Emery Creek Stormwater Quality Ponds Project
The Works and Utilities Committee recommends:
(1)the adoption of the report dated June 30, 1998, from the Commissioner of Works
and Emergency Services;
(2)that the appropriate staff be requested to work with the Emery Creek
Neighbourhood Liaison Committee and the Emery Creek Environmental Association
to evaluate the number and design of the ponds;
(3)that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to establish
the Emery Creek Industry Action Plan to examine ideas such as:
(i)downspout disconnection;
(ii)rainwater storage for irrigation, cooling or other process water purpose;
(iii)catch basin devices; and
(iv)water rate/tax incentives to be examined in the context of:
(a)cost;
(b)reliability;
(c)quality of water; and
(d)seasonal impact; and
(4)that the final design be submitted to the Works and Utilities Committee.
The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having
requested:
(1)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report to Council for
consideration at its meeting scheduled to be held on July 29, 1998, on the following
suggested criteria for a user pay model for funding the Emery Creek Stormwater Quality
Ponds Project, noting that such model also addresses the issue of industry being responsible
for undertaking stormwater reduction initiatives:
(i)the cost of the Emery Creek Ponds project should be borne by the generators of
stormwater runoff;
(ii)the costs should be borne based on a flat rate per square meter of roof and paved area
(roads not included);
(iii)if an industry or commercial operation can show that it can reduce its stormwater
discharges (and will do so before construction is initiated), then they can apply for an
exemption equivalent to the amount of water they redirect; and
(iv)industry must fund projects that will address costs incurred by their business operations,
not the taxpayers;
(2)that all interested parties be advised in writing when this matter is again before the
Committee, with the opportunity to address the Committee at that time, and be kept
informed of the public consultation process; and
(3)that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, be requested to
explore ways of improving public accessibility to the Toryork ravine.
The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following report (June 30, 1998) from
the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;
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:
(1)City Council endorse the preferred alternative for the Emery Creek Stormwater Quality
Ponds Project's (the "St. Lucie-Storer" three-pond option), as recommended in the project's
Schedule "C" Class Environmental Assessment Study Report, December 1997;
(2)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;
(3)with approval of Recommendations Nos. (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
(4)the appropriate officials be authorized to give effect thereto.
Council Reference/Background/History:
In 1981, the Ministry of the 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 Avenue 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 Avenue 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 No. 13 of Report No. 10 of The Works
Committee, the former Metropolitan 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 $50,000.00 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 easement 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 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); and
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 primarily 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 pretreat 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 Avenue or approximately 484 hectares or 63 percent of the entire Emery Creek
Drainage Area. Unless facilities are located in the St. Lucie-Storer greenbelt, stormwater
from 37 percent 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 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 the 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
26, 1998, 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:
(1)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.
(2)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 five 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.
(3)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; and
-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.
(4)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 Drive and Storer Drive and all of Azalea Court and
Tampa Terrace), 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 one 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 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.
(5)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 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 Avenue is predominately
residential, there are areas of existing and proposed industrial/residential development south
of Finch Avenue 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 Creek 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.
(10)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.
--------
The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had
before it during consideration of the foregoing matter the following:
(i)communication (June 10, 1998) from Ms. Sharon Morgan, North York, Ontario, in
favour of the Emery Creek Stormwater Quality Ponds Project, and reviewing reasons for the
importance of this initiative;
(ii)communication (June 23, 1998) from Mr. Gerry White, Toronto, Ontario, expressing
support for the Emery Creek Stormwater Quality Ponds Project, and commenting on
concerns raised at the last meeting with the community;
(iii)material submitted by Councillor George Mammoliti, North York Humber, as follows:
(i)communications from the following expressing concerns with respect to the Emery
Creek Ponds proposal:
-Mr. Barry Flude, Weston, Ontario;
-Mr. Jorma Palomaki, Weston, Ontario;
-Mr. David R. Crowden, Weston, Ontario; and
-Mr. Paul Mercieca, Weston, Ontario;
(ii)petitions from residents in the boundaries of North York Humber in support of a
working plan for the Toryork site as a proposed option; and
(iii)Notice of Public Meeting, held by the Works and Emergency Services Department on
May 26, 1998;
(iv)communication (July 13, 1998) from Councillor George Mammoliti, North York
Humber, requesting that the matter of the Emery Creek Stormwater Quality Ponds Project
be deferred for consideration until the next scheduled meeting of the Works and Utilities
Committee on September 9, 1998, to provide the opportunity for the community's residents
to speak to the Committee;
(v)communication (July 13, 1998) from Mr. John P. Wilson, Pollution Probe, commenting
on his experience as a member of the Task Force to Bring Back the Don with the Chester
Springs Marsh urban wetland project; and advising that the Emery Creek proposal could
provide the same benefits;
(vi)(July 10, 1998) from Mr. Brian E. Denney, Director, Watershed Management Division,
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, expressing support for the Emery Creek
Stormwater Pond Project and summarizing the Toronto Region and Conservation
Authority's involvement in this project; and
(vii)fact sheets submitted by Councillor Judy Sro, North York Humber, on the Emery
Creek Stormwater Quality Ponds Project, the Community Involvement Program and an
artist's rendition of the project.
The following persons gave a presentation to the Committee on the Emery Creek
Stormwater Quality Ponds Project:
-Mr. Doug Andrews, Marshall Macklin Monoghan;
-Mr. Kiyoshi Oka, Engineer, Water Pollution Control Division, Works and Emergency
Services Department;
-Mr. Lawson Oates, Manager, EA Co-ordination Branch, Management and Technical
Services, Works and Emergency Services Department; and
-Mr. Greg Gris, Industrial Waste Control and Enforcement, Works and Emergency Services
Department.
Mr. Frank Kershaw, Director, Policy and Development, Economic Development, Culture
and Tourism Department, was also present at the meeting of the Works and Utilities
Committee to respond to questions from Members respecting the Toryork ravine.
The following persons appeared before the Works and Utilities Committee in connection
with the foregoing matter:
-Ms. Crystal Caschera, North York, Ontario;
-Mr. Dalton Shipway, Toronto, Ontario;
-Ms. Karey Shinn, Chair, Safe Sewage Committee;
-Mr. Gerry White, Weston, Ontario;
-Mr. Brian E. Denney, Director, Watershed Management Division, Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority;
-Mr. Barry Flude, Weston, Ontario;
-Ms. Karen Buck, Toronto, Ontario;
-Councillor George Mammoliti, North York Humber, and submitted a list of names,
addresses and telephone numbers of the signed petition list on the Emergy Creek project;
and
-Councillor Judy Sgro, North York Humber.
The Works and Utilities Committee also viewed a video submitted by Councillor Sgro on
behalf of Ms. Sharon Morgan, North York, Ontario.
(A copy of the appendix referred to in the foregoing report has been forwarded to all
Members of Council with the agenda for the Works and Utilities Committee meeting of July
15, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)