Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To receive and approve the attached Step 1 Summary Report for the Development of the City of Toronto Master Plan for Wet Weather Flow Management; obtain authorization to develop a Wet Weather Flow Management Policy based on the Vision and Goal Statements, Technical Objectives, Institutional Objectives and Financial Objectives as set out in Section 4 of the Step 1 Summary Report; and approve a Steering Committee structure for the development of the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan Step 2 and a project workplan.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding in the amount of $512,000.00 has been approved in the 1999 Capital Works Program, Water Pollution Control, under Sewer Systems Improvements, Project No. WP250, to initiate Step 2 of the Master Plan Project (Step 2 is the Development of the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan).

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the attached Summary Report for the Development of the City of Toronto Master Plan for Wet Weather Flow Management - Step 1 be received and approved;

(2)authority be granted to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the Project Step 2 Steering Committee, to develop a Wet Weather Flow Management Policy for the City of Toronto based on the Vision and Goal Statements, Technical Objectives, Institutional Objectives and Financial Objectives established in Step 1 and summarized in Section 4 of the attached Summary Report;

(3)authority be granted to form a new Steering Committee for Step 2 of the project as described in attachments entitled "Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan - Step 2 Steering Committee" and which will serve to advise the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services on the development of the Master Plan and will report through the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to the Works and Utilities Committee; and

(a)the citizen members of the Steering Committee and their alternates be selected through the Nominating Committee of Council; and

(b)the Works and Utilities Committee select the two Councillor ex-officio members of the Steering Committee; and

(4)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report back to the Works and Utilities Committee when a workplan for Step 2 of the project has been completed.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee, in their report dated July 28, 1994, on the City of Toronto's proposed Western Beaches Storage Tunnel, identified a strong need for master planning on a watershed basis in order to restore beneficial uses within the watersheds. This recommendation was supported by the Provincial government.

Subsequently, Metro Council, on April 5 and 6, 1995, by adoption of Clause No. 1 of Report No.5 of The Environment and Public Space Committee, as amended, endorsed undertaking master planning for wastewater systems on a watershed basis, in consultation with regional and local municipalities.

On August 13 and 14, 1997, Metro Council by adopting Clause No. 3 of Report No. 11 of The Environment and Public Space Committee authorized the engagement of the firm of Dillon Consulting Limited to provide consulting services required to complete Step 1 of a four-step process for the development and implementation of a Master Plan for Wet Weather Flow Management.

The Master Plan, developed through a strategic planning process, will establish a wet weather flow management policy and formulate strategies for the prevention, control and reduction of wet weather flow impacts. Wet weather flow quantity and quality issues are to be managed on a watershed basis to enhance and preserve ecosystem health through a hierarchy of source, conveyance and end-of-the-pipe controls and/or treatment measures.

The Master Plan exercise is being undertaken in four steps which are described as follows:

Step 1 -gathering and synthesizing existing information and issues, formulation of a draft Wet Weather Flow Management Policy and development of a framework for the Terms of Reference for Step 2 of the Master Plan process;

Step 2 - development of the Master Plan for Wet Weather Flow Management that contains the strategies, an implementation plan for the strategies, and defines the monitoring programs necessary to measure the effectiveness of the strategies as they are implemented;

Step 3 - implementation of the Master Plan in accordance with the implementation plan developed in Step 2, in consideration of priorities, proponents, costs, funding sources and time lines for specific projects or activities. The various strategies would be implemented over a time frame of several years; and

Step 4 -monitoring the effectiveness of the Master Plan through implementation. The Master Plan will be reviewed and updated every five years to incorporate new technologies, environmental changes or as new policies are developed by senior regulatory agencies.

The development of the Master Plan will follow the planning principles of the Environmental Assessment Act as detailed in the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Water and Wastewater Projects (Class EA). Where individual projects are identified, the Master Plan will satisfy the requirements under Phase I (Problem Definition) and Phase II (Conceptual Alternatives) of the Class EA process, where feasible. The implementation of the Master Plan in Step 3 may require project specific work to satisfy the next appropriate phases of the Class EA.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Step 1 Documents:

The work in Step 1 of the Master Plan process has been completed and is summarized in the attached "Development of the City of Toronto Master Plan for Wet Weather Flow Management - Step 1 Summary Report - February 1999" (Attachment 1). The report was prepared by staff with input from the Step 1 project Steering Committee and the Toronto Stormwater Group. This summary report outlines a new philosophy for wet weather flow management and presents a vision statement, goals and objectives adopted by the Step 1 Steering Committee and supported by the Toronto Stormwater Group to guide the development of the Master Plan. A summary of the process undertaken in completing Step 1 of the project, outcomes and findings of Step 1 and work to be undertaken in Step2 is also provided in the report.

The information contained in this report was derived from the following technical reports which are available through the Works and Emergency Services Department upon request:

-Toronto Master Plan for Wet Weather Flow Management, Step 1 Report (including Appendices under separate cover), August 1998, Dillon Consulting Limited; and

-Toronto Master Plan for Wet Weather Flow Management, Step 2 Terms of Reference, August 1998, Dillon Consulting Limited.

Wet Weather Flow Management Policy:

A draft Wet Weather Flow Management Policy Paper was prepared in Step 1 based on a consolidation of the existing stormwater policies from the former municipalities. The new philosophy, vision, goal and objectives as presented in the Step 1 Summary Report are proposed by the Steering Committee to form the basis for a new Wet Weather Flow Management Policy for the City. The draft policy paper was developed with input from key stakeholders, and it generically defines how and to what extent the wet weather flow problem is to be addressed.

It is critical that a Wet Weather Flow Management Policy be developed for the City as soon as possible, in order to provide overall guidance for the development of the Master Plan and a consistent base for wet weather flow management activities across the City.

Steering Committee:

The structure and make-up of the Steering Committee for Step 2 of the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan will be critical to the success of the Plan development.

During Step 1, there were a number of challenges associated with the large size of the committee, the changing and growing membership, and the amalgamation of the City. A new steering committee is proposed for Step 2 and is described in detail in Attachment 2. The proposed structure consisting of 24 members was approved by the Toronto Stormwater Group and attending Step 1 Steering Committee members at a joint meeting with members of the Step 1 Steering Committee on March 16, 1999. The Steering Committee would consist of two City Councillors ex-officio, ten City and external Agency staff and 12 public representatives.

To ensure an open and objective candidate selection process, the citizen representatives and their alternates should be selected through the Nominating Committee of Council.

Step 2 of the Master Plan for Wet Weather Flow Management:

Step 2 will focus on the development of the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan. This will include the identification of appropriate wet weather flow management strategies to address wet weather flow issues, the development of a funding mechanism to support the implementation of the Plan and development of an implementation schedule and a monitoring program to track improvement as the Plan is implemented.

The major activities to be pursued in Step 2 are described in the attached Step 1 Summary Report (Section 5) and include:

(1)development of an equitable, dedicated and sustainable funding mechanism for the implementation of the Master Plan in order to provide for wet weather flow management on a continuous basis;

(2)filling of data and information gaps that have been identified in Step 1;

(3)target setting to define what is expected to be accomplished;

(4)problems will be prioritized as it is not possible to deal with all the problems at the same time due to the magnitude of the wet weather flow problems in Toronto;

(5)development of wet weather flow management strategies based on a control/treatment hierarchy of at source/conveyance/end-of-pipe measures consisting of natural systems, non-structural and structural solutions; and

(6)development of an Implementation Plan that will provide for phasing of the Master Plan over several years and monitoring of the results.

In preparing draft Terms of Reference for Step 2, the consultant assumed that the bulk of the work would be contracted out. This will be reviewed with the project Steering Committee to determine which activities can be conducted in-house and to identify those that must be contracted out. Once the Terms of Reference are finalized, a detailed Work Plan Summary will be prepared and submitted to the Works and Utilities Committee for approval. In the interim, work will be initiated to fill the data and information gaps identified in Step 1.

Based on the findings in Step 1, the time frame to complete Step 2 (Development of the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan) is estimated to be a minimum of two years. However, positive wet weather flow initiatives will continue in parallel with the development of the Wet Weather Flow Master Plan. The approved 1999 Capital Works Program provides $512,000.00 in 1999 to initiate Step 2 of the Project.

Conclusions:

Step 1 of the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan has been completed and focused on data gathering, analysis of available information and project scoping. A philosophy, vision statement, goals and objectives have been adopted by the Step 1 Steering Committee and supported by the Toronto Stormwater Group to guide the development of the Master Plan in Step 2 and the development of a new Wet Weather Flow Management Policy for the City. The final report on the Step 1 work has been submitted and is summarized in a Summary Report provided as Attachment1.

The development of the Master Plan will be undertaken in Step 2. A new Steering Committee structure is proposed and summarized in Attachment 2. Prior to proceeding with Step 2, approval is necessary for the Step 1 Summary Report, the development of a Wet Weather Flow Management Policy, a new project Steering Committee and the development of a workplan for Step 2.

Contact Name:

Michael D'Andrea, P.Eng. Manager

Quality Control and System Planning

Telephone: (416) 397-4631; Fax: (416) 392-2974

e-mail: michael_d'andrea@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

Attachment 1

Development of the City of Toronto Master Plan

for Wet Weather Flow Management - Step 1\

Summary Report

February, 1999

(1)Overview:

Stormwater runoff has posed many problems in Toronto through flooding, stream erosion and water quality degradation. Approaches used to address these problems have been divers and undertaken independently by each former municipality. In the absence of a legislative requirement for wet weather flow management , measures undertaken by the former municipalities have been driven, in large part, by the need to address flooding problems and impacts on recreational beach areas. To date, although source control options have usually been considered, the problems have largely been addressed through the construction of infrastructure and end-of-pipe treatment facilities.

The Master Plan for Wet Weather Flow Management (WWFM) represents a re-thinking of the way that the City manages stormwater. The first step of this process is now complete. The key outcome of the Step 1 work was the adoption of a new philosophy developed in consultation with key stakeholders which is:

"Rainwater is to be treated as a resource to be utilized to enhance and nourish the City's environment. Wet weather flow quantity and quality issues are to be managed on a watershed basis to enhance and preserve ecosystem health through a hierarchy of source, conveyance and end-of-the-pipe control and/or treatment measures. Source control measures will be considered first in this hierarchy in a manner that is balanced with the other two measures in terms of environmental, social and economic impacts."

The following report is a summary of the process undertaken to date.

(2)Current Wet Weather Flow (WWF) Problem and

the Need for a WWFM Master Plan:

The "WWF problem" has been defined as the degraded environment in the City's watersheds and near shore zone of Lake Ontario as a result of a number of WWF management barriers, and the lack of a city-wide comprehensive strategy.

Development and urban growth within the City of Toronto and surrounding regions over the past 200 years have resulted in very intense pressures on the ecosystem, and the alteration of the hydrologic cycle and natural environment.

In the past, stormwater runoff was considered a problem associated with the flooding of streets, property and basements. This was usually addressed through the construction of sewer pipes and the lining of stream banks to move the water as quickly and efficiently as possible, generally without much consideration for the environmental degradation of our streams, rivers and waterfront. These negative impacts include increased runoff volumes and peak flows in the watercourses resulting in flooding, erosion and destruction of fisheries habitat.

If the problem became severe, natural streams were replaced with buried pipes. Most of the marshes and swamps (natural stormwater filtration systems), have been altered or destroyed in order to accommodate urban development.

Wet weather flow resulting in combined sewer overflows (CSOs), storm sewers discharges, and infiltration and inflow (I/I) into the sewer system causing treatment plant by-passes have contributed to degraded water quality. The consequences are beach closures, adverse effects on fish and wildlife habitat and degraded aesthetics of the overall environment. These issues have been recognized through previous studies and were confirmed and documented in Step 1 of the WWFM Master Plan.

In addition, there are administrative, management and funding components that are lacking and consequently inhibit proper WWF management. They include:

-Public Awareness: Insufficient public awareness of stormwater and watershed related issues.

-Standards: The lack of municipal criteria and standards related to stormwater quantity and quality control for retrofit situations.

-Municipal/Agency Coordination: The lack of understanding and coordination among municipalities and agencies of the policies and actions related to WWF management.

-Strategy: The lack of a framework for integrating environmental concerns with infrastructure planning on a watershed basis.

-Land Use/Development Controls: Lack of adequate and appropriate land use development control policies and an enforceable process for ensuring development adheres to existing policies.

-Budget: The absence of a dedicated and sustainable funding mechanism for stormwater management.

-Regulation: Lack of regulatory control and other legislative requirements.

Since the early 80's, mitigating the environmental impacts of past practices related to wet weather flows has become a major focus of the public, government agencies and elected officials. Several major initiatives have been undertaken, independently, to address concerns about the degraded state of Toronto's surface waters. These included Pollution Control Planning Studies, Water Quality Management Plans and Sewer System Master Plans undertaken by former municipalities of Toronto. These activities usually addressed the problem related to CSO and stormwater rather than the cause. In addition to the infrastructure initiatives, watershed rejuvenation has been underway under the stewardship of the Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan (RAP) through the Don Regeneration Council, Humber Watershed Alliance, the Rouge River Alliance and other watershed groups. The Storm Water Group was established, as one of the conditions of the Ministry of the Environment's Exemption Order for the Western Beaches Storage Tunnel, to identify areas of the City where the implementation of non-structural programs to address stormwater and/or CSO needs are feasible. Several other community based groups have also been investigating the feasibility of alternative stormwater management solutions.

This piecemeal approach does not consider the interrelationship of individual activities and often does not consider impacts on the ecosystem of the watersheds as a whole. To protect and enhance the overall ecosystem, stormwater quantity and quality impacts must be addressed on an holistic basis that considers all elements (social, economic, natural) of the watershed simultaneously.

The Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee (EAAC) of the Ministry of the Environment recognized this and in their July 28, 1994 report on the former City of Toronto's Class environmental assessment for the Western Beaches Tunnel, identified a strong need for master planning on a watershed basis. This recommendation was supported by the Provincial government, and was subsequently agreed to by both former Metro and the City of Toronto Councils. This provided the need to establish a WWFM Master Plan.

In 1997, the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan process was initiated by the former Metro Toronto to address wet weather flows identified as CSO, I/I, and stormwater. Instead of focusing on wet weather flow issues in an isolated fashion, the whole natural hydrologic cycle is being considered within the context of watershed management and protection of the ecosystem.

(3)Master Planning Process:

The Master Plan will be developed in four steps:

Step 1 -data gathering and analysis, policy formulation, and scoping phase of the Master Plan;

Step 2 -development of the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan;

Step 3 -implementation of the Master Plan; and

Step 4 -monitoring and updating of the plan.

Stakeholder and public consultation will be a major component of the process.

Stakeholder Involvement:

In Step 1, a Steering Committee was struck to guide this process. Members included representatives from the Ministry of the Environment (MOE), the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, TRCA, the former municipalities of Toronto, members of the public and various environmental groups from each watershed across the city.

Public consultation was structured to provide opportunities for input and communication of information at key times. Activities included:

-formation of a Steering Committee that included members of the public;

-creation of a comprehensive database;

-circulation of two newsflyers;

-providing information on the City's web site;

-holding two "Public Forums"; and

-hosting special events which brought together international experts in the wet weather flow field.

The consultation component is to be revisited before the commencement of Step 2. Although a great deal of momentum and interest was built in Step 1, additional and more focussed consultation activities will be required to bring together the large number of stakeholders.

Strategic Planning/Evironmental Assessment:

The Master Plan is to be considered a strategic planning process which is reviewed and updated on a regular basis (e.g., every five years).

The development of the Master Plan will follow the planning principles of the Environmental Assessment Act as detailed in the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Water and Wastewater Projects (Class EA). Where individual projects are identified, the Master Plan will satisfy the requirements under Phase I (Problem Definition) and Phase II (Conceptual Alternatives) of the Class EA process, where feasible.

As the Plan is implemented, project specific work may be necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Class EA (e.g., Schedule C projects). Thus Phase II of the Class EA may have to be revisited for some projects at a later time.

(4)Step 1 - Summary/Outcomes:

The Step 1 work has been completed and is documented in the following reports. These reports are available from the Department upon request.

-Toronto Master Plan For Wet Weather Flow Management, Draft Step 1 Report (including Appendices under separate cover), August 1998, Dillon Consulting Limited.

-Toronto Master Plan For Wet Weather Flow Management, Draft Step 2 Terms of Reference, August 1998, Dillon Consulting Limited.

The key outcome of the Step 1 work was the endorsement of a new philosophy for WWF management by the Steering Committee and the public. Previously, stormwater was considered a nuisance/problem that had to be managed. Now, in the WWFM Master Plan, stormwater is considered a resource to be utilized to enhance and nourish the City's environment.

Products from Step 1 are outlined below:

WWFM Policy:

A draft WWFM Policy was prepared in Step 1 based on a consolidation of the existing policies from the former municipalities. The following principles established in the draft WWFM policy are proposed by the Steering Committee to provide direction to the development of the WWFM Master Plan and to form the basis for a new WWFM Policy for the City.

Vision Statement:

WWF will be managed on a watershed basis in a manner that recognizes rainwater as a potential resource to be utilized to improve the health of Toronto's watercourses and near shore zones of Lake Ontario and to protect and enhance the natural environment of Toronto's watersheds.

Goal Statement:

To reduce and ultimately eliminate the adverse impacts of wet weather flow on the built and natural environment in a timely and sustainable manner and to achieve a measurable improvement in ecosystem health of the watersheds.

Technical Objectives:

Rainwater is to be treated as a resource to be utilized to enhance and nourish the City's environment. Wet weather flow quantity and quality issues are to be managed on a watershed basis to enhance and preserve ecosystem health through a hierarchy of source, conveyance and end-of-the-pipe control and/or treatment measures. Source control measures will be considered first in this hierarchy in a manner that is balanced with the other two measures in terms of environmental, social and economic impacts and benefits.

Institutional Objectives:

Wet weather flow issues will be recognized in the City's Strategic Plan, Official Plan policies, zoning by-laws and Environment Plan, and the City will use both by-laws and incentives to achieve its goals. WWF management activities will be undertaken in a co-operative manner by the City of Toronto, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, government agencies and community groups with emphasis on private stewardship and community involvement. WWF problems that originate beyond the City's boundaries, will be addressed in a coordinated manner with headwater (upstream) municipalities.

Financial Objectives:

Both the generators of pollution and the beneficiaries of a clean environment should contribute equitably to the financing of wet weather flow management initiatives. The costs of protecting the environment against potential pollution from new development should be borne by the developer or the property owners.

SWM Funding Mechanism:

In Step 1, funding mechanisms currently being used locally, nationally, and internationally were reviewed. These included property taxes, water billings, sewer surcharges, development charges and user charges.

Major criteria established in Step 1 to assist in developing and evaluating an equitable and harmonized funding strategy included sufficiency, predictability, flexibility, fairness, incentives, financial impacts, administrative burden, authority and public acceptance. Options for an equitable and harmonized funding strategy will be explored and a final recommendation is made in Step 2.

Terms of Reference for Step 2:

A Terms of Reference document for Step 2 was prepared which provides the framework for developing the Master Plan. The Terms of Reference exposes the significant issues that must be considered in developing the Master Plan. It is intended to be used to assist in scoping and developing work plans.

(5)WWFM Master Plan - Step 2:

Step 2 will focus on the development of the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan. It will involve filling data and information gaps, evaluating and selecting preferred strategies to deal with the wet weather flow problems, and preparing an implementation plan for the strategies. The following are the major activities to be pursued:

Development of a Funding Mechanism:

In the past, there was no legislative requirement or municipal mandate to address stormwater especially from a water quality perspective. Municipal actions were driven by the need to protect recreational beach areas and to address flooding problems. Funding for stormwater management initiatives have been limited and derived through Capital Budgets, generally under sewer infrastructure improvement programs. In this approach, stormwater management initiatives are disadvantaged by competing with infrastructure improvements for capital financing.

Based on the Step 1 funding work, adoption of the new philosophy and the draft WWFM policy principles, a dedicated and sustainable funding mechanism will be required for WWF management on a continuous basis.

Filling of Data and Information Gaps:

Numerous data and information gaps have been identified in Step 1. These include: characteristics and condition of drainage systems; receiving water quality data; foundation drains and downspout connection information; locations of buried water courses groundwater and inflow/infiltration information; existing topographic, soils and land use mapping to identify areas amenable to infiltration, areas susceptible to basement flooding and operational/maintenance and best management practices, etc. A substantial effort will be required to obtain georeference and model this information which is vital to the creation and implementation of the WWFM Master Plan. In addition, the success of a comprehensive source control program will rely on extensive detailed lot level information. Common standards and a single accessible system should be established for the new and various existing GIS databases.

Target Setting:

Appropriate receiving biophysical water based targets must be established with input from the approving agencies. These will be driven by the need to protect human health and public safety, aquatic habitat and/or recreational water use. Once established, appropriate targets and criteria could be specified at other functional levels such as subwatershed, sewersheds, facilities and outfalls.

These targets will define what is expected to be accomplished, provide the benchmark for problem prioritization, a basis for evaluation of alternative solutions and for the development the plan. Both short term and long term targets are to be developed.

Problem Prioritization:

Due to the magnitude of the WWF problems in Toronto, it is not possible to deal with all the problems at the same time. In Step 2, the following problems will be prioritized:

(a)Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO):

The City has an obligation through MOE's Procedure F-5-5 to control, reduce and eliminate CSO discharges. CSO outfalls are relatively few in number and have been studied extensively in the past. Previous studies will have to be reviewed in the context of ensuring consistency in how the problem is addressed and with respect to the applicability of new technologies and approaches. There is no need to prioritize which CSO outfalls should be deferred for future study.

(b)Stormwater Discharges (SWM):

Most of the City is serviced by a separated storm sewer network. Thousands of storm sewer outfalls are dispersed across the City and little work has been done to reduce the impacts of their discharges. A proper assessment will require an analysis at a sub-watershed or, as a minimum, at a sewershed scale, as opposed to the traditional end-of-pipe analysis.

Study areas will have to be prioritized considering factors, such as sensitivity of the local receiving water body, degree of existing stormwater impact on the receiving water, development/redevelopment pressures and opportunities to implement stormwater management measures.

(c)Basement Flooding:

It may be necessary to prioritize the basement flooding areas depending on the extent and frequency of the problem once the previously identified Information Gap has been addressed.

(d)Inflow and Infiltration (I/I):

It may also be necessary to prioritize the I/I areas depending on the extent and magnitude of the problem once the previously identified Information Gap has been addressed.

Development of Technical Solutions:

Technical solutions refer to the potential natural systems, non-structural and structural means available to manage WWF. It has become quite clear through a review of both stakeholder input and national/international trends, that the preferred approach to deal with wet weather flow problems is through the Source/Conveyance/End-of-Pipe control hierarchy.

This approach requires detailed analyses to determine how that pre-defined targets can be met with this proposed treatment-train approach. The 'source control-first' approach is fundamentally different than in the past and measures of effectiveness for this approach are not well defined. Experience with widespread application of source controls is quite limited and extremely detailed information as well as micro-scale (lot level) analyses are required to fully establish their effectiveness.

Development of Institutional Mechanisms:

Institutional mechanisms are the administrative/management processes and tools required for WWFM Master Plan implementation. Issues and challenges that must be addressed in the Master Plan include:

-integrating the development of the WWFM Master Plan with existing and future watershed/sub-watershed plans;

-co-ordinating the WWFM Master Plan initiatives with upstream municipalities;

-developing an appropriate mix of regulations and incentives for the implementation of WWFM initiatives;

-incorporating land use planning as a mechanism for the management of WWF;

-determining an appropriate time frame for attaining set targets;

-making the public aware of the need for and value of WWF management;

-securing a commitment to addressing the WWF problems;

-developing appropriate by-laws and policies to facilitate the implementation of the WWFM Master Plan; and

-co-ordinating development of the WWFM Master Plan with other City Departments, i.e., Urban Planning and Development Services (Planning and Building Divisions) and Economic Development, Culture and Tourism (Parks and Recreation Division).

Development of an Implementation Plan:

The cost and magnitude of works required to deal with the wet weather flow problem will make immediate implementation of the entire plan impractical. The plan will have to be phased in, possibly over many decades. Priorities must be developed on environmental improvement and cost- effectiveness. In addition, phasing may be required between watersheds or within watersheds. Major issues to be considered in developing the implementation plan include a clear delineation of responsibilities, costs (implementation and operation), available resources and affordability, implementation timelines and monitoring results.

(6)Ongoing Complementary Initiatives and Programs:

While the Master Plan will provide the blueprint for all future wet weather flow management activities, it will take several years for completion and final approval. In the meantime, positive wet weather flow management initiatives should not be abandoned. An approach was developed in Step1 for assessing which initiatives should continue in parallel with development of the Master Plan. The overriding criterion was that there should be minimal conflict with the direction to be provided by the Master Planning process.

It was determined that Best Management Practices (street sweeping, catch basin cleaning, system rehabilitation, chemical use control, sewer use by-law enforcement, public education, etc.) and at-source stormwater management activities (downspout disconnection, inlet controls, lot level infiltration, porous pavements, etc.) as well as demonstration projects should continue and enhanced. Step 1 also identified some structural projects that should continue as they provide immediate local benefit and are relatively low cost. Typical projects include Terraview/Willowfield Park and Massey Creek naturalization, Don Valley Parkway/Gardiner Expressway runoff control, Leaside stormwater detention, implementation of Morningside Creek and Centennial Creek sub-watershed study recommendations, Spring Creek and Sherwood Park Sedimentation Facilities and Etobicoke's Stormwater Management Facility.

(7)Stakeholder Consultation:

Any public consultation program undertaken for the Wet Weather Flow Master Plan development should provide effective opportunities for input into the process and communication of information. Due to the large number of identified stakeholders, it will be critical to continue to work within existing networks (i.e., watershed groups or committees) and to build momentum from this point. Mechanisms are also necessary so that members of the general public can access information and provide feedback on key issues.

During Step 1, the following activities were carried out to accomplish this. It is proposed that all of these activities be continued and refined in Step 2 of the Master Plan. Key points of stakeholder contact will be determined once a terms of reference and project schedule are developed. The Step2 Steering Committee will be instrumental in determining the final consultation program.

-To facilitate ongoing communications, two newsflyers were circulated by regular mail to all stakeholders noting project plans, opportunities for input and soliciting feedback.

-Information and updates on the project were placed on the City's web site.

-To reach out to the general public (those not already involved in existing groups) and give everyone the opportunity for input into this process, two "Public Forums", which were advertised both in local papers and through the network with existing groups, were held at important points in this project. Participants helped to establish major wet weather flow related issues in their neighbourhoods. They also discussed their priorities related to these issues.

-Three special events were hosted which brought together international experts in the wet weather flow field for discussions. Information from these discussions was considered in the production of the Step 1 documentation.

-A comprehensive database of interested members of the public, municipal and agency contacts and watershed based groups was created.

The database needs to be revisited and updated. Once the database is updated, partnerships need to be explored with groups to facilitate the dissemination of information about the project through their existing channels. Project team members should be available to meet with these groups, as requested.

The master plan should be connected to any water events that are held or publications that are produced. It is realized that some members of the general public are not likely to participate in any consultation activities. It is therefore recommended that survey work/focus groups be conducted around key issues for the City.

If and when individual projects and related Environmental Assessments are commenced either in parallel or upon formulation of the Master Plan, specific consultation activities will have to be designed around those projects. These activities will likely be more focused on one geographic location and require direct contact with local citizens.

Attachment 2

Development of the City of Toronto Master Plan for

Wet Weather Flow Management

Step 2 - Steering Committee

Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan - Step 2 Steering Committee:

The development of the Master Plan will be undertaken in Step 2 of the City's Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan Project. The structure and composition of the Steering Committee for Step2 of the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan Project will be critical to the success of the Plan development.

The design of the Step 1 Steering Committee was based on key stakeholder representation consisting of staff from collaborating agencies, public members from each watershed and staff representatives from each of the seven former municipalities. This presented many challenges associated with its large size, the changing and growing membership and the amalgamation of the City.

A revised Steering Committee structure is proposed for Step 2 of the project as a result of the experience in Step 1, relevant research into effective committee structures, the expressed opinions of a number of stakeholders and the outcome of the Main Treatment Plant Mediation Agreement, and discussions with the Step 1 Steering Committee and the Toronto Stormwater Group. The revised structure, approved by the Toronto Stormwater Group and attending Step 1 Steering Committee members at a meeting held March 16, 1999, consists of 24 members comprising of two City Councillors ex-officio, ten City and external Agency staff and 12 public representatives. The selected citizen representatives should have a strong commitment to the project, its scope and mandate, and should provide a range of expertise to the Steering Committee. To ensure an open and objective candidate selection process, these representatives and their alternates should be selected through the Nominating Committee of Council.

The Steering Committee will serve to advise the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services on the development of the Master Plan and will report through the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to the Works and Utilities Committee.

The proposed structure of the Steering Committee is summarized as follows:

City Councillors ex-officio:(2)

Public Representatives:(12)

These public representatives should be drawn from non-profit/environmental groups/industry/citizens.

Suggested representatives include:

-Stormwater Group;

-Main Treatment Plant Environmental Assessment/Mediation;

-Toronto Bay Initiative;

-industry; and

-across the City's six watersheds based on public interest or through existing Watershed Councils, Alliances, etc.

City and Agency Staff: (10)

-Water and Wastewater Services Division;

-Transportation Services Division;

-Technical Services Division - Soil and Water Quality Improvement;

-Urban Planning and Development Services (City Planning Division);

-Economic Development, Culture and Tourism (Parks and Recreation Division);

-Ontario Ministry of the Environment;

-Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources;

-Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA); and

-Waterfront Regeneration Trust.

Steering Committee Advisors:

It is envisioned that advisors will be called upon to offer advice and input through various phases of the Step 2 process. These advisors include members from the following:

-Balance of Stormwater Group Membership;

-Finance Department;

-Corporate Services Department (Legal Division);

-Works and Emergency Services Department;

-Environment Canada;

-Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans;

-Ontario Ministry of Transportation;

-consultants/external experts;

-academics; and

-others as needed.

Steering Committee Chair:

For a project of this size and to build trust, it is recommended that the Steering Committee have two Co-chairs, one from the City Works and Emergency Services Department (project lead) and one additional person. Alternatively, a neutral chair decided upon by the Steering Committee should be retained.

Steering Committee Meetings:

The Steering Committee meetings are proposed to be facilitated by a member of the Works and Emergency Services Department's Public Consultation Unit. All Steering Committee meetings will be open to the public and all stakeholders. Each meeting will provide time, scheduled through meeting agendas, to respond to questions and/or hear deputations.

Steering Committee Advisory/Specialty Sub-Groups:

The Steering Committee structure does not preclude the necessity for ad hoc advisory groups to be struck around key issues. Topics for discussion could include a modelling, policy development, a target setting, and natural systems development, preservation and enhancement. This should be defined more fully once the project terms of reference have been fully developed by the Steering Committee and staff. It should be noted that key issues will also be the focus of broader stakeholder consultation efforts.

Discussion of cross boundary/upstream municipality issues will be facilitated through the representatives of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.

--------

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter the following communications:

(i)(April 21, 1999) from Ms. Karen Buck, Toronto, Ontario, submitting recommendations with respect to the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan; and

(ii)(April 21, 1999) from Mr. Brian Cochrane, President, Toronto Civic Employees' Union, Local 416, commenting on the contracting out of work with respect to the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan; and advising that Local 416 believes that it is crucial that the work of the City should be done in-house by unionized employees.