June 30, 1998
To:Works and Utilities Committee
From:Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services
Subject:Emery Creek Stormwater Quality Pond Project
Purpose:
To seek City Council's endorsement of the preferred alternative for the Emery Creek Stormwater Quality Ponds Project,
as described in the project's Schedule "C" Class Environmental Assessment.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Funding has been provided for in the 1998-2002 Capital Works Program of $2.2 million for detailed design and
construction.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
City Council endorse the preferred alternative for the Emery Creek Stormwater Quality Ponds Project (the "St. Lucie -
Storer" three-pond option), as recommended in the projects Schedule "C" Class Environmental Assessment Study Report,
December 1997;
with approval of Recommendation No. 1, City Council direct the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to
advise the Minister of the Environment of Council's endorsement of the Class Environmental Assessment's preferred
alternative, and to additionally advise the Minister of the inclusion of a supplementary appendix to the Class
Environmental Assessment Study Report, containing additional safety measures (as described in the body of this report)
associated with the operation of the proposed Emery Creek stormwater ponds;
with approval of Recommendations No. 1 and 2, City Council authorize the Commissioner of Works and Emergency
Services to establish the Emery Creek Stormwater Ponds Neighborhood Liaison Committee, to provide for public
consultation on issues and matters related to detailed design, construction, operations, and monitoring of the proposed
Emery Creek stormwater ponds; and
The appropriate officials be authorized to give effect thereto.
Council Reference/Background/History:
In 1981, the Ministry of Environment (MOE), began a study of water quality in the Don and Humber Rivers and
Mimico, Etobicoke and Highland Creeks. As a result of this study, the Toronto Area Watershed Management Strategy
(TAWMS) study was formally initiated. From 1982-1986, the TAWMS Steering Committee carried out a detailed study
of the Humber River. The TAWMS report was released to the public for its review and comments in July 1986 and was
successfully endorsed. The study found that the water quality within the Humber river was severely impaired. Urban
stormwater runoff was identified as a major source of contaminants contributing to the impaired water. Bacteria and
heavy metals were of particular concern in the Humber River drainage area.
The first project recommended by TAWMS was the construction of a stormwater quality control pond on Emery Creek.
Emery Creek is located in the north-western section of the former City of North York in the vicinity of Finch Ave. and
Weston Road. The Emery Creek site was selected as it had a technically feasible location for a pond facility, a relatively
small drainage area of 770 hectares and high pollutant loadings from a fully urbanized area. The Emery Creek drainage
area contains a large industrial/commercial component in addition to residential land uses.
Stormwater ponds are a standard feature in new suburban neighborhoods, as they are a proven technology to control and
manage stormwater runoff.
Stormwater ponds temporarily retain stormwater to allow for settling of sediment and biological uptake by marsh plants.
This results in improved water quality. Periodically the ponds are cleaned out and sediments and contaminants removed
as appropriate. The material removed from the ponds, following testing, would be sent to a sanitary landfill for disposal.
If the Finch Ave. and Weston Road area was being developed today for residential and business purposes it would
include stormwater ponds as part of the overall development, under regulatory procedures. The goal of the Emery Creek
Stormwater Quality Ponds Project is to retrofit stormwater ponds into an existing developed area as a remedial measure.
On April 24, 1991 by adoption of Clause 13 of Report No. 10 of the Works Committee, former Metro Toronto Council
authorized the Commissioner of Works to engage the consulting engineering firm of Marshall Macklin Monahan Ltd. to
undertake the preliminary engineering and environmental assessment for the proposed Emery Creek Stormwater Quality
Ponds.
In support of the undertaking, both the MOE and Environment Canada agreed to contribute a third of the study costs or
approximately $50,000.00 each. As it was felt that valuable data could be gathered with regard to the performance of a
stormwater quality control pond in a retrofit situation, Environment Canada also committed to provide an additional
$50,000 a year for two years following construction to cover the costs of a comprehensive monitoring program.
The project is being carried out as a Schedule "C" Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) according to the
Municipal Engineers Association Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Sewage and Water Projects. The Class
EA is a step-by-step approach to planning and requires that a comprehensive process be followed, including extensive
public consultation, which documents the steps and decisions made in the selection, evaluation and implementation of the
preferred alternative in an Environmental Study Report (ESR). The Class EA has three different schedules, from A to C,
with the Schedule 'C' Class EA being the most involved of the three.
As this project has a long history and potential to influence future remedial stormwater quality projects throughout the
new City of Toronto, a project steering committee was assembled to oversee the project. The Committee is comprised of
representatives from the MOE (Water Resources Branch and Central Region), Toronto Region Conservation Authority
(TRCA), Metro Toronto Remedial Action Plan (RAP), Ministry of Natural Resources, Environment Canada, the former
Metro, Etobicoke and North York Works Departments, and local citizens. Due to the land ownership and easements
considerations, several other agencies and private corporations such as Ontario Hydro and Interprovincial Pipelines, were
also consulted as required.
Due to the highly urbanized character of the Emery Creek watershed, only two locations were available in which
facilities could potentially be constructed. The first potential location was the wooded ravine area north of Finch Avenue
behind the former City of North York Works Yard located on Toryork Drive (the "Toryork" option). The second potential
location was the area near the confluence of Emery Creek and the Humber River behind St. Lucie and Storer Drive (the
St. Lucie-Storer" option). Refer to Figure 4.1 in the appendix of this report.
Based on the constraints observed and the input provided by agencies, landowners and the public, five alternatives were
considered for evaluation which consisted of a number of combinations of stormwater treatment facilities at the two
potential locations:
Alternative 1: an underground tank or surface retention pond within the Toryork ravine.
Alternative 2: three (3) ponds in series within the St. Lucie-Storer greenbelt (utilizes land within the hydro corridor)
Alternative 3: one facility within the St. Lucie-Storer Greenbelt (does not utilize land within the hydro corridor)
Alternative 4: a facility within the Toryork ravine and one facility within the St. Lucie-Storer Greenbelt (does not utilize
land within the Hydro Corridor)
Alternative 5: do nothing (continue stringent source control programs)
An extensive evaluation of the five alternatives was conducted. This assessment was conducted on the basis on technical
effectiveness, environmental impact, cost, and agency/landowner/public input. Many of the alternatives share anticipated
impacts as they involve facilities at the same location. Through this assessment, Alternative 2, the three ponds within the
St. Lucie-Storer greenbelt, (refer to sketch in appendix) was recommended in the ESR as the preferred alternative based
on the following:
The three ponds capture stormwater from the entire Emery Creek drainage area and therefore are more effective in terms
of overall treatment effectiveness in comparison to the Toryork facility.
The ponds system incorporates a "natural system" wetland for biological uptake of contaminants whereas the Toryork
facility will act primary as a sedimentation facility only.
The ponds can be sited to avoid the majority of the existing trees and significant vegetation in the St. Lucie-Storer
greenbelt. In general the significant wooded areas would be retained, and the majority of land converted to ponds would
be "old field" habitat.
Positive agency, landowner and public assessment.
Cost.
The recommended three pond system has a surface area at the high water elevation of approximately 2.4 hectares (6
acres). For comparison purposes Grenadier Pond in High Park in the Former City of Toronto has a surface area of 19
hectares (47 acres).
The configuration of the preferred stormwater treatment pond system is dictated by the presence of mature natural
resource areas that are to be avoided, pipelines, watermains, sanitary sewers, an old landfill, hydro towers, and the
channels of Emery Creek and the Humber River.
The three connected ponds are required to fit into the space available while maximizing the facility volume available for
stormwater treatment. Flow is diverted from Emery Creek to the pond system and after passing through the facility is
discharged into the Humber River, upstream of where Emery Creek enters the Humber River.
The first pond in the system is the sedimentation pond. This is the smallest element in the system. The purpose of the
sedimentation pond is to allow the largest sediment particles to settle and hence pre-treat the stormwater prior to transfer
to the other ponds.
The second pond in the system is a shallow natural wetland, with a fairly long flowpath. The wetland will remove
sediment through settling, but will also provide nutrient and heavy metal uptake through appropriate wetland/marsh
vegetation.
The final pond in the stormwater system is the finishing pond . This is the largest pond and will provide the greatest
settling of finer sediment. The finishing pond discharges to the Humber river.
Alternatives that would involve construction in the Toryork ravine were ranked lower than the preferred alternative of
three ponds in the St. Lucie-Storer greenbelt based on the following:
The ravine contains a small but biologically significant pocket of natural mixed woodland habitat. The Toronto Field
Naturalists regard a continuous stand of Eastern Hemlock located in the northern section of the greenbelt as
environmentally sensitive. Because of the limited space available, construction of a pond or tank in this area will destroy
the majority of the existing woodland.
The side slopes of the Toryork ravine are very steep, and as such construction or maintenance of a facility in this area
would be difficult.
A facility in this area will not capture stormwater runoff from the entire drainage area but would only capture the portion
of predominately industrial and commercial development above Finch Ave. or approximately 484 hectares or 63% of the
entire Emery Creek Drainage Area. Unless facilities are located in the St. Lucie-Storer greenbelt, stormwater from 37%
or 286 hectares of the Emery Creek drainage area would be left untreated. In addition, there is a potential for future
industrial/commercial and possibly residential development in the Emery Creek drainage area that could not be treated at
a facility within the Toryork ravine.
The TRCA does not generally support the enclosure of watercourses draining greater than 125 hectares. Their Valley and
Stream Corridor Management Program establishes a strong interest in protecting the integrity of valley corridors by
keeping watercourses open and preserving existing well-vegetated areas. As there is no additional benefit with respect to
water quality improvement in comparison to the three ponds within the St. Lucie-Storer alternative, and in view that the
existing mature vegetation would be lost, the TRCA does not support any of the alternatives considered that would
involve disruption of the Toryork ravine.
The cost of constructing a tank within the Toryork ravine would be extremely high and prohibitive.
Current Project Status:
The project's, Environmental Study Report (ESR) was submitted to the Ministry of the Environment and a "Notice of
Completion" was posted in local newspapers on January 21 and 24, 1998, and by direct mailout to 225 persons on the
project mailing list. This was followed by a 30-day public review and comment period. Within the 30-day review period,
a person or party may request that the Minister of Environment "bump up" the project to an individual environmental
assessment. An individual EA would require a very lengthy, detailed and potentially costly re-examination of the problem
by the City.
On February 18, 1998, the Minister received requests from Mr. and Mrs. D. Crowden and Toronto City Councillor
George Mammoliti, asking that the proposed project be bumped-up to an individual environmental assessment.
Staff were advised by Councillor Mammoliti that he would be holding two public meetings concerning the proposed
Emery Creek project on April 20 and 21, 1998. A copy of the meeting notice has been included in the appendix to this
report. Given that these meetings concluded only three days before the end of the Minister's review period, we formally
requested an extension of the review period to June 19, 1998. This would allow staff to review the additional public input
and submit a response to the Minister for his review.
At the request of Councillor Mammoliti, staff hosted an additional public meeting on May 26th at St. Jude's Separate
School. The meeting consisted of an open house with displays and staff members to answer questions and a short staff
presentation. The presentation portion of the evening was chaired by Councillor Dick O'Brien, Chair of the Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
The project consultant and staff were in attendance at both of Councillor Mammoliti's community meetings and the third
public meeting chaired by Councillor Dick O'Brien. A very short presentation on the project was given by staff and the
project consultant followed by a question and answer period. Although the majority of the concerns raised by the public
have been addressed in previous consultation activities over the past several years, it was apparent that clarification of
these concerns was required. The following outlines the areas of major concern:
There was a concern that information requested from Works and Emergency Services was not provided.
Response:
Councillor Mammoliti's request for information and the subsequent response from staff is included in the appendix of
this report.
Residents were very concerned about the safety risk to children and the general public from coming in contact with
"toxins" in the ponds.
Response:
In general, stormwater runoff is not considered toxic or harmful to humans.
The pollutants that are typically found in stormwater are nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen from fertilizers and
detergents, soil/sand, silt, heavy metals, bacteria from animal droppings, and general street trash.
It should be noted that new contaminants are not being introduced to the area. The pollutants currently are being
discharged to Emery Creek and the Humber River every time it rains as they are washed off the roads and land in the
drainage area. These pollutants come from both residential and industrial areas. These pollutants would be captured and
controlled by the stormwater ponds and once accumulated, the sediment would be tested and removed and disposed of
safely at a sanitary landfill. It is anticipated that the sediment will be removed from the first pond approximately every 5
years and every 15 years for the wetland and finishing pond.
Stormwater quality control ponds such as the Emery Creek Ponds are not intended or designed to be recreational water
use facilities. The TRCA and other municipal agencies and authorities that have had experience with several hundred
stormwater quality ponds throughout Ontario have found that such pond facilities are not used for swimming or other
water contact activities even without any fencing or barriers. Although incidental exposure to stormwater is not
considered to be hazardous to humans, to provide an added factor of safety, human access will be actively discouraged
through interpretive signs and public education programs and appropriate vegetation barriers such as thorn bushes.
The proposed vegetation barriers such as thorny bushes will not keep children and others away from the ponds. There is a
potential for drowning.
Response:
Through the experience of many authorities and agencies that manage similar facilities, children have not been found to
be using ponds for recreation even in situations where barriers or fencing have not been installed. It should be noted that
currently access to the Humber River and Emery Creek is unrestricted. However, in response to public input we are
recommending the inclusion of the following safety measures:
a public education program in local schools
interpretive signs
safety rescue rings and poles around the ponds
gradual slopes at pond edges and small 0.3 metre drops to warn of deepening water
fencing around areas such as pipe outlets and steeper areas
a safety monitoring program
These safety features will be incorporated into the final detailed design of the facility in addition to the plantings to
discourage access. The list of safety features will be included in a supplementary appendix to the Class Environmental
Assessment ESR.
The public were not adequately consulted regarding this project.
Response:
Extensive public consultation was conducted through the course of this project. The Class EA outlines the required
public contact to be undertaken through the various phases of the process. For a Schedule C Class Environmental
Assessment - Water and Wastewater Projects, the proponent is required to consult with the public only three times,
including the Notification of Completion at the end of the project. However, it was felt that due to the retrofit nature and
public concerns expressed early in the process, public consultation in addition to the requirements were warranted. A
chart outlining the details of every public contact is included in the appendix to this report
From October 1992 until May 1996, there were 11 public workshops or meetings held to discuss the Emery Creek
Ponds. The Notice of Completion, the 12th contact with the public, was mailed and advertised in January 1998.
Public events were promoted using a variety of methods including flyer delivery to the surrounding neighbourhood,
newspaper advertisements, direct first class mail to addresses close to the site (portions of St. Lucie Dr. and Storer Dr.
and all of Azalea Ct. and Tampa Ter. ), mailings to others who had expressed prior interest in the project and posters
placed at prominent locations near bus stops and in local retail establishments. Notice information was provided in
English, Italian and Spanish, with staff or voice mail answering inquiries, depending upon the language.
To date, over 150 people living within 1 kilometre of Emery Creek are on the project mailing list. Regular mailings,
including meeting minutes and notices and project updates, have been mailed to the more than 200 addresses on the full
mailing list since January 1993. Staff have regular contact with residents living in the area who report that they have
canvassed and notified the broader neighbourhood about the project.
Public sentiment was apprehensive at the first few meetings held in December 1992 and February 1993. The public at
these meetings expressed concern over 1) safety, 2) health, 3) the use and appearance of the valley and 4) the role of
industry. However, as the meetings progressed and questions and concerns were answered, this public concern was
greatly reduced and a spirit of co-operation toward improving the environment emerged. A regularly updated question
and answer page was distributed to the public to answer their concerns in an open manner.
After the June 7, 1993 meeting at Gulfstream Public School, the public in attendance gave their approval to the preferred
option, with the some minor conditions.
Acting on public concerns about the involvement of business in pollution reduction activities, the former Metro Works
Department became actively involved in the start-up of the Emery Creek Environmental Association (ECEA) in June
1993. The Association's mandate is to educate local industry on how they can reduce their impact on the local
environment and currently has a membership of some 70 businesses.
Since that time, Metro Works (now City of Toronto) has provided staff, financial and in-kind support to the Association.
The Association's mandate is to educate local industry on how they can reduce their impact on the local environment.
Public consultation and water pollution control staff have worked closely with Association staff, volunteers and the local
businesses to develop programs, information bulletins and educational sessions. The Association's newsletter "UP THE
CREEK" and various other activities including workshops and seminars have gone a long way in promoting
environmental awareness in local industry and business. Companies involved in this Association include Bell Canada,
Coca Cola, Apotex, Canadian Tire, Reynolds Aluminum and McGregor's Meat and Seafood among many others.
Woodwaste Solutions has donated office space to the Association since 1994.
Ontario Hydro has required that the City (former Metro) indemnify Hydro against all liabilities associated with the
construction, maintenance, public use and environmental degradation of their lands. There is a perception that this
indicates that Ontario Hydro believes that this project is dangerous and is a risk to residents.
Response:
This is not accurate. As the City is proposing to use Ontario Hydro lands for this project it is standard and normal
operating procedure to require full indemnification from the proponent no matter how minimal the risk. Ontario Hydro
has expressed their full support for this project as documented in correspondence from their office.
6. The pollution is coming from industrial discharges and not the residential areas.
Response:
The purpose of the Emery Creek Stormwater Quality Control Ponds is to improve the quality of stormwater that flows
into Emery Creek and the Humber River and not to treat industrial discharges. The elimination of illegal and accidental
discharges and other "point source" pollution is ongoing in the Emery Creek drainage area. There has been a significant
improvement in Emery Creek water quality during dry weather as a result of the City's point source abatement work (see
Concern 8.). However, every time it rains, pollutants are washed off the land and roads into the storm sewer system and
into Emery Creek and the Humber River and eventually into Lake Ontario. These pollutants, that are to be captured in the
ponds, are "neighborhood" pollutants which come from a wide range of sources and are deposited on the parking lots,
sidewalks, roofs, roads and landscaped areas from vehicles, atmospheric deposition and wind, and poor industrial and
residential housekeeping practices. Source control work cannot eliminate these sources of pollution.
Industrial land uses, in general, generate more polluted stormwater runoff than residential areas. This is mainly due to the
fact that industrial areas usually have large areas of hardened or paved surfaces to collect pollutants but little landscaping
or pervious areas to prevent pollutants from being washed off the site. Large roofs and increased vehicular traffic also
contribute to the pollutant accumulation and wash-off. Residential areas also generate significant pollutants from such
sources as vehicles and roads, fertilizer use, and animal droppings.
As the Emery Creek drainage area is predominately zoned industrial (75 percent of the drainage area), the majority of the
pollutants are generated in the Industrial area lands, however it is important to understand that the pollutants are not
necessarily being generated by the industries themselves.
7. The pond should be moved to the Toryork ravine closer to the industrial area.
Response:
A detailed assessment of alternatives was conducted as outlined previously in this report. The Toryork pond was
considered, however this option would not capture approximately 37 percent of the drainage area. Although the area
south of Finch is predominately residential, there are areas of existing and proposed industrial/residential development
south of Finch Ave. that would generate stormwater runoff and additional pollution that would not be treated. The
Toryork ravine contains areas of mature woodlot and vegetation that would be lost should a pond be constructed in the
ravine.
8. Source control and prosecution of polluting industries is lacking.
Response:
City of Toronto Industrial Waste Control (IWC) Branch has one full time inspection crew dedicated to the Emery area.
Staff conducted 621 industry site visits in the Emery Creek area for sampling and/or inspection purposes in 1997. Similar
numbers of inspections have also been conducted in previous years. The inspectors take a proactive approach with
industry. Inspections of facilities with industry officials identify minor problems for corrective action before serious
problems arise. Violations are handled in a manner dependent on a number of factors including: the seriousness of the
infraction, repeat offenses and intent. Prosecution is the first approach in the case of intentional waste dumping. However,
this is the exception rather than the norm, as greater that 95 percent of the industries are environmentally conscious.
In addition to the work of the IWC Branch with local businesses, the Emery Creek Environmental Association, with City
support, continues to promote environmental awareness and source control of pollution in local industry and business.
9. There are hundreds of reported spills yet only a handful of convictions.
Response:
Companies are required by law to report all spills. Once reported, inspectors will investigate the spill and ensure that
corrective action, is taken to prevent further occurrences. Most spills are accidental. In the case where a spill results from
negligent action prosecution would ensue. In some cases the MOE supersedes the City's authority and will conduct an
independent investigation and prosecution.
Will the regular flooding of the area in the spring be affected and will this flooding destroy the ponds?
Response:
As the facilities would have to be located within the floodplain of the Humber River, flood protection has been provided
in the pond design to prevent washout of accumulated sediments and damage to the ponds from flooding. Protection has
been provided against a storm event of a magnitude that would occur once every 25 years.
An increase in flood levels is anticipated in the flood plain due to some loss in floodplain storage. However, the increase
will not be of a significant magnitude to adversely affect nearby residents. It is anticipated that in the event of a very large
storm, such as an event that would occur once every 100 years, the flood levels in the Humber River would increase
approximately 0.12 metres (0.4 feet).
Public Consultation Activities following Approval:
Upon approval of the ESR by the Minister of the Environment, the City will then be able to proceed to detailed design
and construction of the preferred alternative as recommended.
A new Emery Creek Neighbourhood Liaison Committee will be formed. The purpose of the committee will be to discuss
the detailed design, construction and operation of the ponds. The committee will be open to all who wish to attend the
meetings and events.
Public education and consultation activities will include the publication of fact sheets, newsletters and other printed
materials as required, the holding of special open houses, committee meetings with presentations on the project and other
information. Taking the time to ensure that the public feels comfortable with the ponds will be an important part of the
ongoing public consultation activities.
Conclusions:
We believe that the project has met or surpassed all requirements of the Class Environmental Assessment process under
the Environmental Assessment Act. The technical studies have been intensive and have responded to public input. The
public consultation program has far surpassed the minimum requirements of the Class EA process. There is a strong level
of support and commitment to the project from all affected agencies and levels of government.
In a recent letter to the Honourable Norm Sterling Minister of the Environment the Humber Watershed Alliance
unanimously expressed their support for the Emery Creek stormwater quality by stating that .."it is the opinion of the
Humber Watershed Alliance that the Emery Creek Stormwater quality Ponds, as proposed by the City of Toronto, be
allowed to proceed without further delay. This plan is the result of many years of rigorous public consultation."
The City will continue its point source pollution abatement programs through proactive enforcement of the Sewer Use
By-law and work with Emery Creek Environmental Association to further educate industry and residents on how they can
minimize their impact on the environment.
In addition, the public will be consulted on the detailed design, construction, operations and monitoring of the proposed
stormwater quality ponds through the Neighborhood Liaison Committee.
The Emery Creek Stormwater Quality Ponds Project is a unique opportunity to apply standard stormwater quality control
technology in a retrofit situation, for much needed improvement of water quality in the Humber Watershed. This project
exemplifies the environmental leadership role of the new City of Toronto.
Contact Name:
Mr. R. M. Pickett, Director,. Water Pollution Control Division, (416) 392-8230, Fax (416) 397-0908, E-Mail
bob_pickett@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.
M. Price, P.Eng.Barry H. Gutteridge
General ManagerCommissioner
Water and WastewaterWorks and Emergency Services
ko:File No. 1078.60-3
