cambridge environmental advisory committee€¦ · brad hall in the role of vice-chairperson....

Please Note: If you cannot attend the meeting or if you have added agenda items please contact Karin Stieg-Drobig: 519-621-0740 Ext. 4816 or by e-mail: [email protected] or Secord Room: 519-623-1340 Ext. 4224

\\camcity.local\CCC\Departments\DI\PLN\Policy Planning Common\C05 Committee Agendas\C05.04.01 CEAC Agendas\2017\09 20 17 Agenda\0. CEAC 2017 September 20 Agenda.docx

Cambridge Environmental Advisory Committee No 6 - 17

AGENDA Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Secord Room, 2nd Floor, City Hall, 50 Dickson Street 7:00 p.m.

Meeting Called to Order

Disclosure of Interest

Presentations

Delegations

Minutes of Previous Meeting

Cambridge Environmental Advisory Committee Meeting PP.

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

Recommendation:

THAT the decisions contained in the June 28, 2017 minutes be considered for errors or omissions.

Reports

1. CEAC 2017 Annual Report and 2018 Work Plan PP.

THAT the Cambridge Environmental Advisory Committee (CEAC) endorse the2017 Annual Report and 2018 Work Plan as contained in Report CEAC-04-2017;

AND FURTHER THAT this report is forwarded to Cambridge Council forconsideration.

Subcommittee Reports

2. City Green Subcommittee Meeting Notes PP.

Recommendations:

THAT the Cambridge Environmental Advisory Committee (CEAC) receives themeeting notes from the September 11, 2017 meeting of City Green;

001

3

7

18

mailto:[email protected]

of 2 Cambridge Environmental Advisory Committee

Agenda – September 20, 2017 AND THAT they be appended to the CEAC minutes for distribution.

Correspondence

3. Letter from Helen Jowett, Chair, Grand River Conservation Authority informingPaul Willms that Cambridge City Green will receive the 2017 Grand RiverWatershed Award. PP.

Information Items

4. Cambridge Trails Advisory Committee (CTAC)

- No updates since previous CEAC meeting

5. Regional Ecological and Environmental Advisory Committee (EEAC)

- No updates since previous CEAC meeting

6. City of Cambridge Transportation Master Plan PP.

- Public Consultation Centre No. 2 on Tuesday, September 12, 2017

7. Riverside Dam Class EA PP.

- Summaries from the May 24 and June 28, 2017 Stakeholder Workshops

8. A Wetland Conservation Strategy for Ontario, 2017-2030

- The final Strategy was posted on the EBR on July 20, 2017

Other Business

Next Meeting

Date & Time: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 7:00 p.m.

Location: Secord Room, 2nd Floor, City Hall, 50 Dickson St.

Close of Meeting

THAT the CEAC meeting does now adjourn at __ p.m.

Distribution:

Alison Fraser, Allison Robson, Ashley Gibson, Brad Hall, Colleen Elm, Connie Cody, Craig McLeman, Jonas Duarte, Kelly Pritchard, Nicole Semper, Tom VanAarsen and Councillor Wolf

002

. 20

21

22

https://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTI4NjQ2&statusId=MjAxODcz&language=en

G:\DI\PLN\Policy Planning Common\CEAC\CEAC AGENDA & MINUTES\CEAC Minutes\2017\MIN_20170628_CEAC.docx

MINUTES

Cambridge Environmental Advisory Committee No 5-17

Wednesday, June 28, 2017 City Hall, Secord Room, 2nd Floor

Committee Members in Attendance: Alison Fraser, Allison Robson, Brad Hall, Colleen Elm, Jonas Duarte, Kelly Pritchard, Nicole Semper, Tom VanAarsen and Councillor Wolf

Regrets: Ashley Gibson, Connie Cody and Craig McLeman

Staff in Attendance: Kathy Padgett, Senior Planner – Environment; Karin Stieg-Drobig, Recording Secretary

Meeting Called to Order

The regular meeting of the Cambridge Environmental Advisory Committee (CEAC) was held in the Secord Room, 50 Dickson Street, Cambridge, Ontario. Brad Hall welcomed everyone present and called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.

Disclosure of Interest

There were no declarations of pecuniary interest.

Presentations

GRCA Parkhill Hydro Generating Station Waterpower Project

Naomi Moore and Dwight Boyd from the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) gave a presentation on the GRCA Parkhill Hydro Generating Station Waterpower Project. Dwight explained the environmental assessment has been started for this site with field surveys being completed in spring and fall of 2016. The GRCA is looking at various impacts of the project including: impacts to habitat, movement of upstream sediment, flow rates, aesthetics, access to local anglers, etc. Dwight noted that three Species at Risk have been identified and a fisheries management plan will be implemented. In order to ensure public safety, several options are being considered regarding access to the island area where the Hydro Generating Station will be located.

Reep Green Solutions

Mary Jane Patterson and Dave Blake gave a presentation on the work of Reep Green Solutions (Reep). Reep wants to increase engagement in Cambridge because City of Cambridge residents are not accessing programs offered by Reep as much as residents in the Cities of Kitchener and Waterloo are. Mary Jane and Dave explained and provided brochures on the W.E.T. Challenge to reduce water use; Home Reno Rebate to reduce electrical and gas usage; the Guide to a Rain Ready Home; and the Zero Waste Challenge. Mary Jane indicated they will be doing outreach with community associations

003


Minutes – June 28, 2017

in the near future and asked for input from the Committee on how to engage Cambridge residents. Committee suggestions focused on getting the word out to the community by taking part in well-attended events such as Rib Fest and street festivals, the Cambridge Farmers’ Market and events held through the Idea Exchange.

Delegations NIL

Minutes of Previous Meeting

Moved by: Colleen Elm Seconded by: Jonas Duarte

THAT the decisions contained in the May 24, 2017 minutes be adopted as written.

CARRIED

Reports

Subcommittee Reports

1. City Green Subcommittee Meeting Notes

Kelly Pritchard walked through the meeting notes. City Green is exploring ideas for their annual event including a green-themed walk similar to a Jane’s Walk or science-themed activities.

Moved by: Councillor Wolf Seconded by: Tom VanAarsen

THAT the Cambridge Environmental Advisory Committee (CEAC) receives the meeting notes from the June 5, 2017 meeting of City Green;

AND THAT they be appended to the CEAC minutes for distribution.

CARRIED

2. Parkhill Hydro Generating Station Waterpower Project

Moved by: Allison Robson Seconded by: Councillor Wolf

THAT the Cambridge Environmental Advisory Committee (CEAC) appoints the following members to the Parkhill Hydro Generating Station Waterpower Project Subcommittee:

Brad Hall and Tom VanAarsen

CARRIED

004



Correspondence

3. The email from Laura Rourke, Chair, Economic Development Advisory Committee regarding concerns about the delivery of the Cambridge Times and litter was shared for the Committee’s consideration. Allison Robson offered to contact the Cambridge Times and advise them of the concerns raised.

Information Items

4. Cambridge Trails Advisory Committee

May 11, 2017 minutes were shared for information.

5. Regional Ecological and Environmental Advisory Committee

June 26, 2017 agenda became available after the CEAC minutes were circulated and was shared for information.

6. Parkhill Hydro Generating Station Waterpower Project

Notice of Commencement and Notice of Public Information Centre were shared for information.

7. Stage 2 ION LRT

Project update report to the Regional Planning and Works Committee on June 20, 2017 was shared for information. Public Consultation Centre (PCC) No. 3, originally scheduled for late 2017, will be moved to early 2018 to allow the project team to further analyse various route options due to comments received through PCC No.2.

8. Highway 401 Interchange and Highway Improvements from Hespeler Road to Townline Road Class Environmental Assessment

Notice of Study Update was shared for information.

Other Business

Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment

Alison Fraser will attend Stakeholder Workshop No. 2 on June 29, 2017. She will provide an update to the Committee at a future CEAC meeting.

Biosolids Strategy

The Region will have a booth at the Cambridge Farmers’ Market on July 8, 2017 to provide information to the public.

Next Meeting

Reminder that the next meeting is scheduled for September 20, 2017 at 7:00 p.m.in the Secord Room.

005



Close of Meeting

Moved by: Nicole Semper Seconded by: Allison Robson

THAT the CEAC meeting does now adjourn at 8:38 p.m.

CARRIED

_______________ _______________

Craig McLeman Karin Stieg-Drobig Chair Recording Secretary

006

Meeting Date: 09/20/2017 Report #: CEAC-04-2017

To: Cambridge Environmental Advisory Committee (CEAC)

Report Date: 09/01/2017

Report Author: Kathy Padgett, Senior Planner – Environment

Department: Community Development

Division: Planning Services

Report Title: CEAC 2017 Annual Report and 2018 Work Plan

File No: D03.03.02

Ward No: All

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the Cambridge Environmental Advisory Committee (CEAC) endorse the 2017 Annual Report and 2018 Work Plan as contained in Report CEAC-04-2017;

AND FURTHER THAT this report is forwarded to Cambridge Council for consideration.

SUMMARY

• The CEAC Terms of Reference requires the submission of an annual report and proposed work plan to Cambridge Council.

BACKGROUND

The CEAC Terms of Reference requires an annual report outlining the activities of the past year as well as the proposed work plan for the coming year be provided to Cambridge Council. Council requires this information by the November Council meeting. It is recommended that this report be endorsed by CEAC and forwarded to Council for consideration.

007

ANALYSIS

Strategic Alignment: PLACE: To take care of, celebrate and share the great features in Cambridge that we love and mean the most to us.

Goal #4 - Environment and Rivers

Objective 4.1 Ensure that sustainability principles are a part of city decision- making processes.

Existing Policy/By-Law: The current CEAC Terms of Reference were approved by Cambridge Council on March 25, 2013.

Financial Impact: CEAC does not have funds allocated to it in the City’s Operating Budget but does have staff support of the Senior Planner – Environment and clerical assistance from the Community Development Department. Members are able to access City funds to attend the annual Provincial Environmental Advisory Committee Symposium.

Public Input: Meetings of CEAC are open to the public.

Internal/External Consultation: CEAC members often participate in city and region-wide initiatives such as ClimateActionWR and the Region of Waterloo Biosolids Strategy Stakeholder Committee.

Comments/Analysis: Cambridge Council established CEAC in 1992 to provide advice and input on ways to protect, maintain and enhance the natural environment in harmony with the built environment. This work continues to be relevant over two decades later as the attached annual report and work plan show.

008

SIGNATURE

Prepared by:

ATTACHMENTS

1. CEAC 2017 Annual Report and 2018 Work Plan

009

Cambridge Environmental Advisory Committee

2017 Annual Report

BACKGROUND

The Cambridge Environmental Advisory Committee (CEAC) was formed by Cambridge Council in March 1992. CEAC's purpose is to advise Council of ways to protect, maintain and enhance the natural environment in harmony with the built environment. The activities of CEAC are supported by the City's Senior Planner – Environment in the Community Development Department – Policy Planning Section who acts as the staff liaison person. Staffing responsibility for CEAC’s standing subcommittees, Cambridge City Green (and Cambridge WATERS which is currently inactive), is handled by the Sustainability Planner in the Community Development Department – Parks and Recreation Division.

2017 ACCOMPLISHMENTS

For 2017, Craig McLeman was once again elected as Chairperson with new member Brad Hall in the role of Vice-Chairperson. Alison Fraser, Ashley Gibson, Colleen Elm, Jonas Duarte, Kelly Pritchard, Nicole Semper and Tom VanAarsen continued their membership welcoming new members Allison Robson and Connie Cody. Councillor Wolf continued as Council's representative in 2017. Long-time CEAC member Tammy Emm-Pietrkiewicz resigned at the end of 2016. The major accomplishments of the Committee in 2017 were as follows:

1. Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Reviews

CEAC provides local environmental expertise and knowledge to various municipal projects by reviewing projects which are going through a Class Environmental Assessment. CEAC participated in the following ongoing Municipal Class Environmental Assessments in 2017:

a) East Side Lands Stage 2 Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP)

The Region of Waterloo and its partners hosted Public Consultation Centre No. 2 on December 5, 2016 to present the Draft Subwatershed Study, with a commenting deadline of January 31, 2017. Members Jonas Duarte and Kelly Pritchard reviewed the information and had no further comments. Further public consultation will take place in the fall of 2017 at which time the subcommittee will continue to participate.

b) Stage 2 ION LRT

Public Consultation Centre (PCC) No. 2 on the Stage 2 ION LRT was held in February and March 2017. In March 2017, members Ashley Gibson, Craig McLeman and Kelly Pritchard provided comments to the Project Manager on the

010

Stage 2 ION Preliminary Preferred Route as presented at PCC No. 2. At the April 26, 2017 CEAC meeting, Matthew O’Neil from the Region of Waterloo gave a presentation on the status and next steps of the project. At this time, further public consultation is expected to take place in early 2018.

c) Region of Waterloo Biosolids Strategy

Committee member Craig McLeman sits on the Biosolids Strategy Stakeholder Committee whose purpose is to provide feedback on the Region’s Biosolids Strategy project and the eventual selection of a location for a facility. A Public Consultation Event was held on March 23, 2017, at which time members Alison Fraser, Ashley Gibson, Brad Hall and Craig McLeman had no comments, but will continue to participate as the process moves forward.

d) North Cambridge Business Park Class Environmental Assessment

In lieu of a public meeting, Newsletter No. 1 was issued in December 2016 and Newsletter No. 2 was issued in May 2017. In March 2017 the Environmental Study Report was circulated to members Jonas Duarte and Kelly Pritchard who had no additional comments.

e) Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment

The Riverside Dam project team hosted two stakeholder workshops on May 24 and June 29, 2017 at which member Alison Fraser was in attendance. The purpose of the workshops were to engage a broad cross-section of stakeholders in the “short-listing”, criteria setting and assessment of alternatives for Riverside Dam. It is expected that Public Consultation Centre No. 4 will be held in the fall of 2017 at which time the subcommittee will participate and provide comments.

f) Grand River Conservation Authority Parkhill Hydro Generating Station Waterpower Project

Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) staff Naomi Moore and Dwight Boyd gave a presentation at the June 28, 2017 CEAC meeting, following Public Information Centre No. 1, which was held on June 27, 2017. A subcommittee was struck with members Brad Hall and Tom VanAarsen to participate in the public consultation processes.

g) City of Cambridge Transportation Master Plan

Public Consultation Centre No. 2 is being held on September 12, 2017 to present information on expected future traffic conditions in Cambridge for roads, transit and cycling. Members Craig McLeman and Ashley Gibson will review the information and provide comments.

011

2. Cambridge City Green

a) Background

Cambridge City Green reflects CEAC’s goal to involve Cambridge citizens, schools, businesses, agencies and community organizations in action-oriented projects that promote a sustainable community and individual lifestyles, clean up litter, and plant indigenous vegetation across the city.

Cambridge City Green and its projects implement the objectives of three goals (Community Well-Being, Environment and Rivers, and Parks and Recreation) within the City of Cambridge Strategic Plan – Cambridge Connected.

Linda Simpson chairs Cambridge City Green. CEAC member’s Kelly Pritchard and Allison Robson also serve on City Green. All CEAC members are encouraged to participate in City Green’s annual event, litter clean ups and tree planting projects.

b) Annual Event

City Green delivered “Let’s reTREE Cambridge” as the annual event on March 9, 2017. The workshop featured Janet McKay, Executive Director of LEAF (Local Enhancement and Appreciation of Forests) speaking about the groups’ 20 years of helping Toronto residents plant trees on their property in order to increase Toronto’s urban forest canopy. Brian Geerts, City of Cambridge Forester, outlined the City’s Urban Forest Plan, the response to Emerald Ash Borer, and what residents and volunteers could do to implement the Urban Forest Plan. The event also featured a kids craft and tree (seed) planting activity centre and displays from local organizations about different aspects of the urban forest (LEAF, rare Charitable Research Reserve, REEP Green Solutions RAIN program, Shade Work Group, Evergreen, Wellington County Green Legacy Program, Waterloo Region Forest Festival, Grand River Conservation Authority, and Cambridge City Green). The Cambridge City Green display booth featured computers and monitors in order to generate personalized reports for event participants about the ecosystem benefits of their street trees – City Green members used the City’s Urban Forest Inventory to determine the species and size of a person’s tree; then, using this information they used a tree benefits calculator to determine the amount of GHG, stormwater, economic, and other benefits their street tree was currently generating. Links and the process of calculating benefits were provided on the form so that the individual could easily apply the process to all the trees on their property if they wished.

Cambridge City Green members were very pleased with the event, partners, speakers, and activity however were disappointed at the turnout which comprised approximately 50 people. The group has attempted for years, with changes to the event (e.g. Movie Night instead of Workshop), speakers, format, and greatly increased expenditures on promotion (radio ads, mobile signs, etc.) to increase participant level to 200 but to no avail. The group felt particularly discouraged this year that, despite the quality of the

012

http://www.yourleaf.org/

event, the City Green tree report, depth of partners and their display organizations, and amount of work the event took to organize, they directly reached only 50 participants.

c) Litter Clean Up

Cambridge City Green coordinated the Cambridge Community Clean Up throughout the month of April, with the culminating city-wide event on April 22nd. This year saw a comparatively large participation from the community in the 15-year history of the event as approximately 5,000 participants from over 40 groups participated and removed 7 tonnes of litter from parks, streets, schools, and neighbourhoods (average annual participation is about 3,000 participants and 20-30 groups). Local Tim Hortons owner Mark Trombley, together with City Green member Sandy Forsyth, took on the added tasks of promotion and rallying the volunteers with less resources this year. The Region of Waterloo is also a key partner providing bags, gloves, and promotional support. New City Green booths were debuted at Monsignor Doyle and Victoria Park while the Preston location (Riverside Park) was discontinued due to construction in the area. The five other City Green booths around Cambridge were staffed by City Green members and their families. Thanks to Sandy Forsyth (with family and friends), Fred Oliff, Heather Dearlove (with family), Kelly Pritchard, Bonnie Wheeler, Dennis Samulak, Laura Rourke (with family), Craig McLeman, Tammy Bellingham and Linda Simpson for making the event a success. City Green purchased small/handled bags and also paid for advertising (mobile signs) – the signs are attributed with greatly increased participation each year.

The biggest issue was the amount of needles, need for training and a recovery response, reformatting informed consent and other information (i.e. with emergency phone numbers) and the need to purchase multiple sharps kits and information. There was such a fear that someone would be hurt in the community-minded pursuit of litter clean up that it was seriously contemplated to cancel the event. Needles themselves were one level of risk, but it was identified that “associated waste” (sometimes concealing a needle) was a bigger risk. The amount of needles reported this year and deposited with staff was exponentially higher than years past (e.g. 1-2 needles may be found in the past, well over 200 were found this year, and likely as many were found but not reported to City Green, e.g. through the Bridges cleanup). The needle experience was documented and will be improved next year with more training, portable sharps kits, and more community awareness. It is anticipated that a Preston City Green booth location will also return.

d) Cambridge Stewardship

Cambridge City Green initiated the Cambridge Stewardship project ten years ago in order to involve community groups in a consistent effort to establish native plants and enhance natural areas in the city. In 2017 only a handful of projects were completed compared to previous years (i.e. 5 projects compared to 12 in the past), no grants were

013

applied to (CNDCF/Ages Foundation, TD Friends of the Environment Foundation), and a key annual event, the TD Tree Day, was not hosted. Projects were completed at Coronation Public School, Community Dumfries planting with Forests Ontario, the Trout Release/Mill Creek Rangers, Pollinator Preserve, Scouts Tree Planting. A lack of planting sites and capacity of the staff liaison contributed to the diminished capacity this year and going forward. Public demand, and Urban Forest Plan targets would suggest the need to properly resource stewardship capacity in Cambridge. Budget was available this year but without grants/capacity to write grant proposals projects will further diminish in number. City Urban Forestry contributed significantly to this year’s projects with a Fast Forest large caliper tree, and several other large caliper contractor-installed trees and shrubs at Coronation PS.

3. Review of Regional Initiatives

a) Region of Waterloo International Airport Master Plan

The Master Plan Steering Committee released the Region of Waterloo International Airport Master Plan in late 2016. Members Craig McLeman and Ashley Gibson reviewed and provided comments on the document to the Master Plan Steering Committee through a subcommittee report in January 2017. They will continue to review this project in the future when the draft detailed environmental studies have been prepared.

b) Galt Wastewater Treatment Plant Cogeneration Facility

A subcommittee was struck for this project in late 2016. Public Consultation Centre No. 1 was held in November 2016 at which time members Ashley Gibson, Tom VanArsen and former member Tammy Emm-Pietrkiewicz provided comments to the Project Manager. In March 2017 the Project Manager provided a detailed response addressing CEAC’s concerns. The Region hosted Public Consultation Centre No. 2 on March 9, 2017 at which time the subcommittee had no further comments.

c) Region of Waterloo Wastewater Treatment Master Plan Update

Public Consultation Centre (PCC) No. 1 was held on March 9, 2017 and as such, a subcommittee was struck with members Alison Fraser, Ashley Gibson, Brad Hall and Craig McLeman. Following PCC No. 1 the members had no comments but will continue to participate in the public consultation processes.

d) ClimateActionWR

Danielle Laperriere from ClimateActionWR gave a presentation at the May 24, 2017 CEAC meeting on Waterloo Region’s Community Carbon Footprint. At this meeting, a Community Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Subcommittee was struck with

014

members Alison Fraser, Allison Robson, Brad Hall and Connie Cody to participate in public consultation events which are expected to begin in the fall of 2017.

4. Workshops, Information Sharing and Awards

a) Grand River Conservation Authority Conservation Award Nominees 2017

The Committee nominated Cambridge City Green for the Watershed Award and the Ancient Mariners Canoe Club for the Honour Roll Award. Cambridge City Green was notified that they were the recipient of the Watershed Award.

5. Information Exchange with Outside Agencies/Interests

One of the biggest challenges facing CEAC members is to keep informed of environmental initiatives taking place not only in Cambridge, but also in the region, the province, the nation and indeed the world. Much of this information, such as Regional EEAC agendas and minutes and Cambridge Trails Advisory Committee agendas and minutes is distributed to members through their agenda packages.

2018 WORK PLAN

On an annual basis, CEAC formulates a work plan for the coming year, based on what is known to be coming to the Committee. The work plan items listed in the following table are considered to be the major activities CEAC and its one active standing subcommittee, City Green, will undertake in the year 2018.

SUMMARY

CEAC continues to be called on for its input and advice on environmental challenges facing the community as evidenced in the 2017 Annual Report. The work of CEAC’s standing subcommittee, City Green, continues to move forward environmental action and education in Cambridge.

015

2018 Work Plan

Basis / Objective / Terms of Reference (TOR)

Proposed 2018 Budget (Oper. or Cap.)

Work Plan – Ongoing Tasks / Duties and Projects 2018

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

CEAC Terms of Reference • Advise Council of ways to protect, maintain

and enhance the natural environment in harmony with the built environment.

• Consult and interact with parties having an interest in the natural environment.

• Undertake educational initiatives. • Provide input and comment on policies,

procedures, regulations and resources of the City of Cambridge and other bodies which pertain to the natural environment.

• Serve as forum to review, comment and advise Council on issues of general environmental concern. Such issues may be raised by Council, a CEAC member or the general public.

• Annually prepare an Action (Work) Plan for Council approval.

• Input to Official Plan reviews. • Conduct and maintain a natural areas

inventory and other environmental research.

• Be consulted directly by a proponent as part of the environmental assessment process for public-sector undertakings.

• Be consulted as part of the public review for watershed and subwatershed planning.

• Review generic terms of reference for and findings from various environmental studies required by the City of Cambridge.

N/A Cambridge Environmental Advisory Committee

• Provide input to the Stage 2 ION LRT • Provide input to the East Side Lands Stage 2 MESP • Provide input to the Riverside Dam Class EA • Provide input to the East Boundary Road Corridor Study

Class EA • Provide input to the Biosolids Strategy • Cambridge Transportation Master Plan • Provide input to the Wastewater Treatment Master Plan

Update • Provide input to the Community GHG Reduction Plan • Provide input to the Parkhill Hydro Generating Station

Waterpower Project • Advise/participate on Cambridge City Green subcommittee

and projects • Respond to issues (EAs, Provincial policies, other issues)

as they arise • Attend annual Provincial EAC Symposium • Prepare annual report and work plan • Advise Council on issues of general environmental concern

Staff Liaison Role: regular monthly meetings; preparation of agendas and minutes; preparation of subcommittee reports and follow up on actions and special projects as they arise / as directed

Staff Liaison: Senior Planner - Environment

Other Staff Involvement: Paul Willms, Sustainability Planner; Clerical Assistant

X X X X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X X

X X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

016

Basis / Objective / Terms of Reference (TOR)

Proposed 2018 Budget (Oper. or Cap.)

Work Plan – Ongoing Tasks / Duties and Projects 2018

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Cambridge City Green Terms of Reference

Purpose of Cambridge City Green Cambridge City Green will work with community groups, schools, churches, and businesses as well as individuals to develop and execute projects which make a positive contribution to the local environment, encourage a conservation culture, and which demonstrate sustainable individual and community practices.

General Activities Cambridge City Green may: a) consult with the citizens of Cambridge who

have an interest in taking positive action forthe environment;

b) consult with appropriate governmentagencies with respect to…projects, permits orapprovals;

c) draft projects within the annual CEAC workplan;

d) refine projects through Subcommitteemeetings…funding proposals;

e) implement three initiatives (litter clean ups,annual event, tree planting);

f) develop new Cambridge City Green initiativesthrough the membership and/or withcommunity partners;

g) support capacity-building amongstcommunity groups to undertake their ownenvironmental projects;

h) conduct outreach through presentations anddisplay; and

i) report back to CEAC and funding partnersthrough annual reports.

Annual event

$2500

Litter Clean Ups $7500 and in-kind support from the Litter Reduction Task Force

Cambridge Stewardship $20,000 + approx. $20,000 outside funding proposals and donations)

Cambridge City Green (standing subcommittee of CEAC)

• Annual Event – (March)

• Litter Clean Ups – Cambridge Community Clean Up (3rd

Saturday in April); Organize Your Own Clean Up (month ofApril); Great Canadian Shoreline Clean Up (September)

• Cambridge Stewardship- planting events and projects (May – August) - TD Tree Day (1st Saturday in October) - development of funding proposals - preparation of final funder reports and invoices - presentation of an annual report to CEAC

• Develop new outreach and community engagement projectsthrough consensus within the group’s terms of reference andas opportunities arise and resources allow

• Prepare annual Cambridge City Green report

Staff Liaison Role: monthly meetings; preparation of agendas, reports and minutes; support City Green outreach appearances; coordinate and attend events, litter clean ups, tree plantings; coordinate funding proposals, reports, and presentations

Staff Liaison: Paul Willms, Sustainability Planner

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X X

X

X

017

CAMBRIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Cambridge CITY GREEN

Meeting Notes Monday September 11, 2017 6 – 7:30 p.m.

Young Room (2nd floor) CAMBRIDGE CITY HALL (50 Dickson St.)

Attendance: Sandy Forsyth, Paul Willms, Linda Simpson, Heather Dearlove, Bonnie Wheeler, Dennis Samulak

Welcome Guests / New Members: No guests/new members

1. Review of June 5, 2017 Meeting Notes and Action ItemsThe notes were reviewed by the group.

2. Cambridge Stewardship (PW) events - can City Green members attend?

• TD Tree Day, October 14th, rare, 9-12For information – City Green has helped by promoting on MeetUp Site

• Osprey Platform Shrub Riparian Planting – potential dates, Oct.21, 28, 18th, 25th

ACTION: PW to follow up with Keith Tobey

3. GRCA Watershed Award – City Green• PW following up with video production with GRCA staff• City Green members to attend on October 19th at Cambridge/Clyde Rd. GRCA

offices

ACTION: Sandy, Dennis/Bonnie, Heather, Linda, Paul to attend (PW to followup with other CG members).

4. Renaissance of City Green (see “My Ideas” page 4)• A discussion of New projects, Annual Event, new partners, new inspiration• Capacity issues (budget and staff for event planning), majority of community not

engaged/same people in attendance; competing with busy schedules other media,people don’t want to leave the house

• Preach to the choir and build their capacity or reach out to new people• Questions: what events do get crowds? What is City Green’s audience?• Individual plus collective foundation – “be the change”….”be the change together to

leverage more action/greater impact”• Need bigger group – organic there have always been 10-20 people; membership

drive/new members?• Group discussed Facebook, website, meetup, City webpage

ACTION: circulate My Ideas and ask CG members to think about Annual Event andhow to increase participation

018

5. Cambridge Community Clean Up• Review “Next Year List” – location (Preston), small sharps kits, extra flags, etc. (all)

and advance items

“Next Year List” - location (Preston) needed – lady from Waste Management was at Hespeler

booth and she would be excellent at Preston booth with CG volunteer – need to think about location and keep it forever (schools). Do we have flags for Preston – if not we need to order 2. Preston Public School, Westminster Church,Dumfries, Coronation – can we have Dumfries and Coronation

- timbits at each booth this year – or “Laura’s chocolates” - Ancient Mariners (?) for each booth and expand to two in Preston - take extra coffee and food to Bridges - small signs need to be improved but should be used again - small sharps kits, training and kits for more groups, portable kit, kit to all OYO

groups, shelter to receive supplies and training - order extra flags (3) for Preston location - Laura’s chocolate eggs, Timbits, or other small treat for kids at booths (?) - Xtra small gloves needed - Efficiency in ordering Tim Hortons, back pickup changes - Yellow signs with black ink small sign changes - Mobile signs – more location oriented closer to CG booths - PW to follow up on pickup plan with Savage Dr., CSD and TPW staff - Stickers on bags with [email protected] for bag pick ups - Sticker on sharps kits with phone numbers - Dennis noted Glad/Toronto clear bags. Clear bags for next year to measure

recycling/blue box blowout combined with photo/social media drive? - Corporate sponsorship “policy”? - Support for business champions, corporate challenge, etc.

ACTION: Community Clean Up – Saturday, April 21st

6. Information Items• Cambridge City Green Meetup www.CambridgeCityGreen.ca = 166 members to date• Fred Oliff “thank-you for 20 years….” powerpoint presentation (sent as a separate file)• Cambridge City Green Annual Report and 2018 Workplan (sent as a separate file)• Cambridge City Green Calendar• Forest Festival – October 12-13 (sent as a separate file)

7. Other Business

8. Adjournment (NEXT MEETING – October 2, 2017)

019


http://www.cambridgecitygreen.ca/

Moving Cambridge Cambridge Transportation Master Plan

Public Consultation Centre #2 The Study

The City of Cambridge is preparing a city-wide Transportation Master Plan so its transportation system can adapt to planned City growth with a more sustainable, accessible travel future for everyone. This long range planning allows Cambridge to identify transportation opportunities and address transportation needs over the next 25 years. This includes enhanced active transportation options for cycling and walking, public transit, goods movement, parking management and managing traffic flow and travel demands.

This new City plan is being coordinated with the Region of Waterloo’s Transportation Master Plan Update for its roads, transit services and bikeway network. Coordinating these City and Region plans will produce new strategies to help people move around and beyond Cambridge over the next 25 years, with or without having to use a car.

Public Consultation Centre #2

The second Public Consultation Centre (PCC) for the City and Region studies is being held to present information on expected future traffic conditions in Cambridge for roads, transit and cycling. Also, information from Waterloo Region’s transportation study will also be on display dealing with future Region-wide travel, future transportation trends and needs, and three future transportation scenarios for the Cambridge and Region transportation systems. This joint City / Region meeting will be held as follows:

DATE: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 TIME: Drop in anytime between 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m.

Presentation with Question Period at 5:30, 6:30 and 7:30 p.m. LOCATION: Cambridge Idea Exchange (Public Library) Front Foyer

1 North Square, Cambridge

Your input is important to us!

Engaging the community is a major component in developing this Transportation Master Plan to identify Cambridge transportation needs and define priorities. The public and community stakeholders are encouraged to visit the study website at http://www.cambridge.ca/movingcambridge. If you are interested in participating in these events, or would like to be added to the study contact list for updates, please contact either of the following study managers, or check out the website for more information.

Don Drackley, MCP Consultant Project Manager, IBI Group 101 – 410 Albert Street Waterloo, ON N2L 3V3 phone 416-407-7212 [email protected]

Shannon Noonan, C.E.T. Manager of Transportation Engineering and Transportation Services Community Development Department City of Cambridge 519-621-0740 ext. 4607 [email protected]

021

http://www.cambridge.ca/movingcambridge


Workshop summary prepared by Lura Consulting 1


Stakeholder Workshop 1 –Summary

Cambridge City Hall

May 24, 2017

Attendees:

Shirley Bowman Preston Town Centre BIA

Ron Dahmer Ancient Mariners Canoe Club (AMCC)

Art Alyea Ancient Mariners Canoe Club (AMCC)

Bruce MacIntyre P&H Milling

Carol Thorman Save the Dam

Laura Waldie Cambridge Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee (MHAC)

Mike Cahill MHAC

John Oldfield MHAC

Alison Fraser Cambridge Environmental Advisory Committee

Nancy Davey Grand River Conservation Authority

John Brum Grand River Conservation Authority

Donna Reid City of Cambridge Councillor, Ward 1

Pam Law Region of Waterloo

Mike Mann City of Cambridge Councillor, Ward 3

Chris Ziemski City of Cambridge, Community Services Department

Dave Marriott MNRF

Project Team:

James Etienne City Engineer, Cambridge Development & Infrastructure Department

Scott MacDonald Project Engineer, Cambridge Development & Infrastructure Department

Ron Scheckenberger Project Manager, Amec Foster Wheeler

Heather Dearlove Environmental Planner, Amec Foster Wheeler

Colin Berman Landscape Architect, Brook McIlroy

Arnie Fausto Matrix Solutions

John Parish Matrix Solutions

Jim Faught Lura Consulting

Niki Angelis Lura Consulting

Introduction:

Jim Faught, Lura Consulting, introduced himself as the third party neutral facilitator of the meeting.

James Etienne, City Engineer Development & Infrastructure Department, welcomed the stakeholders to

the first of two workshops for the Riverside Dam Class Environmental Assessment. Mr. Etienne

explained that the objective of the first workshop was to discuss the Class Environmental Assessment

022


(EA) process and give people the opportunity to better understand the process and review the proposed

and shortlisted options and the provide feedback on the criteria.

Mr. Faught conducted a round of introductions, reviewed the meeting agenda and provided an overview

of the Rules of Engagement and Participation.

Ron Scheckenberger, Amec Foster Wheeler, provided an overview of the Riverside Dam study background, the timeline and technical studies completed to date. Members of the Project Team outlined findings of the nine technical studies: structural and geotechnical engineering, hydrologic & hydraulic engineering, stream morphology, bathymetric survey, water quality & sediment quality/quantity, aquatic, terrestrial, park use inventory and cultural heritage. Design Alternatives Discussion:

Eight (8) alternatives were proposed as follows:

a) Do nothing – option is required through the Class EA process. The “do nothing” option sets a

baseline for all other alternatives. It was indicated that doing nothing would be a violation of

provincial requirements associated with the Permit granted by MNRF in 2009.

b) Repair – This option was studied in further detail over 2015‐16. The option offers few benefits

compared to a rebuild. Constraints and considerations include high cost and loss of historical

appearance, as well as construction uncertainties.

c) Rebuild – This option would make the dam operable again with more mechanisms to control

water levels, facilitate some movement of fish (if a fish‐ladder is built), provide some

opportunities for sediment transport and be sympathetic to historical design. The high cost

associated with this option would in part be attributed to the removal and disposal of

contaminated sediment behind dam, as well as long term O&M.

d) Lower dam crest – reduce the nuisance flooding in park, create opportunity for wetlands,

reduce size of head pond and changes the appearance from the historical features.

e) Naturalize – completely remove the dam and restore the natural river. This option would allow

for some sediment to be kept in place and thus reduce the cost of removal. There would be an

overall lower cost because there would be no long term need for repair and operation and

maintenance costs.

f) In‐stream rock structures – a combination of options d) and e). There is a comparably high cost

associated with this option due to the engineered nature of those structures.

g) Build a new offline dam and naturalize channel – part of dam and part of head pond, wall

constructed between head pond and river.

The long list was evaluated and the “do nothing”, “repair riverside dam” and “lower dam crest” were

screened out.

The short‐listed options are rebuild, naturalize Speed River, construct in‐stream rock features and build

a new offline dam.

023


An overview of the evaluation criteria was discussed. Evaluation criteria are used to conduct consistent

quantitative, qualitative, or semi‐quantitative assessments of short‐listed alternatives. They are

categorized under the broader set of environments per the Municipal Class EA process:

Functional/Physical Environment;

Natural Environment;

Social Environment; and

Economic Environment.

Discussion Questions and discussions were encouraged following the presentation. The summary of the Question and Answer period that took place is provided below. Questions are noted with Q, responses are noted by A, and comments are noted by C.

Q: What if any impact has the closing of the mill race had on the aquatic environment? And how has it

affected what we have today?

A: Due to the small amount of flow, the impact of the closure was small.

Q: Please explain what a stop‐log structure is?

A: There are various ways to control the water level at a dam. A Dam can have an operating gate (like

sluiceways) or stop logs in a dam sluiceway structure that are made of wood or aluminum and are

removed/installed mechanically

Q: Who is the agency that generated the Grand River Fisheries Plan?

A: It is a joint plan with the GRCA and MNRF with input from various stakeholders.

Q: With respect to contaminated sediment, what standards do you compare them to?

A: The MOECC has listed the quality guidelines. When sediment is in place there is less concern, but if it

moves it becomes a problem. Some areas of the headpond are fine while others have higher

concentrations. The ones in exceedance need to be treated. In some cases, there are also naturally

occurring contaminants like zinc. It is when they are stagnant that they become an issue.

Q: And will those be capped in the naturalization?

A: Yes, some will.

Breakout Group Session

Following the presentation, the stakeholders had the opportunity to review the short‐listed alternatives,

comment on the evaluation criteria and provide feedback. The following is a summary of the comments

and feedback provided by stakeholders during the workshop.

Short‐listed alternatives and other options

The majority of stakeholders were satisfied with the shortlisted alternatives.

024


One suggestion was to take a closer look at the rebuild option and consider rebuilding it further

upstream.

One suggestion was to relocate dam further upstream and also investigate the opportunities for

generating electricity.

Evaluation Criteria

The majority of stakeholders were satisfied with the evaluation criteria presented by the project

team.

Several stakeholders agreed that tourism could be included under the ‘economic’ criteria.

Construction impacts and how it could impact environment could also be included.

Evaluation Process

Following the breakout discussion, Ron Scheckenberger and Heather Dearlove provided an overview of

the evaluation process that stakeholders were requested to undertake and provide individual

evaluations. The evaluation used a “smart” spreadsheet where stakeholders will be able to weight

evaluation criteria and set ratings and thereby develop their own alternative rankings. Stakeholders

were sent the spreadsheets with instructions to take back to their organizations and complete to submit

to the project team. Each organization was requested to submit one spreadsheet on behalf of their

organization.

Next steps and schedule

Stakeholders will complete and return smart spreadsheets by June 1, 2017. The Project team will

summarize these data and use it to inform the next stage of their work. The results of the evaluation will

be shared at Stakeholder Workshop #2 which is scheduled for June 29th, 2017.

025



Stakeholder Workshop 2 –Summary

Cambridge City Hall

June 29, 2017

Attendees:

Art Alyea Ancient Mariners Canoe Club (AMCC)

Shirley Bowman Preston Town Centre BIA

John Brum Grand River Conservation Authority

Mike Cahill MHAC

Alison Fraser Cambridge Environmental Advisory Committee

Pam Law Region of Waterloo

Mike Mann City of Cambridge Councillor, Ward 3

Donna Reid City of Cambridge Councillor, Ward 1

Carol Thorman Save the Dam

Shane Taylor Landscape Architect, City of Cambridge

Project Team:

James Etienne City Engineer, Cambridge Development & Infrastructure Department

Scott MacDonald Project Engineer, Cambridge Development & Infrastructure Department

Michael McGann Manager of Design and Approvals, Cambridge Development & Infrastructure Department

Ron Scheckenberger Project Manager, Amec Foster Wheeler

Heather Dearlove Environmental Planner, Amec Foster Wheeler

Jim Faught Lura Consulting

Niki Angelis Lura Consulting

Introduction

James Etienne, City Engineer, Cambridge Development & Infrastructure Department, welcomed the

stakeholders and thanked them for their participation and efforts in providing feedback to the project

team regarding the Riverside Dam Class EA. James emphasized that the input received as part of the

Stakeholder Workshops constitutes an important part of Project engagement and will form a portion of

the overall consultation record for the Class EA.

Jim Faught, Lura Consulting, provided an overview of the meeting agenda that included the:

evaluation criteria;

weighting for the criteria;

option summaries;

sensitivity analysis; and

026


next steps.

A formal discussion period was included in the agenda and attendees were also encouraged to ask questions at any time throughout the presentation. Questions are noted with Q, responses are noted by A, and comments are noted by C.

The summary from Stakeholder Workshop #1 was reviewed. Stakeholders were provided copies and

were encouraged to provide feedback or revisions, if required, to the attention of Scott MacDonald.

Smart Spreadsheet Overview

Ron Scheckenberger, Amec Foster Wheeler, provided an overview of the Smart Spreadsheet exercise

that stakeholders undertook following the previous workshop. Submissions from nine stakeholder

groups were accepted and incorporated in the evaluation. Submissions were received by the following

groups: Ancient Mariners Canoe Club, MHAC, Cambridge Environmental Advisory Committee, Save the

Dam, Preston Town Centre BIA, Community Service Department, Cambridge Development &

Infrastructure Department, and two City of Cambridge Councillors. Multiple submissions were received

from the Ancient Mariners Canoe Club and MHAC. The project selected a single entry to represent each

group based on an entry that most closely represented a consensus across the group. This was done to

ensure that no group was over‐represented. The feedback provided was then numbered and the

identities of the respondents omitted in order to focus on the results of the exercise and provide

anonymity. Both individual responses and summaries of the information were presented to the group. A

number of written comments were made by stakeholders during the evaluation, and while they were

not presented at the meeting, they do form part of the record and will be considered by the project

team.

Ron emphasized that the results of the analysis would inform part of the assessment, and that all of the

opinions and feedback received to date would be taken into consideration when making a final

recommendation through the Class EA.

Evaluation of Criteria

The evaluation criteria were outlined as follows

Functional/Physical Environment o Flooding o Stream stability/sediment transport

Natural Environment o Fish passage o Aquatic habitat/health o Water quality and temperature o Natural heritage

Social Environment o Cultural Heritage

027


o Boating o Fishing o Park Vistas o Public safety

Economic Environment o Life cycle cost (capital and O&M) o Liability o Tourism

“Emotional attachment” was added to the criteria by a respondent. Ron indicated that the addition and

consistent consideration of this criterion could be difficult to evaluate since the idea of attachment to a

place is very much in the eye of the beholder and with only one person evaluating this it could not be

compared to the other submissions.

It was noted by attending Stakeholders that Emotional Attachment was added because for the people

who live in the area, there is an emotional attachment to the dam and the river. There is a concern that

if the dam is removed the local character will also be removed. In the opinion of the Stakeholder, the

dam is part of the local heritage and it is something that is important to maintain and remember as part

of the area’s history. Many of the heritage buildings in Preston are gone; the dam and the Sulphur

Spring Hotel are the “lynch pin” of the area.

Ron noted that cultural heritage and park vistas are embedded in the overall criteria, which are intended

to capture aspects of “Emotional Attachment” as described and can be evaluated and ranked in the

context of the analysis.

Weighting of Criteria Ratings

Respondents ranked the criteria with a numerical value that translated to: low, medium, high, very high.

Respondents had the opportunity to use the weighting criteria provided by the project team or modify

the system to better reflect the value they ascribed to each criterion. Six respondents followed the

project team rating system while three respondents modified the criteria. The chart below shows the

weighting of criteria ratings. The project team and stakeholders were in agreement with the exception

of the tourism criteria where the project team weighted it low and the stakeholders rated it high.

ENVIRONMENT EVALUATION CRITERIA PROJECT TEAM STAKEHOLDERS

Functional/Physical (a) Flooding Low Low

(b) Stream Stability/Sediment Transport Medium Medium

Natural (a) Fish Passage High High

(b) Aquatic Habitat/Health High High

(c ) Water Quality and Temperature Medium Medium

028


(d) Natural Heritage Low Low

Social (a) Cultural Heritage Very High Very High

(b) Boating Medium Medium

(c ) Fishing Medium Medium

(d) Park Vistas Very High Very High

(e) Pubic Safety High High

Economics (a) Life Cycle Cost Medium Medium

(b) Liability Medium Medium

(c ) Tourism Low High

Option‐by‐Option Summary

The rating results of the following four options were discussed:

Alternative C: Rebuild

Alternative E: Naturalize

Alternative F: In‐stream

Alternative G” Off‐line

The criteria for each option were ranked as either negative, negative‐neutral, neutral, positive‐neutral

and positive.

The summaries of each option were reviewed to show where the majority of respondents compared to

the project team. The complete rankings for each option can be found in Appendix A.

Alternative C: Rebuild

For the rebuild alternative, the stakeholders were in agreement for the majority of criteria with a few

outliers. Overall, the stakeholders were in alignment with project team with the exception of liability

and tourism.

Environment Evaluation Criteria

Stakeholders (total majority)

Project Team

Functional/Physical (a) Flooding Neutral Neutral

(b) Stream Stability/ Neutral Neutral

Natural (a) Fish Passage Positive‐Neutral Positive‐Neutral

(b) Aquatic Habitat/Health Neutral Neutral

(c ) Water Quality and Temperature

Neutral Neutral

(d) Natural Heritage Positive‐Neutral Positive‐Neutral

Social (a) Cultural Heritage Positive Positive

(b) Boating Neutral Neutral

029


(c ) Fishing Neutral Neutral

(d) Park Vistas Neutral Neutral

(e) Pubic Safety Neutral Neutral

Economics (a) Life Cycle Cost Negative‐Neutral Negative‐Neutral

(b) Liability Negative‐Neutral Negative

(c ) Tourism Positive‐Neutral Neutral

Alternative E: Naturalize

For the naturalize alternative, the rankings for boating and fishing varied across the board. This was

likely due to the fact that there are different kinds of boating and fishing preferences in the area.

The rating for tourism received split results as well. The project team was unclear on the reason but

speculated that it may have to do with fishing. Again, the results aligned with the project team exactly

but the individual rankings highlighted the differences around boating, fishing and tourism.

Environment

Evaluation Criteria Majority

Stakeholders Project Team

Functional/Physical (a) Flooding Positive Positive

(b) Stream Stability/ Positive Positive

Natural (a) Fish Passage Positive Positive

(b) Aquatic Habitat/Health Positive Positive


Positive Positive

(d) Natural Heritage Positive Positive

Social (a) Cultural Heritage Negative‐Neutral Negative‐Neutral

(b) Boating Negative‐Neutral Negative‐Neutral

(c ) Fishing Negative Negative

(d) Park Vistas Negative Negative

(e) Pubic Safety Positive Positive

Economics (a) Life Cycle Cost Positive‐Neutral Positive‐Neutral

(b) Liability Positive Positive

(c ) Tourism Negative‐Neutral Negative‐Neutral

Alternative F: In‐Stream

The rankings for this alternative again highlighted the differing preferences for fishing in the area. There

were outliers visible in public safety and a large spread for the cost criteria with no strong majority.

030


Environment

Evaluation Criteria

Majority Rating Project Team

Functional/Physical (a) Flooding Positive‐Neutral Positive‐Neutral

(b) Stream Stability/ Positive‐Neutral Positive‐Neutral


(b) Aquatic Habitat/Health Positive‐Neutral Positive‐Neutral


Positive‐Neutral Positive‐Neutral

Social (a) Cultural Heritage Negative‐Neutral

Negative‐Neutral

(b) Boating Negative Negative

(c ) Fishing Negative‐Neutral

Negative‐Neutral

(d) Park Vistas Negative‐Neutral

Negative‐Neutral

(e) Pubic Safety Positive‐Neutral Positive‐Neutral

Economics (a) Life Cycle Cost Negative Neutral

(b) Liability Positive‐Neutral Positive‐Neutral

(c ) Tourism Negative‐Neutral

Negative‐Neutral

Alternative G: Off‐line

The rankings for the cultural heritage criterion were variable. Boating also received a wide spread of

rankings with no strong consensus despite the potential for this option to accommodate both styles of

boating.

Environment

Evaluation Criteria Majority Rating Project Team

Functional/Physical (a) Flooding Positive‐Neutral Positive‐Neutral

(b) Stream Stability/ Positive‐Neutral Positive‐Neutral


(b) Aquatic Habitat/Health Positive‐Neutral Positive‐Neutral


Positive‐Neutral Positive‐Neutral

(d) Natural Heritage Positive‐Neutral Positive‐Neutral

Social (a) Cultural Heritage Negative‐Neutral Neutral

(b) Boating Positive‐Neutral Negative

(c ) Fishing Neutral Positive‐Neutral

(d) Park Vistas Negative‐Neutral Negative‐Neutral

(e) Pubic Safety Neutral Neutral

031


Economics (a) Life Cycle Cost Negative Negative‐Neutral

(b) Liability Neutral Neutral

(c ) Tourism Negative‐Neutral Neutral

Overall Ranking – Stakeholder Majority

Upon completion of the analysis the project team determined the stakeholder majority based on the

majority consensus for the evaluation criteria ranking, rating values and alternative assessment rating.

The ranking of alternatives from highest to lowest were as follows:

2) Naturalize, 1) rebuild, 3) offline and 4) in‐stream.

The project team rankings were as follows:

1) Naturalize, 2) offline, 3) rebuild, 4) in‐stream.

From the exercise, the project team was able to observe where the thinking and perspectives of the

stakeholders is strongly correlated and where it is a bit more diverse and how these perspectives may

influence the final recommendation. The project team can now take this input as well as the input from

regulators (the Region, GRCA and MNRF) to advance the Class EA.

Q: I proposed an option to rebuild the dam further upstream. The relocation would address so many

things that were relevant to everyone and improve fishing but was not included. If it was included it

would have been a first ranking.

A: You were the only person who had it listed as an option and so it could not be added as an option

however your input was documented and will be included as input for the public record and interpreted

by the Project Team.

C: When we started the exercise we looked at rebuild first and got an understanding of the how the

scoring works. I wonder if that had any impact on the way we scored the subsequent alternatives.

Q: There are several groups present here as stakeholders that are of different sizes but the group I

represent is quite large yet weighted the same as everyone else. Could the perspective of smaller

groups have skewed the results?

A: The counter position to that perspective is that the GRCA represents a watershed, MNRF represents a

province and they are not represented in any of the groups. Ultimately, we were looking at stakeholders

with equal equity in the process.

Q: In the next step, it is expected that the politicians are going to make a decision and technical

experts will have a say in how it gets implemented. How much weight does our opinion really have in

the next steps?

A: The next steps are very structured but part of it is taking the input we have received, interpret it and

then go to the public again showing all the feedback. We understand that you have invested a lot of

032


time into these two workshops and we have to take that information and our interpretation of it to the

public with a recommendation. After that we receive input again and finalise the Class EA. The

recommendation becomes the endorsed positon of council and the report. When filed, there is further

opportunity for public to do what is called a Part II Order. This provides the public with an opportunity

for the Minister to hear opposition along with the reasons for it. The Minister will ensure enough work

has gone into this decision. If approved, the project would be put into the budget followed by a detailed

design. The elements of the project would then be presented to the public for one last look.

While it has been long process with many divergent opinions, the most important aspect of the process

at this stage is to collect as much information from stakeholders and the public, so that whatever the

outcome, there is an expectation that if the process is reviewed by the MOECC there is sufficient

evidence that the City has done all that it can to facilitate meaningful engagement.

Q: Has it been determined if the city owns the dam? Or will this be a problem down the road?

A: The latest interpretation of ownership is that as soon as the city started acting like the owner (by

repairing and maintaining the dam), they assumed the role of the owner or proponent of the dam.

Evaluation Results – Stakeholder Perspectives

Following the presentation and discussion period, the stakeholders provided their perspectives and

impressions of the evaluation results. The comments are as follows:

The evaluation criteria and process was great and had everything we needed and appreciated

the level of detail;

It was interesting to see the passion and interest from people across the 4 proposed

alternatives.

It was so important to see where people stand and how it is similar or contrasts what I hear

from my own constituents. For me rebuild is important because it speaks to the passion of

maintaining the heritage and the beginnings of the area. I know it is not clear cut but I value the

process and I hope the decision is to rebuild.

Tourism was undervalued by many but from a business point of view, we know the potential of

having the dam and how retaining heritage can make our area grow as a business area.

The evaluation process made me aware of my potential bias and the process but ultimately

wanted to be fair and encouraged me to balance my opinions.

Great to see that people tended to be balanced and that in general a consensus was reached

(based on the majority outcome and so few outliers).

I appreciated the transparency of the whole process and having a numerical value associated

with the result was great.

This was a really valuable process to the EA and a great way for people to add their opinions

and comments.

033


From a tourism perspective, I think people are going to go to the park anyway – I don’t think

having a dam or not will impact its use.

As a Councillor, I always find it difficult to make decisions in the face of disparate voices in the

community. But all need to be taken into account and find some compromise so that the most

people feel comfortable or happy with the decision. Seeing these results give me a sense of

comfort when the time comes to make a decision.

Really important to see the feedback from this group in order to inform future decisions.

Next steps and schedule

Following this workshop, the next step is the finalisation of the Stakeholder Workshop report and then

the Class EA reporting that will include and consider all data and input received to date.

Once the consultant has made a final recommendation, the project team will meet with advisory

committees again, followed by a PIC. It is estimated that both activities will take place in late fall.

The project team would like to ensure a fulsome discussion at the PIC and asked stakeholders for

suggestions on how to achieve this. Logistically, a 7 p.m. start time with an open house set up in an

accessible venue that is suitable for large volumes of people was recommended. The need for people to

be heard was emphasized as well as to be transparent about the project and process; explain what

caused the delay, what feedback was received and how the final recommendation was achieved.

034


Appendix A: Alternative Evaluation Matrix

Outlier

Majority Selection

1) Rebuild

ENVIRONMENT

EVALUATION Negative

Negative ‐ Neutral

Neutral

Positive ‐ Neutral

Positive

Majority Stakehold

ers

Project Team

Functional/ Physical (a) Flooding

1 1 6 1 Neutral Neutral

(b) Stream Stability/ 1 7 1 Neutral Neutral

Natural (a) Fish Passage 7 2

Positive‐Neutral

Positive‐Neutral

(b) Aquatic Habitat/Health

2 4 3 Neutral Neutral


1 1 7 0 Neutral Neutral

(d) Natural Heritage 1 1 7

Positive‐Neutral

Positive‐Neutral

Social (a) Cultural Heritage 1 8 Positive Positive

(b) Boating 1 8 Neutral Neutral

(c ) Fishing 1 8 Neutral Neutral

(d) Park Vistas 8 1 Neutral Neutral

(e) Pubic Safety 1 1 6 1 Neutral Neutral

Economics (a) Life Cycle Cost 3 5 1

Negative‐Neutral

Negative‐Neutral

(b) Liability 3 3 2 1

Negative‐Neutral

Negative

(c ) Tourism 3 3 3

Positive‐Neutral

Neutral

2) Naturalize

ENVIRONMENT

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Negative

Negative ‐

Neutral

Neutral

Positive ‐ Neutral

Positive

Majority Stakeholders

Project Team

Functional/ Physical (a) Flooding 2 7

Positive Positive

(b) Stream Stability/ Sediment 9

Positive Positive

035


Transport

Natural (a) Fish Passage 1 8 Positive Positive

(b) Aquatic Habitat/Health 9

Positive Positive

(c ) Water Quality and Temperature 2 7

Positive Positive

(d) Natural Heritage 1 2 6

Positive Positive

Social (a) Cultural Heritage 4 4 1

Negative‐Neutral

Negative‐Neutral

(b) Boating 3 4 1 1 Negative‐Neutral

Negative‐Neutral

(c ) Fishing 4 1 1 1 2 Negative Negative

(d) Park Vistas 6 2 1 Negative Negative

(e) Pubic Safety 2 1 6 Positive Positive

Economics (a) Life Cycle Cost 1 8

Positive‐Neutral

Positive‐Neutral

(b) Liability 1 0 8 Positive Positive

(c ) Tourism 3 4 2

Negative‐Neutral

Negative‐Neutral

3) In‐ Stream

ENVIRONMENT

EVALUATION CRITERIA Negative

Negative‐

Neutral

Neutral

Positive‐

Neutral

Positive

Majority

Rating

Project Team

Functional/Physical (a) Flooding 8 1

Positive‐

Neutral

Positive‐Neutral

(b) Stream Stability/ 7 2

Positive‐

Neutral

Positive‐Neutral


(b) Aquatic Habitat/Health 7 2

Positive‐

Neutral

Positive‐Neutral

(c ) Water Quality and Temperature 8 1

Positive‐

Neutral

Positive‐Neutral

Social (a) Cultural Heritage 4 4 1 Negativ Negative

036


e‐Neutral

‐Neutral

(b) Boating 6 2 1Negativ

e Negative

(c ) Fishing 6 3

Negative‐

Neutral

Negative‐Neutral

(d) Park Vistas 3 4 2

Negative‐

Neutral

Negative‐Neutral

(e) Pubic Safety 2 1 6

Positive‐

Neutral

Positive‐Neutral

Economics (a) Life Cycle Cost 4 1 3 1Negativ

e Neutral

(b) Liability 1 7 1

Positive‐

Neutral

Positive‐Neutral

(c ) Tourism 3 4 2

Negative‐

Neutral

Negative‐Neutral

4) Off‐Line

ENVIRONMENT

EVALUATION NegativeNegativ

e‐Neutral

Neutral

Positive‐

Neutral

Positive

Majority Rating

Project Team

Functional/Physical (a) Flooding 2 6 1

Positive‐Neutral

Positive‐Neutral

(b) Stream Stability/ 8 1

Positive‐Neutral

Positive‐Neutral


(b) Aquatic Habitat/Health 8 1

Positive‐Neutral

Positive‐Neutral

(c ) Water Quality and Temperature 1 7 1

Positive‐Neutral

Positive‐Neutral

(d) Natural Heritage 9

Positive‐Neutral

Positive‐Neutral

Social (a) Cultural Heritage 1 4 2 2

Negative‐Neutral

Neutral

(b) Boating 2 2 3 2 Positive‐Neutral

Negative

037


(c ) Fishing 7 1 1 Neutral

Positive‐Neutral

(d) Park Vistas 8 1 Negative‐Neutral

Negative‐Neutral

(e) Pubic Safety 3 5 1 Neutral Neutral

Economics (a) Life Cycle Cost 5 4

Negative Negative‐Neutral

(b) Liability 2 2 5 Neutral Neutral

(c ) Tourism 4 2 3 Negative‐Neutral

Neutral

038

cambridge environmental advisory committee€¦ · brad hall in the role of vice-chairperson....

Documents