffles
– Remove structures (e.g. gabion baskets), construct new channel within constraints of available property.
– Restore bank stability, erosion and grade controls, and natural vegetation within new creek corridor.
Before Realignment
After Realignment
Evaluation Criteria 1. Natural environment a)Erosion Protection – will this alternative protect the creek bed and banks from future erosion? b)Sediment Transport –does this alternative provide natural sediment transport through the creek system? c) Natural Environment –what will be the impacts on aquatic and terrestrial habitats?
2. Social and cultural environments a)Planning initiatives –how will this alternative fit into other ongoing planning studies? b)Private property –how will this alternative impact lands under private ownership? c) Trails and Recreation – will this alternative have impacts on trail / recreational uses and public safety? d)Archaeological resources – will this alternative have impacts on known or unknown cultural resources?
3. Economic environment a)Costs – how much will it cost to implement and maintain this alternative? b)Lifecycle – how long will the alternative last? Will additional work need to be completed again, and when?
4. Technical factors a)Constructability – are there limits or constraints to construction of this alternative? E.g. slopes, property ownership, significant environmental features b)Access – is the site accessible for the required construction machinery / techniques to build the alternative and maintain it in the future? c) Permits and approvals – will this alternative be approved by agencies such as Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of Environment?
9 After tonight’s workshop, • Compile and review input received from public consultation into the study report
• Identify and confirm preferred management alternatives
• Present and receive feedback on preliminary preferred solutions
• Establish a risk‐based implementation plan – identify when alternatives should be implemented, e.g. immediately, 0‐5 years, 5‐10 years…
• Issue Notice of Completion for the Master Plan; 30‐day public and agency comment period
Upon Completion of Environmental Assessment Process (pending regulatory and budgetary approvals)
• Implementation / Construction of preferred alternatives
• Monitor resulting conditions – successes, failures, adaptation
Thank you for participating in this study.
Your input is important. Please submit your completed Comment Sheet to staff at the Registration Table. Alternatively, your comments can be submitted by Fax, Email, or Mail, using the contact information below, by January 10, 2014. Pre‐addressed envelopes are available upon request.
Contact: Patricia Newland, Environmental Engineering Projects ‐ Restoration Services Division
Address: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 1 Eastville Avenue, Toronto, ON, M1M 2N5
Phone: 416‐392‐9690 Fax: 416‐392‐9726 Email: [email protected]
For more information about this project and to access the workshop materials, please visit the study website at http://www.trca.on.ca/wilketcreek/ 19
10 Wilket Creek Geomorphic Systems Master Plan Public Information Center #2 December 18, 2013 Banbury Community Centre
Present Patricia Newland, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Bill Snodgrass, City of Toronto, Toronto Water Mark Wojda, Parish Geomorphic Limited (PGL) John Parish, Parish Geomorphic Limited (PGL) Shari Faulkenham, Parish Geomorphic Limited (PGL) Community members
Outcomes Public Information Center (PIC) #2 involved the presentation of the evaluation of alternative solutions, including “Do Nothing”, “Infrastructure Realignment”, “Local Improvements”, and “Complete Channel Realignment”. The conceptual solution for the Complete Channel Realignment in Wilket Creek Park had initially been presented at PIC #1, and an update on completed Emergency Works was provided at this workshop. Possible realignment solutions were presented for WC-R5 and WC-R7. Feedback was received and compiled for the preliminary preferred solutions. Although feedback sheets were provided, none were filled out as most comments were made verbally. Participants were also prompted to provide feedback concerning the alternatives by writing comments on sticky notes to place on the specific site board they were commenting on. Only one note was placed on the boards, at WC-R7, indicating that the reach should remain sinuous. Table 1 contains a summary of the general comments and responses or actions, if applicable:
Table 1 – Meeting Comments and Reponses/Actions Comment Response/ Action Some community members voiced concern that the Noted – additional follow up meetings will be held to public meeting was scheduled so closely to the holiday ensure that all members of the public are provided the season and indicated that the turnout would likely be forum to express opinions and concerns. higher if it were to be held at another time. In regards to Wilket Creek north of Lawrence Avenue, Integrating a functional sinuosity into the rehabilitation participants indicated that sinuosity of the creek should design is a key aspect of developing the appropriate be maintained, with one individual noting that the solution for each of the sites. A balance between the sinuosity provides energy dissipation. existing sinuosity and a stable planform that addresses
risks to the sewer is paramount. All design efforts will Minimizing tree removals north of Lawrence Avenue minimize tree removals, as is possible. was also identified as a key point. Noted – while this suggestion is not part of the A request was made to install a pedestrian bridge and immediate need to address risks to infrastructure and trail connection across Wilket Creek at Post Road. The geomorphic form and function, it can be included in individual currently climbs down into the creek and back longer-term planning and consideration by PF&R, when out to cross at this location. appropriate. The high occurrence of debris jams along this stretch Debris jams in the privately owned section between are attributable to the active nature of the creek, both by Lawrence Avenue and Post Road were indicated to be widening and meandering. Proposed alternatives a nuisance. Questions about what is being done to would address the adjustment processes and reduce prevent, reduce, and remove jams were asked. debris production. Comments noting the degraded appearance of Noted – the public perception regarding aesthetics in infrastructure in WC-R8 and WC-R9 were made along this section will be used to evaluate the alternatives. with requests to clean up/rehabilitate those sections.
City of Toronto & Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Wilket Creek Geormorphic and Habitat Systems Master Plan Class Environmental Assessment
Public Workshop – December 18, 2013 COMMENT SHEET Background The City of Toronto and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority are undertaking a Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) study to identify preferred solutions to address erosion problems in Wilket Creek, which have negatively impacted the creek's aquatic and vegetative habitats and put City trails and sewer infrastructure at risk.
The outcome of the Class EA study will be a Master Plan that will identify recommended projects to enhance the stability and function of Wilket Creek, and help protect the creek and City infrastructure from the impacts of future storm events.
We Need Your Input Your input in the study process is very important and valuable. Please take a few minutes to complete this comment sheet and provide your input on: Problems/issues and opportunities Alternative solutions to be considered Potential criteria for evaluating alternative solutions
A series of maps for the 9 reaches of Wilket Creek is also provided to assist you in providing input.
Optional – Your Contact Details Name: ______Organization: ______Phone: ______E-mail: ______Address:______Study Questions 1. What do you feel are the key problems/issues that are occurring in Wilket Creek? Please provide your comments below.
Please continue on back of page.
1 City of Toronto & Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Wilket Creek Geormorphic and Habitat Systems Master Plan Class Environmental Assessment 2. What areas in Wilket Creek are you most concerned about? What are the problems/issues in these specific areas? Please refer to the displayed Wilket Creek Reach Maps. Provide your comments below and specify the location (e.g. Reach 5) and/or provide comments directly on the individual Reach Maps.
3. Potential solutions to address the problems in Wilket Creek are displayed on Boards #15 and #16. a) Do you have any comments on any of the potential solutions? b) Do you have any suggestions for other potential solutions that should be considered? Please refer to the displayed Wilket Creek Reach Maps. Provide your comments below and specify the location (e.g. Reach 5) and/or provide comments directly on the individual Reach Maps.
2 City of Toronto & Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Wilket Creek Geormorphic and Habitat Systems Master Plan Class Environmental Assessment
4. Several proposed criteria for evaluating the alternative solutions are provided on Board #17. a. Do you have any comments on any of the proposed evaluation criteria? b. Are there any additional criteria that should be considered in evaluating alternatives? Please comment below
5. Do you have any additional comments about the Wilket Creek Class EA study? Please comment below.
3 City of Toronto & Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Wilket Creek Geormorphic and Habitat Systems Master Plan Class Environmental Assessment
Thank you for participating in this study.
Please submit your completed Comment Sheet to staff at the Registration Table. Alternatively, your comments can be submitted by by Fax, Email, or Mail, using the contact information below, by January 10, 2014. Pre-addressed envelopes are available upon request.
Contact: Patricia Newland, Environmental Engineering Projects - Restoration Services Division,
Address: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 1 Eastville Avenue, Toronto, ON, M1M 2N5
Phone: 416-392-9690 Fax: 416-392-9726 Email: [email protected]
For more information about this project and to access the workshop materials, please visit the study website at http://www.trca.on.ca/wilketcreek/
The personal information on this form is collected under the authority of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S. 136 ( c). The information is used to contact you about future meetings and to provide updates regarding the Wilket Creek Geormorphic and Habitat Systems Master Plan Class Environmental Assessment Study. With the exception of personal information, all comments will become part of the public record. Questions about the collection of this information may be directed to Patricia Newland, Environmental Engineering Projects - Restoration Services Division; Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 1 Eastville Avenue, Toronto, ON, M1M 2N5; 416-392-9690, Email: [email protected]
4 Consultation with Friends of Wilket Creek February 25, 2014 Banbury Community Centre
Present Patricia Newland, TRCA Bill Snodgrass, City of Toronto, Toronto Water Mark Wojda, Parish Geomorphic Limited Friends of Wilket Creek Community members
Outcomes Much of the meeting discussion focused on the tree cutting and vegetation removal that was taking place along Wilket Creek, particularly in the wooded area south of Windfields Park. A great deal of concern was expressed over the methods and extent of the tree clean-up. At the time of the meeting, presenters were unaware of the activities as the cutting and clearing were not a part of the master plan study or Emergency Works. It was determined following the meeting that this work was being performed by the City of Toronto work crews in response to ice storm damage.
A number of concerns relating to the consultation process were brought forward. One was related to a perceived lack of communication regarding when the public meetings are to occur. It was recommended that other methods are used to increase public awareness of the meetings, such as mail outs or Facebook groups. Also, a single point of contact for the study team was desired. Additionally, a number of individuals requested that, in future meetings, a presentation is made as opposed to solely using display boards. They would prefer being directed through the overall process in a more formal setting as there was general misunderstanding of what is occurring and what stage in the EA process the study was.
The possible realignment planform for WC-R5 as initially presented at the December PIC, was discussed (Figure 1).
Figure 1 – Possible Realignment Option, WC-R5
The following two alternatives for WC-R7, presented at the December PIC, were discussed (Figure 2)
a) Potential Realignment A – which follows sinuosity of creek, but results in the need for tree removal to accommodate a wider creek b) Potential Realignment B – which results in relatively straight creek, and would likely cause more disruption to the flora and fauna of the woods, by significantly relocating the footprint area of the creek through the Woods along the west valley wall
Figure 2 – Possible Realignment Options A and B, WC-R7
Regarding possible intervention in the wooded section of WC-R7, initial reactions were opposed due to possible disruption of mature trees and the canopy. Following discussion, an understanding was developed that trees will be disrupted in either scenario: through the removal of trees during construction activities or due to the active nature of the sinuous reach as the creek meanders naturally. What is not addressed by a “Do Nothing” approach is the continual debris jams or the possibility of migration over the sanitary trunk sewer.
Table 1 contains specific comments and responses or actions, if applicable:
Table 1 – Meeting Comments and Reponses/Actions Comment Response/ Action
In WC-R5, the Paisley’s (734 Lawrence Ave. E) have in In the private property section, any roads that would be the past had bikers go down through their property to built in order to allow for construction works would not access trails near the creek – they had to put in a fence be made accessible to the public. along their private roadway to prevent these riders. They are concerned that if an access road was put in to The property and, specifically landscaping, along the complete construction that it would be used by creek will be thoroughly documented prior to any recreational users along the private backyards, resulting intervention occurring such that it can be restored in trespassing and security issues. following installation of protection measures.
It was also reiterated that if any work does occur, their property needs to be documented beforehand so that everything can be returned back to exactly how it was.
A number of people have observed other restorations or channel designs that have been previously completed along Wilket Creek and question the success of the designs. This includes sites at Edward’s Gardens and the Emergency Works at Country Lane. Large A greater understanding of the system following the adjustments have led to the conclusion that the stone completion of numerous analyses for the Master Plan, sizes weren’t large enough or banks weren’t high in addition to monitoring of existing intervention works enough (e.g. at Country Lane). The concern is that due will allow for the refinement of design parameters. to how designs have been completed in the past, if the same methods are followed in future designs, the stones still just move under the next big storm and the projects are perceived as being failures and therefore a waste of money. If intervention works are to occur, construction access roads will be required. Existing path networks and cleared areas will be used as much as possible. Where this is not possible, a detailed access plan will be created such that key vegetation will be documented Concern was expressed about a road being created and a route which will result in the least disturbance to through the valley for two reasons: (1) The possible existing vegetation is utilized. Where vegetation is destruction of trees/ vegetation/ etc.; removed, it will be replaced through the planting of (2) Concern about any road being made permanent – native species. current users want to keep people traffic to a minimum. In private property areas, access roads will not be made public following use for construction. It is not anticipated that any pathway that is not currently paved will be paved during or following the completion of any intervention works. Water quality at the outlet of the storm sewers outletting A number of people have mentioned about the to Wilket Creek at York Mills Road is not being studied/ “cesspool” at the outlet of the York Mills Road culvert. addressed during this study. The presence of the large piece of concrete was noted Observations were made of a large piece of concrete and it will be investigated prior to the implementation of which has appeared to move near the weir/dam area in any intervention works. Windfields Park, indicating the stream power. In addition, it was mentioned that there is a preference for It is not anticipated that any pathway that is not the pathway bordering the creek in the park to remain currently paved will be paved during or following the unpaved, even though it has been observed to erode. completion of any intervention works. The occurrence of debris jams and the possible The owner of the private bridge at the downstream influence on morphology was noted. This is an extent of WC-R6 noted that there is a large debris jam important location because the creek crosses over the just upstream of the bridge and is concerned about the sanitary trunk sewer here. This information will be used bridge staying in place. Appeared to be fine with leaving in the development of preferred alternatives and the jam in place right now as it directs flow away from implementation schedule. Any work (e.g. replacement his property. of bridge) would need to be coordinated with the property owner. The pinchpoints are presently narrower than observed In WC-R7, a gentleman noticed that the air photo is in the air photos. Photos from 2003 were used in the outdated and the pinchpoints in the sinuous section are figures as they provided the best view of the creek. This much narrower now than they appear on the air photo. stretch of the creek has recently been surveyed and therefore existing conditions are documented. The canopy/ tree cover can create difficulty in establish One young man was very interested in the types of in traditional vegetative methods used to stabilize bank treatments that might be applied in the forested banks, however the detailed design process will ensure area. that appropriate techniques are utilized.
Consultation with Friends of Wilket Creek April 22, 2014 Toronto City Hall, Room B
Present Councillor Jaye Robinson, Ward 25 Don Valley West Emma Best, Constituency Assistant, Ward 25 Don Valley West David Nosella, City of Toronto, Parks, Forestry and Recreation (PF&R) Patricia Newland, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Bill Snodgrass, City of Toronto, Toronto Water Friends of Wilket Creek (FOWC): Meredith Beresford, Swati Chung, David Clarke
Outcomes Much of meeting discussion focused on the dynamics of the February 25, 2014 focus group meeting, held with the Friends of Wilket Creek (FOWC) community group at Banbury Community Centre, and the City of Toronto’s (City) tree removal process from ice storm damage.
Most of concerns expressed at the February 25th focus group meeting were caused by perceptions of home owners living in the vicinity of the wooded area of Windfields Park and Banbury Park and the method and extent of tree clean-up that occurred in wooded area of these parks between Post Road north to Country Lane. The wood area is referred to below as "the Woods".
It was noted that The Woods are a mature old- growth Carolinian forest which must be preserved. The Woods are a community meeting space and passive walking, pastoral space. In addition, members of the FOWC recognize the need to protect the sanitary sewer as a result of the City's Emergency repair works implemented at the end of Country Lane to prevent a local sanitary crossing which crossed Wilket Creek from completing breaking.
In answer to one key item "Is City going to create a path and pave it on either side of the creek between Post Road north to Country Lane", the answer is no. PF & R have no such plans. This item appears to have been started as a rumour, and magnified.
In answer to another question – "how and where is City going to create a construction access road for necessary creek work in the "Woods", the answer is – that is still to be determined, and will be based on Creek restoration alternative to be selected.
In terms of project management for the Wilket Creek Geomorphic Systems Study, TRCA (Patrica Newland) is the Project Manager for the geomorphic study, PF & R (Dave Nosella) is the City lead and Bill Snodgrass is the Toronto Water lead, especially for creek design aspects.
The following two alternatives for WC-R7, presented at the December PIC and the February 25, 2014 public meeting, were discussed (Figure 1).
a) Potential Realignment A – which follows sinuosity of creek, but results in the need for tree removal to accommodate a wider creek b) Potential Realignment B – which results in relatively straight creek, and would likely cause more disruption to the flora and fauna of the woods, by significantly relocating the footprint area of the creek through the Woods along the west valley wall
Figure 2 – Possible Realignment Options A and B, WC-R7
The following information and constraints/ criteria in differentiating between these two alternatives were developed from the meeting: The Woods is a unique old growth wooded Carolinian Forest. For example, there are four foot diameter beech trees. Although much of the undergrowth is gone, keep the unique natural state. Minimize the creek work to the maximum extent possible to retain as much of the wooded area, especially the old growth area, as possible. In terms of the two alternatives, Potential Alignment A qualitatively was favored by FOWC participants because it most closely appears to minimize the disruption to the Woods. For Potential Alignment A, an additional question was “do you need to do all of this to protect the sanitary sewer?” Ensure that City minimizes disruption to wooded area as much as possible. Do no more creek reconstruction work than needed.
In terms of the need for an access road for creek construction, the following were the salient points: Keep the area cleared of trees for an access construction trail to the absolute minimum. Leave any trail in as natural a state as possible.
In terms of existing and potentially required trails and their use in the Woods, the following points were discussed: Purposed of any access trail include: o Allow maintenance vehicles in to remove downed trees in the watercourse. o Other PF&R maintenance activities, such as garbage removal. o Toronto Water operations and maintenance of the sanitary sewer system . Creek construction o Location to be determined by siting and extent of needed creek construction. It would use access points from street and needed route to get to creek location(s).
Existing walking path along east side of creek o Is currently in a natural state, keep as is, if possible. o Current natural trail may have been near location of where sanitary sewer was originally built around 40 years ago. o Ideal is to limit future trail to current natural path on east side of creek. o Any construction access trails for creek work should only be temporary – install with normal practices and remove when complete. o Locate construction access trail along existing natural path to extent possible.
Future access path for infrastructure, creek and garbage maintenance operations o Only authorized vehicles should be allowed on it (discussion noted that motor bikes etc. were on the trail through Windfields Park). o Seal off vehicle access, except for authorized vehicles. o Nature of O&M operations will vary. o Roving crews can access creek for minor tree removal by foot, but need bigger vehicle with winch to pull out large trees. o If future trail for O&M purposes needs to have a base to it for vehicular access purposes, FOWC, a gravel path is preferred over a paved path.
In terms of future meetings for the Wilket Creek study: Ensure that users of the Woods / Park are invited – past notices did not get to trail walkers. Suggestion – post signs for future meeting(s) at park entrances.
Potential criteria for differentiating Alternative Realignment A and B in WC-R7 was to examine creek reconstruction work at Emergency Works Sites 6 and 7 in Wilket Creek Park. The following points were made: FOWC did not think that the works in Wilket Creek Park was applicable because it has a paved trail and has a much larger density of users – The Woods do not have these characteristics. City staff intended that the stability of the creek and the character of the creek after intervention be examined at Sites 6 and 7 in order to assist in the differentiation of Alternatives A and B in WC-R7.
From: Emma Best To: Nosella, Dave; Snodgrass, William; [email protected] Date: 04/16/2014 5:21 PM Subject: Wilket Creek Meeting
Hello William, Dave and Patricia,
I'm sorry I'm following up with all of you so close to the Wilket Creek Meeting - our office has been swamped.
Just to confirm - the meeting will take place on April 22nd at 1:00 pm at City Hall (Room B).
One of the resident's who's taken the lead on this project has forwarded our office a list of concerns that the Friends of Wilket Creek would like to discuss.
1. Coordination between Toronto Water, Parks and the TRCA - I believe that some of the residents had concerns about coordination based on the last PIC - They also requested that a single point of contact be established for residents (I believe this is Patricia, but I could be wrong)
2. Protecting the woods and minimizing further clearing
3. Request: restricting the route of the proposed access road to trails already cleared and minimizing footprint of access road - Not sure if this is a possibility
4. Request: To try to reduce the motorized vehicles on the road - Not sure if this is a possibility
Once again, I'm sorry for passing this on so close to the meeting. I only received it from the resident a couple days ago. I would be happy to discuss the meeting or agenda items and I'm available at (416) 395-6417.
Thanks! Emma
Emma Best Constituency Assistant Councillor Jaye Robinson | Ward 25 Don Valley West Toronto City Hall | 100 Queen Street, A12 | Toronto,ON M5H 2N2 416-395-6417 | [email protected] ( mailto:[email protected] ) | www.jayerobinson.ca Facebook: facebook.com/robinsonward25 ( https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jaye-Robinson-Toronto-City-Councillor-Ward-25-Don-Valley-West/123412807680264 ) | Twitter: @jayerobinson ( http://twitter.com/jayerobinson )
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the City of Toronto will be holding a public meeting as a way to engage residents in the life of their city. Toronto thrives on your great ideas and actions. We invite you to get involved!
WILKET CREEK GEOMORPHIC SYSTEMS AND FISH HABITAT RESTORATION MASTER PLAN
Background
In 2011, the City of Toronto and TRCA initiated a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Study to identify preferred methods for enhancing the overall stability and function of Wilket Creek. Like many urban watercourses, Wilket Creek has been impacted by human activities and uncontrolled storm sewer discharges. This has led to extensive erosion causing impacts to trails and subsurface infrastructure, failure of previously constructed erosion protection measures as well as the degradation of the quality of aquatic habitat and the Creek’s riparian zone.
The Process
The study is following the Master Planning provisions of the Municipal Class EA process (amended in 2007). The study will define the problem, consider and evaluate alternative solutions, assess impacts of the proposed solutions, and identify measures to lessen any adverse impacts.
We Would Like to Hear From You
Public consultation is an important part of this study. If you have any questions or comments or would like to be placed on the study mailing list, please contact:
Patricia Newland, Project Manager II Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Tel: 416-392-9690 [email protected]
You can also visit: www.trca.on.ca/wilketcreek
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Study Notice of Public Meeting
You are invited to attend a public meeting to find out more about the study, provide feedback on observed channel problems and solutions being considered, and the next steps in the process. You will have the opportunity to view displays, speak with and ask questions of project staff, and provide your input. Details are as follows:
Date: Weeknight of June 5 th , 2014 Time: 7:00 pm until 9:00 pm Location: Sunnybrook Park Sports Pavillion 1132 Leslie St, Toronto
Study being undertaken by the City of Toronto and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA).
Purpose: • to develop a long‐term management plan (i.e. Master Plan) for Wilket Creek that takes account of natural processes, aquatic and wildlife habitat, and public amenities
Key objectives:(a)protect infrastructure at risk due to erosion impacts during large storm events
• exposed manholes • exposed sewers • multi‐use trail and bridges
(b) protect well‐wooded valley land and trail system
1 Why are we developing a Master Plan for Wilket Creek? • Significant storm events of 2000, 2005, and 2008 have caused major damage to the channel and local infrastructure including bridges, multi‐use trails, manholes, and sanitary sewers • Interim repair efforts have been successfully implemented at three sites in Wilket Creek Park • Ongoing erosion impacts and infrastructure damage confirms the need for the development of a longer term management plan that takes into account natural channel processes
What will be the outcome? The Master Plan will: • Recommend projects to stabilize sections of Wilket Creek and protect infrastructure from future erosion impacts • Incorporate habitat considerations to improve riparian and wildlife habitat within the channel • Prioritize projects (e.g. short‐term, medium term, long‐term) • Identify mitigation measures to reduce impacts of recommended projects to the greatest extent possible
2 This study is following the Master Planning provisions of a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
This study is following a process founded in the principles of Adaptive Environmental Management (AEM), as outlined in the document “The Adaptive Management of Stream Corridors in Ontario (2001)”
This process has Four Phases:
Assess Confirm Identify the Alternatives and Problem Implications
Explore Choose Explore the Making the Choice Problem
When making the choice of what to do, we can: Do Nothing – Monitor the situation Use Land‐use Planning Tools – land‐use designations/zoning, protect the feature Design – detailed analysis for planning and design Manage the existing situation – best management practices, habitat restoration
3 Bank Stabilization Options 1. Do Nothing Bioengineering Methods • No human intervention This image cannot currently be displayed. • Creek conditions monitored and allowed to function in current erosive state
2. Local Improvements • Infrastructure repairs • Stream bank and valley slope stabilization • Stream bed stabilization and grade control • Minor planform adjustments/ realignments
Bed Stabilization Options Engineered Methods
3. Complete Channel Realignment • Re‐establish natural meandering pattern with pools and riffles • Construct new channel within constraints of available property • Planform, profile, and cross‐sectional shape developed in balance with existing sediment and flow regime to reduce erosive forces and promote a self‐maintaining system • Restore bank stability, grade controls, and natural vegetation within new creek corridor
Before Realignment
After Realignment
4 Evaluation Criteria Natural Environment • Channel Form and Function – will this alternative provide erosion protection while allowing natural channel function? • Slope Stability –does this alternative address current and potential future valley slope stability issues? • Natural Environment –what will be the impacts on aquatic and terrestrial habitats?
Social / Cultural Environment • Private Property –how will this alternative impact lands under private ownership? • Public Perception – will this alternative have perceived impacts on public interests (e.g. safety, recreation, privacy)? • Cultural Heritage – will this alternative have impacts on known or unknown cultural resources?
Technical / Economic Factors • Risk Assessment –what is the degree of risk that failure / damage will occur, and when could it be anticipated? • Access / Constructability –are there limits or constraints to construction of this alternative (e.g. slopes, property ownership, significant environmental features)? Is the site accessible for the required construction machinery/ techniques to build the alternative and maintain it in the future? • Immediate (Capital) Costs –what will be the capital costs to carry out this alternative? • Long‐term Maintenance –how long will the alternative last? Will additional work need to be completed again, and when? How much will it cost?
Stream analyses must consider the reach scale (large) to the habitat / aquatic organism scale (fine)
REACH SCALE
HABITAT / ORGANISM SCALE
5 Advantages Disadvantages • No immediate cost impact • Continued bank erosion and bed incision, • No site disturbance loss of mature trees • No interruption of park use due to • Continued impacts on sewer infrastructure; Alternative 1: construction activities risk of damage is high Do Nothing • No improvement in aquatic habitat • Continued safety concerns and possible closures for multi‐use trail and bridges • Highest long‐term maintenance costs • Addresses impacts and immediate risks to • Moderate immediate cost impact Alternative 2: sewer infrastructure • Moderate site disturbance Local • Some improvement in geomorphic form • Requires some vegetation removal and Improvements • Some decrease in erosion impacts replanting (wider channel) • Some improvement to aquatic habitat • Removal of impacts and risk on sewer • Large immediate cost impact infrastructure and park amenities • Large site disturbance • Establishment of stable planform, profile • Disruption to park use during construction Alternative 3: and cross section • Requires most vegetation removal and Complete • Improves sediment transport replanting (new planform and wider Realignment • Reduces erosive forces promoting a self‐ channel) maintaining system • Lowest long‐term maintenance costs
6 Advantages Disadvantages • No immediate cost impact • Continued bank erosion and bed incision, • No site disturbance loss of mature trees • No disturbance to private property • Continued impacts on sewer infrastructure’ Alternative 1: owners risk of damage is high Do Nothing • Valley wall contact/ slope stability issues remain • No improvement in aquatic habitat • Addresses impacts and immediate risks to • Moderate immediate cost impact sewer infrastructure • Moderate site disturbance Alternative 2: • Some improvement in geomorphic form • Requires some vegetation removal and Local • Some decrease in erosion impacts replanting (wider channel) Improvements • Some improvement to aquatic habitat • Disturbance to private property and disruption to owners during construction • Removal of impacts and risk to sewer • Large immediate cost impact infrastructure • Large site disturbance • Establishment of stable planform, profile, • Requires substantial vegetation removal and Alternative 3: and cross section replanting (new planform and wider Complete • Improves sediment transport channel) Realignment • Reduces erosive forces promoting a self‐ • Disturbance to private property and maintaining system disruption to owners during construction • Improves aquatic habitat • Lowest long‐term maintenance costs
7 WC‐R6
Bank Stabilization Adjust Planform
Minor Planform Adjustment/ Realignment + Cover Exposed Sewer Bank Stabilization
Cover Exposed Sewer
8 Advantages Disadvantages
• No immediate cost impact • Continued bank erosion and bed incision, • No site disturbance loss of mature trees Alternative 1: • No disruption to private property owners • Risk to private property remains Do Nothing • Risk to private pedestrian bridges remains • Aesthetics low at highly eroded locations • No improvement in aquatic habitat • Stabilizes banks and protects private • Moderate immediate cost impact property • Moderate site disturbance Alternative 2: • Some improvement to geomorphic form • Requires some vegetation removal and Local • Some decrease in erosion impacts replanting Improvements • Some improvement to aquatic habitat • Risk to private pedestrian bridges remains • Disturbance to private property and disruption to owners during construction • Ensures minimal risk to sewer • High immediate cost impact infrastructure remains • High site disturbance (including private • Establishment of stable planform and pedestrian bridges) Alternative 3: cross section • Requires most vegetation removal and Complete • Decreases erosion impacts replanting (new planform and wider Realignment • Risk to private pedestrian bridges channel) addressed • Disturbance to private property and • Improvement to aquatic habitat disruption to owners during construction • Lowest long‐term maintenance costs
12
9 Advantages Disadvantages
• No immediate cost impacts • Continued bank erosion and highly active • No site disturbance planform adjustments, loss of mature trees • No interruption of trail use due to • Continued risk to sewer infrastructure due Alternative 1: construction activities to migration Do Nothing • No improvement in aquatic habitat • Continued safety concerns for trail users • High long‐term maintenance costs • Addresses existing risk to sanitary sewer • Moderate immediate cost impact infrastructure • Moderate long‐term maintenance costs • Lowers long‐term risk to sewer • Moderate site disturbance infrastructure • Disturbance to park use during Alternative 2: • Some improvement to geomorphic form construction Local • Reduction in debris jams • Requires some vegetation removal (mature Improvements • Some improvement to aquatic habitat trees) and replanting • Vegetation removal minimized ‐ best alternative for preservation of mature forest • Removal of risk to sanitary sewer • Large immediate cost impact infrastructure • Large site disturbance • Establishment of stable planform, profile, • Disruption to park use during construction and cross section • Requires vegetation removal (mature trees) Alternative 3: • Reduces erosive forces promoting a self‐ and replanting Complete maintaining system Realignment • Minimize debris jams • Some improvement to aquatic habitat and riparian vegetation • Lowest long‐term maintenance costs
WC‐R8
Minor Planform Adjustments/Realignments + Augment cover over sewer crossings (as required)
10 Advantages Disadvantages • No immediate cost impacts • Continued bank erosion • No site disturbance • Possible multi‐use trail and bridge closures • No interruption of park use due to and continued safety concerns for users construction activities • Degraded infrastructure (e.g. gabions and Alternative 1: stormwater outlets) provides low aesthetic Do Nothing value • No improvement in aquatic habitat – barrier to aquatic organisms remains (weir) • Highest long‐term maintenance costs • Addresses localized bank erosion issues • Moderate cost impact • Some improvement to geomorphic form • Low to Moderate site disturbance Alternative 2: • Some improvement to aquatic habitat • Minor disruption of park use due to Local and terrestrial systems (re‐plant native construction activities Improvements species) • Improve aesthetics • Establishment of stable planform, profile, • Large immediate cost impact and cross section ensures long‐term • Large site disturbance stability of infrastructure (sewer, • Potential disturbance to private property Alternative 3: pathway, bridges) owners Complete • Decreases erosion impacts • Disruption to park use due to construction Realignment • Improves aquatic habitat and terrestrial activities systems (re‐plant native species) • Requires some vegetation removal and • Lowest long‐term maintenance costs replanting • Improve aesthetics
11 Complete Realignment • Establish stable, meandering planform with pool‐riffle sequence within property constraints to promote Wilket Creek a self‐maintaining system • Placement of riffle features at high‐risk locations such as sanitary sewer crossings Park • Establish optimal configuration of multi‐use trail and bridge placement to ensure stability and safety of recreational amenities
Local Improvements • Address immediate high‐risk locations and provide some improvement in geomorphic form • Bank/slope stabilization at downstream extent of reach WC‐R5 • Riffle‐type feature over downstream exposed sewer crossing • Minor planform adjustment/realignment and riffle feature at exposed sewer crossing mid‐reach • Bank/slope stabilization of eroding backyard at upstream end and minor planform realignment away from sanitary sewer
Local Improvements • Minor planform adjustments/realignments (e.g. complete developing cut‐offs) to promote creek WC‐R7 migration in the ‘safest’ direction and minimize disturbance to forest • Bank stabilization and/or re‐grading to improve geomorphic form • Monitor and adaptive management
WC‐R6 Local Improvements • No existing locations at high‐risk localized rehabilitation and improvements as required (e.g. bank WC‐R8 stabilization, degraded infrastructure repair/removal, barrier removal, plantings, etc.) WC‐R9
After tonight’s workshop,
• Compile and review input received from public consultation into the study report
• Establish a risk‐based implementation plan – identify when alternatives should be implemented, e.g. immediately, 0‐5 years, 5‐10 years…
• Issue Notice of Completion for the Master Plan; 30‐day public and agency comment period
Upon Completion of Environmental Assessment Process (pending regulatory and budgetary approvals)
• Implementation / Construction of preferred alternatives
• Monitor resulting conditions – successes, failures, adaptation
12 Thank you for participating in this study.
Your input is important. Please submit your completed Comment Sheet to staff at the Registration Table. Alternatively, your comments can be submitted by Fax, Email, or Mail, using the contact information below, by June 30, 2014. Pre‐addressed envelopes are available upon request.
Contact: Patricia Newland, Project Manager II, Engineering Projects
Address: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 1 Eastville Avenue, Toronto, ON, M1M 2N5
Phone: 416‐392‐9690 Fax: 416‐392‐9726 Email: [email protected]
For more information about this project and to access the workshop materials, please visit the study website at http://www.trca.on.ca/wilketcreek/
13 CFN 44437
MEETING MINUTES Community Liaison Committee Meeting
PROJECT: Wilket Creek Geomorphic Master Study LOCATION: Sunnybrook Park Sports Pavilion, 1132 Leslie Street, Toronto DATE: June 5, 2014 TIME: 7:00 pm – 9:00 pm
PARTICIPANTS
Patricia Newland, TRCA Patrick White, TRCA Courtney Rennie, TRCA William Snodgrass, City of David Nosella, City of Toronto, Rainer K. Gaerdes, TRCA Toronto, Toronto Water Parks, Forest & Recreation Shari Faulkenham, Parish Mark Wojda, Parish Geomorphic Geomorphic Councilor Jaye Robinson, Roger Macklin, City of Toronto,
Ward 25 Councilor Parks, Forest & Recreation *See Record of Attendees for members of the public
DISTRIBUTION File Participants
MINUTES Item Description Action By Patricia Newland (PN) provides a brief introduction of the PN, JR, presenters, and hands the floor over to Councilor Jaye MW Robinson (JR). JR goes on to speak about the impact of the ice storm on the mature trees that exist within the area, and points out that lots of people in the City of Toronto are upset about the devastation, and the time it took the City to clean it up. JR Expressed sympathy with the long process. Introductions
(7:20pm) JR also expressed the importance of working together as a community, and wanted to make sure that the members of the community understand how useful their input is.
JR hands the floor over to Mark Wodja (MW) to give presentation.
MW presented the entire presentation for the proposed bank MW Presentation stabilization, partial realignment, and sewer protection works (7:25pm) for Wilket Creek. Public question regarding the debris jams caused by brush, BS, MW, both alive and dead, within the waterway, and concern that PN, JR Presentation these are not cleared up often enough, or quickly enough. adjourned; MW responded that a balanced approach is desirable, question including tree removal and the establishment of a stable period begins creek alignment. Bill Snodgrass (BS) explained that the (7:45pm) banks do need to be stabilized, while at the same time keeping as many trees alive as possible. In addition, some extent of jams from brush is to be expected due to the
1 of 4 CFN 44437
amount of trees around the waterway.
Public response commenting on fallen trees and their effect on the channel. Stated that he and his neighbors are losing land due to the debris jams redirecting channel flow to erode the banks. The longer these debris jams are in the waterway, the worse the problem gets. PN replies that it is a natural process for trees to fall into the waterway. MW stated that fallen trees cause basin widening into the floodplain to do the water's energy.
Public comment stating that there has not been a regular cleanup in Wilket Creek for decades. Question regarding fallen trees affecting private property and whether it is possible to get a chainsaw crew in to cut the fallen trees and remove the jam. PN describes past local removals, and states that Wilket Creek is not a flood control channel, and was not designed as such. Restated that fallen trees are a natural process.
BS explains, stating that due to the sinuosity of Wilket Creek, a fairly significant level of erosion is to be expected. In addition to this, Wilket Creek has approximately tripled in size since urbanization began in the area 50 years ago. The proposed plan will bring the Creek to its natural size, and the Creek will be able to maintain itself. Additionally, there are a lot of trees of significant size within Wilket Creek, and in order to remove those trees, larger equipment will be necessary. This could be detrimental for the area because of the damage the machinery may cause. Furthermore, there needs to be a balance between regular maintenance and long-term solutions.
Public question asking whether the Parks department of the City is responsible for cleaning up the debris jams. BS responds yes. When the trees fall into the watercourse, they are creating fish habitat. The City of Toronto is trying to balance the naturalization of the channel by nature, and the maintenance and debris removal of the channel by the City. BS continued that realistic plan is to rebuild small sections of Wilket Creek, and complete local removals in other sections.
Public question asking if any permits have been issued to allow for the City to remove debris jams from the waterway. BS responds that the City was given a stop-work order several years ago when they were removing debris. BS restated that the City is looking for a balance between naturalization and maintenance. In addition, the City has approximately 330km of waterways to maintain, and resources need to be appropriated according to the prioritization of issues present.
Public question regarding whether the City has applied for exemption from provincial regulations. JR states that the TRCA is a separate body from the City, and that it is funded
2 of 4 CFN 44437
from member municipalities. BS answered that we must work respectfully with the province and its regulations.
BS also pointed out that, generally speaking, the volume of water coming through the Creek is not anticipated to increase within the foreseeable future.
Public question stating that when it rains, the creek overflows significantly and whether the flow is anticipated to increase. MW responds, stating that the annual maximum expected rainfall will overflow the banks of the Creek but will stay within the floodplain. BS stated that the dominant change in hydrology has already occurred when the area became urbanized and paved.
Public question regarding why the plan is proposing widening only portions of Wilket Creek and not both up and downstream. BS responds, pointing out that if the funding was available, the entire Creek would be redirected and redesigned. This is not possible though, and so the worst issues within the Creek are the ones being addressed with the funding that is available. BS stated that yearly rainstorms will remain in the channel, but that larger storms will flood the floodplain. BS stated that as long as pedestrian pathways are constructed in a floodplain, they are susceptible to damage.
Jaye Robinson (JR) asks why the trees which are causing the debris jams in the Creek in the first place are not being removed. PN responds, stating that there are certain aspects, such as the maintenance of sanitary sewers, which take priority over things like debris jams because of their relative significance to things such as public and infrastructure safety.
Public question regarding the straightening of Reach 7, and how it will cause a significant increase in the velocity of the water, which will cause further issues downstream of Reach 7. Additionally, that we need to make sure that any changes made in the upstream do not have detrimental impacts on the downstream portion of the Creek. MW responds, stating that some of the sinuosity of the Creek will be maintained, so that the velocity of the water is not significantly increased. PN points out that this is the reason geomorphologists are the ones being consulted for the design of this project.
Public comment stating that there is disappointment with how difficult it is to clear deadfall from the waterway, and that there does not appear to have been any significant improvement in the observed extent of debris within the channel. PN again points out that the maintenance of infrastructure takes the priority over things like debris jams because of the risks involved.
JR asks if people are generally okay with the plan. Public
3 of 4 CFN 44437
response is that the gentle meander design is better than a completely straightening the Creek.
Public comment the construction of a bridge crossing, or an access point near a trunk sewer line at Post Road.
Public question regarding timelines for completion of the work. BS replies that the City is not completely sure when that will be, because it will be a part of the next stage of the project. PN points out that once the master plan of the project is approved, the Reaches within the project will have to be prioritized based on level of risk. The detailed designs for each Reach will then be drafted, and the finalization of these could take years. This will all take place as funding and resources become available.
BS explains that work is to take place in Wilket Park over the next 4 to 5 years, and that $5 million has been earmarked for this work. At the moment, the exposed sanitary sewers are the priority because of their relative importance and threat to the ecosystems should they become damaged and break.
Public question regarding the idea that things will get worse over time, and whether or not the planning process is taking into consideration the fact that things will be worse. BS responds, stating that the City is trying to be proactive and wants to come up with a master plan that identifies the key problems and key solutions. They are looking for input from professionals and from residents.
JR points out that most residents want the Creek to remain as natural as possible. BS replies that this is why the master plan is so important
JR asks that residents send all comments and concerns from this meeting to her, and that she will circulate these to staff in order for them to be addressed. All of the feedback is to be documented and filed.
Public question regarding the authority responsible for approving the master plan. BS responds that it is the City of Toronto that is responsible, and that any feedback provided by the residents is of great value.
END OF *End of meeting. Due to time constraints, some residents left before MEETING 9:00pm. (8:45pm)
Prepared By: RKG, CR, PW Date Issued: June 27, 2014 This confirms and records TRCA’s interpretation of the discussions which occurred during this meeting. Unless notified in writing within ten (10) business days, these minutes will be considered final.
4 of 4