HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 12, 2010
Czry oo Executive Committee Meeting
Agenda
Monday, April 12, 2010
PI CKERING Council Chambers
7:30 pm
Chair: Councillor Dickerson
(1) DELEGATIONS
1. Alan Wells, Chair,
Rouge Park Alliance
Re: Report CAO 03-10
Rouge Park Governance Review
(11) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION PAGES
1. Chief Administrative Officer's Report CAO 03-10 1-21
Rouge Park Governance Review
-Proposal to Create a Rouge National Park
RECOMMENDATION
1. That Council receive Report CAO 03-10 regarding the February 2010 Rouge
Park Governance Review report prepared by StrategyCorp and Hemson
Consulting for the Rouge Park Alliance.
2. That Council advise the Rouge Park Alliance as follows:
a) That it supports in principle the creation of a Rouge National Park as outlined
in the February 2010 Rouge Park Governance Review report;
b) That the City of Pickering will participate in further discussions on the
creation of a Rouge National Park and establishment of a Founding Deal
through its representatives on the Rouge Park Alliance; and
c) That before any final decisions are made on the Rouge National Park and
Founding Deal, the matter be brought back to Pickering Council for
consideration.
3. That a copy of this Report be forwarded to the Rouge Park Alliance.
Accessible For information related to accessibility requirements please contact
I ~ V C Linda Roberts
p
r K C Phone: 905.420.4660 extension 2928
TTY: 905.420.1739
Email: Iroberts(Wcitvofpickerina.com
I
Citq o0 Executive Committee Meeting
SAS] Agenda
Monday, April 12, 2010
SICK RIN Council Chambers
7:30 pm
Chair: Councillor Dickerson
2. Chief Administrative Officer's Report CAO 04-10 22 - 35
Updated Horse Riding Establishment Licensing By-law
RECOMMENDATION
1. That Report CAO 04-10 regarding the licensing of horse riding
establishments be received; and
2. That By-Law No.5684/00 being the existing Horse Riding Establishment By-
law, be repealed and a new Horse Riding Establishment By-law, included as
Attachment #1, be enacted to reflect updated regulations and housekeeping
changes.
3. Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 05-10 36 - 44
Statement of the Treasurer Respecting 2009 Remuneration and Expenses of
Members of Council and Council Appointees to Boards, Agencies and Other
Bodies
RECOMMENDATION
That Report CS 05-10 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer regarding
Statement of the Treasurer respecting Remuneration and Expenses of Members
of Council and Council Appointees for the year 2009 be received.
4. Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 10-10 45 - 47
Section 357/358 of the Municipal Act, Adjustment to Taxes
.RECOMMENDATION
1. That Report CS 10-10 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be
received;
2. That the write-offs of taxes as provided under Section 357/358 of the
Municipal Act, 2001 be approved; and,
3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the
necessary action to give effect hereto.
Cztq oo Executive Committee Meeting
Agenda
_ Monday, April 12, 2010
PICKE I Council Chambers
7:30 pm
Chair: Councillor Dickerson
5. Director, Operations & Emergency Services, Report OES 04-10 48 - 92
Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan
-Final Report
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.
6. Director, Operations & Emergency Services Report OES 08-10 93 - 99
No Parking By-law, Sheppard Avenue
Amendment to By-law 6604/05
RECOMMENDATION
1. That Report OES 08-10 of the Director, Operations & Emergency Services
regarding a proposed amendment to the municipal traffic by-law 6604/05 be
received; and
2. That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule "2" to By-law
6604/05 to provide for the regulation of parking on highways or parts of
highways under the jurisdiction of the Corporation of the City of Pickering and
on private and municipal property.
7. Director,, Planning & Development, Report PD 10-10 100 - 107
Pickering Nuclear Generating Station A Power Reactor Operating Licence
Renewal
-City of Pickering Comments for CNSC May 21, 2010 Day Two Hearing
i
Cori o~ Executive Committee Meeting
1141 Agenda
_ Monday, April 12, 2010
PICKERIN Council Chambers
7:30 pm
Chair: Councillor Dickerson
RECOMMENDATION
1. That Report PD 10-10 of the Directors, Planning & Development and Office
of Sustainability, concerning Pickering Nuclear Generating Station A Power
Reactor Operating Licence Renewal be received;
2. That Council inform the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission that it
supports the recommendation to renew the five year power reactor. operating
licence for Pickering Nuclear Generation Station A, provided that Ontario
Power Generation:
a) continues its regular effort at keeping the City informed of business at
its Pickering sites through the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station
Community Advisory Council and presentations to City Council; and
b) initiate formal discussions with the City at the appropriate time during
the next licensing period regarding the impact on the City of the safe
shutdown and decommissioning of the Pickering Nuclear Generation
Station; and
3. Further, that Report PD 10-10, and Council's resolution be forwarded to the
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Ontario Power Generation, and the
Canadian Association of Nuclear Host Communities
(III) OTHER BUSINESS
(IV) ADJOURNMENT
Citq o~ Report To
Executive Committee
PI C KERING Report Number: CAO 03-10
Date: April 12, 2010
01
From: Thomas J. Quinn
Chief Administrative Officer
Subject: Rouge Park Governance. Review
- Proposal to Create a Rouge National Park
- File: A-2500-007
Recommendation:
1. That Council receive Report CAO 03-10 regarding the February 2010 Rouge Park
Governance Review report prepared by StrategyCorp and Hemson Consulting for
the Rouge Park Alliance.
2. That Council advise the Rouge Park Alliance as follows:
a) That it supports in principle the creation of a Rouge National Park as outlined in
the February 2010 Rouge Park Governance Review report;
b) That the City of Pickering will participate in further discussions on the creation of
a Rouge National Park and establishment of a Founding Deal through its
representatives on the Rouge Park Alliance; and
c) That before any final decisions are made on the Rouge National Park and
Founding Deal, the matter be brought back to Pickering Council for
consideration.
3. That a copy of this Report be forwarded to the Rouge Park Alliance.
Executive Summary: On February 5, 2010, the Rouge Park Alliance unanimously
approved the receipt of a consultants' report recommending the creation of a Rouge
National Park, the preparation of a "Founding Deal," and other related matters. At the
meeting, the Alliance also requested that -the consultants' report be circulated to its
member organizations for comment.
Further to this request, staff has reviewed the Rougg,Park Governance Review report
and are in general agreement with the conclusions and recommendations contained
therein. Staff believe the consultants' report provides an appropriate framework for
.future discussions. We are supportive in principle with the creation of a Rouge National
Park, but there are still a number of very important unresolved issues related to the
boundary, operation, governance and funding of such a Park that require further
discussion. It is recommended that the City, through its Rouge Park Alliance
Report CAO 03-10 April 12, 2010
Subject: Rouge Park Governance Review Page 2
02
representatives, continue to actively participate in these future discussions about the
creation of a National Park, and further that the matter be brought back to Council
before any final decisions are made.
Financial Implications: None
Sustainability,lmplications: Not applicable
Background:
The Rouge Park is located in the eastern GTA. It is over 40 square kilometres in size
(10,000 acres), making it 18 times the size of the Downsview Park and 20 times the size
of the Toronto Islands.
The Rouge Park Alliance is governed by 12 organizations, including all local and
regional municipalities within the Rouge watershed, the provincial and federal
governments, the Toronto Region Conservation Authority, the Toronto Zoo, the
Waterfront Regeneration Trust and Save the Rouge Valley System. The Chair of the
Alliance, who is appointed by the Province of Ontario, is Alan Wells. Durham Region's
representative on the Alliance is Councillor Bonnie Littley, Regional Councillor Ward 1.
The City of Pickering's representative is Councillor Jennifer O'Connell, City Councillor
Ward 1.
In September 2009, the Rouge Park Alliance retained StrategyCorp Inc. in collaboration
with Hemson Consulting Ltd. to undertake a review of Rouge Park. The stated purpose
of the review was to make recommendations in five specific areas.
Governance Options - to identify, develop and evaluate potential governance models
that could be implemented for the Rouge Park.
Funding Strategy - to document and assess the adequacy of existing operating and
capital funding for the Park.
Park Operation, Management and Organization Structure - to develop a
management and organization structure to manage the Park.
Rouge Park Land Reconciliation - to research/document the impact of adding lands
to the Park and recommend a balance of uses for the lands
Engaging Rouge Park Alliance Membership - to develop and implement an
engagement strategy for the project.
Report CAO 03-10 April 12, 2010
Subject: Rouge Park Governance Review Page 3
03
A Steering Committee and a Finance Working Group were established to work with the
consulting team. The overall direction and management of the study was the
responsibility of the Alliance Chair. The study process consisted of four main phases as
follows:
1. Data and information collection
2. Identification of the Governance Interest, Issues and Opportunities
3. Identification of Governance Principles, Concepts, Areas of Agreement and
Disagreement, Evaluation Criteria and Assessment
4. Evaluation and Recommendation of a Preferred Model and Implementation Platform
The consultants recognized that the Rouge Park Alliance is facing a number of serious
challenges. The overarching conclusion reached was that the Park and Alliance have
reached a critical juncture in their evolution. The consulting team confirmed there was
still no universal shared definition of what the "Rouge Park" is, or ought to become,
even amongst Alliance members'. As well, because of legal limitations, the consultants
recognized that the Rouge Park Alliance is not a true decision-making board. Rather, it
is an advisory body and decisions, although binding on the Board, can only be
implemented by others. In addition, members on the Board represent the organization
that appointed them, not necessarily the Alliance.
The consulting team further went on to suggest that even if a new governance structure
and funding relationship is not secured for the Rouge Park, the Alliance should not be
left in its current state. The existing governance structure should be replaced with an
incorporated entity, capable of carrying on business in its own name, and of owning
land.
After reviewing a number'of options, the consultants concluded that the best means of
resolving the various challenges related to the Rouge Park would be to designate the
Park as Canada's first "near-urban" National Park.
The consulting team also recommended that a "Founding Deal" be established. The
Founding Deal should set out how the Park can co-exist and be managed within the
adjacent urban landscape. It should also provide a framework by which to deal with the
diversity of uses within the Park area. The Founding Deal must also address both the
core deliverables needed to improve the park and the needs of the partners. In
particular, the Founding Deal would need to address four key issues:
1. Vision (the role of the Park)
2. Land (the Park boundaries)
3. Funding (the entities that will fund the Park and to what level)
4. Governance and transitional arrangements.
The consultants recognized that the biggest challenge and potential barrier to achieving
a new Founding Deal will be securing a willing funder (or funders) in the current
economic climate.
Report CAO 03-10 April 12, 2010
Subject: Rouge Park Governance Review Page 4
04
With respect to the Park boundaries, the consulting team saw merit in an expanded
Rouge Park that would link Lake Ontario with the Oak Ridges Moraine.- To achieve
this, it would be necessary to include in the Rouge Park all of the areas outlined in the
consultants' report (noted as Blocks 1, 2 and 3). Block 1 is the Rouge Park lands south
of Steeles Avenue, which block includes lands in Pickering adjacent to the Rouge
valley. Block 2 includes the Little Rouge Corridor, Bob Hunter Park and the Little Rouge
East lands, which are all in Markham. Block 3 is the Federal Lands in Markham.
Because there is not a well defined plan for how Block 3 might be integrated into the
Park, the consultants recommended a phased approach whereby the Rouge National
Park and Founding Deal would first involve Blocks 1 and 2 (excluding the Toronto Zoo
and closed Beare Landfill site), after which a determination would be made to include
some or all of the Federal lands in Block 3.
Based on their review and analysis, the consultants' recommended the Rouge Park
Alliance adopt the following:
• secure the agreement of the existing Alliance Members to:
o support a National Park
o agree to the terms of a Founding Deal (as set out in the consultants' report).
• call upon the Governments of Canada and Ontario to:
o commence negotiations on a Memorandum of Understanding to establish the
Rouge National Park and address the requirements of a Founding Deal
o address the opportunity to create a shared interpretive centre to anchor the
Rouge Park and act as a gateway to the park experience.
I
• prepare a public and stakeholder communications and branding strategy
• in the event that there is no progress on a new Founding Deal by December 30,
2010, seek an initiative from the Government of Ontario that the Rouge Park
Alliance be reconstituted as a not-for-profit arms length agency with updated board
and governance structures, and natural person powers, in order to address the
governance weaknesses inherent in the existing Alliance model.
On February 5, 2010, the Rouge Park Alliance unanimously approved a number of
recommendations concerning this matter, two of which directly affect member
organizations such as the City:
• that the Rouge Park Governance Review Final Report be circulated to the
constituent member organizations of the Alliance for comment; and
Report CAO 03-10 April 12, 2010
Subject: Rouge Park Governance Review Page 5
05
• that the member organizations consider the following:
o the recommendations of the Rouge Park Governance Review Report
o the concept of a Founding Deal and elements as they relate to their specific
organization
o participation with the Alliance to engage the Federal and Provincial
governments in the creation of the proposed Federal Park governance
structure and creation of a joint interpretive/educational centre for the Rouge
Park
Staff support in principle the creation of a Rouge National Park. However, from the
City's perspective, there are still a number of important issues requiring additional
discussion and resolution before the establishment of a National Park can be fully
supported. These issues need to be addressed in the Founding Deal, and include:
• the specific governance model and funding sources;
• the ultimate boundary of the Park; and
• land uses within and adjacent to the Park and access points to the Park
• the impact (if any) the Park will have on the ability to construct and/or widen
important interregional road connections through the Park, including the widening of
Steeles Avenue and the construction of a future Whitevale by-pass road connection
to 14th Avenue in Markham.
It is appropriate that the City continue to be involved in discussions on the creation of a
Rouge National Park and Founding Deal through its representatives on the Alliance.
However, before any final decisions are made by the Alliance, the matter should be
brought back to Council for consideration.
Attached is a copy of the Rouge Park Chair's report on the matter, including an
Executive Summary of the consultants' February 2010 Rouge Park Governance Review
report. A full copy of the consultants' report is available either through the CAO's Office
or the Rouge Park website (www.rougepark.com).
Attachment:
1. Alliance Chair's report on the consultants' February 2010 Rouge Park Governance
Review report and Executive Summary of the consultants' report.
Report CAO 03-10 April 12, 2010
Subject: Rouge Park Governance Review Page 6
06
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Thomas Mely uk T m s J. Quinn
Director, Office of ustainability Chief Administrative Officer
TM:ljg
Copy: Directors
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering Cit ~,Co n
T as J. Quin, DMR,~C'fUIM III
hief Administr ive Officer.
ATTACHMENT# I TO REPORT#C AC?-03-10
07
TO: Chair and Members of the Rouge Park Alliance
Meeting # 1/10, February 5, 2010
FROM: Alan Wells, Chair and Acting General Manager, Rouge Park Alliance
RE: Rouge Park Governance Review Report
KEY ISSUE
Receipt and Circulation of the Rouge Park Governance Review Report.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the Rouge Park Governance Review Final Report, under separate cover, be
received.
2. That the recommendations of the Rouge Park Governance Review Steering
Committee be received as follows:
a. The Steering Committee advises the Rouge Park Alliance that the
Governance Review Report, prepared by the consulting team of
StrategyCorp and Hemson Consulting, is a competent and professional
report on the options for governance and financing for the Rouge Park
b. That the Rouge Park Governance Review Final Report be forwarded to the
Rouge Park Alliance for consideration
c. That the Steering Committee recommends to the Alliance the Rouge Park
Governance Review Final Report be circulated to the constituent member
organizations of the Alliance for comments within 60 days
d. That the Rouge Park Governance Review Final Report be forwarded to the
Federal and Provincial political party leaders for their information.
.3. That the Chairman formally request the heads of the constituent member
organizations to consider the following:
a. The recommendations of the Rouge Park Governance Review Report
b. The concept of a Founding Deal and elements as they relate to their
specific organization
c. Participation with the Alliance to engage the Federal and Provincial
governments in the creation of the proposed Federal Park governance
structure and creation of a joint interpretive/educational centre for the
Rouge Park
4. That the Chairman of the Rouge Park Alliance appear before the constituent
member organizations to answer questions and receive comments pertaining to the
Governance Review Report.
5. That the Chairman provides briefings to the appropriate Federal and Provincial
officials and elected representatives on the recommendations of the Governance
Review Report and the process underway to receive input and comments from the
constituent members of the Alliance.
Chair's Report - Rouge Park Governance Review with Schedule A -Executive Summary
1
'\TTACHMENT# #J_TO REPORT
09
Engaging Rouge Park Alliance Membership:
-Develop and implement an engagement strategy for the project. Workshops
developed on the subject of governance and funding are expected to be efficient
and comprehensive.
STUDY PROCESS
As the Alliance is aware, a Steering Committee consisting of senior staff representatives
from each of the constituent member organizations was established to work directly with
the consulting team. The overall direction and management of the study was the
responsibility of the Alliance Chairman. The existing funding of the Alliance is provided
through multiple sources for both operating and capital expenditures. The complexity of
the existing funding framework and the need to identify future operating and capital
needs required the creation of. a separate Financial Working Group to work with the
consulting team.
The study process consisted of four main phases as follows:
1. Data and information collection
2. Identification of the Governance Interest, Issues and Opportunities
3. Identification of Governance Principles, Concepts, Areas of Agreement and
Disagreement, Evaluation Criteria and Assessment
4. Evaluation and Recommendation of a Preferred Model and Implementation
Platform
The Terms of Reference provided a clear direction on the overall objectives of the review.
Public administration never occurs in a vacuum; it is always embedded in the overarching
political context of the time. This study and the Rouge Park are no exception. The
consulting team approached this study with a keen awareness that the Park is not in need
of an academic study about what "might be"; much more important, is a model that could
be implemented.
Thus, in addition to the objective realities of the Park, the study process also sought to
understand, as fully as possible, the subjective political dimensions of the Park, with a view
to defining the key political enablers and the barriers to success.
Accordingly, the study had to change to reflect the underlying conditions.
The two greatest considerations were the presence of existing advocacy positions among
Alliance members and the backdrop of the current economic downturn and its impact on
the ability to secure funding from all levels of government.
The Governance Review study has provided an excellent opportunity for a broad-based
dialogue between the constituent members of the Rouge Park Alliance (staff and
representatives levels), its needs, limitations and opportunities. Between late August (2009)
and the end of January there were 3 Steering Committee Workshops, 2 working sessions
for the Finance Working Group and one Alliance Workshop. In addition, the consulting
team held over 12 individual meetings with representatives (Alliance and Steering.
Committee) of the constituent member organizations and a large number of conference
calls.
Chair's Report - Rouge Park Governance Review with Schedule A -Executive Summary 3
1 0 ATTACHMENT# I TO REPORT # Cl0' Oa-1 0
A draft of the consultant's report was presented to the Steering Committee on January 13,
2010 at which time they were asked to undertake their own internal review and provide
comments by January 22, 2010. Detailed submissions were received from the MNR, Parks
Canada, City of Toronto, TRCA, York Region, Durham Region and the Town of Markham.
The consultants undertook a detailed review of comments (in the order.of 150 individual
corrections and clarifications or elaborations), which have been incorporated into the final
version.
THE NEED FOR CHANGE
The work undertaken by the consulting team found, regardless of a recommended or
preferred governance model, the Alliance is facing a number of serious challenges and
limitations.
The overarching conclusion reached by the consultant team is that the Park and Alliance
have reached a critical juncture in their evolution. Based upon the SWOT analysis, the
opportunities, tensions and issues are indicative of the Alliance and entity (Park)
transitioning from the conceptual stage to the reality of a functioning park and
organization.
The Rouge Park was borne out of activism and a political response to a compelling
concept and opportunity. Since its creation, the efforts of the Alliance have further
defined and consolidated the opportunity.
This study process has confirmed that even today, the basic discussion about what the
Rouge Park could or should be, remains unresolved. There is still no universal shared
definition of the "Rouge Park" - even among Alliance Members.
Because of its legal limitations, the Alliance is not a true decision-making board. Rather it
is an advisory body.
In practice, decisions of the Alliance (which does not have a legal status) are treated as
binding decisions, and implemented. In fact, however, they are merely stakeholder advice
which is then implemented by one of the parties.
One of the attributes of a board of directors is that board members have a duty to act in
the best interests of the organization. If a board member is in a conflict of interest
between the interests of the organization, and some other organization to which he or she
belongs, then it is necessary to deal with the conflict. Depending on the norms and by-laws
of the board, this might require disclosure of the conflict, recusal or abstention form the
decision, as may be appropriate in the case.
The Rouge Park Alliance is not a board in this sense. Alliance members are there to
represent the organization that appointed them. Accordingly, it does not function as a
board. It is more of a structured meeting of the Park stakeholders.
Alliance members are therefore in the ambiguous situation of trying to govern the Rouge
Park in the best interests of the Rouge Park, while trying to protect the interests of the
organizations they represent.
Chair's Report - Rouge Park Governance Review with Schedule A -Executive Summary 4
ATTACHMENT # TOREPORT# C-)'LC)"0~-~ 1 1
Further, the consultants have recommended, even if a new governance structure and
funding relationship is not secured for the Park, the Alliance should not be left in its current
state. The current Rouge Park should be replaced with an incorporated entity, capable of
carrying on business in its own name, and of owning land.
The redesign should replace the current stakeholder Alliance with a Board of Directors for
the Rouge Park. Board members should be mandated to:
• provide leadership to the Park
• be accountable for ensuring that the Rouge Park fulfills its mandate
• oversee the Park's management
• act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the corporation
• exercise the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would
exercise in comparable circumstances
Attached to this report as Schedule A is the Executive Summary from the main study
report.
WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY
As mentioned earlier in this report, there has been a renewed dialogue and engagement,
particularly at the senior staff levels (Steering Committee) among the Alliance member
organizations. This positive energy has created a sense of common purpose, opportunity
and momentum to move forward with securing a new governance structure and funding
model for the Rouge Park.
It is also very unique to have secured political support from a cross-section of elected
representatives from all three levels of. government who are championing Rouge Park.
Further, both the Federal and Provincial members have indicated interest in receiving the
report from the Governance Review.
Public and political interest continues to focus on environmental issues, the most recent
example being the climate change conference in Copenhagen. At the same time, Canada
and Ontario will continue to be a focus of international attention with the G8 and G20
conferences this June followed by the Pam American Games, which will be hosted in the
GTA in 2015. Lastly, there is the reality of elections for the municipal, provincial and
federal governments over the next 2 years.
The Rouge Park has always been defined as a landscape of National and Provincial
significance and an opportunity to protect a unique and important natural and cultural
heritage resource. There is a very real opportunity for the Alliance, working with its
constituent members, to "harness'.' the momentum that has resulted from the Governance
Review. and the emergence of the political champions and to capitalize on the public,
institutional, media and political attention that will materialize over the 12-18 months.
CHAIRMAN'S RECOMMENDATIONS - MOVING FORWARD
It is important to engage the senior levels of government, the public, and media with a
single voice and a very clear set of recommendations that need to be implemented to
secure the opportunity that is the Rouge Park. With that in mind, the recommendations
Chair's Report - Rouge Park Governance Review with Schedule A -Executive Summary 5
1 2 WTACHMENT#_-LTOREPORT # 000-v3_ 10
contained in this report are intended to put into motion the necessary actions to obtain
support from the constituent members of the Alliance to move forward with the
implementation of the consultants report.
First, and most important, a draft of the report has undergone an extensive review by
members of the Steering Committee, who have concluded it has successfully identified,
considered, and evaluated a full range of governance options for the Rouge Park.
Second, they are recommending that the consultants report be circulated to the respective
agencies/boards and ministries for formal consideration. They have further recommended
that this review be completed in 60 days, having regard for the window of opportunity
outlined earlier.
In keeping with the advice of the Steering Committee, it is recommended that each of the
organizations be requested to address the consultant's recommendations, the details and
concept of a "founding deal", and to work jointly with the Alliance in approaching the
federal and provincial governments.
It is important to continue with the dialogue that has been initiated through the
Governance Review. Therefore it is recommended that the Chairman of the Alliance
appear before each of the constituent member organizations, at the time they consider the
consultant's report, to make a presentation and respond to questions. In a parallel
manner, briefings should be sought with the respective Ministers and senior staff.
Lastly, it is recommended that given the importance of a "Founding Deal" to the creation
of a new governance model and financing structure for the Rouge Park, a workshop be
held to begin the process of developing a detailed MOU and the process for its
acceptance.
Report prepared by:
For information contact:
Date: February 3, 2010
(Attachments)
Alan Wells, Chair, Rouge Park Alliance
Alan Wells, 9905-713-7426, email: awells@rougepark.com
Chair's Report - Rouge Park Governance Review with Schedule A -Executive Summary 6
ATTACHMENT # I TO REPORT # S-I 0
Governance Review
Draft Final Report
Executive ummary
Rouge Park
Submitted to the
Rouge Park Alliance
February 2010
StrategyCorp - Hemson Consulting
13
Chair's Report - Rouge Park Governance Review with Schedule A Executive Summary 7
4 ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT#
Executive Summary
The Rouge Park is as remarkable environmental asset. Yet, it is even more
remarkable for what it could be: a gateway to wilderness park experiences within
an hour's drive of almost 7 million Canadians - and accessible by public transit.
To realize this vision, change is required. The Rouge Park needs new funding
commitments and a new structure to give it a proper leadership. and
accountability structure.
In our view, the best means of resolving the need for land, funding and better
governance would be to designate the Rouge Park as Canada's first. "near urban"
National Park.
1. Background
In August 2009, the Rouge Park Alliance retained StrategyCorp Inc. in
collaboration with Hemson Consulting Ltd. to undertake this review of the Rouge
Valley Park. The purpose was to make recommendations on options for its future
leadership, financing and organization, with a view to fulfilling the Vision of the
Park. This study is the product of five months of focused effort involving the
Rouge Park Alliance and its team of professionals. This study considers how a
redesign of park governance and funding arrangements could help make Park
Vision come to reality.
The consulting team approached this study with a keen awareness that the Park
is not in need of an academic study about what "might be". It is much more
important to provide a model that could be implemented.
The participants recognized this when they rated "ability to create (or get
agreement on) a new "Founding Deal" among Alliance members" as the most
important attribute of a reform package..
Thus, in addition to the objective realities of the Park, we also sought to
understand as fully as possible the subjective political dimensions of the Park,
with a view to defining the key political enablers and the barriers to success.
The Rouge Park was borne out of activism and a political response to a
compelling concept and opportunity. Since its creation, the efforts of the Alliance
have further defined and consolidated the opportunity.
Even today, however, the basic discussion about what the Rouge Park could or
should be remains unresolved. There is still no universal shared definition of the
"Rouge Park" - even among Alliance Members.
Perhaps because of this, the Rouge Park is still without many of the fundamental
features or benchmarks of a successful park.. It does not have:
Chair's Report - Rouge Park Governance Review with Schedule A -Executive Summary
ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT #2130-03-1 D
• a consolidated, well defined land base
• a comprehensive master plan
• a funded implementation strategy
• a functional governance model
• an articulated park brand (what it is,
what it does, and who it is attracting).
A map of the lands covered in this study is attached as Figure ES.1. Collectively,
these lands are described as the "Rouge Park Governance Report Study Area".
A detailed description of the Study Area is provided in Chapter 2 of this report.
2. Funding
The Study Process assessed the current level of operating and capital funding,
with a view to determining the adequacy of current funding levels.
In terms of the operating budget, it is clear that the existing level of funding is
inadequate.
Using conservative approximations of costs per hectare, it is estimated that an
annual operating budget of approximately $4 million is required to ensure the
sustainability of Blocks 1 and 2 of the Park. The annual cost would be higher
were a portion of Little Rouge East area to be allocated to non-agricultural uses.
In regard to the capital budget, depending on the specifics of the Master Plan, it
is reasonable to project that bringing the facilities in the Park up to a level that is
more in keeping with the scale and significance of the Park could easily require a
capital. investment of more than $40 million over a period of 10 years.
No detailed plans have been prepared for the lands in Block 3. Accordingly, it is
very difficult to project either a capital or operating budget for the area. Were it to
remain in agricultural uses, additional capital requirements would likely be
modest and operating costs minimal. If, however, parts of the area were to be
reforested and/or converted to more substantial park-type uses, capital cost at a
minimum of $10,000 and likely $13,000 per hectare would be required. Annual
net operating costs would also increase at between $300 and $650 per hectare
approximately.
The Report recommends that the Rouge Park Alliance seek a commitment to
adequate, secure funding to allow it better meet its needs.
3. Limitations of the Existing Governance Model
The Rouge Park Alliance was originally created to provide temporary leadership
during the creation of the new park. In its structure, it delivered broad stakeholder
representation to the Park while it was in its infancy, and, under its leadership,
many important milestones have been reached. Nevertheless, the Report
concludes that the existing structure of the Alliance faces several key limitations:
15
Chair's Report - Rouge Park Governance Review with Schedule A -Executive Summary
1 6 ATTACHMENT # I TO REPORT #_C- c -03 A O
• It is an unincorporated "Alliance" and does not have legal "natural person
powers Accordingly, it is unable to own land or contract in its own name.
This is a severe limitation to its ability to directly manage and be
accountable for the Park
• Secondly, with the exception of the Chair, appointees to the Rouge Park
Alliance sit in a representational capacity, whereby they represent the
organization that appointed them. The Alliance is an Advisory Body, and
not a true decision-making board of directors for the Rouge Valley Park.
The Report recommends that the Rouge Park Alliance seek a new governance
model, to improve its ability to manage and be accountable for the Park.
This is true, whether or not the Park achieves a new funding arrangement.
It is axiomatic that in the design of governance, "form follows function."
Accordingly,' the specifics of the new arrangements should wait for a resolution of
the funding question. There are many different ways of achieving this basic
structure, and it can be customized to meet the mix of funders, donors of land,
and their mix of accountability expectations and requirements.
Both of these goals require a new "Founding Deal," whereby:
• one or more government entity undertakes to be the funder, and
• the accountability needs of the funder.are built into the new governance
model.
4. Towards a New Founding Deal
The enthusiasm of the champions of the Park has created significant political
momentum for a new Founding Deal and an enhanced Rouge Valley Park..
The Founding Deal must set out in clear terms how the Park can co-exist and be
managed within the adjacent urban landscape. Further, it must also provide a
framework by which to manage the diversity of uses within the Park area.
Thus, the Founding Deal must address both:
• The core deliverables needed to-improve the park.
• The needs of the partners, ranging from corporate goals to political
imperatives.
To address the strengths and weaknesses identified through the process, the
Founding Deal would have to address the following:
1. Vision: what is the role of the Park?
2. Land: what will the boundaries be?
3. Funding: what entities will fund and to what level?
4. Governance and transitional arrangements.
Chair's Report - Rouge Park Governance Review with Schedule A -Executive Summary 10
ATTACHMENT # ( TO REPORT # B-1 O 17
There are four main barriers to achieving a new Founding Deal:
1. Finding a funder(s)
2. Resolving ambiguities
3. Resolving issues
4. Resolving Boundaries.
Firstly, there was widespread recognition and agreement among Study
participants that the biggest challenge will be to secure a willing funder (or
funders) in the current economic climate.
Secondly, in discussions with study participants, it became apparent that there
are many details about these four components that are insufficiently defined, and
that need to be fleshed out in order to reach a new Founding Deal. It should not
be assumed that these details constitute areas of disagreement, so much as
areas where further elaboration is required.
Thirdly, there are three major unresolved issues which, if left unresolved, could
be a barrier to concluding a new Founding Deal. They all relate to the diversity of
the land, and the need of the,park to accommodate diverse interests within or
near its boundaries.
1. Municipalities are concerned that the.Rouge Park could have a negative
impact on:
• The ability to plan regional infrastructure corridors passing through the
Rouge Park lands
• Municipal ability to plan and deliver on the requirements of such
provincial legislation as the Places to Grow Act
2. Many stakeholders could not support the Park if it were not implemented in
a way that was compatible with sustainable agricultural practices
3. Members of the Alliance do not have a common understanding of what the
boundaries of the Rouge Park can or should be.
Fourthly, in regard to boundaries, an expanded Rouge Park could.provide a
connecting link between Lake Ontario and the Oak Ridges Moraine. The
consulting team believes that this is a very compelling vision. To achieve it, it
would be necessary to include the area described as Blocks 1, 2 and 3 in the
Rouge Park. As noted above, there is as of yet no well defined plan for how the
lands in Block 3 could be integrated into the Park. In light of the significant work
that remains to be done with respect to planning for Block 3, in our view, the
most pragmatic course at present would be a phased approach:
The_ Founding Deal for a new Rouge Park should address the existing Park
Boundaries (described herein as Blocks 1 and 2), exclusive of City of
Toronto lands in operation as the Toronto Zoo and closed Beare Sanitary
Landfill site
A determination to include some or all on the Federal lands in Block 3
should be the subject of discussions during the Founding Deal process,
Chair's Report - Rouge Park Governance Review with Schedule A -Executive Summary 11
8 ATTACHMENT# I TO REPORT#
including consideration of the lands to be set aside for park purposes in
Markham and final decisions regarding the preservation of agricultural land.
All participants in the study process were in favour of achieving an enhanced
park of some description. In the opinion of the consulting team, there is a general
agreement that the Park must coexist and be viable with its diverse neighbours.
While there remains considerable work to be done to reach a full agreement, the
consulting team believes that the areas of difference should not be
overestimated. We believe that through the proper process of fleshing out
implementation details, there could be an agreement reached on these issues..
5. Considering Park Models
The Report evaluates eight park models against the following three criteria:
• Funding: Ability to secure sufficient fiscal resources
• Control of Land: Ability to concentrate land ownership
• Authority and expertise: Gives operating agency sufficient authority and
expertise over the Park.
The Report concludes that no model is perfect, and no matter what model is
chosen, some legislative "hybridization" is likely to be required. This terminology
has been used to describe the modifications to an existing governance model
that might be required to allow it to meet the unique governance needs of the
Rouge Park. In some cases, such hybridizations could require legislative change.
In other case, they might only require regulatory change. In either case, it is the
assumption of this study that to be a plausible hybrid, the changes would be
limited in nature, and preserve the overall integrity of the model and legislative
framework.
The National Park and Provincial Park models appear to.best meet the three
criteria of ability to deliver funding, control of the land and authority and expertise.
Indeed, both would be very strong models which could meet all. the requirements
at a high level.
The consultant team then applied a final criterion relating to the likelihood of the
model to deliver a Founding Deal. This is not a function of the Formal Evaluation
process, but rather a subjective judgment having regard to the ability to achieve a
Founding Deal. In the view of the consultant team, the National Park model is the
most promising model insofar as we are aware that Parks Canada is interested in
opportunities to better connect its mandate and programs to the Greater Toronto
Area. In this context, a near urban park would be a good opportunity to reach this
audience with close-to-market nature and park experiences.
It is important to stress that each of the other models could be made to work for
the Rouge Park. Properly executed, each would still deliver better governance
characteristics than the Rouge. Park Alliance currently has with its limited model.
To be made to work, however, they would appear to require the expenditure of
Chair's Report - Rouge Park Governance Review with Schedule A -Executive Summary 12
ATTACHMENT# I TO REPORT# CHO-ca-I CD 19
significant political will and effort to work around financial and technical
challenges.
Given the analysis, we recommend the creation of a Rouge National Park.
Such a park would be the first near-urban national park of its kind, and would
reflect the Vision and unique opportunity offered by'these significant lands.
6. Recommendations
Based upon the review and analysis conducted through this study, it is
recommended that the Rouge Park Alliance adopt the following:
1. Secure the agreement of the existing Alliance Members
- support for a National Park
- agree to-the terms of a Founding Deal as set out below in table ES 2.
2. Call upon the Governments of Canada and Ontario to:
• commence negotiations on a memorandum of Understanding to
establish the Rouge National Park which would address the
requirements of a Founding Deal, as set out below in table ES 2
- address the opportunity to create a shared interpretive centre to anchor
the Rouge Park and act as a gateway to the larger provincial and
national park experience.
3. The Rouge Park Alliance prepare a public and stakeholder communications
and branding strategy, to capitalize on the current political interest in the
environment and the window of opportunity afforded by the international focus
on the GTA that will arise from the Pan-Am Games and G20 meetings.
4. In the event that there is no progress on a new Founding Deal by December
30, 2010, it is recommended that the Rouge Park Alliance seek an initiative
from the. Government of Ontario that it be reconstituted as a not-for-profit arms-
length agency with updated board and governance structures, and natural
person powers, in order to address the governance weaknesses inherent in the
existing Alliance model.
Chair's Report - Rouge Park Governance Review with Schedule A --Executive Summary 13
IU KOOK # r.ao v3
20
Rouge Park Toronto 2383
ss"9 $NG° Little Rouge Corridor 708
Bob Hunter Park 197
Little Rouge East 653
~`psRO M Proposed Federal Lands 1961
g Total Current 5902 ha
0
e a
m 2m
~yE A N
o
E~NNE`5 P°E Z
m
c' qO ~m
ca' -
po
9 0
,t~HpJE\\ y 5
N A
Markham
Pickering
WE
,ar\ - Rouge <P°?
River ' k .
Wffins
Creek W
2 is t1G 4(i9 p ~v G~~
L~ Petticoat m
NEE Creek $
E
ASE o
~ pYE
rX.
wamroaur.e Rndr Rork _
z
Iacal Roady ie
p p '9
Mefor Road.
=MghrapFnewaY ° ° 1
ea-W, opal Boundary
C]I rehed Boundary
` i
QGreenbeft Boundary Toronto l °
JP pueed Federal Lands Zoo
I Rouge East \kaCLEYm EVE
Toronto Zoo - -
"Pgdalbrn Heribge R.-
■BobHurderPark Toronto
~Rouga Park
P-dal Lands
Federal Lands -0 1 2
~ Kilometers
Chair's Report - Rouge Park Governance Review with Schedule A -Executive Summary 14
ATTACHMENT#.J~.,:,.T0 KEP0RT#_C_" fl3 t 21
Table ES2
Elements of a Foundin Deal Required to Improve the Park
Funding Park funding and number of funders
• Previous contributions of operating and capital funding
• Previous contributions (in kind)
• Present/future contributions of on-going operating funding
• Present/future contributions of capital funding
• Present/future contributions in kind
Boundaries and • Park Boundaries
land • Previous contributions of land
commitments • Present/future contributions of land
Vision . The level of environmental protection the Rouge Park should
deliver
Governance and • Governance conditions/requirements
transitional . Appointment of a transition park manager
arrangements • Conversion of the Alliance to an advisory board
Creation of an interim transition entity with natural person
powers and decision making authority
• Transfer assets held by other entities on behalf of Rouge Park to
new transition entity
The Needs of Existing Alliance Members
Municipal Define how the Park Master and Operating Plans.will be used to
Agriculture accommodate the following issues in such a way as to allow for
TRCA their co-existence, without diminishing the realization of the
Stakeholders and vision of the Park:
Volunteers 1. allow municipalities to meet legislated requirements
under applicable provincial legislation and plans existing
land uses, both inside and near its border
2. there is a need to develop an agricultural business
strategy which becomes an integral component of the
Park Master Plan and Operational Plan. This business
strategy must address the issue of long term leases (50
years), investments in farm infrastructure, viable crop
and business models, marketing, signage and land use
compatibility issues such as the use of fertilizers, noise,
dust, etc.
3. provincial, inter-regional and municipal infrastructure
4. active recreational uses
Define an access plan, revenue generation plan, activity plan
• Define the effect of the new governance model on existing
Alliance Member organizations
• Provide for the on-going role of the TRCA in Watershed
Planning and Management
Address the need of municipal partners.which require lands for
active recreation and other uses
• Provide a means to link local green infrastructure to the park
• Ongoing stakeholder and volunteer advice and participatory
involvement through a "Friends.of the.Park" model
Chair's Report - Rouge Park Governance Review with Schedule A -Executive Summary 15
Report To
Executive Committee
PICK-ERIN Report Number: CAO 04-10
2 2 Date: April 12, 2010
From: Andrew Allison
City Solicitor
Subject: Updated Horse Riding Establishment Licensing By-law
File: L-2300-002-10
Recommendations:
1. That Report CAO 04-10 regarding the licensing of horse riding establishments be
received; and
2. That By-Law No.5684/00 being the existing Horse Riding Establishment By-law be
repealed and a new Horse Riding Establishment By-law, included as Attachment
#1, be enacted to reflect updated regulations and housekeeping changes.
Executive Summary: As part of the review of all municipal regulatory by-laws, a
new Horse Riding Establishment By-law has been created.
The proposed new by-law includes amendments considered appropriate based on input
received from industry stakeholders, Animal Services staff and the City Solicitor.
Financial Implications: Horse riding establishment fees have been adjusted to
reflect the costs of administration and enforcement. The annual licence fee is prescribed
to assist in funding such costs. The City is not expected to realize any significant
additional revenue as a result of the fees set out in this by-law.
Sustainability Implications: The City of Pickering is committed to meeting the needs
of all its citizens. Reviewing and updating by-laws is one way to continually assess our
service delivery and remove barriers where they may exist.
Background:
The existing Horse Riding Establishment By-law No. 5698/00, enacted on June 5, 2000,
was created to ensure safety measures were in place for people who ride horses.
Report CAO 04-10 April 12, 2010
Subject: Updated Horse Back Riding Establishment Licensing By-law Page 2
23
On June 29, 2001, the Province passed the Horse Riding Safety Act, 2001. The
legislation only applies to people under the age of 18.
As part of the Clerk's Office's regulatory by-law review, a thorough review of the current
by-law was undertaken to determine if the needs of the public and horse riding
establishments were now being met. Interested stakeholders were consulted.
The consultation consisted of the following:
• On July 16, 2009, current licensees were sent letters requesting them to review
the current horse riding establishment by-law and to provide any comments and
suggestions they felt would strengthen the current by-law.
• On February 24, 2010 current licensees were sent letters with a copy of the
proposed horse riding establishment by-law attached. Each recipient was
asked to review the proposed by-law and to provide comments.
• In addition to the review done by industry stakeholders, the proposed horse
riding establishment by-law has been reviewed extensively by Animal Services
and the City Solicitor.
Horse riding is a dangerous sport regardless of a person's age. Requiring all riders to
wear safety helmets can greatly reduce the risks of head injuries and ultimately help
save lives. The proposed by-law is more'restrictive than Horse Riding Safety Act, 2001
and states that all riders, regardless of age must where a proper helmet and footwear
when riding any horse. The proposed by-law also states that children 12 years or
younger must wear a safety vest when jumping over 2 feet.
Minor housekeeping changes were also required to ensure that the layout and.format of
the by-law met current City standards.
As the consultation process is now complete and comments from interested parties
have been considered, staff are recommending that the attached Horse Riding
Establishment By-law be enacted.
I
CORP0227-07/01 revised
i
Report CAO 04-10 April 12, 2010
Subject: Updated Horse Back Riding Establishment Licensing By-law Page 3
24
Attachment:
1. Proposed Horse Riding Establishments By-law.
Prepared -By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Lindsey Brenner Debbie Shields
Supervisor, Animal Services City Clerk
An4eA on
C ity Solicitor
LB:lb
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City un
~7 /
Th uinn, R M III
Chief Administrati Officer
CORP0227-07/01 revised
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
25
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
BY-LAW NO. /10
A by-law to licence horse riding establishments
WHEREAS Section 151 of the Municipal Act, 2001 authorizes the City to provide for a
system of licences with respect to any business wholly or partly carried on within the
City; and
WHEREAS the City deems it necessary to provide for a system of licensing horse riding
establishments..
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF
PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
PART I - INTERPRETATION
Definitions
1. In this by-law,
"applicant" means a person who applies for a licence;
"City" means The Corporation of the City of Pickering or the geographical area of
Pickering, as the context requires;
"City Clerk" means the City Clerk or a designate;
I4 "Council" means the Council of the City;
"head trail guide" means a person who supervises trail rides on horseback;
"horse" means any animal of the equine species and includes a pony;
"horse riding establishment" means an establishment that provides horses for
hire for riding or to be used to provide riding instruction, whether the horses are
ridden on the grounds of the establishment or elsewhere;
"instructor" means a person who provides horseback riding lessons;
"lead line" means a single.horse led by a walking adult holding the horse's lead
rope;
Horse Riding Establishment Licensing By-law No. XXXX/10 Page 2
26
"licence" means a licence to operate a horse riding establishment issued in
accordance. with this by-law;
"licensee" means a person to whom a licence has been issued and includes the
person having overall control of the establishment and the person in charge of
the daily running of the establishment; and
"person" includes a corporation and the heirs, executors, administrators or other
legal representatives of a person to whom the context can apply according to
law.
References to Legislation
2. In this by-law, reference to any Act, regulation or by-.law is reference to that Act,
regulation or by-law as it is amended or re-enacted from time to time.
Word Usage
3. This by-law shall be read with all changes in gender or number as the context
may require.
4. A grammatical variation of a word or expression defined has a corresponding
meaning.
Schedules
5. Schedule "A" (LICENCE FEES) and Schedule "B° (REQUIRED SIGN) are
attached to and form part of this by-law.
6. Unless otherwise specified, references in this by-law to Parts, sections and
Schedules are references to Parts, sections and Schedules in this by-law.
Conflicts
7. If a provision of this by-law conflicts with a provision of any applicable Act,
regulation or by-law, the provision that establishes the higher or more restrictive
standard to protect the health, safety and welfare of the general public shall
prevail.
Severability
8. Each section of this by-law is an independent section, and the holding of any
section or part of any section of this by-law to be void or ineffective for any
reason shall not be deemed to affect the validity of any other section or parts of
sections of this by-law.
Horse Riding Establishment Licensing By-law No. XXXX/10 Page3
27
PART II - APPLICATIONS
Submission of Applications
9. All licence applications shall be completed and submitted on forms provided by
the City.
10. Every licence application shall be submitted with the applicable fee set out in
Schedule 1.
11. Every applicant shall submit to the City Clerk,
(a) where applicable, a copy of proof of ownership, a lease or written
permission from the owner or property manager of the property where the
horse riding establishment is to be located;
(b) a brief outline of the number of horses-and estimated number of lesson
participants;
(c) a brief outline of how sickness, disease or injuries to horses will be
handled at the horse riding establishment; and
(d) a brief outline of how falls and potential injuries to lesson participants will
be handled at the horse riding establishment.
Issuance of Licence
12. The City Clerk may approve or refuse any.licence application, and may impose
any conditions upon an approval as he or she determines to be appropriate.
13. In addition to every other requirement imposed by this by-law, every licence is
-issued subject to the condition that all federal, provincial and municipal laws, by-
laws, rules, regulations, orders, approvals, permits, standards, and all other
governmental requirements applicable to the operation of a horse riding
establishment must be complied with.
Disqualifications
14. The City Clerk shall refuse to issue a licence if,
(a) all of the information and documents that the applicant is required to
provide under this by-law have not been provided and verified;
(b) the licence fee has not been paid;
(c) the applicant has submitted false information in support of the application;
(d) the issuance of the licence would contravene any of the. provisions of this
by-law, any applicable zoning regulations, or any other applicable law;
Horse Riding Establishment Licensing By-law No. XXXX/10 Page 4
28
(e) the past conduct of the applicant affords reasonable grounds for the belief
that the applicant will not operate a horse riding establishment in
accordance with all applicable laws; or
(f) the issuance of the licence would be contrary to the public interest.
Term
15. Every licence shall expire on December 31St of the year in which it has been
issued.
Transfer
16. A licence shall not be transferable.
Prohibition
17. No person shall own, operate, manage, control or supervise a horse riding
establishment without a licence.
PART III - REGULATIONS FOR LICENSEES
General
18. Every licensee shall ensure that the licence is posted in a conspicuous place in
the horse riding establishment to which the licence applies.
19. Every licensee shall ensure that all animal waste materials are disposed of in a
manner that will not create a public nuisance or health hazard.
20. Every licensee shall ensure that a fully stocked first-aid kit is maintained and
available for use at all times in the horse riding establishment.
21. Every licensee shall ensure that prior to beginning riding lessons or leading a trail
ride, the instructor, an assistant'instructor or head trail.guide assigned to the
instruction or ride, as the case may be, shall examine the fit and condition of all
equipment to be used by each rider to ensure that it is clean, supple, well-fitting,
secure and fully functional.
22. (1) No licensee shall,
(a) permit more than one person to ride a horse at the same time except for
disabled riders with special needs within a designated controlled
environment;
Horse Riding Establishment Licensing By-law No. XXXX/10 Page 5
29
(b) rent a horse unless that horse is known to be safe, sound and schooled for
the purposes intended and appropriately suited to the rider's size and
ability;
(c) permit any person with less than 6 months riding experience to mount or
dismount a horse unless that horse is held at the bridle by an employee or
volunteer of the person carrying on the business and who is supervised by
a head trail guide or instructor;
(d) rent, loan or otherwise allow a person to ride,a sick horse;
(e) rent, loan or otherwise allow a person underl~six years of age to ride a
,
horse without a lead line; th
(f) rent, loan or otherwise allow a person 'to ride a;horse under five years of
age unless that person is the .owner of that horse;:
(g) rent, loan or otherwise allow a person to ride a stallion, unless that person
is the owner of that horse; or (h) rent, loan or otherwise allow a personto ride a horse where that person is
taking, consuming, posse'ssmg or is, or appears to be, intoxicated by
alcohol or drugs. '4 r
23. (1) In this section;.', lame" means an abnormal, movement in the horse when
seentian motion or at a stance~that slows signs of compensation.
y
5 X
(2) No lice see.shall rent, loan or otherwise allow a person to ride a horse
that is lame:
Il
(3) Subs6dtion,(2) does not apply;if:,written documentation from a
veterinarian. states that the horse may continue to be ridden.
24. 1 No licensee shall permit any person to ride any horse in the licensed
O ti ks ,a
establishment unless the person has and is correctly using the following
equipment in the manner that it was designed to be used:
(a) a t, i that meets current standards for equipment designed and
manufactured for use while riding as established by the American
Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM), the British Standards
Institute (BSI); and
(b) properly fitted, hard soled footwear with a heal no less than 1.5
centimetres.
(2) No licensee shall permit any person 12 years or younger to jump over 2 feet
without wearing a safety vest.
Horse Riding Establishment Licensing By-law No. XXXX/10 Page 6
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to riders participating in horse shows or
competitions.
25. Every licensee shall ensure that a sign substantially in the form set out in
Schedule "B" is posted in a conspicuous place in the horse riding establishment.
Condition of Grounds
26. (1) Subject to subsection (2), every licensee shall keep the portion of the area
ordinarily used for the riding of horses clear of all ground and over-
hanging obstructions.
(2) Where obstructions cannot be cleared, every licensee shall erect barriers
such that horses and riders will not come in contact with them.
Trail Riding Requirements
27. No licensee who is carrying on the business of trail riding shall conduct trail rides
with less than one head trail guide for the first six riders and an. assistant trail
guide for every additional six riders.
28. No licensee who is carrying on the business of trail riding shall conduct trail rides
without a head trail guide or assistant trail guide carrying, at all times, a two-way
communication device where its signal will be received by another head trail
guide, or assistant trail guide who is not also on the same trail ride.
29. No licensee who is carrying on the business of trail riding shall rent a horse to a
person who is less than ten years old.
30. Every licensee shall ensure that all head trail guides and assistant trail guides
must hold a valid first-aid and CPR certificate.
31. Every licensee shall ensure that prior to conducting or leading a trail ride, the
head trail guide or an assistant trail guide assigned to the riders, as the case may
be, shall provide basic information on the handling of a horse and the basics of
riding a horse.
Minimum Qualifications
32. No person shall instruct persons in the riding of horses at a riding establishment
unless they are at least 16 years old, hold a valid first-aid and CPR certificate,
and either,
(a) have a least five consecutive years' experience in. riding or training horses;
or
(b) have been certified by the Canadian Equestrian Federation, Ontario
Equestrian Federation, Canadian Therapeutic Riding Association, Certified
Horse Riding Establishment Licensing By-law No. XXXX/10 Page 7
31
Horseman's Association or British Horse Society or other credited equine
association or institution.
33. No person shall act as a head trail guide at a riding establishment unless they
are at least eighteen years old and have a least five consecutive years'
experience with horses.
34. No person shall be permitted to assist with horseback riding instruction at a horse
riding establishment or act as an assistant trail guide unless they,
(a) are at least fourteen years old;
(b) have at least three consecutive years' experience riding horses; and
(c) are under the supervision of an instructor or head trail guide who meets
the qualifications set out in section 31.
PART IV - ENFORCEMENT
Definition
35. In this Part, "officer" means a municipal law enforcement officer appointed by the
City to enforce municipal by-laws.
Inspections
36. An officer may, at any reasonable time, enter upon any land for the purpose of
carrying out an inspection to determine whether or not the provisions of this by-
law have been complied with.
37. For purposes of an inspection, an officer may,
(a) require the production for inspection of any document or things relevant to
- the inspection;
(b) inspect and remove documents or things relevant to the inspection for the
purpose of making copies or extracts;
(c) require information from any person concerning a matter related to the
inspection; and
(d) alone or in conjunction with a person possessing special or expert
knowledge, make examinations or take tests, samples or photographs
necessary for the purposes of the inspection.
38. No person shall withhold, destroy, conceal or refuse to furnish any information or
thing required by an officer for purposes of an inspection.
Horse Riding Establishment Licensing By-law No. XXXX/10 Page 8
32
39. No person shall prevent, hinder or interfere or attempt to prevent, hinder or
interfere with an inspection undertaken by an officer.
Suspension of Licence
40. The City Clerk may suspend a licence if the licensee fails to comply with any
provision of this by-law and such non-compliance is not remedied within seven
(7) days following notice from the City specifying the particulars of the non-
compliance.
Revocation of Licence
41. The City Clerk may revoke a licence if,
(a) the licence has been issued in error;
(b) the licence has been suspended in accordance with section 39 and no
satisfactory evidence of compliance has been filed with the City within 60
days from the date of the suspension;
(c) the licence has been issued as the result of false, mistaken, incorrect, or
misleading statements, information or undertakings on the application or
on any submitted documents that formed the basis of the issuance; or
(d) the licensee requests that the licence be revoked.
Offences and Penalties
42. Every person who contravenes any provision of this by-law is guilty of an offence
and upon conviction is liable to a fine pursuant to the provisions of the Provincial
Offences Act.
PART V - GENERAL
Short Title
43. This by-law may be referred to as the "Horse Riding Establishment By-law".
Repeal
44. By-law No. 5684/00 is repealed.
Horse Riding Establishment Licensing By-law No. XXXX/10 Page 9
33
Effective Date
45. This by-law shall come into force on the day of its passing.
By-law read a first, second and third time and finally passed this day of April, 2010.
David Ryan, Mayor
Debbie Shields, City Clerk
Horse Riding Establishment Licensing By-law No. XXXX/10 Page 11
35
SCHEDULE "B"
REQUIRED SIGN
The following regulations are imposed by City of Pickering By-law Number • which
governs the operation of this business:
Riders are advised that even with safety equipment, horse riding contains inherent risks
which may result in serious injury or death.
Helmets must be worn by all riders.
Lead line riding is permitted for children under 6 years of age.
Hard and smooth soled shoes with a defined heel must be worn by all riders.
Riders must disclose any medical problem or condition which may cause risk.
Inexperienced riders are asked to identify themselves to the instructor/leader.
REPORT TO
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Report Number: CS 05-10
Date: April 12, 2010
From: Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Subject: Statement of the Treasurer Respecting 2009 Remuneration and
Expenses of Members of Council and Council Appointees to Boards,
Agencies and Other Bodies
Recommendation:
That Report CS 05-10 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer regarding
Statement of the Treasurer respecting Remuneration and Expenses of Members of
Council and Council Appointees for the year 2009 be received.
Executive Summary: Section 284(1) of the Municipal Act 2001 states in part that
the Treasurer of every municipality shall, in each year, submit to the Council of the
municipality, an itemized statement of the remuneration and expenses paid to each
Member of Council. The statement must also include remuneration and expenses paid
to any other person who has been appointed by Council to serve as a member of any
body.
Financial Implications: This report contains no new financial implications as the
expenditures were provided for in the 2009 Current Budget approved by Council.
Sustainability Implications: This report contains no information pertaining to
sustainability.
Background: Over the last few years this report has evolved to include various
categories of expenditures that have been interpreted to be required under the new
Municipal Act and/or financial reporting requirements of the Province of Ontario or
professional accounting bodies.
The reference in the Act to "...expenses paid ...to has been interpretated to also
include expenses paid on behalf of a Member of Council or appointee. For example,
assume two Councillors incur the same registration expense to attend the same
conference. One puts it on his charge card and seeks reimbursement from the City
Report CS 05-10 Date: April 12, 2010
Subject: Statement of the Treasurer Respecting 2009 Remuneration Page 2
and Expenses of Members of Council and Council Appointees
to Boards, Agencies and Other Boards 37
while the other has the City billed directly. There should be no difference in the
reporting treatment due to the method of payment and this interpretation will
accomplish that. It also complies with what I believe is the intent of the legislation. The
report excludes expenditures that are corporate in nature, for example school awards,
promotional items and photography, and that are not directly associated with any
individual Councillor. Council receptions, Committee meeting expenses and City Hall
administration and overhead expenses are also excluded.
Payments made by Veridian Corporation to Pickering Council appointees to the Board
have been included. The Act stipulates that any body to which a Council appointment
is made must provide the municipality with a statement of remuneration and expenses
paid for the year, and this information must be included in the Treasurer's report to
Council.
Several other bodies to which Council makes appointments have also been included as
an "other body" as required under the Act. However, the many community committees
and groups that Councillors are appointed to have been excluded as, to the best of my
knowledge, no remuneration or expenses are paid.
The amounts paid by the Region of Durham to Regional Councillors are not included in
this report.
Attachments:
1. Remuneration and Expenses of Members of Council
2. Detailed Breakdown of 2009 Expenses
3. Remuneration and Expenses of Council Appointees
4. Remuneration and Expenses Paid by Veridian Corporation to Council Appointees
Report CS 05710 Date: April 12, 2010
Subject: Statement of the Treasurer Respecting 2009 Remuneration Page 3
and Expenses of Members of Council and Council Appointees
3 $ to Boards, Agencies and Other Boards
Prepared By:
Avril Payrfe
Audit Analyst
Approved / Endorsed By:
Gillis A. Paterson
.Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
GAP:ap
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City. ounc'
zi
6 1 Quinn WMR, WIM III
ief Administrative Officer
1
ATTACHMENT#„L'TO REPORT#_C~-_p5--/o
39
W
W
U)
a' J W
m z x
U)) w
W U Z
~ r Q
aL U 0
0LLH
Z N
W W
a
w W
F- W
Ix
O
0
O
N
O
00 O M P- O
r -
o m m
N O
o
~
rr
'
R
'
'
Nr COCAr
l
N
6
f
C
)
L
!a
U
00
W
O IT M f- f- M
N
C
r
r
OOOC"MU) 00
M
O
0
O
C II ~ C \L v
0
i
0
CO
0 0 ~ O r N
~
3
r
r
(O (D Lf) (O 0
O
U
~ r
r
M
O
F-
ml
L ~
F-
v
47I
d
rn v
C
d
xi
w
94-
l
C
d
m
N
N
E d9
N
a
C
O
a~
a) v
C
7
E
m
fl-
0 0 0 0 0 0
0
v
000000
0
r
aoooOOOO
O
iui
oooooo
v
• r
r r r r r r
O
> O
r- CO N w r N
I,-
> O
O N 00 LO M O
0
i O
~ N W~ O~
~
r` LO OLO 0v00
M M M M r M O
I N r r r r N r o0
i 00 r r r r CO r M
r r r r r r (p
vvvvvvv
r r r r r r O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
m m m m m m w
r
111
104
CNO M M M M M
~ M r r r r r~
N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r - M m M M M M W
r
C
O C C N
a) in c a)
co Y C N J 02
T O. V p~ U U, V
J2Oa
C) p w co m U p
J_
U
z
O
U
U
LL
O
U
it
W
m
2
W
0O
co
W
F-
0
z
O L
C U
O 3
w ~
U
C N
E L
3
3
E p
0
U o
c o
O w
w L
CL
E `
O O
U C
3 O
O U
U
O co
O O
Cl) cm
00 a)
N D7
C C rn a)
O O (D c
p U a) a)
a) x -,c
N (n a) U
r d
f N CD 0-5
N Q U m
c c ~O O.
O a)
75 3 U O
C O_ O. (D
a) 3 O w p
Q' ` c O_
O N
E
O Co N
0 (n
2 ,
a) . N
"O
C
O 'D 3 O
C U X E
Q =wm
v7
a)
U
X
O
.0
U)
U
1-
2
W
C
03
a
d
U
ai
rn
m
N
O
U
a)
U
C
3
N
c
o
_ LQ
C
CU
cu C (D
O C
- c
a~
s m
f9
a)
L in
C L°n
a) "
Cl V!)
C
o v,
c 3
a) L
CL tf
f6 >a
O >
3
a) U
C
O
NU
c
0 o
c .0
O a)
U g
U) a)
~ N
O O
U
C M
Q_
N N
a)
ac) c
co -0
ce)
N
c
a)
E
L
U
Q
C
O
a)
c
m
Q
x
a)
O
C
O
Y
W
N
a
a)
.f
N
a)
a)
U
O
(n
a)
.n
E
a)
T
U
O
a
c
O
m
U
Z
3
E
E
O
U
•U
c
3
O
U
a)
c
N
E
0-
5
o-
0
N
c
O
U
C
3
E
E
U
a)
a)
C E
f0 a)
U
c
3
voi U
m a)
ca 0-
3r,
'a O
L O_
3 D
f1 N
O
U cm
U o
C~
a) _
N U
2 C
w0()
LO
40
wJ
W U L
Z c
Q o
w U L
LL- U
~ p
z
W m [
a w
N M L
a) O O
r 0)0)
O 0) d c5
~ X
W
d rd
O~
O N
4 a 6,
7
0 Q
0 rn rn
(n a- M M
C a) a)
v
d
~ d ~
a~ ea
3 c~
da
z
d ~
c
O m
t
ati
00 co
d
U N N
~ C r r
O 6ek
d ~
>s a
a
U) (Oco
d (0(D
= N N
C
O
U
ATTACHMENT #.s,2_TO REPORT # 4SI u
r-MNCDr•CN
O N CO LO O c
Mr- (fl 0 '14
v( a)vair
N
a)MOCD0
Nr-MO(D
00 mc
MO' 0c
N M 0 N
N d'
co OOT-~C
~ M N 0 M
r-(D0 T-r-0
N N . ~ ~
OO000r•',~
~ O Lo U-1 M C,
U) Ln LO r ~ a
r= ~i ai c
Lna)O"- N N
r- r- Od'aor
r ' a) r- r- CO a
co
(D
(0
a)
•1011
. M
1 O
O
N
i O
CD
i0
'Ir•II
19T 0r-NLn0
CD
0NOmr-a)
0
ao Ln m m r. N
r-
M~
r
0
N
cm
L
U
co CD
0
0
c
00 1q' U')
O
co O LO
N N N
r
C
.O
c
LO
co
a)
c
O
.C
Q
a)
N
a)
E
O
t
c ~
O c c (D
N Cp c N O
Y C a)
O
O J ~C
.V O o u .L) C
`w ~0-,1D gpa
cu O
0
. ATTACHMENT #2--TO REPORT #Qs i
STATEMENT OF TREASURER 4
COUNCIL APPOINTEES
2009 REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES
Remuneration Expenses (4) Total
Committee of Adjustment (1,2)
K. Ashe (3)
D. Johnson (3)
S. Kular (3)
E. Newton (3)
K. Wilkinson (3).
Property Review Committee (10)
K. Bannister (3)
A. Burtney (3,11)
T. Calandra (11)
P. Dickson (11)
R. Farrell (11)
G. Fernandes (3,11)
R. Fleming (3)
M. O'Connor (3)
Heritage Pickering Advisory
Committee (2)
T. Arvisais (12 )
M. Cassidy (11)
S. Curran (7,8,15)
K. Falconer (1.3)
R. Fleming (7,8,16)
S. Gardner (12)
J. Glasser (12)
W. Jamadar (11)
R. Lawson (8)
K. McLean (12,17)
D. Panesar (8,14)
P. Rodrigues (11)
J. Simpson (8)
M. Woods (11)
G. Zimmerman (9)
1,040
65
1,105
1,280
81
1,361
720
163
883
1,040
71
1,111
1,280
223
1,503
5.360
603
5,963
80
- 80
80
- 80
80
- 80
240
- 240
225 225
225 225
4 2 STATEMENT OF TREASURER
COUNCIL APPOINTEES
2009 REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES
Remuneration Expenses (4) Total
Livestock Valuers (2)
J. Laider (3) 320 18 338
Pickering Public Library Board (2)
M. Anderson (13) - - -
0. Chaudhry (3) - - -
J. Lucas (3) - 310 310
A. Midolo (5,18) - - -
A. Nagvi (6) - - -
J. Sabean (3) - 380 380
P. Savel (3) - - -
S. Van Steen (3) - - -
690 690
NOTES TO COUNCIL APPOINTEES:
All payments are authorized under Council's adoption of the 2008 Current Budget.
(1) Authority: By-law 5242/98
Municipal Act, 2001 Section 283
(2) Authority: By-law 6713/06
Municipal Act, 2001 Section 283
(3) Council appointees for new term commencing December 1, 2006
(4) Expenses include conferences, travel and meeting expenses
(5) Resolution #116/07, M. Midolo to replace P. irwin
(6) Resolution #166/07, A. Naqvi to replace H. Van Leeuwen
(7) Resolution #71/07, Council appointees for a two year term
(8) Resolution #245/08, Council appointees for a term to expire November 30, 2010
(9) Resolution #245/08, Council appointee for a term to expire November 30, 2009
(10) Resolution #97/09, Property Review Committee to replace Fenceviewers/
Property Standards Committee
(11) Resolution #229/09, Council appointees for a term to expire November 30, 2010
w
ATTACHMENT#-.#-TO REPORT# czs" / b
STATEMENT OF TREASURER
43
COUNCIL APPOINTEES
2009 REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES
Remuneration Expenses (4)
Total
Veridian Corporation (1,2)
Board of Directors
D. Ryan (3)
-
-
-
D. Dickerson (3)
19,500
9,825
29,325
B. McLean (3,7)
25,400
2,445
27,845
D. Pickles (3)
14,500
993
15,493
R. Sutton (5)
18,900-
6,127
25,027
S. Trepanier (6)
17,500
1,513
19,013
95,800
20,903
116.703
NOTES TO VERIDIAN CORPORATON BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
(1) The above information was provided by the Vice President, Corporate Affairs,
Veridian Corporation
(2) Remuneration and expenses are paid by Veridian Corporation as may be
established by the Board of Directors. The term of office for the Board follows the
calendar year therefore, the above expenses are for 12 months ending December
31, 2008
(3) Appointed by Council under City of Pickering By-law 6213/06
(4) Expenses include conferences, meals and mileage
(5) Appointed by Council under City of Pickering Resolution #23/07
(6) Appointed by Council under City of Pickering Resolution #46/07
(7) Appointed by Council under City of Pickering Resolution #46/07 as Mayor's
representative
44
NOTES TO COUNCIL APPOINTEES Continued.......
(12) Resolution #51/09, Council appointees for a term to expire November 30, 2010
(13) Resolution #30/09, Council appointees for a term to expire November 30, 2010
(14) Member resigned April 19, 2009
(15) Member resigned April 27, 2009
(16) Member resigned August 13, 2009
(17) Member resigned November, 2009
(18) Member resigned December 31, 2009
o0
PICKERING
Report To
Executive Committee
Report Number: CS 10-10
Date: April 12,'2010
45
From: Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Subject: Section 357/358 of the Municipal Act - Adjustment to Taxes
Recommendation:
1. That Report CS 10-10 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be
received;
2. That the write-offs of taxes as provided under Section 357/358 of the Municipal
Act, 2001 be approved; and,
3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the
necessary action to give effect hereto.
Executive Summary: Not Applicable
Financial Implications: If approved, the write-off of taxes as contained in this report,
represents a gross cost of $4,646.29 with a net cost to the City of approximately
$1,254.63, the balance being charged back to the Region of Durham and the School
Boards. Pickering's share of the costs will be charged to the 2010 Current Budget
allocation under General Government - Provision for Uncollectable Taxes. The 2010
budget provision is $275,185 and $1,254.63 including the above has been spent to
date.
Sustainability Implications: This report does not contain any sustainability
implications.
Background: The Municipal Act provides the Treasurer with various tax tools
regarding the administration and collection of property taxes. Under the provisions of
Section 357 of the Municipal Act, reduction of taxes due to fire, demolition, exemption,
assessment change or error is allowed for the current year only. Section 358 of the
Municipal Act, allows for the reduction of taxes due to assessment error and this
section can be applied to property taxes for the two preceding years.
Change in realty tax class can translate into lower property taxes if the property went
from industrial to commercial tax class or commercial to residential tax class.
Report CS 10-10 Date: April 12, 2010
Subject: Section 357/358 of the Municipal Act - Adjustment to Taxes Page 2
Demolitions, and other physical changes to a property, such as removing or filling in a
swimming pool, or damage caused by fire result in a reduction in assessment and
taxes.
One property reflects "no recommendation" in their property taxes which is shown as
having zeros in the corresponding columns. In general, "no recommendation" means
that either a reduction in assessment was not warranted or further property tax
reduction was not necessary as per the Assessment Act. If the property owner does not
agree with MPAC's recommendation, they have the right to appeal to the Assessment
Review Board under subsection 7 of the Municipal Act, 2001.
Attachments:
1. Section 357/358 Adjustment to Taxes - Taxable
Prepared By:
Approved / Endorsed By:
Tracy Par ns Gillis A. Pa erson
Acting, Coordinator Taxation Services Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
GAP:tp
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Council
I Thp as/J. Quin VR MIV I~NJ\
~ Chief Administrafficer
1
C)
CO
.91
V
41
A
W
Z~
O
O
W
OV
D
(D
w
-
(D
(D
(D
w
(
>
0
O
G)
i~
O
MW
5
5
0
0
~5
5
z
m
D
o
O
9.
Q°
D
W
W
O
O
z
z
r-
r-
c
D
n
Z
Z
Q°
SN
~
CO
D
D
Z
m
_
cn
cn
~1
=
_
r
ZD
m
m
z
z
z
z
9
<
0
0
-1
m
>
D
>
'D
m
~
m
~
F
D
F
D
i
:2
m
m
O
O
G7
:0
G7
C7
C7
~7
~1
O
O
m
D
D
m
m
0
0
K
K
M
D
W
cn
cn
D
D
O
O
Cl)
5.
(n
m
m
U
:U
r
r
O
~
O
o
o
V
'e
j
j
~
X
x
O
O
m
X
O
O
Z
z
z
0
z'
m
m
O
0
0
0
m
m
m
D
D
m
c
c
~
m
m
0
0
m
<
m
<
<
-
m
D
m
~
-1
O
-i
O
m
Z
m
~
z
G7
z
G)
0
m
m
0
~
z
Gzi
O
0
y
z
y
z
z
z
O
cn
O
cn
O
O
z
W
m
m
0
0
v
c
i,
D
a
D
~
r-
D
0
.
ccn
r-
c
n
-
I
r
c
ccn
D
D
ccn
can
-0
03
0
m
m
m
m
m
m
;a
D
0
T
z
F
c-
2
2
N
c
N
n
O
O
D
D
m
c
3
M
O
O
cn
cn
m
r
r
~
~
Z
z
D
D
D
D
cn
X
X
m
m
-4
0
0
0
X
m
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
m
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
CO
CD
V
(D
(b
W
ao
W
W
m
a
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CD
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
X
0
0
N)
(D
o
0
0
°
0
°
0
0
°
0
o
r
r
O.
(D
A
O
V
.
O
(n
o
o
N
N
o
a
N
N
9D
N
O
o
a
N
O
°
t»
°
-OD
z
c
N
O
• 8
O
81
(T
O
A
O
A
(D
O
(D
O
V
O
V
O
is
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
W
m
A
A
?
?
N
O
O
V
00
W
(77
V
W
O
O
O
N
W
W
M
(n
o
0
0
o
V
a
N
X
A
?
V
m
OVD
V
CCO
O
O
C)
N
O
•P
(J7
O
O
:
W
O
N
O
N
A
V
N
O
N
O
V
O
O
O
O
Pa
W
V
W
Co
(•f7
W
N
Z
m
0
c
n
V
W
V
CO
O
W
W
O
O
C
Jt
.
O
N
N
w 41
m
O
O
( 0 0
W
O
A
Z
N
1
~
0)
O
M
N
s
N
b
V
--4
W
>
O
O
(
77
i
O
O
O
(ND
O
UN1
W
O
O
N
W
m
O
r
47
n
i
3
m
T
Cif 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
City 4 Report To
Executive Committee
PI CKERING Report Number: OES.08-1.0
Date: April 12, 2Q10 93
From: Everett Buntsma
Director, Operations & Emergency Services
Subject: No Parking By-law, Sheppard Avenue,
- Amendment to By-law 6604/05
- File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1. That Report OES 08-10 of the Director, Operations & Emergency Services
regarding a proposed amendment to the municipal traffic by-law 6604/05 be
received; and
2. That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule "2" to By-law
6604/05 to provide for the regulation of parking on highways or parts of
highways under the jurisdiction of the Corporation of the City of Pickering and
on private and municipal property.
Executive Summary: In response to concerns with roadway traffic flow, poor
sightlines and driveway access difficulties due to vehicular on street parking on
Sheppard Avenue, the City was asked to implement No Parking restrictions in order to
ensure a clear travel path and unobstructed visibility. Having completed the review,
staff supports the request and have completed several community consultations to
identify the specific limits necessary. As the community consultations did not generate
clear and unanimous direction, staff hereby propose to amend the existing municipal
traffic by-law to establish on-street parking controls which provide limited opportunity for
on-street parking and reconfirms the existing no parking zones, to which residents have
been notified by recent correspondence.
Financial Implications: The acquisition and installation of no parking signs are
estimated to cost approximately $2500 and can be accommodated within the Roads
current budget account 2320.2409.
Sustainability Implications: The concerns as presented to and the
recommendations as generated by staff address traffic safety issues within the
Corporate Healthy society objectives.
Report OES 08-10 April 12, 2010,
Subject: No Parking By-law, Sheppard Avenue
94 Amendment to By-law 6604/05 Page 2
Background: In October of 2008, Municipal Property & Engineering Division
staff were asked by the City's Customer Care Centre to respond to traffic operational
concerns from a resident on Sheppard Avenue. Specifically, staff were requested to
investigate and implement No Parking restrictions on Sheppard Avenue (east of Whites
Road) as a means of addressing difficulties caused by on-street parking. Vehicular
parking in proximity of the intersection (by students from the Dunbarton High School
and by users of the Sheppard Avenue medical & dental clinic) is causing vehicles to
navigate around parked cars, thereby, impeding the use 'of the westbound left turn lane
and impacting intersection operations.
Additionally, municipal by-law enforcement staff have indicated increased illegal on-
street parking by users of the adjacent townhouse condominium project, east of Whites
Road.
In conjunction with the review, staff are endeavouring to correct the current discrepancy
between the current parking regulations and the existing signs. Although there are
numerous signs on both the north and south side of Sheppard Avenue which indicate
No Parking anytime, there are currently no restrictions identified in the municipal traffic
and parking by-law No. 6604/05.
A community consultation notice was issued in December, 2008. The notice proposed
No Parking on both sides of Sheppard Avenue between Whites Road and Fairport
Road to generally reflect the signs currently in place on Sheppard Avenue. The
correspondence generated 10 replies, 6 in support noting concerns with the current
traffic operations difficulties and 4 in opposition noting a need to maintain some on-
street parking in the area. Subsequently, Report OES-22-09 was presented to
Executive Committee on June 8, 2009 recommending an amendment to the Traffic and
Parking By-law in support of:
• No Parking restrictions on the south side of Sheppard Avenue from Whites
Road to Fairport Road, anytime
No Parking restrictions on the north side of Sheppard Avenue from Whites Road
to 200m east; and from Fairport Road to 250m west, anytime
This report was referred back to staff for further community consultation, because
staff's recommendation was a variation of what was presented to the community
through the consultation notice.
On July 23, 2009, City staff reissued a community consultation notice as directed. _ The
notice outlined staff's initial proposals to designate both sides of Sheppard Avenue
(Whites Road to Fairport Road) as No Parking and a subsequent proposal based on
previous community comments to accommodate some on-street parking on the north
side in non traffic operations sensitive locations. The correspondence generated 11
replies, 6 in support and 5 in opposition.
CORP0227-07/01 revised
Report OES 08-10 April 12, 2010
Subject: No Parking By-law, Sheppard Avenue
Amendment to By-law 6604/05 Page 3 9 5
Given that the second community consultation did not generate a clear indication of
majority resident support; that Sheppard Avenue is a Type C Arterial roadway with
increased traffic volume; and due to the presence of existing No parking control signs,
staff recommend that the Municipal Traffic By-law 6604/05 be amended to reflect:
• No Parking on the north side of Sheppard Avenue from Whites Road to Fairport
Road, anytime
And, in recognition of the community request for some on-street parking, staff
recommend the following which accommodates on-street parking in a low impact area.
• No Parking on the south side of Sheppard Avenue from Whites Road to Fairport
Road save and except the small 105m section adjacent to the undeveloped
property, anytime
The proposed no parking scheme is illustrated on Attachment #1.
To reflect the above, the existing signs on Sheppard Avenue will be reviewed for
appropriateness and conformity to legislative requirements and some additional traffic
signs and/or sign removals will be required. Endeavouring to ensure community
involvement and municipal disclosure, staff re-issued correspondence to the community
(dated March 10, 2010) which identified the proposed changes to the by-law and which
invited them to attend this Executive Committee meeting and voice comments in
support and/or opposition to the changes as herby proposed.
The corresponding draft By-law amendment is attached.
Attachments:
1. Parking scheme diagram
2. Draft By-law Amendment
Prepared By: Approved / Endorse By:
a e I Selsky ~I Everett Buntsma
Supervisor Director
Engineering & Capital Works Operations and Emergency Services
CORP0227-07/01 revised
Report OES 08-10 April 12, 2010
Subject: No Parking By-law, Sheppard Avenue
96 Amendment to By-law 6604/05 Page 4
Ric rd W. H rborn, P. Eng
Di sion Head,
Engineering Services
RH:ds
Attachments
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Manager, By-law Services
Superintendent, Municipal Operations
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City C
.o
opas I Quin DM , CMM II
Chief Administrative Officer
CORP0227-07/01 revised
l
ATTACHMENT #1 TO REPORT OES 08-10
1 of 1
.t
'~avoa tbodaldj~
INN
o
04 E
th"
~ N
t r'
r
S
4,5
{
_
bow
a
L
ATTACHMENT z.- a`CREPORT# oeS 6810
8 of z
The Corporation of the City of Pickering
By-law No. /10
Being a By-law 'to amend By-law 6604/05
providing for the regulating of parking,
standing and stopping on highways or parts
of highways under the jurisdiction of the City
of Pickering and on private and municipal
property.
Whereas, By-law 6604/05, as amended, provides for the regulating of traffic and
parking on highways, private property and municipal property within the City of
Pickering; and
Whereas, it is deemed expedient to amend By-law 6604/05 to establish a "No Parking"
zone on Sheppard Avenue.
Now therefore the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as
follows:
1. Schedule 2 to By-law 6604/05, as amended, is hereby further amended thereto
by the following:
Schedule 2
No parking
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4
Highway Side Limits (From/To) Prohibited Times
or Days
Add
Sheppard North Whites Road to Anytime
Avenue Fairport Road
Sheppard South Whites Road to Anytime
Avenue 380 metres East; and
Fairport Road to
315 metres West
ATTACHMENT#?% l-Ca kEP®~T# b~S ~~'t p
By-law No. 2 ° z Page 2
99
2. This By-law shall come into force on the date that it is approved by the Council of
The City of Pickering and when signs to the effect are erected.
By-law read a first, second and third time and finally passed this day of
2010.
David Ryan, Mayor
Debbie Shields, City Clerk
CORP0227-07/01 revised
Report to
Executive Committee
PICKERING Report Number: PD 10-10
100 Date: April 12, 2010
From: Neil Carroll
Director Planning & Development
Thomas E. Melymuk
Director, Office of Sustainability
Subject: Pickering Nuclear Generating Station A Power Reactor Operating Licence
Renewal
- City of Pickering Comments for CNSC May 21, 2010 Day Two Hearing
- File: 0-5260-001
Recommendation:
1. That Report PD 10-10 of the Directors, Planning & Development and Office of
Sustainability, concerning Pickering Nuclear Generating Station A Power Reactor
Operating Licence Renewal be received;
2. That Council inform the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission that it supports the
recommendation to renew the five year power reactor operating licence for
Pickering Nuclear Generation Station A, provided that Ontario Power Generation:
(a) continues its regular effort at keeping the City informed of business at its
Pickering sites through the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station
Community Advisory Council and presentations to City Council; and
(b) initiate formal discussions with the City at the appropriate time during the
next licensing period regarding the impact on the City of the safe shutdown
and decommissioning of the Pickering Nuclear Generation Station; and
3. Further, that Report PD 10-10, and Council's resolution be forwarded to the
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Ontario "Power Generation, and the
Canadian Association of Nuclear Host Communities.
Executive Summary: The power reactor operating licence for Pickering Nuclear
Generating Station A (PNGS-A) expires on June 30, 2010. The City of Pickering has an
opportunity to provide comments to Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) on
the licence renewal application. CNSC staff has conducted an extensive review of
PNGS-A as part of the licence renewal process and have provided favourable ratings
for the facility. CNSC staff are recommending a five year licence for PNGS-A.
Report PD 10-10 April 12, 2010
Subject: Pickering Nuclear Generating Station A Licence Renewal Page 2 10 1
City staff has reviewed CNSC staff findings and support the recommendation to renew
the licence for five years, providing Ontario Power Generation staff continue to update
the City regularly on its activities, and commence formal discussions with the City
regarding the impact of the shutdown of the plant during the next licensing period.
Financial Implications: Not applicable.
Sustainability Implications: Not applicable.
1.0 Background
The four reactors at the Pickering Nuclear Generation Station A (PNGS-A) went
into service in 1971. In 1997, PNGS-A was placed in shutdown state as part of
what was then Ontario Hydro's nuclear improvement program. In 2003, Unit 4
was returned to operation, and in November 2005, Unit 1 was returned to
operation. Units 2 and 3 remain in a safe shutdown state.
The current PNGS-A operating licence, which the City concurred with, was
issued by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) for a five year term
that expires on June 30, 2010. On September 28, 2009, Ontario Power
Generation (OPG) applied for an operating licence renewal for PNGS-A for
another five year period. Supporting materials submitted to CNSC outline OPG's
case for the continued operation of the plant as well as business and safety plans
for the next five years.
2.0 Day One Hearing
In support of their licence renewal request OPG appeared before the CNSC
Tribunal on February 17, 2010, for the Day One Hearing in Ottawa to present its
report on the operations of the PNGS-A during the current licence period. CNSC
staff also appeared before the CNSC Tribunal at the Day One Hearing to present
the findings of their review of the OPG submission. CNSC staff's review
supported OPG's licence renewal request and recommended a five year licence
for PNGS-A.
A Day Two Hearing is scheduled for May 21, 2010, and will be held at the
Pickering Recreation Complex. Interveners' comments will be heard at this
second hearing. Comments must be filed with CNSC by April 21, 2010.
Report PD 10-10 April 12, 2010
Subject: Pickering Nuclear Generating Station A Licence Renewal Page 3
102
3.0 The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC)
CNSC was established in 2000 under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act (NSCA)
and reports to Parliament through the Minister of Natural Resources. The
agency was created as a successor to the former Atomic Energy Control Board.
Through the NSCA, regulations, associated regulatory documents, licences and
licence conditions, CNSC regulates the entire Canadian nuclear cycle and all
aspects of nuclear safety. For licensing matters, the CNSC Tribunal considers
applicant proposals, recommendations of CNSC staff, and stakeholder views
before making its decisions. To promote openness and transparency, licensing
matters for major facilities are considered by the Tribunal through public
hearings.
The CNSC Tribunal has up to seven permanent members appointed by the
Governor in Council and other members may be appointed to serve full or part
time. Tribunal members are independent of all political, governmental, special
interest group or industry influences. The CNSC Tribunal sets regulatory policy
direction for the Canadian nuclear sector, makes legally binding regulations, and
renders licensing decisions for nuclear facilities and uses.
4.0 CNSC Staff Review of Licence Renewal Application
CNSC staff's review of the PNGS-A licence renewal application was conducted
under a recent licence reform. Under the reformed licence format, licence
renewals are evaluated under three primary functional areas: management;
facility and equipment; and core control processes. The reformed licence format
has 14 safety and control areas as well as 20 review topics that cover all of the
licensed activity on site. Each performance area is separately reviewed and
assessed by examining program, implementation and trend factors.
The three functional areas, and their respective safety and control assessment
areas used by CNSC staff are as follows:.
1. Management
1.1 Management System
1.2 Human Performance Management
1.3 Operating Performance
2. Facility and Equipment
2.1 Safety Analysis
2.2 Physical Design
2.3 Fitness for Service
Report PD 10-10 April 12, 2010
Subject: Pickering Nuclear Generating Station A Licence Renewal Page 4
103
3. Core Control Processes
3.1' Radiation Protection
3.2 Conventional Health & Safety
3.3 Environmental Protection
3.4 Emergency Management and Response
3.5 Waste Management
3.6 Security
3.7 Safeguards
3.8 Packaging and Transport
Attachment #1 to this Report summarizes the overall performance ratings and
trends for PNGS-A. The ratings and trends are based on the licensee
performance during the current licensing period, which covers the years 2005 to
2009.
4.1 CNSC Staff Findings
CNSC staff's review of the application concluded that the application contained
all of the information prescribed by the regulations. In the oral presentation to the
CNSC Tribunal at the Day One hearing, CNSC staff indicated that the overall
performance at PNGS-A has noticeably improved over the past two years. OPG
met or exceeded the regulatory requirements in all safety and control areas for
both program documentation and implementation and are rated satisfactory.
Areas showing below expectations ratings indicated an improving trend as OPG
is making progress in resolving the issues.
Security information provided in the licence renewal application is protected, and
is not available to the public. It is reviewed and considered separately by CNSC.
In 2007, CNSC directed its staff to initiate an independent assessment of
organization and management at PNGS-A. This assessment was completed in
May 2009. PNGS-A has submitted a corrective action plan to CNSC to correct
identified issues and the plan is currently under review. CNSC has identified the
issues of minimum shift complement, inter-station transfer bus electrical system,
and fish mortality that OPG has committed to address.
4.1.1 Minimum Shift Complement
Minimum shift complement is the number and qualification of workers needed to
successfully respond to all credible events. Currently, the minimum shift
complement is based on an accident of a single unit. CNSC staff has requested
that an assessment of common events is needed to verify the minimum shift
complement. OPG will revise their station's shift complement document and
request a licence amendment to reflect the results of the analysis.
Report PD 10-10 April 12, 2010
Subject: Pickering Nuclear Generating Station A Licence Renewal Page 5
104
4.1.2 Inter-station Transfer Bus Electrical System
The inter-station transfer bus electrical system provides power from Pickering B
to essential equipment in the event of a main steam line break. In 2007, it was
found that the system did not have the load carrying capacity required and Units
1 and 4 were shut down for several months. Temporary modifications resolved
the under capacity issue later in 2007 and the units were restarted. A permanent
modification has been reviewed and accepted by CNSC staff and it will be
installed during the vacuum building outage scheduled for spring 2010, prior to
the restart of any of the units after that outage. The vacuum building outage,
which occurs once every 10 years, will shut down all six Pickering Nuclear units
in spring 2010.
4.1.3 Cooling Water Intake
During the Pickering B Refurbishment Feasibility Study Environmental
Assessment, CNSC staff concluded that the fish mortality at the cooling water
intake was not acceptable. This issue was also identified by the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans. CNSC requested OPG to implement interim and
permanent mitigation measures by 2012. A barrier net surrounding the water
intake was installed in October 2009 as an interim measure and a monitoring
program has been implemented. Monitoring results will be submitted in
July 2011. Final mitigation measures will be proposed once the effectiveness of
the barrier is determined.
4.1.4 CNSC Conclusions and Recommendations
Following the review of OPG's submission, CNSC staff concluded that:
• the overall performance of PNGS-A during the current licensing period is
rated as satisfactory;
• OPG's application for PNGS-A's licence renewal meets all requirements of
the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and its related regulations, and
• an environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act is not required for this licence renewal.
CNSC staff has recommended that CNSC renew PNGS-A's operating licence for
a period of five years, until June 30, 2015.
5.0 Discussion
5.1 Public Alerting System
At previous CNSC hearings, questions have been asked on the status of the
public alerting system for the three kilometre zone around the nuclear station.
Since the last hearing, some progress has been made with respect to this issue,
but the matter is not yet fully resolved. As Council is aware, following testing of
the existing four installed sirens, the Region has advised the City that six
additional sirens are necessary to meet the requirements of the Provincial
Nuclear Emergency Plan.
Report PD 10-10 April 12, 2010
Subject: Pickering Nuclear Generating Station A Licence Renewal Page 6
105
In January of this year, Council Resolution #03/10 directed staff to have further
discussions with the Region to obtain additional information on the number-of
additional sirens and siren locations and report back to Council. To this end, staff
have initiated discussions with the Region, and have engaged a peer review
consultant (Aercoustics Engineering Limited) to review the Region's work. The
peer review work is ongoing, and Council will be advised of the results of that
review through a separate report, once the peer review work is completed.
5.2 Announced Shutdown and Decommissioning of PNGS
On February 16, 2010, OPG announced that it will proceed with amid-life
refurbishment of the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station. Construction is to
start in 2016 and the investment of $300 million is to ensure the continued safe
and reliable performance of the PNGS for approximately 10 years.
Subsequently, the longer term decommissioning process of PNGS will begin.
Also on February 16, 2010, Pat McNeil, Senior Vice President, Generation
Development, OPG, appeared before Council. In response to questions about
the impacts on the City of the safe shut down and decommissioning, Mr. McNeil
stated that OPG is committed to transparency in communications and consulting
with the City and the broader community on potential impacts of the decision to
continue operating PNGS for another 10 years before starting a safe storage
project followed eventually by decommissioning.
5.3 Conclusion
City staff has reviewed the CNSC staff findings and support the recommendation
to renew the five year power reactor operating licence for PNGS-A, provided that
OPG continues its regular effort at keeping the City informed of business at its
Pickering sites through the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station Community
Advisory Council and presentations to City Council, and that it initiate formal
discussions with the City regarding the impact on the City of the safe shutdown
and decommissioning of the PNGS during the next licensing period.
On May 21, 2010, OPG and CNSC staff along with public interveners will appear
before the Commission at the Day Two Hearing for the licence renewal. It is
recommended that Report PD 10-10 and the related Council resolution be
provided as input to the Commission in advance of that meeting. The City also
has the option of attending the Day Two Hearing in Pickering to supplement this
written submission with a verbal presentation to the Commission.
Attachment:
1. Overall Station Performance - Safety and Control Areas for PNGS-A, excerpt
from CNSC staff February 17, 2010 presentation to the Public Hearing Day One.
Report PD 10-10 April 12, 2010
Subject: Pickering Nuclear Generating Station A Licence Renewal Page 7
106
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Deborah W lie, M IP, RPP Neil C I , RPP
Senior Planner - Wolicy, Director, Planning & Development
Catherine Rose, Map, Fi~P' Thomas E. M lymu CAP, RPP
Manager, Policy Director, Office of ustainability
DW:jf
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City C- ncil
U
T ma's J. Q A inn, D R MM III
hief Admini r ve Officer
107
T T T T T T T T K, (-D T
o
0.
aaaaaaaaaa a Ewa
cn cn cn cn v) cn cn c~ cn cn cn o m cn
a_
0
E
=aaaaaaaaaw a 0aa
o wU)U)wcnU) cn(B U) m co ocnv)
o. m
0
0'
v
c
a~
cn a)
0 ca a
a C ca C:
cu U) N Q 2V o O
o o E cn
Q o 0c o0=oa' c c`
O ca ` O v N ` ca F-a- c: E
0 c a) ca a)
O ~N1 to N p f._a cn . C
0 co `C L L ?CU a. (D ! Q) C O c cn
U E a c C o C o 0 c ca _0 C
'a O C a ca U) O C C (D a) ca
C t~o fa (a ca .U cp o 0) ~ 'E 0
Ri U) C E O O N N N p~ O
o cu m~~caocE~cN uca
w 'N 0
cn0- li0~ Uww ca3:U)U)
m fA r-NM~NM- NM q- ~(flI.OO
N ~ . N N (-4 c') c) M M cM cM co M
C U d i
N
co L cr O
a) L Q w co
a a
°
m o w o C
Z _ U ~ M >
= O = V cn O Cl) O
7~
LL ~i U a` v) m ~j E
I I I
O cn m T
I~