HomeMy WebLinkAboutOES 04-10Cif Report To
_ Executive Committee
PICKERING Report Number: OES 04-10
48 Date: April 12, 2010
From: Everett Buntsma
Director, Operations & Emergency Services
Subject: Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan
- Final Report
- File: A-1440-001-10
Recommendation:
1. That Report OES 04-10 of the Director, Operations & Emergency Services
concerning the Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan be
received;
2. That Council endorse the Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master
Plan (April 2009); and
3. That Staff be authorized to implement the recommendations within the Master
Plan subject to budget and further Council approval for individual projects, and
report back to Council on an annual basis to provide a status update on the
progress of the implementation and results from monitoring activities.
Executive Summary: This Report provides an update on the completion of the
Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan (FBSWMMP). It is
recommended that the final FBSWMMP report be endorsed by Council and approval be
given to implement the Master Plan. The Master Plan provides a comprehensive
strategic direction towards implementing the necessary projects, programs and policies,
in order to achieve the overall goal of controlling the quantity and quality of stormwater
runoff entering the Frenchman's Bay watershed which is necessary for the restoration
and enhancement of the ecological functions of the Bay.
Financial Implications: Council endorsement ofthe FBSWMMP is a commitment in
principle to the recommended suite of projects, programs and policies designed to
address issues related to flooding, erosion and poor water quality in Frenchman's Bay
and its' tributary watersheds. However, each project or program with a financial
implication will need to be recommended and approved in future capital or current
budgets in order to be implemented. The Master Plan identifies $53.8 million worth of
projects, programs and monitoring which have been estimated in today's dollars but
span a period of 25 years. The cost estimates do not include land acquisition or
ongoing maintenance and operations costs. Opportunities for various external funding
sources will be reviewed and acted upon by staff throughout the life of the Master Plan.
Report OES 04-10
April 12, 2010
Subject: Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan Page 2 9
Sustainability Implications:
The work will improve the environmental aspects and the overall ecological health of
Frenchman's Bay and its' contributing watersheds.
An improved stormwater management system within Frenchman's Bay and its'
contributing watersheds will improve the economic viability of the City, marine
businesses and tourism within Frenchman's Bay and.the City itself.
Background:
The City of Pickering and the Waterfront Coordinating Committee (WCC) are committed
to seeing the Frenchman's Bay and Lake Ontario waterfront become a place that
achieves a wide range of objectives including public use and recreation, environmental
sustainability, enhanced tourism and commercial linkages.
Pickering Council at its meeting of March 6, 2006, approved Report .OES. 08-06 and the
retention of Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited (now known as MMM Group) to
provide professional engineering services for the development of a Stormwater
Management Master Plan for Frenchman's Bay and its' contributing watersheds. The
Master Plan was identified as a priority, project in the Five-Year Implementation Plan for
Pickering's Waterfront and Frenchman's Bay, which was endorsed by Council at the
June 27, 2005 Council meeting (Resolution #106/05). The overall goal of the Master
Plan was as follows:
"To address long-standing concerns regarding the ongoing decline in the quality
of the Frenchman's Bay ecosystem by seeking means to control the quantity and
quality of storm runoff entering the local creeks and the Bay itself."
The recommended FBSWMMP consists of a group of projects, programs and policies
designed to address issues related to flooding, erosion and poor water quality in
Frenchman's Bay and its' tributary watersheds. The Executive Summary of the
FBSWMMP is attached to this report (Attachment #1) and the complete Master Plan is
available on disc and will be posted on the City's website.
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Master Plan Process
The development of the FBSWMMP was prepared by the MMM Group for the City of
Pickering in cooperation with Toronto and Region Conservation (TRCA) in accordance
with the planning principles of the Master Planning component of the Municipal Class
Environmental Assessment (Municipal Class EA), October 2000 as amended in 2007,
which is -an approved process under the Environmental Assessment Act.
CORP0227-07/01 revised
Report OES 04-10
April 12, 2010
Subject: Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan Page 3
~n
The FBSWMMP addressed Phase 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class EA process
(identifying the problem or opportunity, and identifying alternative solutions to the
problem or opportunity), and incorporated broad public and agency consultation on all
aspects of the Master Plan development. Public consultation consisted of a Notice of
Commencement, three Public Information Centres (PIC) and a Notice of Completion,
which allowed for public and stakeholder input over the span of the entire project. A
steering committee and a technical working group were formed to assist in the progress
of the project.
Staff have been working with the consultant and regulatory agencies over the last few
years in order to finalize the completion of the Master Plan. Initial review of the 'draft'
Master Plan by Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) staff resulted in extreme
opposition to one of the preferred alternatives, namely, the inclusion of the proposed
end-of-creek stormwater facilities at the north end of the Bay, as it is against provincial
policy for stormwater facilities to be located within a Provincially Significant Wetland
(PSW). Even though the material presented in the Master Plan showed that
implementation of the three end-of-creek facilities would dramatically improve the water
quality entering Frenchman's Bay, MNR staff were insistent that the Master Plan should
only focus on upstream improvements on a watershed and subwatershed basis. They
were concerned that approval and implementation of the end-of-creek facilities would
set a dangerous precedent as well as negate the actual fulfillment of the upstream
improvements.
Following further discussions with senior MNR staff, the technical working group
decided to include a restoration and enhancement plan for Frenchman's Bay that
included an increase in area and/or habitat function of the PSW combined with the
proposed upstream improvements for water quality, in order for MNR to be open to
considering the end-of-creek facilities in the preferred alternative. As well, the end-of-
creek facilities were moved to the second phase of the Master Plan (5 to 25 year plan),
which would strengthen the intent of the City to undertake and complete the' upstream
improvements, as well as provide the City an opportunity to secure the necessary
funding.
Thirty Day Review of the Master Plan
The FBSWMMP final report was completed in April 2009. The Municipal Class EA
process requires a 30 day public review period of the final Master Plan document, which
began on June 3, 2009 and. expired on July 3, 2009. A Notice of Completion was
placed in the Pickering News Advertiser and the City's website, and was sent out to the
study's mailing list. A number of comments were received, namely from regulatory
agencies such as MNR and TRCA as well as Ontario Realty Corporation, Transport
Canada, the WCC, Planning & Development Department and a member of the public.
A review of the comments indicates that all of the substantive comments fall into two
categories:
CORP0227-07/01 revised
Report OES 04-10
April 12, 2010
Subject: Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan Page 4 51
(i) those which have been previously expressed during the public consultation
process; and
(ii) those which will be considered at the next stage of the Master Plan
implementation, where further phases of Schedule B and C environmental
assessments, preliminary design and site specific details will be assessed.
In their letter dated July 3, 2009 (Attachment #2), MNR were still not satisfied with the
final report and were mainly not in support of the proposed end-of-creek facilities at the
north end of Frenchman's Bay. They continued to state that it was against provincial
policy for stormwater management facilities to be located within a PSW and still viewed
the proposed end-of-creek facilities as a destruction of the PSW.
Following a meeting in early December 2009 with senior MNR, TRCA and City staff, a
letter from MNR dated February 8, 2010 (Attachment #3) was received, stating that they
concur with the majority of the FBSWMMP projects, with the exception of the end-of-
creek facilities at this time. It should be noted that senior MNR officials are not
convinced that the decline of the PSW is due to the large amount of sediment coming
from the creeks due to the lack of stormwater controls or increased bank erosion. They
suggest it may be a result of increased carp activity in the area (as has happened in
other local areas, such as Duffin's Creek Marsh, Oshawa Second Marsh and Cootes
Paradise Marsh in Hamilton Harbour).
If the PSW at the north end of the Bay is still declining following implementation of the
majority of the FBSWMMP projects, restoration/enhancement projects such as carp
barriers and a comprehensive monitoring program, the MNR stated that they may be
willing to look at end-of-creek sediment traps in conjunction with restoration of the PSW,
but they would not consider them stormwater facilities.
The TRCA's letter of July 3, 2009 highlighted their specific concern with having an
accurate representation of TRCA's position on the end-of-creek facilities. Their
acceptance of the end-of-creek facilities had a number of conditions as stated in the first
three comments in Appendix A of their July 3, 2009 letter, which is attached to this
report (Attachment #4). .
In a response letter back to the TRCA on February 11, 2010 (Attachment #5)
addressing TRCA's outstanding concerns and comments, it was noted that the City of
Pickering is willing to make a significant commitment to fulfill habitat and wetland
restoration, both terrestrial and aquatic, to increase the function of the PSW if the end-
of-creek facilities were contemplated following the implementation of the watershed
wide SWM measures and other restoration projects (ie. carp barriers).
In addition to their July 3, 2009 letter, the TRCA have also taken report AUTH7.9 on the
FBSWMMP to their Authority Board on March 26, 2010 (Attachment #6). In their report
TRCA staff recommend supporting the recommendations of the FBSWMMP and
CORP0227-07/01 revised
Report OES 04-10 April 12, 2010
Subject: Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan Page 5
request direction to continue working with the City of Pickering through the next steps of
the implementation of the Master Plan recommendations and restoration plan.
The WCC has been very supportive of the final FBSWMMP, as stated in their letter of
July 31, 2009 (Attachment #7), where they stress the importance of initiating the
implementation of the remedial projects as soon as possible for the survival of the Bay,
Which is rapidly deteriorating. Senior staff from the TRCA and the City as well as the
consultant worked diligently to further the WCC's highest priority of getting MNR's
concurrence with the end-of-creek facilities for the past few years, as mentioned above.
The MNR is well aware of the City's concern with the ongoing decline of the PSW and
are willing to work with the City in determining an equitable solution for all parties to
ensure the long lasting ecological function of the PSW and the Bay itself.
Planning & Development Department comments are included as Attachment #8. Their
comments are generally focused on ensuring compatibility between the FBSWMMP and .
any planning initiatives within' the Pickering downtown core.
Next Steps
As stated above, the Master Plan addressed Phase 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class EA
process thereby requiring more detailed investigations at the project-specific level in
order to fulfill the Municipal Class EA documentation requirements for the specific
Schedule B and C projects identified within the Master Plan. Schedule A projects have
no further EA requirements and can proceed to construction upon receipt of the
applicable funding and would include projects such as the installation of Oil/Grit
Separators and programs such as increased street sweeping and catch basin cleaning.
Schedule B projects would require undertaking a screening process including further
public contact and the creation of a Project File for public review and would include
projects such as surface SWM facilities, culvert replacements and erosion control
projects. Schedule C projects need to fulfill Phases.3 and 4 prior to filing an
Environmental Study Report (ESR) for public review and would consist of large scale
projects like the Krosno Creek Diversion for flood control, the Amberlea Creek erosion
control as well as the end-of-creek SWM sediment traps.
In order to monitor the success of the Master Plan and permit modifications through
adaptive management, an ongoing monitoring program should be implemented as
recommended in the Master Plan. This program should include but not be limited to
monitoring of water quality, flow and erosion rates, and biological surveys for both
aquatic and terrestrial components. There is an immediate need to begin work on a
monitoring program as solid baseline data needs to be established prior to
implementing any of the Master Plan projects in order to measure the success of the
overall Master Plan. Partnership with TRCA could advance the initiation and
implementation of the monitoring program through their current work with the Regional
Monitoring Network. The WCC has also identified in their letter that the University of
Toronto Scarborough Campus could assist in carrying out some of this monitoring work.
CORP0227-07/01 revised
Report OES 04-10 April.12, 2010
Subject: Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan Page 6
As noted above, the FBSWMMP recommendations also include guidance on a number
of policies and programs that the City could implement in order to ensure that the
environmental issues and objectives continue to be achieved with any future
development proposed within the Frenchman's Bay watershed. Stormwater
management policies should require all future development, including green field
development, redevelopment projects or infill development, meet the current stormwater
management criteria and utilize state-of-the-art and innovative SWM techniques and
practices such as low impact development measures for the implementation of source
and conveyance controls.
A Reduced Pollution Sources Program could be one of the primary City programs that
can have a significant effect on reducing pollution sources related to its own
infrastructure and operations. Doubling the frequency of street sweeping and catch
basin cleaning, as well as implementing a sewer inspection program to identify sewers
of bacterial contamination in the headwaters of Krosno Creek and the employment of an
environmental inspector to enforce sediment controls on construction sites and other
environmental by-laws would all help to ensure that pollution is reduced at the source.
Another program that has been identified as needed is.a Source Control Education and
Subsidy Program. The City should implement a program of public education and
subsidization of source controls that could be used to assist homeowners in
disconnecting downspouts and/or subsidizing the cost of rain barrels or soak away pits.
In their report to the Authority board the TRCA has identified interest in partnering with
the City of Pickering in order to develop and indentify funding for a stewardship
outreach plan in the Frenchman's Bay watershed. The Frenchman's Bay Watershed
Rehabilitation Project has previously undertaken excellent work to engage residents,
increase environmental awareness and encourage sustainable living practices. The
project was operational through 1998 until its' completion in 2007 and played a strong
role in the community as an environmental leader. It was a collaboration between the
TRCA and the City of Pickering, with a,number of other partners. A similar program
could be considered to deliver the source control education component of the Master
Plan.
Although all of the above-mentioned programs are beneficial to achieving success with
the Master Plan, they require a significant amount of resources that the City currently
does not have, and would have to be budgeted for and approved.
Summary of the Recommended FBSWMMP Components
The recommended FBSWMMP projects and programs are summarized below and are
shown in Figures 5.3.1, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 in Attachment #9:
Phase 1 (5 Year Plan) Projects Approximate Cost
Amberlea Creek Erosion Protection
Krosno Creek Diversion + SWM Facility
$2,000,000
$7,000,000
53
CORP0227-07/01 revised
Report OES 04-10 April 12, 2010
Subject: Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan Page 7
SWM Facilities (10) - Krosno Creek & Amberlea Creek $11,800,000
Oil Grit Separators (4 units per year) $1,350,000
Source Control Subsidy & Public Education $2,130,000
Increased Street Sweeping & Catch Basin Cleaning $900,000
Monitoring Program $125,000
Pine Creek Culvert Replacements $300,000
Total Public Investment Phase I:
$25,605,000
Average Annual Investment Phase I:
$5,121,000
Phase II (5 to 25 Year Plan) Projects
End of Creek Facilities (3)
SWM Facilities (10) - Pine Creek & Dunbarton Creek
Oil Grit Separators (Additional 14 units)
Increased Street Sweeping & Catch Basin Cleaning
Monitoring Program
$19,000,000
$4,261,000
$945,000
$3,500,000
$500,000
Total Public Investment Phase II:
$28,206,000
Average Annual Investment Phase 11:
$1,410,000
Total Master Plan Public Investment for entire 25 Year Plan $53,811,000
Note: The approximate cost for the above-noted projects is in 2009 dollars and does not include the cost
of further required EA processes, detailed design and land costs if it is not currently owned by the City as
well as any fish, wildlife, habitat or terrestrial compensation that may be required.
Funding of the Master Plan
The recommended FBSWMMP would require funds of approximately $53.8 million for
the 25 Year Plan, with $25.6 million required in the first 5 years and $28.2 million over
the next 20 years. The implementation of these new capital works will also generate
ongoing. operational and maintenance costs.
It is anticipated that these funds would have to come from a variety of sources as the
City does not have the financial resources to afford the Master Plan on its own.
Therefore, the City will need to investigate other potential sources of funding, including
but not limited to issuing debt, development charges, various grant/subsidies programs
from the Federal and Provincial governments (ie. Infrastructure Canada, Stimulus
Funding, Ontario, Infrastructure, Gas Tax and any new program for environmental or
clean water projects) and/or implementing a stormwater levy, utility or user-fee.
The majority of the projects have been included in the 2009 Development Charge
Update. However, given that a majority of the catchment area is built out, which means
that there is approximately a 78% benefit to existing development, there is limited
opportunity to finance the expenditures through development charges. The potential
CORP0227-07/01 revised
Report OES 04-10 April 12, 2010
Subject: Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master P.lan Page 8 55
recoverable costs through the current 2009 Development Charge Update is
approximately 12%, or $7.3 million. A specific levy, utility or user-fee can be added to
the municipal property taxes or utility bill to fund stormwater management infrastructure.
The rate could be implemented based on the contributing imperviousness of an
individual lot or type of property.
Similar programs are operational in other Canadian cities including, Regina, Edmonton
and Calgary as well as hundreds of programs in the US (923 by a recent survey) in 38
different states such as Oregon, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Florida. Many other
Southern Ontario cities are initiating EA's to look at the implementation of these levies
or user-fees, including, Kingston, Markham, Kitchener-Waterloo, Hamilton and
Richmond Hill.
Attachments:
1. Executive Summary of FBSWMMP
2. MNR July 3, 2009 letter on Final Report
3. MNR Feb. 8, 2010 letter on. Final Report
4. TRCA July 3, 2009 letter and comments on Final Report
5. City of Pickering Response to TRCA Comments
6. TRCA Report to Authority Board on FBSWMMP
7. WCC Comments on Final Report
8. P & D Comments on Final Report
9. Components of the FBSWMMP: Figures 5.3.1, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3
Prepared By:
Marilee Gadzovski
Stormwater & Environmental Engineer'
Approved/Endorsed
Everett BuntsKa
Director, Operations & Emergency Services
rd W. H-6Iborn
iision Head
gineering Services
MG:mg
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
CORP0227-07/01 revised
Report OES 04-10
April 12, 2010
Subject: Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan Page 9
56
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City it _ 1 t
Thoo'as,T Quinn, "RJIJMR-,CMM I
Chief Administrative Officer
72
/f
CORP0227-07/01 revised
ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT# DES 04-10
of
Stormwater Management Master Plan
Frenchman's Bay
I"` MMM GROUP
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The Frenchman's Bay area of the City of Pickering is one of the most attractive and
well used areas of the waterfront in the eastern part of the GTA. With its natural
features, local parks, beach areas, playgrounds, marinas, restaurants and waterfront trail,
it is the focus of many local residents' and visitors' recreational. activities. Residential
properties in the area are highly desirable with access to such features. On the other
hand, however, the natural ecosystem of the Frenchman's Bay and its contributing
watersheds has been in decline over many years. The wetlands in the Bay have reduced
in area and quality. Water quality in the Bay and the tributary creeks has declined.
Local fauna and flora have changed and reduced in diversity.
Under the direction of the Mayor of Pickering, a Task Force was formed in the late
1990's to examine how the Pickering Waterfront could be enhanced in an
environmentally sustainable manner. After a series of activities, a 5-Year
Implementation Plan was developed which identified the preparation of a Stormwater
Management Master Plan as a priority project. The overall goal of the SWM plan was:
"To address long-standing concerns regarding the ongoing decline in the quality
of the Frenchman's Bay ecosystem by seeking means to control the quantity and
quality of storm runoff entering the local creeks and the Bay itself."
A set of twelve objectives was formulated which, if met, would ensure the achievement
of the overall goal. Those objectives (described later) formed the basis of the current
study.. This document summarizes work completed to develop the Plan focusing on the
identification of watershed issues, evaluation of alternatives, selection of a preferred
alternative and description of the recommended plan.
The study area defined for this study consists of the entire watershed which drains into
Frenchman's Bay and the Bay itself (including Hydro Marsh) to its outlet to Lake
Ontario. This includes four main tributaries: Amberlea Creek, Dunbarton Creek, Pine
Creek and Krosno Creek, and several local areas which drain directly to the Bay (e.g.
parts of.West Shore and Bay Ridges). The total area is approximately 2260 hectares.
EXISTING CONDITIONS/ISSUES
The first step in the study was to inventory the existing conditions which may affect or
conversely may be impacted by alternative solutions to the problem. A detailed
57
14-06604-001-W01 City of Pickering v
58
Stormwater Management Master Plan
Frenchman's Bay
I-\" MMM GROUP
description of the natural and man-made features of Frenchman's Bay and its tributary
watersheds was presented in the "Existing Conditions Report" (MMM, September
2006). In general, the subwatershed wide issues identified included flooding in parts of
Krosno Creek and Pine Creek, erosion issues in all subwatersheds, poor water quality in
all subwatersheds, poor to limited aquatic habitat and poor to reasonable terrestrial
habitat. Specific local issues were also identified such as severe erosion in Amberlea
Creek downstream of Bayly Street. These issues formed the basis of the investigations
completed during this study to develop the Master Plan.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Both because the study is being conducted as a Class Environmental Assessment and
because it is of great public interest, opportunities for public input and comment have
been provided throughout the study. Three Public Information Centres (PICs) were
held in June 2006, November 2006 and June 2007.
The study has also been guided by a Technical Committee consisting of representatives
from the City of Pickering and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)
and a Steering Committee with broader representation from agencies such as MOE,
DFO, OPG and the community through a representative of the Waterfront Coordinating
Committee.
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
A long list of stormwater management alternatives was developed prior to the second
Public Information Centre to address the issues identified in the Existing Conditions
report. The issues can be classified as either generic (i.e. applicable to and across all
watersheds) and site specific (i.e. applicable to a particular location in a particular
watershed). Proposed solutions are similarly either watershed-wide (distributed)
control measures or local control measures.
Watershed-Wide Controls
Issues such as poor instream water quality, discharge of poor water quality to
Frenchman's Bay, extensive channel erosion and significant areas of flooding can be
addressed by implementing watershed-wide stormwater management controls. These
can be source controls, conveyance controls, end-of-pipe controls or any combination of
those three types. The general applicability of any or all of these approaches was
determined by a screening evaluation to determine what opportunities exist to
implement them. For example, conveyance measures such as "exfiltration sewers"
ATTACHMENT# Z TO REPORT# DES 04-10
Z of _ I
14-0.6604-001-W01 City of Pickering vi
ATTACHMENT#~TOREPORT# DDS oc~-l0
3 of I_
Stormwater Management Master Plan
Frenchman's Bay
A"` MMM GROUP
require suitable soils that have medium to high levels of infiltration capacity. Once the
screening evaluation was completed, a technical evaluation of the effectiveness of,the
measures to achieve the desired objectives was completed together with cost estimates
and evaluation of potential environmental impacts of the alternatives.
Since there are literally dozens of alternative stormwater management technologies that
could be applied at numerous geographic locations in the study area, the potential
control measures were grouped into classes based upon their type. They were then
evaluated through a series of "scenarios" based upon the progressive implementation of
those classes. The following summarizes the evaluation process.
Technical Assessment of Alternatives
The alternative scenarios examined were as follows:
Scenario 1 - Source Controls
Scenario 2 - Surface SWM facilities (Level 1 sizing) plus Oil/Grit Separators (OGS)
Scenario 2A - Surface SWM facilities (Level 2 sizing) plus OGS
Scenario 2B - Surface SWM (Level 2) plus OGS plus Source Controls
Scenario 3 - Surface and Underground SWM facilities (Level 1 sizing) plus OGS
Scenario 3A - Surface and Underground SWM facilities (Level 2 sizing) plus OGS
Scenario 3B - Surface & Underground SWM (Level 1) plus OGS plus Source Controls
Scenario 3C Surface & Underground SWM (Level 2) plus OGS plus Source Controls
Scenario 4 - SWM Facilities at Creek Mouths (Level 1 sizing)
Scenario 4A - SWM Facilities at Creek Mouths (Level 2 sizing)
Scenario 4B - SWM Facilities at Mouths of Amberlea, Dunbarton and Pine Creeks
(Level 1 sizing) plus Scenario 3 options for Krosno Creek and local
drainage areas (e.g. West Shore and Bay Ridges) to Frenchman's Bay
Scenario 4C - SWM Facilities at Mouths of Amberlea, Dunbarton and Pine Creeks
(Level 1 sizing) plus Level 1 surface SWM facilities, OGS's and source
controls
Scenarios 2, 2A and 2B potentially include 39 oil-grit separators (for drainage areas less
than 5 hectares) and 27 above ground facilities. Scenarios 3, 3A, 3B and 3C potentially
add an additional thirty underground storage tanks. Scenarios 4, 4A and 4B involve
three or four off-line SWM facilities at the mouth of each creek with total surface area
of about 10 hectares to 15 hectares depending upon the sizing criteria used.
59
14-06604-001-W01 City of Pickering vii
ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT# 6 ES 6 4 of
Stormwater Management Master Plan .
Frenchman's Bay A M M M GROUP
Summary of Effectiveness, Cost and Environmental Concerns
Costs were estimated for the evaluated alternatives using typical unit costs for SWM
facilities in the GTA. A table was prepared of the total costs and the comparative
effectiveness in the categories of flood control, instream water quality, erosion control,
reduction of pollutant loadings to the Bay and overall water quality of the Bay. It also
gives a comparative estimate of the effect of construction on the aquatic/terrestrial
systems. The comparisons are presented as relative scores calculated on the basis of the
computed performance of the alternatives. The following highlights the key findings:
■ all alternatives have the same effectiveness in regard to flooding issues, i.e. only
limited impact upon the identified flooding problems in Pine Creek and Krosno
Creek. Hence this factor can be viewed as neutral when comparing alternatives.
■ Alternatives 4 and 4A which are variations of an approach which uses SWM
facilities at the outlets of the creeks do not have any benefit to the creeks
themselves, i.e. would not improve the water quality, geomorphology or
flooding conditions within the watersheds. Alternatives 4B and 4C use the
same approach but include subwatershed based measures as well. The latter
(4C) is ranked highest of the alternatives evaluated.
■ the largest improvement in the hydrologic regime/geomorphological conditions
per dollar expended appears to occur for Scenarios 2, 2A and 2B. Scenarios 3,
3A and 3B which require 4 to 5 times the expenditure of 2, 2A and 2B reduces
the geomorphic indices somewhat but not sufficiently to justify such large costs.
■ improvements in instream water quality would occur with all alternative
treatment scenarios except 4 and 4A. However, the extensive controls and
associated high expenditures required to implement Scenarios 3, 3A or 3B
would be necessary to reduce pollutant concentrations towards provincial water
quality objectives (PWQO).
■ pollutant inputs to Frenchman's Bay itself could be reduced dramatically by
implementing either watershed-wide distributed stormwater controls or
localized facilities near the mouth of the creeks. The most cost-effective
method of improving the Bay's water quality would be to construct control
facilities near each creek mouth partially within the Provincially Significant
Wetland. It may be difficult to obtain approvals for this alternative because of
its impact upon the PSW.
14-06604-001-W01 City of Pickering viii
ATTACH MENT#.__ TO REPORT# O CS a4-/ O
6_ of 2_
Stormwater Management Master Plan
Frenchman's Bay
I"` MMM GROUP
SITE-SPECIFIC STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CONTROLS
The following site-specific solutions were considered.
Flooding Problems
Two significant flooding issues were identified:
i) approximately 79 properties in the Krosno Creek flood plain in the area of
Reytan Boulevard and Streamside Court. A diversion of flows to Pine Creek
would potentially be the preferred solution.
ii) a number of residential properties and commercial lands in the Pine Creek flood
plain upstream of Kingston Road. Analysis of this flood problem carried out in
parallel to this study indicated that replacing the Radom Street and Kingston
Road culverts combined with excavation of the flood plain north of Highway
401 could remediate the problem cost-effectively.
Erosion Problems
In addition to general erosion of the creeks due to urban runoff, three severe local
channel erosion issues were identified. These were:
i) erosion of the valley wall on Amberlea Creek downstream of Bayly Street. It
was concluded that remediation could be achieved most cost-effectively by re-
aligning the creek and restoring the valley wall just downstream of Bayly Street.
However, this would rely upon obtaining access from Bayly Street which may
not be feasible. A flow diversion at Bayly would be another feasible alternative.
ii) channel erosion of the Mountcastle Crescent tributary of Pine Creek. It was
concluded that restoration of the channel would be the most cost-effective and
least disruptive solution.
iii) erosion of the channel and valley wall of Krosno Creek downstream of
Pickering Beach Road. Only one option was examined which was to
restore/protect the channel/valley in this location.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR THE MASTER PLAN
Selection of a preferred alternative from the options evaluated provided the basis for the
development of the Stormwater Management Master Plan for the Frenchman's Bay
watersheds. The approach used to select the components of the plan was to identify the
61
14-06604-001-WOl . City of Pickering ix
ATTACHMENT# - I_ TOREPORT'# (2ZS 041 -/0
62 _ e of
Stormwater Management Master Plan
Frenchman's Bay
MMMGROUP
alternatives which will be most cost-effective in achieving the objectives of the plan
while minimizing any adverse environmental impacts. Since the overall
implementation plan for improvements to Frenchman's Bay has a 5 year time frame, the
SWM Master Plan was prepared as two phases: a 5 year Phase I and a nominal 20 year
Phase 2. The entire plan - both Phase 1 and Phase 2 - will be subject to the availability.
of funding.
Scenario 4C received the highest evaluation score. This combines SWM facilities at the
mouth of Amberlea, Dunbarton and Pine Creek (Level 1 sizing) with surface SWM
facilities in the watershed (particularly Krosno Creek), oil/grit separators for areas less
than 5 ha and source controls. Hence, alternative 4C is the recommended preferred
alternative upon which the Plan implementation is based.
IMPLEMENTATION PRIORITIES FOR THE PLAN
The following criteria were used to create the proposed plan:
1. Include optimum solutions to high priority local projects
2. Accelerate pollutant load reduction to Frenchman's Bay
3. Implement facilities which provide the most cost-effective SWM control first
4. Encourage local involvement through the implementation of source controls
5. Maximize the secondary benefit of erosion control through flow control
6. Increase City programs to reduce pollution at the source
7. Encourage MTO to upgrade existing SWM facilities at Highway 401 & to treat
any currently untreated runoff.
RECOMMENDED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN
The recommended SWM Master Plan for the Frenchman's Bay watersheds consists of a
group of projects, programs and policies designed to address issues related to flooding,
erosion and poor water quality in Frenchman's Bay and its tributary watersheds. The
Plan is presented in two phases: an initial 5 year period and a second (nominal) twenty
year period.
Summary of SWM Master Plan Components
Summary (5 Year. Plan);
Amberlea Creek erosion protection $2,000,000
Krosno diversion + SWM facility $7,000,000
SWM facilities (10) - Krosno & Amberlea $11,800,000
OGS Allowance (4 units/yr @ $67,500/unit) $1,350,000
14-06604-001-w01 City of Pickering x
ATTACHMENT# L TOREPORT# Ots 04-"0
---J- of 7
Stormwater Management Master Plan
Frenchman's Bay
Source control subsidy + public education
Increased street sweeping + CB cleaning, etc.
Monitoring
Culvert replacements
I`\` MMM GROUP
Total public investment
$2,130,000
$900,000
$125,000
$300,000
$25,605,000
Total annual investment $5,121,000
Summa 5 to 25,Year Plan ,7~~,y!~; ,;A, ~s j
- - ~ • ~ # i 'A ~1' 3 tee' End of Creek facilities (3) $19,000,000
SWM facilities (10) -Pine & Dunbarton $4,261,000
OGS Implementation (Additional 14 Units) $945,000
Increased street sweeping + CB cleaning, etc. $3,500,000
Monitoring $500,000
Total public investment $28,206,000
Total annual investment $1,410,000
In addition to specific projects and programs, the Plan provides guidance on stormwater
management policies that the City should adopt, on potential sources/means of funding
the Plan and upon future Environmental Assessment requirements for the individual
projects.
63
14-06604-001-W01 City of Pickering xi
64
Ministry of
Natural Resources
50 Bloomington Road West
Aurora, ON
L4G OL8
July 3, 2009
Ms. Marilee Gadzovski, P. Eng.
Stormwater & Environmental Engineer
City of Pickering
One The Esplanade
Pickering, ON
L1V 6K7
Dear Ms. Marilee Gadzovski:
raj
~r- Ontario
RECEWED
JUL U i 2009
CITY or-- PICKER ING
MUNICIPAL PRUEERrY
The Ministry of Natural Resources, Aurora District received your letter and Notice of Study Completion
for the Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Master Plan. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this
report.
MNR is supportive of the initiative to improve the quality of Frenchman's Bay through controlling the
quality and quantity of stormwater runoff. However, following a review, we have identified significant
concerns with the report.
We note that the preferred option stated in section 4.4.2 of the plan, Scenario 4C, includes the
construction of stormwater management facilities in a provincially significant wetland, Frenchman's Bay
Costal Wetland Complex. A representative from MNR attended a Frenchman's Bay Stormwater
Management Master Plan steering committee meeting on September 26, 2008. At this meeting, MNR
expressed concerns regarding the construction of stormwater management facilities in the provincially
significant wetland. We would like to reiterate our concerns regarding construction of a stormwater
management facility within the provincially significant wetland.
MNR continues to believe that the construction and maintenance of stormwater facilities in the
provincially significant wetland would destroy a large portion of the wetland and negatively alter the
ecological function of the remaining wetland. Wetlands provide habitat for a wide diversity of native
species in Ontario. The shoreline of Lake Ontario has experienced significant historical wetiand loss
and continues to have low wetland cover, particularly in coastal wetlands. As you are aware, the
Provincial Policy Statement states:
"Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in:
a. significant habitat of endangered species and threatened species;
b. significant wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E,- and
c. significant coastal wetlands."
Consequently, we are concerned that the Frenchman's Bay Costal Wetland Complex would be
negatively impacted by the proposed works, which would be against provincial policy.
MNR indicated in the aforementioned meeting that facilities within the provincially significant wetland
would only be supported if the proposed work resulted in restoration of the wetland and did not require
ongoing maintenance. We do not believe that the master plan adequately demonstrates that these
objectives will be met. Further, we do not believe that the required restoration has not been factored
into the costing and analysis of alternatives in the plan.
Ministere des
Richesses naturelles
"OREPORT#.Q 5 v4-/0
~zof_Z:.
65
Due to the issues we have outlined in this letter, MNR would not support the use of this Master Plan to
satisfy Phase 1 and 2 requirements of future projects planned under the Municipal Class
Environmental Assessment.
We would like to meet with you to further discuss the proposed stormwater facilities, as well the
restoration and enhancement measures outlined in the current draft of the Master Plan. We look
forward to further discussing our concerns with you and hope that we can work together to resolve
these issues prior to finalizing the Master Plan.
Sincerely,
lltla~~ M,~
Warren May
Area Biologist
Ministry of Natural Resources
50 Bloomington Road West
Aurora, ON
L4G OL8
(905) 713-7390
Cc:
Dan Orr, Central Region, Ministry of the Environment
Dorthy Moszynski, Central Region, Ministry of the Environment
Ariane Heisey, Central and East Regions, Environmental Assessments and Approvals Branch, Ministry
of the Environment
Kristina Rudzki, Program Review Unit, Environmental Assessments and Approvals Branch., Ministry of
the Environment
66
Ministry of
Natural Resources
) REP05 T#r Q S OLIlO
50 Bloomington Road West
Aurora, ON
L4G OL8
February 8, 2010
Ms. Marilee Gadzovski, P. Eng.
Stormwater & Environmental Engineer
City of Pickering
One The Esplanade
Pickering, ON
L1V 6K7
Dear Ms. Marilee Gadzovski:
r,~
t) " Ontario
RECEIVED
FEB 112010
CITY OF PICKERING
ENGINEERING SERVICES
Further to the Ministry of Natural Resources' (MNR) July 3, 2009 letter and our meeting on November
30, 2009, 1 would like to take this opportunity to highlight the Ministry's main comments with respect to
the Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Master Plan.
MNR is supportive of initiatives within the watershed which would contribute to the overall control of the
quality and quantity of stormwater runoff upstream of Frenchman's Bay. As such; the Ministry would
have no concern with the City proceeding with any of the upstream initiatives.
However, MNR does not support an "end of pipe" solution involving any stormwater management
facilities within the provincially significant wetland. I believe the November meeting was very helpful in
reiterating and conveying the Ministry's perspective on provincial policy,, coastal wetland rarity, species .
at risk, biodiversity and the significant risk of losing ecological functions.
In addition to development pressures, water level fluctuations, recreational use and physical
destruction from non-native species such as carp, also impact coastal wetlands and the role they play
in providing key ecological functions. For these reasons, a monitoring program within the Frenchman's
Bay wetlands to assess the impacts of the upstream improvement works would be of assistance.
As discussed, MNR requests to be involved in future discussions regarding plan development and
review of enhancement projects in the provincially significant wetland areas.
The Ministry looks forward to continuing to work with the City and other agencies and trust this letter is
of assistance in finalizing the Master Plan.
Sincerely, ~y
Warren May
Area Biologist
Ministry of Natural Resources
50 Bloomington Road West
Aurora, ON
L4G OL8
(905) 713-7390
Ministrye des
Richesses naturelles
A TACHMENT#
TO REPORT# 6Es 0"/0 R C IV ED
TORONTO AND REGION of -~a°
z onservation
for The Living City
July 3, 2009
BY MAIL AND E-MAIL (mgadzovski(@- city. pickering.on.cg)
Ms. Marilee Gadzovski, M.Sc. (Eng), P. Eng.
City of Pickering
One The Esplanade
Pickering, ON
L1 V 6K7
Dear Ms. Gadzovski,
JUL 0 7 2009 6 7
CITY OF PICKERING
MUNICIPAL PROPERTY & ENGINEERING
CFN: 37992
Re: Final Report - Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) - Master Plan
Frenchman's Bay Watershed; City of Pickering, Region of Durham
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) received the final report for the Stormwater
Management Master Plan for Frenchman's Bay Watersheds on May 1, 2009. We understand
that this final document incorporates the formal comments and other input of the TRCA and
other agencies, organizations, and individuals represented on the project steering committee.
The final report has been reviewed by TRCA staff who been involved in the technical committee
for the project, as well as those involved in the review of the draft report and in discussions with
the consultant, DFO, and MNR regarding works and wetland enhancements for stormwater,
treatment in the north end of the Bay. Supplemental review was provided by TRCA Planning
and Development staff. Comments are provided in Appendix A separately for i) content and
issues related to works at the north end of the Bay and ii) for the consultant's response letter of
April 29, 2009 (and associated changes to the document) in response to the TRCA comment
letter of June 25, 2007 regarding the draft Master Plan document. Comments not following
previous discussions or TRCA comments are provided in a separate section called "Other
Comments". It is recognized that some of these "Other Comments" raise new issues that may
not be possible to incorporate into the plan at this late stage; as such we provide them for the
information of the City of Pickering and leave the determination to City staff of whether these
comments should be addressed in the final Master Plan document. TRCA staff would be
pleased to meet with the City staff and the consultant at their convenience to discuss these or
any of the comments in greater detail.
Please note that I am now the TRCA Project Manager with the Planning and Development
Division for this file and will coordinate formal.TRCA correspondence and involvement in the EA
process. Please include me on all future correspondence for our files and refer. to TRCA CFN
37992.
Member of Conservation Ontario
5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 154 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-6898 www.trca.on.ca
~~n
ATTACH MENT#~ TO REPORT#~
Ms Gadzovski ~f6 July 3, 2009
68
Should you have any questions or require any additional information please contact me at
extension 5715 or via e-mail at jdraper(@trca.on.ca.
Yours truly,
F0
Jennifer Draper, P.Eng, MES
JD/rn/ag
cc: BY E-MAIL ONLY
Richard Holborne, City of Pickering (rholborn e@city.pickering.on.ca)
Robert Bishop, Marshall Macklan Monaghan Limited, (Bishopr@mmm.ca)
Dena Lewis, TRCA, Manager, Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology
Ryan Ness, TRCA, Manager, Water Resources
Larry Field, TRCA, Watershed.Specialist
Gord MacPherson, TRCA, Manager, Restoration Services
FAHome\Public\Development Services\Correspondence\PICKERIN\2009\37992 3Jul09 FBSWMMP TRCA comments on Final
Report.doc
,,b f,A I-iMEN`V# _ - TO REPORT# OC 04 10
Ms. Gadzovski July 3, 2009 69
APPENDIX A
TRCA Comments on Works in North Frenchman's Bay
Some aspects of the TRCA position regarding "end-of-creek" alternatives as stated in the letter of June
25, 2007 and in subsequent discussions have not been accurately documented in the current final
report. In particular, the following text in section 5.2.1 on page 80 to some degree oversimplifies the
TRCA position and omits key issues:
"Initial reactions from approval agencies (Department of Fisheries and Oceans and TRCA) were not
favourable. However, TRCA has indicated that provided additional measures were implemented
within the watersheds, they could be willing to consider end of creek facilities and to discuss them
further with the other relevant agencies. "
To more accurately reflect the TRCA position, we request that the above text be removed and replaced
with text that clearly states the following points regarding the TRCA position:
1. The initial response of the TRCA to "end-of-creek" facilities was not favourable because it is the
general position of the TRCA that the treatment of stormwater is much more effectively
accomplished on a distributed basis throughout a watershed and that all such opportunities
should be exhausted for the Frenchman's Bay watersheds before considering any stormwater
treatment measures that impacted the Bay and associated wetlands. To do otherwise would
suggest that the "end-of-creek" options were being considered appropriate simply because
capital costs were lower, which was not the case and would have been inconsistent with TRCA
and other agencies' objectives for ecological protection and management.
2. The TRCA began to consider "end-of-creek" facilities only when it was concluded through
discussions and initial work on the Master Plan that there was no technically and economically
feasible suite of measures distributed throughout the watershed that could, on their own, make a
significant improvement to the water quality and ecological condition of Frenchman's Bay.
However, for "end-of-creek" facilities to be considered by the TRCA the Master Plan still needed
to consider all feasible opportunities for providing stormwater management measures
throughout the upstream watersheds.
TRCA consideration of "end-of-creek" facilities was contingent on the construction of such
facilities providing an improvement to the ecological function of the north end of Frenchman's
Bay both through the design of the facilities and through aquatic and terrestrial restoration
works. In addition, the facilities would need to maintain fish passage into the tributary
watercourses and providing adequate compensation for any aquatic and terrestrial habitat loss.
It was the opinion of TRCA staff that both Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Ontario Ministry
of Natural Resources would also require the adoption of these principles to consider such
facilities.
The TRCA has also indicated in subsequent discussions that the evaluation of alternatives in the Master
Plan that include "end-of-creek" facilities should include the costs and time requirements for regulatory
approvals and restoration/compensation works in addition to the cost of construction. While restoration
is discussed in detail in section 5.4 it is not clear in the report that these restoration activities must be
associated with the preferred alternative. To address this, the final report needs to explicitly link these
two activities together and ensure that the costs of the restoration works are included with the costs of
the SWM facilities.
TRCA staff have also noted at the meetings held to discuss restoration alternatives that terrestrial habitat
restoration needed to be considered along with any works in the wetlands in order to improve the overall
habitat function of the Bay. Trees and shrubs provide roosting and nesting habitat for the birds that hunt
in the Bay. As well many amphibians require both habitats to complete their life cycles. Finally,
f- r REPORT# OCS oq /
Ms. Gadzovski 4 of 6 t July 3, 2009
70
terrestrial restoration will improve the buffering of the restored wetlands so they can support species that
are sensitive to the nearby urban uses. The plans included in the current final report document focus
only on wetland habitats; these should be updated to reflect appropriate terrestrial considerations.
In general, TRCA input regarding the conceptual designs of the proposed stormwater management
facilities at the mouth of the bay has been incorporated into the current document. However, staff are
concerned that Figure 5.3.4 indicates that low flow will be diverted around the proposed SWM facilities
despite consistent direction from TRCA staff to the contrary. To reiterate, staff direction was that the low
flows should be incorporated into the wetland, and to use porous berms to secure and facilitate water
retention, define a low flow passage for fish and allow the peak flows to bypass. Routing the low flow
around the wetland/open water features as indicated on Figure 5.4.3 suggests that storm flows will be
decanted into these wetland/open water features, making it appear that the existing wetland area will be
utilized as a stormwater facility. As there is a great deal of concern by staff at MNR and DFO around
using existing natural wetlands as stormwater facilities, the preservation of low flows and fish passage
through the enhanced areas will be essential to demonstrating a net ecological benefit that is acceptable
to those agencies. To address this issue and facilitate future discussions with MNR and DFO while
avoiding significant effort revising these figures, it is suggested that the report and diagrams be modified
to indicate that the routing for the flow conveyance and bypass that routing will be determined in the EA
and detailed design process in consultation with TRCA and other agencies.
TRCA Comments on Consultant's Response to TRCA Letter of June 25, 2007
While the majority of previous comments have been addressed in the final report, there remain some
issues that have not been addressed or that have been only partially addressed that should be noted.
These are described below with reference to the numbering system utilized in the original TRCA
comment letter of June 25, 2007 that was also used by the consultant in their response:
- Comment 1: The consultant's response and the current final document do not address the issue of
the relative contribution of the 401 to water quality issues in the Bay. We continue to suggest that
this be provided in the final report given that the City will likely be questioned on this issue by
members of the public. However, we defer to City staff to pursue this issue with the consultant if they
think it necessary.
- Comment 3: We disagree with the consultant's short response and contrary position. We continue
to stand behind our previous statement regarding infiltration measures, and request that the wording
previously requested be incorporated into the document.
Comment 7: The consultant's response does not address the question raised in the previous TRCA
comment; while 80-90% treatment of flows may be typical for an engineered stormwater facility that
meets MOE guidelines, the proposed wetland enhancements are atypical in that they will be
constructed in an online configuration and will have significantly different components and features.
Therefore, the basis for this claim should be explained or the claim should be removed from the
document.
- Comment 11: The consultant has indicated that they will provide digital files for the hydraulic and
hydrologic modelling that has been conducted, but these do not appear to have been included in
the current document (e.g. as a CD or DVD). This information should be provided to both the City of
Pickering and the TRCA with metadata and documentation appropriate to interpret the content of
those files.
- Comment 15: TRCA staff stand behind their previous comment and strongly disagree that there are
channel designs for the highly impacted subject watercourses that can achieve long-term stability
with natural materials, as a great deal of TRCA experience has suggested otherwise for such
situations. As such, we continue to request that, to provide a realistic documentation of the
?I, I rP: ~ " ........`T.. )REPORT# OCS OSF /0
Ms. Gadzovski -5„0661 - July 3, 2009 71
drawbacks of such an alternative it be noted in the document that any channel reconstruction
alternatives will require long-term maintenance.
Comment 21: It continues to be the position of TRCA staff that the master plan should make
recommendations regarding ongoing development upstream of areas of significant concern, such as
the downstream portion of Amberlea Creek. The consultant has elected not to address.this in the
final report with the rationale for doing so being that TRCA has the authority to apply whatever strict
criteria are necessary to such impacts. In reality, it has been the experience of the TRCA that it is not
possible to regulate development in such situations on a site-by-site basis in the absence of an
overall plan and without the support of the municipality. The current document provides an
opportunity to provide a plan for these areas and to state the support of the City of Pickering; as
such it is strongly recommended that the original TRCA comment be revisited and the appropriate
additions made to the final report. TRCA staff would be pleased to assist in the development of
appropriate text.
Comment 22: We acknowledge the consultant's response that the feasibility of stormwater retrofit
measure construction at the identified locations has been investigated to the extent possible for a
master plan. However, TRCA staff continues to believe that the feasibility of the identified sites
should be investigated at some point to ensure the success of the master plan. As such it is strongly
recommended that the municipality investigate, at a minimum and as soon as possible, the feasibility
of construction of SWM facilities at those sites identified in the Phase 1 5-year plan.
Comment 23: 'It is noted that a monitoring program has been added to the document as suggested
in the previous comment. However, the proposed biological components are only aquatic-related;
there should also be terrestrial components to the monitoring which would include wetland
vegetation communities, riparian communities and wildlife that is using them. Further, in order for
the monitoring to support adaptive management there will need to be a solid baseline established so
change can be tracked and actions modified accordingly. The report should speak to the time frame
for data collection including timing for the collection of baseline data. As monitoring is so critical to
the long term management of the watersheds and the Bay, and the determination of success of the
Master Plan, the report should be more descriptive and emphatic regarding the need for this
program.
The level of detail provided regarding the monitoring plan is relatively low, although it may be
appropriate for a Master Plan document. TRCA strongly recommend to the City of Pickering that the
monitoring plan be developed further in consultation with TRCA staff prior to implementation as part
of the five-year plan. This would also allow the monitoring plan to be coordinated with TRCA
regional watershed monitoring activities that already capture some date in Frenchman's Bay and the
contributing watersheds. It is noted that the estimated monitoring cost of $25,000 per year is low for
the scope of activities proposed and that the actual cost might be approximately doubled.
The original TRCA comment (#23) also indicated the absence of a public consultation plan in the draft
document although this was also a component of the Terms of Reference for the Frenchman's Bay Master
Plan study; this does not appear to have been provided in the current final report.
With respect to the EA process and public consultation in section 5.3.4 where the ApprovaVEA
requirements of the Plan are discussed, it is noted that that the erosion control projects would fall under a
Schedule B. However, it is the opinion of staff that some of these projects might be more suited to a
schedule C due to their complexity, scope and scale (e.g.; Amberlea creek relocation and slope
stabilization). The section should be reexamined and changes made where appropriate.
- Comment 25: Although the consultant's response indicates that they have made changes to
Drawing 1, it still appears that this map requires further clarification. The title ("Proposed Location of
End-of-Pipe SWM Facilities) is not really reflective of what the map is depicting. The legend should
also be clearer on what elements are existing and what ones are proposed-. As this is the map that
Ms Gadzovski 6 oft~e July 3, 2009
72
most readers will rely on, all the proposed measures including diversions (Amberlea and Krosno)
should also be shown. The red lines are not identified in the legend although it is assumed that they
are the sewer sheds. Also it would be useful to have some of the key roads labeled since some of
the sites of proposed works are only identified by street locations in body of the report and tables
- Comment 27: While the consultant has replied that the criterion used to divide wet-weather and dry-
weather flows in the analysis is "self-evident", there are a number of ways in which this division can
be done resulting.in different outcomes. We reiterate, therefore, that an explanation of this criterion
should be included in the document.
Comment 29: Although previous TRCA comments favouring the concept of the diversion of some
flows in Amberlea Creek are to some degree reflected in the revised section 4.5.2 (page 75-76), the
text reads as if the removal of the ESA to construct an access road would make this alterative
unfeasible (thus making the diversion of some of the flows the preferred option) simply because
approvals would not be granted. While it is the case that approvals would be difficult if not
impossible, the text should explain this circumstance and note that the environmental impacts
associated with the loss of the ESA would be profound and immitigable. In addition, section 5.2.2 of
the report continues to prioritize the resolution of the erosion problem on Amberlea Creek "by
realigning the creek and restoring the eroded bank/valley wall", which as noted in 4.5.2.may not be
feasible. This inconsistency between the two sections should be corrected.
- Comment 31: While the consultants' response to the TRCA comment indicates that it has been
"noted", it is unclear how this addresses the TRCA concern. If the consultant feels that the comment
was already addressed in the report or that it does not need to be addressed in the report some
explanation should be provided.
Other Comments
- The text on page 48 of the document in section 3.4.2.2. appears to introduce a location for the City'
of Pickering Stormwater Management Policy to be quoted but the policy wording is not provided.
- Restoration Works - It is our understanding that Frenchman's Bay has a number of water lots which
are not in public ownership and may not be able to be used for restoration works. Therefore, it is
recommended that this plan incorporate a formalized strategy for acquiring water lots during
planning approvals and review in order to maximize restoration benefits to the Bay.
- Section 5.3.3. - Funding of the Plan; Item no. five -Stormwater Levy. TRCA staff believes Kitchener-
Waterloo is moving ahead with a SWM utility feasibility study. It would be preferable to mention
more local examples in the report in order to demonstrate the 'normality' of this general move
towards issuing levies or billing for runoff volumes.
City o~ ATTACH MENT# TOREPORT# 04f S OLI-10
of 44
Pickering Civic Complex
One The Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario
Canada L1V 6K7
Direct Access 905.420.4660
Toll Free 1.866.683.2760
cityofpickering.com
OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Municipal Property & Engineering Division
Division 905.420.4630
Facsimile 905.420.4650
prop&eng@city.pickering.on.ca
February 11, 2010
Beth Williston
Manager, Environmental Assessment Review
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
5 Shoreham Drive
Toronto, ON M3N 1S4
Subject: Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan
Response to TRCA's Comments - July 3, 2009
CFN: 37992
File: 0: D-8104-001710
The City of Pickering is appreciative of the comments from the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) on the Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management
Master Plan (FBSWMMP) and believes that their input will help towards the success of
,.the Master Plan and the sustainability of Frenchman's Bay and its' contributing
.watersheds in the years to come.
Following our meeting of November 2, 2009, where it was concluded that the final
FBSWMMP report did not need to be revised to address outstanding TRCA comments,
the City of Pickering has,prepared responses to the TRCA letter of July 3, 2009. City
staff are also preparing a staff report"to take the FBSWMMP final report to Council for
endorsement, which will include all TRCA comments as well as this response letter.
Appendix A
TRCA Comments on Works in North Frenchman's Bay
Comments 1 through 3 are noted and will be addressed in the staff report to. Council for
the FBSWMMP final report.
73
The City of Pickering is willing to make a significant commitment to fulfill habitat and
wetland restoration, both terrestrial and aquatic, to increase the function of the
Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan February 11, 2010
ATTACH MENT#-_ 61 TOREPORT# DES Page 2
74
_.2nf_
:Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) if the end-of-creek facilities are contemplated
following implementation of the watershed wide stormwater management measures and
other restoration projects (ie. carp barriers).
Future Schedule C Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) requirements for
the end-of-creek facilities will link the restoration and compensation works into the. final
costing of the proposed facilities. Moreover, any future Schedule C EA and detailed
design process will deal with the specific design concept for the routing of the flow
conveyance and bypass, which will be coordinated with TRCA and other approval
agencies to ensure complete satisfaction.
TRCA Comments on Consultant's Response to TRCA Letter of June 25, 2007
Comment 1: Further monitoring work should be able to speak to the issue of high
chlorides from the 401 corridor. The Province of Ontario has the main responsibility for
dealing with the chlorides contribution from the 401 corridor.
Comment 3: City staff promote and require infiltration techniques as well as new
technologies on a regular basis, especially within the older urban areas of the City
draining to Frenchman's Bay. New Stormwater Management Guidelines for the City of.
Pickering are currently being developed and will include standard designs for infiltration
measures and other typical Low Impact Development measures.
Comment 7: The end-of-creek facilities have been sized based on the MOE criteria for
80% sediment removal for a traditional stormwater facility. It is acknowledged that the
function of the facility is not known at this time, however, a monitoring program will be
initiated prior to, during and following the construction of any end-of-creek facility in
order to ascertain the actual sediment removal that is being achieved.
Comment 11: Digital files for the hydraulic and hydrologic modelling have been
requested from the consultant, and a copy will be forwarded to TRCA for their records
and files, when this information has been received.
Comment 15: City staff acknowledge TRCA's position with respect channel designs for
highly impacted watercourses. City staff will continue to seek alternative methods to
deal with the increased stormwater draining to urban watercourses, such as increased
source and conveyance controls in addition to localized stabilization solutions.
Comment 21: City staff routinely state to developers in the Amberlea Creek watershed
that their development plans must conform to the highest stormwater standards due to
the severe downstream erosion. Particular attention is paid to those developments that
do not require a permit from TRCA.
Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan February 11, 2010
ATTACHMENT #---51 . TO REPORT# !2 S 0'/--/0 Page 3 75
3 of
Comment 22: City staff acknowledge the recommendation by TRCA that a feasibility
study be undertaken to investigate the SWM facility sites noted in the Master Plan and
will take this under advisement during upcoming budgetary processes.
Comment 23: City staff agree with TRCA that a detailed monitoring program is a
critical requirement for the long term management of the Bay and its' watersheds as
well as determining the success of the Master Plan and the implementation of the
projects associated with the preferred alternative. Prior to initiating any monitoring
program, the City of Pickering will consult and coordinate the specific details of the
program with TRCA to ensure that all parameters as well as time and mode of data
collection for baseline data are appropriate. City staff have also noted that the cost of
the monitoring program in.the final report is low for the anticipated activities and will
allow for more accurate costing in any future budget requests to accurately reflect the
monitoring program.
Copies of the Public Information Centre (PIC) notices and story boards are within the
appendices of the Master Plan document.
City staff agree that some of the erosion control projects (ie. Amberlea Creek) would be
best suited to a. Schedule C project and would be initiated as such.
Comment 25: Drawing 1 was used as a basis of narrowing down the'options through
the decision making process of the various alternatives and should not be used as the
figure that depicts the selected preferred alternative. Figures 5.3.1, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3
depict the components of the Master Plan for the Amberlea Creek, Pine and Dunbarton
Creeks and Krosno Creek watersheds, respectively. City staff acknowledge that
Drawing 1 could mistakenly be used in the future as the main drawing that will be relied,
on, and will endeavor to resolve the issues that have been noted.
Comment 27: The consultant has agreed to send this explanation directly to the
Manager of Water Resources, who requested the information.
Comment: 29: City staff recognize the issue that has been stated and agree that
inconsistencies between sections 4.5.2 and 5.2.2 are present with respect to the
Amberlea Creek erosion work. Further EA work is expected to be completed under a
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Schedule C for this erosion control project.
Other Comments
These comments have been noted by City of Pickering staff, however, as stated
.previously, the FBSWMMP final document is not being revised, therefore there will 'be
no opportunity to include them specifically in a revised final document.
Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan February 11, 2010
7 6 ATTACHMENT#_.._S~, TO REPORT# OAS 0/-/-/0 Page 4
Of.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 905.420.4660 ext.
2067. -
Yours truly,
Marilee Gadzovski, M.Sc.(Eng.), P.Eng.
Stormwater & Environmental Engineer.
MG:mg
Copy` Division Head, Engineering Services
Deb Martin-Downs, via email
Larry Field, via email
Ryan Ness, via email
Dena Lewis, via email
ATTACHMENT#_ _ TO REPORT#S 0'/-/ O
of 77
Item AUTH7.9
TO: Chair and Members of the Authority
Meeting #2/10, March 26, 2010
FROM: Deborah Martin-Downs, Director, Ecology
RE: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN FOR FRENCHMAN'S BAY
KEY ISSUE
Support for the Stormwater Management Master Plan for Frenchman's Bay prepared by the
City of Pickering to improve water quality and habitat conditions.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) support the recommendations
of the Stormwater Management Master Plan for. Frenchman's Bay;
THAT TRCA staff be directed to continue to work with City of Pickering staff through the
next steps of the Environmental Assessment process;
THAT TRCA staff work with City of Pickering to develop and identify funding for a
stewardship outreach plan to target actions that homeowners and businesses in the
Frenchman's Bay watershed can take to reduce contaminants;
THAT TRCA staff work with the City of Pickering, Ministry of Natural Resources and other
stakeholders to develop a scope and obtain funding for a restoration plan for
Frenchman's Bay;
AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be directed to work with City of Pickering to seek senior
government funding for implementation of the recommendations in the Master Plan.
BACKGROUND
At Executive Committee Meeting #1/10, held on March 5, 2010, staff was directed to bring back
a report on water quality issues in Frenchman's Bay following issues raised in a Toronto Star
article 401 salt ruins lakefront 'jeweP dated March 4, 2010 which identified concerns for the
water quality of the Bay from urban drainage.
The watershed of Frenchman's Bay is heavily urbanized with more than 75% of the area
occupied by residential and non-residential development and by utility and transportation land
uses. Tributary streams that arise from cedar swamps and from groundwater springs at the
base of the shoreline of glacial Lake Iroquois converge to form Pine, Amberlea, Dunbarton and
Krosno creeks which flow southward and discharge into the Bay.
72
7 $ ATTACHMENT#-6- FOREPORT #~tLL$ Oq-10
of
The majority of urban development in the Frenchman's Bay watershed within the City of
Pickering was undertaken prior to the advent of the stormwater management systems to control
the quality and quantity of storm runoff. More recently, there has been a new understanding of
the important role that stormwater management can play from a healthy Great Lakes
perspective and communities throughout the Greater Toronto Area have recognized that the
retrofit of stormwater management systems in older built areas is an important step to
minimizing flood risk and erosion damage as well as meeting healthy watershed objectives for
Lake Ontario.
The natural ecosystems of Frenchman's Bay and its contributing watersheds have been in
decline for decades. Extensive studies completed on Frenchman's Bay and its contributing
watersheds over the past ten years have confirmed that the wetlands in the Bay have reduced
in area and quality, that water quality in the Bay and the tributary creeks has declined, and that
local fauna and flora have changed and reduced in diversity. Uncontrolled and untreated urban
drainage is considered a major contributor to this decline, although other factors such as
recreational uses, Great Lakes water levels and invasive species may also be important. Many
of these studies have identified the need for a comprehensive stormwater management
strategy as one component of an overall plan for environmental sustainability for Frenchman's
Bay.
Under the direction of the Mayor of Pickering, a task force was formed in the late 1990's to
examine how the Pickering waterfront could be enhanced in an environmentally sustainable
manner. A stakeholder workshop was held in May 2005, with the guidance of TRCA, to identify
actions which could be taken to enhance environmental conditions whilst addressing the
objectives of the Mayor's task force. A Five-Year Implementation Plan was developed, which
identified the need for a Stormwater Management Master Plan as a priority project.
For the past three years, TRCA has been studying water quality across the western section of
the Durham waterfront. This study included Frenchman's Bay. Data from this study will provide
additional insights on how the Bay currently responds to untreated stormwater and how water
quality could be improved with proposed treatment. Initial results support the results of other
studies undertaken in the Bay that urban development in the upstream watershed is the
primary source of pollutant loads to the bay.
Chloride contamination in the Bay is the result of road salt application, which occurs in virtually
all urban areas of Canada. Road salts enter the environment through losses at salt storage and
snow disposal sites and through runoff and splash from roadways in the winter and spring.
Conventional stormwater management facilities such as oil/grit separators and detention ponds
cannot capture these chlorides and prevent them from reaching rivers, streams and lakes.
RATIONALE
The Stormwater Management Master Plan for Frenchman's Bay was prepared within the
framework of the Class Environmental Assessment according to the Municipal Engineers
Association (MEA) Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) by the City of Pickering
with assistance from TRCA. The overall goal of the Master Plan was to address long-standing
concerns regarding the ongoing decline in the quality of the Frenchman's Bay ecosystem by
seeking means to control the quantity and quality of storm runoff entering the local creeks and
the Bay itself through lot, conveyance and end of system measures.
73
ATTACHMENT# (e, TOREPORT#-QfS 01/-/0
- 3 of 79
The Master Plan identifies a group of projects, programs and policies that the City of Pickering
can implement to address issues related to flooding, erosion and poor water quality in
Frenchman's Bay and its tributary, watersheds. Some of the projects identified involve the
construction of new stormwater management infrastructure and will require completion of the
final steps of the Environmental Assessment process before being implemented, while others
can be undertaken through programs that promote good practices on the part of watershed
residents.
Environment Canada published an assessment report in December 1, 2001 which concluded
that high releases of road salts were having an adverse effect on freshwater ecosystems, soil,
vegetation and wildlife. These concerns led Environment Canada to prepare a Code of Practice
for the protection of the environment while maintaining roadway safety. The Code recommends
the development of salt management plans as well as the implementation of best practices for
salt application, salt storage and snow disposal. The Code however, does not apply to road
salts used for domestic purposes, or for private or institutional uses. While municipalities are
required to prepare salt management plans, individuals and businesses also can play a role in
reducing concentrations of chlorides and other contaminants to the bay through best
management practices on their properties. Education of watershed residents can assist in
meeting water quality objectives.
One of the major projects identified in the Master Plan is the construction of large detention
facilities at the top of Frenchman's Bay to capture some of the contaminants that are being
conveyed into the Bay from Pine, Amberlea, Dunbarton and Krosno creeks. While these
facilities have great potential to significantly improve the water quality, their design and
construction will need to be considered very carefully to minimize their impact to the sensitive
wetland habitats of the upper Bay. The reasons for changes to the habitats in Frenchman's Bay
need further exploration to ensure that all the measures to protect the Bay have been identified
and to meet the concerns expressed by the Ministry of Natural Resources for potential effects of
some of the proposed remedial actions on the wetlands in the north end of the bay. A
Frenchman's Bay Restoration plan should be undertaken to analyze current conditions, change
over time and response of the Bay with proposed measures.
In light of the identified contribution to the Great Lakes water quality and emerging interest in
the nearshore areas, there is a need for federal and provincial governments to support local
municipalities in the planning and implementation of modern stormwater systems.
Unfortunately, the City of Pickering is outside the Toronto Area of Concern and therefore not
eligible for current federal Great Lakes funding programs.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
• The Stormwater Management Master Plan for Frenchman's Bay will be taken to the City of
Pickering Executive Committee on April 12, 2010, then to the City of Pickering Council on
April 19, 2010.
• TRCA will continue to work with the City of Pickering as they move forward with the
implementation of the Master Plan projects.
• TRCA staff will work with the City of Pickering to develop and identify funding for a
stewardship outreach plan to target actions that homeowners and businesses in the
Frenchman's Bay watershed can take to reduce contaminant loads to the Bay.
74
ATTACHMENT#-(o FOREPORT# OE
80 of
• TRCA staff will work with stakeholders to scope and obtain funding for a Frenchman's Bay
restoration plan to identify causes of decline of habitats and species in the Bay and develop
actions to remediate them.
FINANCIAL DETAILS
No budget has been identified through TRCA's capital program in the Region of Durham
budget for 2010. Staff will seek funds to undertake stewardship activities and the Frenchman's
Bay Restoration Plan through Durham Region capital and other grant programs.
Report prepared by: Connie Pinto, extension 5387
Emails: cpinto@trca.on.ca
For Information contact: Connie Pinto, extension 5387
Emails: cpinto@trca.on.ca
Date: March 17, 2010
75
7
1 l%,-.tKERING
COUNCILLOR'S OFFICE
council@ city.pickering. on.ca
Pickering Civic Complex
One The Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario
O 1 Canada L1V 6K7
O Tel: 905.420.4609
Toll Free 1.866.683.2760
cityofpickering.com
Jennifer O'Connell
City Councillor - Ward 1
ATTACH MENT#--J.~ TO REPORT# QES O~-'/Q
of ,5'_ I V E D
July 31, 2009 JU( 1 200g
Richard Holborn CITY dF IUICIPgLPROPE P10~
ICK iRING
Division Head
Municipal Property & Engineering
Re: Frenchman's Bay Stormwater'Management Master Plan
Dear Richard,
As Chair of the Waterfront Coordinating Committee (WCC), I am writing to you
on behalf of the committee as a whole regarding the final draft of the
Frenchman's Bay Master Plana
During the May 21, 2009 WCC meeting, we had a brief discussion regarding
MMM's final report on the FB Master Plan. Since then, I distributed electronic
copies of the report to members and asked that they review and provide me with
their comments.
Overall, the WCC feel that the Master Plan is much needed and long overdue
and we are satisfied with the report as presented. With that being said, we do
feel that the projects outlined should be of the highest' priority, as the condition of
the Bay is rapidly deteriorating. The City atone will not.be able to provide the
necessary funds for these projects and we strongly encourage seeking various
grants or partnerships in order to implement the improvements. Given the
severity of the condition of Frenchman's Bay, we feel that the implementation of
the Master Plan should be done as soon as possible and any competing projects
for funds should be secondary to the FB Master Plan.
More specifically, the WCC have made the following comments to be considered:
1. Dredging of hotspots in the bay should be seriously considered and it
should be determined who is responsible for the dredging.
2. The design and planting of the new wetlands at the north end of the bay is
paramount if water quality is to improve.
City Tel: 905.420.4605 Fax: 905.420.6064 Residence Tel: 905.420.2282
Email: joconnell@city.pickering.on.ca Residence Fax: 905.420.0802
ATTACH MENT#? TO REPORT# OC S
82 _ 2, of.5:_
-2-
3. Other technologies such as reactive barriers are available and could be
included to improve the quality of the water prior to it entering the north
end of the bay. These should be examined during-the detail design
phase.
W n[cr Tab to
a.
Ow Flaw
Treued Watm _
4. Continuous monitoring of the water quality in Frenchman's Bay is
paramount. The University of Toronto, Scarborough had previously offered
to carry out this work, which has merit as being an independent body.
University of Toronto, Scarborough has completed extensive water
monitoring to and in Frenchman's Bay in the last five or six years.
5. In terms of the costs for monitoring, we feel the $125.000 value should be
increased to at least $500.000 and be operational for all 25 years to allow
for adjustments, should conditions change.
6. The mention of non-existing technology to reduce the chloride
concentration is concerning and more effort should be made to search
elsewhere, including other countries. We should also seek contacts with
scientists for some help.
7. Proposed Monitoring Program for erosion and biological monitoring is
recommended to be done annually however, it should be done at least
twice a year (once in the spring and once in the fall). This way, the
movements of wildlife, fishery, effect of melting of salty and sandy snow,
etc. can be better monitored.
In conclusion, the WCC supports the overall FB Master Plan; however, we
cannot stress enough how important the timing and implementation of these
remedial projects are to the survival of the Bay. We did have concerns about the
proposed timing'of the implementation of the Stormwater Management Pond at
the head of the Bay, as we are well aware that the overwhelming majority of the
sediments polluting the Bay are coming from the transportation corridor. We'
ATTACHMENT #--,I- TO REPORT#
- of -
-3-
o4/-/O
83
were given the rational that the detail design and approvals of this SWMP. would
take approximately 5 years, thus putting it in the category of 5-25 year projects.
We were told that this SWMP would happen within the early stages of phase two.
We would certainly like to ensure that the implementation of this SWMP occurs
within year 4 or 5, and any delay or prolonging of this is not supported by this
committee. Overall, we are pleased with the report and look forward to further
discussions on the detailed design process and implementation.
In addition, I have attached a copy of the technical observations made by Ms.
Zoia Horne. Ms. Horne raised some important technical questions that I would
like our staff to be aware of. I have attached these comments in their entirety, as
I feel they do not contradict the overall comments of the WCC.
Should you have any further questions regarding the WCC's position on the
Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan, please do not hesitate
to contact me directly.
Jennifer O'Connell
Chair - Pickering Waterfront Coordinating Committee
City Councillor, Ward 1
Attachments
Copy: Marilee Gadzovski
Stormwater & Environmental Engineer
ATTACHMENT #---I- TO REPORT# OES ()4/-/6
84 _L. of L_ .
To: Councillor Jennifer O'Connell
Waterfront Coordinating Committee
Review: Stormwater Management Master Plan
Frenchman's Bay Watersheds
City of Pickering
General Observations:
1. - 4.4.6 -Page 65, Pollutants to be better identified, as if they are related to some
industrial discharge in the area in the last 15-20 years.
2. 4.4.6 - Page 70, it is. mentioned the E-Coli bacteria, it would be useful to have
the status of other components such radioactive minerals. Pickering Nuclear Plant
has been here for many years and they continue to discharge used water.
3. Flooding Problems: To be clearly mapped the boundaries for flooding at Faze 1 -
5 years and Faze 2 - the 20 years boundaries which withstands the flooding. The
floodplain maps at the end are impossible to read (i.e. page 316 and others).
4. Monitoring - The $125.000 value should be increased at least up to $500.000 and
be operational for all 25 years, to adjust with necessities for better picture.
5. The existence of heavy metals in the Bay to be reviewed. from the perspective of
possible industrial discharge in the area, if they are associated.
6. Floodplain mapping - for the 20 year study - to be included in assessment for
future developments.
7. Disturbance of submerged Aquatic Vegetation on the Durham Region Coastal
wetlands, to be clarified if they can be associated with some sewer discharge or
industrial discharge in the area.
8. Seismic Profiling - UOT/McMaster for 2001-2002, to be identified which is the
.actual grade level on the Richter scale for this area, and which will be the
prognosis for the future 20 years included in this study.
9. IBI - "Index Biotic Integrity" for fish and wildlife is mention to be fair. Would be
better to be clearly marked what should be the value and what is it.
10. On the map Figure3.2.2. - Summary of available data for Frenchman's Bay
Watersheds: limits of floodline is marked by segments, would be more clear
picture of the area if would be marked by lines to show the coverage.
11. Meteorological data - Precipitations, would be useful to show the peak flow for
the last 25-30 years to be compared with registered model Visual OTTHYMO,
which has been used for up to 100 years.
12. Amberlea Creek: water spilled at Hwy 401- affecting one lane, should be more
detailed in the floodplain. .
13. Other Creeks, particularly Crosno Creek should be marked better because the
floodline goes to GO Train/VIA rail tracks and around 79 properties.
14. It is very surprising to see how Surface Water Quality is poor on all four creeks.
(Hillsenhof Index - TRCA).
ATTACHMENT#__~7. TOREPORT# OcS 041-10
's" of 6- . 85
15. The mention of non existing technology yet to reduce the chloride concentration
is concerning and should be made more effort to search anywhere else including
other countries and seek contacts with scientists for some help.
16. Table 5.3.2. - Page 147, Proposed Monitoring Program: for Erosion and
Biological monitoring instead to be done annually, it should be done at least twice
a year (once in the Spring and once in the Fall). This way the movements of wild
life, . fishery, effect of melting of salty and sandy snow, etc, can be better
monitored.
17. Diminished aquatic life (i. e. absence of toads) could be addressed by Restoration
projects in partnership with TRCA.
Notes:
One of the frequent recommendations is to disconnect the roof drain in future
developments. This should be thought out carefully, because many of the
residential properties have grades which discharge from one into another and the
property with the lowest elevation collect most of the precipitations. This usually
results in creating a kind of marsh in the backyard and many times may also flood
basements: Disconnection should be done only as an option for homeowners
where is possible without other inconveniences.
- Predicted completion dates for Stormwater Management Plan should take in
consideration the completion dates for future major development of sewage
system in the area.
Overall, this Stormwater Management Plan project is very impressive and it is worth to
fight for it implementation. .
Congratulations to all contributors for achieving such detail, documentation.
Sincerely,
Zoia Horne
Waterfront Coordinating Committee
zoianhorgyahoo.ca
Tel. 905 831 4694
June27, 2009
To: Richard Holborn November 16, 2009
. Municipal Property & Engineering
Division Head,
From: Neil Carroll
Director, Planning & Development
Copy: (Acting) Chief Adminis,trative..Officer....
-Man. Manager .PolicY
Manager, Development Control
Coordinator, City Development
Principal Planner - Policy
Subject: Frenchman's Bay Watersheds - Stormwater Management Master Plan (FBSMP)
Final Report, April 2009, MMM Group Limited,
I -am providing Planning & Development Department comments on the Frenchman's Bay
Watersheds - Stormwater Management Master Plan, Final Report, dated April 2009, prepared by
MMM Group Limited. Planning & Development staff have been involved in the Frenchman's Bay
Stormwater Master Plan project since its commencement some years ago and most recently
attended the presentation/discussion of-the findings with the consultant and Operations &
Emergency Services staff in June 2009.
The problems that the FBSMP seeks to redress have built up over the decades due to policies
and practices applied in earlier. stages, of Pickering's development which are now recognized as
being inadequate.
The issues addressed in the FBSMP include:
• limited stormwater management in the major portions of the watersheds developed.
before 1980;
• flooding, erosion and poor water quality, especially in parts of Amberlea and Pine Creeks;
• _.;potential threats to the recreation amenity of Frenchman's Bay;
• high stream temperatures, degraded habitats and bio-diversity, high nutrient levels and
high levels of metals, chemicals and. silt sediments in the Bay and/or streams; and,
• potential for further degradation due to land use intensification in the watersheds. .
The overall goal of the study is:
"To address long-standing concerns regarding the ongoing decline in the quality of the
Frenchman's Bay ecosystem by seeking means to control the quantity and quality of storm
runoff entering the local creeks and the Bay itself."
The solutions recommended in the FBSMP provide a comprehensive program that will remediate
water quality and other problematic environmental conditions in the Frenchman's Bay.watersheds
and should set a pattern to ensure future development can occur without additional negative 8 7
impacts.
The FBSMP provides technical assessments and cost-effectiveness evaluation of alternative
watershed-wide and local control options. It provides a preferred alternative comprised of the.
many elements of the recommended Stormwater Master Plan-in two phases, with. Phasel being a
5 Year Plan (to cost $25 million) and Phase 2 being a Year ,5 to 25 Plan (to cost an additional $28
million):
The following comments relate to the, proposed components of this project and future related
opportunities and challenges to arrest any further decline in the watersheds.
Planning Initiatives:
An-area of concern is the focus of the FBSMP on fixing existirig problems with limited attention
given to accommodating future growth anticipated within the Frenchman's Bay watersheds.
The study`makes no reference to Provincial policies contained in the. Growth Plan for the Greater
Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan) (2006) or the.Region of Durham 'Growing Durham" study
(2007-2009) designed to implement the Growth Plan through the Region's subsequent Official
PIan'Amendment 128 (ROPA 128). The Growth Plan designates Downtown Pickering, (a major
part of the Frenchman's Bay watershed that straddles the Pine Creek and Krosno Creek
watersheds), as a "Growth Centre" and a "Mobility Hub" with policies strongly encouraging
significant development intensification and major additions to transportation infrastructure. The
Growing Durham study and ROPA 128 prescribe land use densities and population projections
significantly greater than shown on pages 51=52 of the FBSMP.
The Policy Component of. the FBSMP (Section 5.3.2, pages 87-88) does not include
recommendations to respond to'anticipated development that will occur as:a result of incoming
Provincial, Regional or Pickering policies.. It does, however, correctly identify the opportunity. to
adopt. up-to-date SWM policies for future development as a general principle. It recommends that
state of the art SWM policies and facilities be required on development sites and, if not feasible
on-site; a suggestion is made of accepting cash-in-lieu `contributions to provide facilities off-site.
Careful application of such cash-in-lieu contributions to specific and timely projects to address,
impacts effectively is recommended, should this mechanism be implemented.
The FBSMP does not evaluate the impacts of expected future development or assess the capacity
of the watersheds and SW facilities proposed by the FBSMP to satisfactorily. manage such
impacts. Accordingly, it is recommendedthat a master environmental servicing plan be
conducted as part of the future planning for the Downtown Urban Growth Centre/Downtown
Intensification initiatives and its findings be reflected in any new policies that may be proposed.
November 16, 2009 Page 2
Frenchman's Bay Watersheds Stormwater
Management. Master Plan (FBSMP)
ATTACH MENT# Lr TOREPORT#00
mot
H . ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT# O ES 0S/-iO
of
.A Specific Site Conflict:
A specific conflict is revealed in the recommendation to divert floodwaters from Krosno Creek
westwards to Pine Creek (north of Highway 401) through construction of a new stormwater pond
east of Pine Creek,. north of Highway 401, on vacant lands owned by the Ontario Ministry of
Transportation.
The proposed location of the SW pond conflicts both with Provincial and City Council intentions for
these lands. The Province expressed an interest in- utilizing these lands for a commuter parking
lot and Highway 401/Liverpool Road interchange improvements in 2006. Pickering City Council
subsequently recommended the site be: used to accommodate prestige employment uses to .
augment City and Provincial intensification objectives in the Pickering Downtown Urban Growth
Centre. The City's Downtown Intensification study is also proposing this site be occupied by
high-rise prestige office uses.
In addition, recent senior government, GO and private commitments to fund and construct the
Pedestrian Bridge, the office building and the GO parking building, no1rth`of Pickering Parkway,.
may impact the proposed location of the diversion pipe from Krosno to Pine Creeks.
. While the objective of diverting flood flows to Pine Creek from Krosno *Creek and the` introduction
of a stormwater pond may both be sound recommendations, the availability .'of the identified'SW
pond site and feasibility of the specified location of the diversion pipe should be reviewed before
the project proceeds. Since there is noguarantee that MTO lands will be declared surplus and
available to the City, alternative SW pond sites and proposed diversion routes should be
evaluated for technical feasibility and cost estimates before recommendations are forwarded to
City Council respecting'this aspect of the FBSMP.
In addition, flow restrictions under Highway 401 and the recent enlargement by TRCA to the size
of the flood plain of Pine Creek in the area of Kingston Road to Highway 401 suggest that further
analysis may be necessary to evaluate the capacity of Pine Creek to receive the stormwater
diversion from Krosno Creek.
Downspout Disconnection
As part of the City implemented program of public education, a review should be required of the
lot grading and drainage pattern. of each unit prior to initiating the downspoint disconnect. This is
to ensure grading/flooding problems are not created and homeowners understand that alterations
may be required and maintained.
Surface SW Facilities at the Head of Frenchman's Bay:
Waterfront Trail.
Two creek mouth stormwater facilities are recommended to be constructed at the mouths of Pine
Creek and Amberlea/Dunbarton Creeks at the head of Frenchman's Bay. Assuming that the
relevant agencies can agree that such facilities are the best method to resolve.the complex of
issues, opportunities should be considered to relocate the Waterfront Trail from the sidewalk on
November 16, 2009 Page 3
Frenchman's Bay Watersheds Stormwater
Management Master Plan (FBSMP)
the south side of Bayly Street to cross the proposed stormwater facilities in order to improve the
'nature' experience for trail users, if such a' location is feasible. In addition, the design of anv other
related works at the north-east corner of Frenchman's Bay.(the mouth of Pine Creek) should
endeavour to relocate other on-road portions of the Waterfront Trail to more 'natural' watery -~dge
locations, if feasible.
Where relocation of the main waterfront trail to the edge of the Bay is not feasible, consideration
should be given to providing sidetrails/facilities to improve public accessibility from the trail to the
edge of the Bay.
Provincial Policv Statement Supports Stormwater Facilities at the Head of Frenchman's Ba
In addition to-the cleansing and settling of sto.rmwater by the proposed head-of--the-Bay
creek-mouth storrrwaterfacilities, such'facilities can be expected to restore wetland function.to
portions of the head-of-the-Bay that. have been. degraded or have lost wetland function, due to the
impacts of the unrestricted creek-borne stormwaterover.the past decades.
Thd degradation of the wetlands. may continue if only in-.stream or up=stream, facilities.are
established.. Although Provincial Policy Statement policy 2.1.3 provides that no development or
site alteration, be permitted in wetlands,_th'e real concern is that- the size and function of,.the
wetland will continue to be reduced if the proposed. 'restoration and improvement, as supported by
Provincial Policy Statement policy 2.1.2, is not facilitated through the proposed facilities"at the
head=of-the-Bay. _Undertaking the proposed wetland enhancement program in this area should,
produce a net gain in the ecological system.
Please contact` Steve Gauntat..extension 2033, if clarification of.these comments is required.
SG:ld
SGIEmAmnmentiMemoCommemingonFmnehman'sBayMasterFl ober, 2009
November 16, 2009 Page 4
Frenchman's Bay Watersheds - Stormwater
Management Master Plan (FBSMP)
ATTACHMENT #_i_ TO/REPORT# OES 04-/0
of
RC Pn i
W 90
OR,
r~ t 0 200 400 800
w , Meters
rF
x A6
~ n
41 W41
,.d'"~.M1 ' f, r 31 - ,a c' t %*~';r ff^ ':1 t 1.'r E
41,
# ea Creek
1N ~.,V
l
i li'J3
it" 0
21v a",
'mp,
wS4
Legend r1~, here
0 Surface SWM Facility -
® Erosion Control Project
Oil-Grit Separator
Creek Mouth SWM Facility
_~•r` - 1 `i,~'
r
(Refer to Drawing 1 for further details)
10
FIGURE 5.3.1
Components of SWM Master Plan
MMM GROUP Amberlea Creek/West Shore
9 1
',t n P ,rod , Rr d'kT .•~j
b,
,y • > ' .rt 0 200 400 800
Meters
1 Y.`~ .d r cb~1 r ~r~
1' 1 P2¢ c { »s P23
•
,i
lie et M:w s
Creek P20 03
\1
PZ P7 P31 bi j,
P2
41
. ; ~t z ' Ss` yea " mar ti s P32
K3
-
Mbar
Cr
017
eek
P35 IV4
ts.L n,p1 M1\
.t. g4
Legend
D7
• Surface SWM Facility
...a_ i
® Erosion Control Project P29
® Oil-Grit Separator
ED Culvert Replacement i
E1
Creek Mouth SWM Facility J .,;^a
Diversion Flow
(Refer to Drawing 1 for further details) FIGURE 5.3.2
AXX` Components of SWM Master Plan
MMM GROUP Dunbarton/Pine Creek
nrl TO REP0RT#+ !C.._5 aS~-/O
of
N
9 F\ t - 1 ?
z 92
0 200 400 800
Mete
A *A
'PP
y99y,, ~4>r.~ = a t ~`~I +►y I` / r s ` F ~ tr' f:~„<c
~kros ~ s tic.
ho Creek
~4 K19
VA,
1 r E K7 K20
+t t yi
x16 \6y. ♦ 'r`~ ~~1 + ,
f r K10 r L -'.w
A K11 K17118 1 r
A bay &/C/ K23 K24?
r
K14, K1
2 Ves
K13
K15 ;rg d.
K16
BRd
Legend
t
• Surface SWIM Facility
® Erosion Control Project
® Oil-Grit Separator
Diversion Flow
(Refer to Drawing 1 for further details) FIGURE 5.3.3
Components of SWM Master Plan
MMM GROUP Krosno Creek/Bay Ridges