Royal Rouge Trail Erosion Control Project - Toronto and Region ...

Royal Rouge Trail Erosion Control Project 

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 

Project Plan 

December 9, 2009 

Revised September 8, 2011 

1 Eastville Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M1M 2N5

Acknowledgements 

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority gratefully acknowledges the following people for 

their contributions to the Royal Rouge Trail Erosion Control Project. 

Abdool Jhuman 

Resident 

Cathy Crinnion 


Carlo Corvese 

Resident 

Charles Kingsley 

City of Toronto 

Councillor Ron Moeser 


Debora Gyimah 

Resident 

Danielle Giggie 

Resident 

Edward Giggie 

Resident 

Honourable Dan McTeague 

Member of Parliament – Pickering – Scarborough 

East 

Jamie Sparks 

Resident 

Jamie Thomas 

Resident 

Janice Teichroeb 


Jason Crowder 

Terraprobe Limited 

Jim Berry 


Kathy Sparks 

Resident 

Ken Sharpe 


Korah Thomas 

Resident 

Linda Foster 

Resident 

Lindsay Prihoda 


Malcom Wilson 

Resident 

Maria Papoulias 

Rouge Park 

Mark Preston 


Mike Tanos 

Terraprobe Limited 

Moranne McDonnell 


Patricia Newland 


Shakira Naraine 

Resident 

Steve Foster 

Resident 

Trevor D’Souza 

Resident 

Wayne McArthurs Member of Provincial Parliament – Pickering – 

Scarborough 

Winnie D’Souza 

Resident 

i

Executive Summary 

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) continues to work towards ensuring 

healthy rivers and shorelines, greenspace and biodiversity, and sustainable communities. One 

key step in this process is the design and implementation of erosion control works for 

projects, such as this one. The Royal Rouge Trail Erosion Control Project has been 

completed in accordance with the Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and 

Erosion Control Projects (Conservation Ontario 2002) (Class EA), with the purpose of reducing 

risk to life and property, as per the mandate of conversation authorities, under the 

Conservation Authorities Act (1948). 

Concerns regarding erosion of the crest of the valley wall at Royal Rouge Trail were first 

brought to the attention of TRCA in 1989, when the homeowner of No. 42 Royal Rouge Trail 

identified concern regarding ongoing landslides, and potential drainage issues on the valley 

wall adjacent to their property. Several attempts were made over the years to improve the 

drainage and to halt the ongoing erosion on the localized over steepened area of the upper 

valley wall behind No. 42 Royal Rouge Trail, however a comprehensive assessment of the 

entire reach was not completed until 2007 when TRCA retained the services of Terraprobe Ltd 

to complete an erosion risk and slope stability assessment for the study area. 

The outcome of the study completed by Terraprobe in 2008, identified that the slope is 

anticipated to recede by approximately 0.18 metres per year, until the long-term angle of 

repose is attained, and that there is a need for remedial works to prevent further loss of table 

land, and risk to existing structures. In 2009, TRCA commenced a Class EA: The Royal Rouge 

Trail Erosion Control Project for the purpose of developing the preferred solution to address 

the ongoing erosion and risk to property and public safety. 

To assist with the evaluation of the alternative options and provide input into the planning and 

design process, a Community Liaison Committee or CLC was formed. Composed of technical 

staff, stakeholders, provincial agency staff, community activists and interested members of the 

public, the CLC became an integral part of the Class EA process. Through a series of CLC 

meetings, a range of alternative options were considered. 

As part of the initial planning and investigation, the study area was divided into two sections 

(Site A and Site B) based on the type and extent of erosion activity affecting those properties. 

Site A spans from Nos. 30 to 40 Royal Rouge Trail, while Site B spans from the remaining 

properties of Nos. 42 to 48 Royal Rouge Trail. 

The preferred solution determined through the Class EA process for Site A includes trimming 

the upper slope and over-steepened areas to a sustainable stable inclination of approximately 

1.3 : 1 (H : V). and intensely vegetating the entire area. For Site B an Envirolok retaining wall be 

will installed along the length of the slope from Nos. 42 – 48 Royal Rouge Trail to provide longterm 

stability and improved drainage to the valley wall in this area. 

Following the thirty (30) day public review period of this Project Plan and the successful 

resolution of an concerns received during the review period, TRCA intends to finalize the 

detailed design of the preferred solution and obtain the necessary approvals required to 

proceed to the implementation phase of this project. 

ii

Table of Contents 

1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1 

1.1 Relationship of the Undertaking to the Environmental Assessment Act................................. 2 

1.2 Purpose of the Undertaking........................................................................................................ 3 

1.3 Site Description ........................................................................................................................... 4 

1.4 General Description of the Undertaking .................................................................................... 7 

1.5 Rationale for Undertaking........................................................................................................... 9 

2.0 BACKGROUND......................................................................................................................9 

2.1 History of the Problem ................................................................................................................ 9 

2.1.1 History of Subdivision Development .................................................................................. 9 

2.2 

2.1.2 History of the Instability and Erosion of Slope ................................................................. 12 

Identification of Previous Studies ............................................................................................ 13 

2.2.1 Geotechnical Reports ....................................................................................................... 13 

2.2.2 Planning Documents ........................................................................................................ 14 

2.2.3 Aquatic and Terrestrial Habitat Reports ........................................................................... 16 

2.3 

2.2.4 Socioeconomic and Cultural Heritage Studies ................................................................ 16 

Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment ............................................................................. 22 

2.4 Stage 3 and 4 Archaeological Assessment ............................................................................. 23 

2.4.1 Gyimah Sparks site (AkGs-044) ....................................................................................... 24 

2.4.2 Jhuman Site (AKGs-045).................................................................................................. 26 

2.5 

2.4.3 Corvese Site (AKGs-046).................................................................................................. 29 

Justification of Conservation Authority Involvement.............................................................. 31 

3.0 BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY....................................................................... 32 

3.1 Existing Site Conditions............................................................................................................ 33 

3.1.1 

3.1.2 

Physical Environment ....................................................................................................... 33 

Biological Environment..................................................................................................... 36 

3.1.3 Cultural Environment ........................................................................................................ 45 

3.1.4 Socioeconomic Environment ........................................................................................... 47 

3.1.5 Engineering/Technical Environment ................................................................................ 48 

4.0 EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS ................................................... 50 

4.1 Description of Preliminary Concepts ....................................................................................... 50 

4.1.1 “Do Nothing” Alternative................................................................................................... 51 

4.1.2 Site A: Preliminary Concept 1 – Intense Vegetation......................................................... 53 

4.1.3 

4.1.4 

Site A: Preliminary Concept 2 – Slope Trimming with Intense Vegetation....................... 53 

Site B: Preliminary Concept 1 – Retaining Wall and Filling.............................................. 54 

4.1.5 Site B: Preliminary Concept 2 – Extended Retaining Wall and Trimming........................ 55 

4.2 Evaluation of Preliminary Concepts......................................................................................... 56 

4.2.1 

4.2.2 

Site A - Evaluation of Preliminary Concepts..................................................................... 56 

Site B - Evaluation of Preliminary Concepts..................................................................... 57 

4.3 Selection of the Preferred Alternative...................................................................................... 58 

4.4 Refinement of the Preferred Alternative for Site B.................................................................. 58 

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING......................................................................................... 59 

5.1 Detailed Environmental Analysis of the Preferred Alternatives ............................................. 59 

5.1.1 Physical Environment ....................................................................................................... 62 

iii

5.1.2 Biological Environment..................................................................................................... 62 

5.1.3 Cultural Environment ........................................................................................................ 64 

5.1.4 

5.1.5 

Socioeconomic Environment ........................................................................................... 64 

Engineering/Technical Environment ................................................................................ 65 

6.0 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 65 

6.1 Role of the Community Liaison Committee ............................................................................. 65 

6.2 Public Notifications and Consultation ..................................................................................... 66 

6.2.1 Project Initiation ................................................................................................................ 67 

6.2.2 Notice of Intent.................................................................................................................. 67 

6.2.3 Community Liaison Committee Meeting #1 .................................................................... 67 

6.2.4 Community Liaison Committee Meeting #2 .................................................................... 68 

6.2.5 

6.2.6 

Meeting with Affected Landowners .................................................................................. 69 

Community Liaison Committee Meeting #3 .................................................................... 69 

6.2.7 Notice of Filing.................................................................................................................. 69 

6.2.8 Notice of Project Approval................................................................................................ 69 

6.3 First Nations and Aboriginal Group Consultation ................................................................... 69 

6.4 Monitoring Program .................................................................................................................. 70 

7.0 REFERENCES......................................................................................................................70 

iv

Figures 

Figure 1. General location of study area. .................................................................................................. 1 

Figure 2. Study limits at the rear of 30 - 48 Royal Rouge Trail, City of Toronto........................................ 2 

Figure 3. Class Environmental Assessment Planning and Design Process. ............................................ 3 

Figure 4. Erosion scar below Nos. 42 and 44 Royal Rouge Trail. ............................................................ 5 

Figure 5. Active erosion behind Nos. 48 to 44 Royal Rouge Trail. ........................................................... 6 

Figure 6. Slope conditions below No. 42 Royal Rouge Trail. ................................................................... 6 

Figure 7. Active erosion behind Nos. 32 to 30 Royal Rouge Trail. ........................................................... 7 

Figure 8. General study area with new regulation line (166/06) for the subdivision, May 2006. ............ 12 

Figure 9. Boundaries of Rouge Hill Community...................................................................................... 17 

Figure 10. Boundaries of Rouge Community.......................................................................................... 18 

Figure 11. Aerial photograph taken in 1950 showing the rural nature of the project area ..................... 11 

Figure 12. Aerial photograph taken in 1987 showing the housing development ……….……………….12 

Figure 13. Location of positive test pits as a result of stage 2 testing.……………………………..………23 

Figure 14. General location of the “L” rating flora species within the vicinity of project area................. 38 

Figure 15. General location of the “L” rating fauna species within the vicinity of project area............... 40 

Figure 16. General area of bird sightings in the Rouge River watershed. .............................................. 43 

Figure 17. General area of Rouge River Valley, Life Science – ANSI...................................................... 45 

Figure 18. Long-term stable slope line without any remedial protection................................................ 52 

Figure 19. Proposed Preliminary Concept 1 for Site A. .......................................................................... 53 

Figure 20. Proposed Preliminary Concept 2 for Site A. .......................................................................... 54 

Figure 21. Proposed Preliminary Concept 1 for Site B. .......................................................................... 55 

Figure 22. Proposed Preliminary Concept 2 for Site B. .......................................................................... 56 

Tables 

Table 1. Closest Distance from the Residential Dwellings to the Crest of the Slope................................ 4 

Table 2. Air Quality Readings for Eastern Toronto (August 20, 2009) .................................................... 34 

Table 3. Air Quality Readings for Eastern Toronto (October 20, 2009) .................................................. 34 

Table 4. Typical L - Rank Description...................................................................................................... 36 

Table 5. Flora Species and Level of Concern within TRCA’s Jurisdiction. ............................................. 38 

Table 6. Fauna Species and Level of Concern within TRCA’s Jurisdiction. ........................................... 40 

Table 7. Rouge River Watershed Mammal Species................................................................................ 42 

Table 8. Bird Species observed within the Rouge River watershed. ...................................................... 43 

Table 9. Projected property loss from Nos. 30 to 48 Royal Rouge Trail................................................. 48 

Table 10. MNR Recommended Minimum Design Factors of Safety. ..................................................... 49 

Table 11. Results of the Slope Stability Analysis. ................................................................................... 50 

Table 12. Estimate of Time to Long-Term Stable Slope Crest................................................................ 51 

Table 13. Evaluation of Preliminary Concepts for Site A.........................................................................57 

Table 14. Evaluation of Preliminary Concepts for Site B.........................................................................57 

Table 15. Detailed Environmental Analysis of the Preferred Alternative. ................................................ 60 

v

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is proposing to carry out remedial 

erosion control works for a section of the Rouge Valley corridor behind the properties at Nos. 

30 – 48 Royal Rouge Trail, where slope instability and ongoing erosion are creating a risk to 

private property and existing residential structures. The study area is delineated in Figures 1 

& 2. 

The following Project Plan has been prepared as documentation of the decision-making 

process exercised in determining the preferred measures for the proposed remedial works, 

and to establish that there are no negative impacts or outstanding concerns held by TRCA or 

reviewers associated with the proposed works. 

Figure 1. General location of study area. Source: TRCA, 2009. 

1 



Royal Rouge Trail Erosion Control Project January 2010

Figure 2. Study limits at the rear of 30 - 48 Royal Rouge Trail, City of Toronto. Source: TRCA, 2009. 

1.1 Relationship of the Undertaking to the Environmental Assessment Act 

TRCA is defined as a public body in Section 3 of Regulation 334/90 in the Environmental 

Assessment Act (R.S.O. 1990), and as such, must conduct its remedial flood and erosion 

control projects in accordance with said Act. 

Recognizing that common elements exist in addressing flood and erosion problems, a 

coordinated approach to environmental assessments was developed by Conservation 

Ontario in 1993 for use by all of the Conservation Authorities (CAs) referred to as the Class 

Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects (Class EA). 

According to the Class EA document, 

“Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects refer to those projects 

undertaken by Conservation Authorities, which are required to protect human 

life and property, in previously developed areas, from an impending flood or 

erosion problem. Such projects do not include works which facilitate or 

anticipate development. Major flood and erosion control undertakings which do 

not suit this definition, such as multipurpose projects, lie outside the limits of 

this Class require an Individual Environmental Assessment” (Conservation 

Ontario, 2002). 

2 




Almost twenty years of experience have demonstrated that using the Class EA approach is 

an effective way of complying with the Act requirements. Approval of the Class EA allows 

CAs to carry out these types of projects without applying for formal approval under the Act, 

on the condition that all other necessary federal and provincial approvals are obtained. A 

chart illustrating the key steps of the Class EA planning and design process is shown in 

Figure 3. 

Figure 3. Class Environmental Assessment Planning and Design Process. Source: Conservation 

Ontario, 2002. 

1.2 Purpose of the Undertaking 

The objective of the Royal Rouge Trail Erosion Control Project (the project), is to protect 

human life and property from the hazards of erosion and slope instability by providing longterm, 

low maintenance protection which is compatible with the surrounding physical, 

biological, social and cultural environment. 

The proposed undertaking will be carried out in accordance with TRCA’s Criteria & 

Implementation Procedures for Valley & Stream Corridor Regeneration and Remedial Works 

3 




Projects (Design Criteria), which seeks to reduce and eliminate existing flood, erosion and 

slope instability hazards and to rehabilitate valley and stream corridors on private and public 

lands (Appendix A). 

1.3 Site Description 

The study area is located in the East Scarborough community of Rouge, a suburb located 

along the eastern most boundary of the City of Toronto. The site is bounded by Rouge Park 

to the north, residential lands to the east and west, and a residential road (Royal Rouge Trail) 

to the south. 

In general, surface water in East Scarborough is directed to drain into the Rouge River, which 

flows from the north-northwest to the southeast and empties into Lake Ontario. In the 

immediate vicinity of the study area the Rouge River flows generally from east to west in the 

valleylands of the Rouge Park, to the north and east of Royal Rouge Trail. 

The ten single-family residences from Nos. 30 to 48 Royal Rouge Trail back onto the Rouge 

Park, and are located at varying distances from the crest of the valley wall. Measurements of 

the closest distance from three points on each house, as well as from swimming pools (if 

present) to the crest of the valley wall are documented in Table 1. 

Table 1. Closest Distance from the Residential Dwellings to the Crest of the Slope. 

CLOSEST DISTANCE TO SLOPE CREST 

Lot No. 

West Corner of Centre of East Corner of 

Dwelling Dwelling Dwelling 

Pool 

#30 26 20 22 - 

#32 19 15 16 - 

#34 17 18 21 - 

#36 24 22 32 - 

#38 31 11 18 10 

#40 15 18 22 - 

#42 23 14 22 - 

#44 23 15 16 4 

#46 19 14 18 - 

#48 16 15 17 4 

Source: Terraprobe, 2008. 

The valley wall at the project site is approximately 20 to 30 metres (m) high and exhibits a 

slope angle between 0.25 - 0.05 : 1 (horizontal : vertical or h : v) to about 1.1 - 1.35 : 1 (h : v) 

(Terraprobe, 2008). The slope appears well vegetated with trees of varying maturity with the 

exception of slope segments most severely affected by the erosion. 

In the vicinity of the project area, sections of the slope are saturated several metres down 

from the crest of slope and in several areas, gullies have formed to channel the water down 

to the floodplain at the base of the slope. There is no evidence of water being directed from 

pools or drains over the slope crest, and it is assumed that the groundwater is from natural 

sources (rainfall etc) 

The predominant vegetative community found on the valley wall adjacent to the project site is 

a Hemlock-hardwood mixed forest with common species such as; Eastern hemlock (Tsuga 

4 




Canadensis), Eastern white pine (Pinus strobus), Paper birch (Betula papyrifera) and Sugar 

maple (Acer saccharum) present. There are several dead or dying trees specifically in or 

adjacent to the sites of active erosion on the slope. There are also native and invasive lowlying 

plants present in the understorey, and a small pocket of Manitoba maple (Acer 

negundo) is located within the erosion gully on the lower slope. A Willow swamp with 

standing water is located at the base of the slope. 

Although Rouge River generally flows from northwest to southeast towards Lake Ontario, the 

section of the river located in the valley lands approximately 200 m north of project area has a 

general meander flow from west to east. Therefore for the purpose of this report the Rouge 

River is referred to as running from west to east in direction. Photographs of the site follow in 

Figures 4 to Figure 7. 

Figure 4. Erosion scar below Nos. 42 and 44 Royal Rouge Trail. Source: TRCA, 1991. 

5 




Figure 5. Area of active erosion behind Nos. 48 to 44 Royal Rouge Trail. Source: Terraprobe, 2009. 

Figure 6. Slope conditions below No. 42 Royal Rouge Trail, geotextile matting used in previous 

localized erosion control works visible in the centre of the shot. Source: Terraprobe, 2009. 

6 




Figure 7. Active erosion behind Nos. 32 to 30 Royal Rouge Trail. Source: Terraprobe, 2009. 

1.4 General Description of the Undertaking 

There are four situations in which remedial flood and erosion control projects may be 

undertaken within the Class EA: 

i) Riverine flooding 

ii) Riverine and valley slope erosion 

iii) Shoreline flooding 

iv) Shoreline erosion 

The primary objective of the project is to provide long-term protection against 

(ii) 

Riverine and valley slope erosion. Alternative remedial measures to address this problem 

include: 

Soil bioengineering with the use of vegetation to stabilize soil, slow runoff, and 

dissipate erosive energy 

Improvements to internal drainage through the use of French drains, interceptor 

drains, or tile drains 

Improvements to surface drainage by redirecting water away from the slope, or by 

providing swales 

Regrading of the slope to provide a long-term stable angle of repose 

Secondary objectives include the protection of existing land uses, improved aesthetics, and 

improved terrestrial habitat. As such, the project will examine a number of alternatives to 

7 




achieve the primary and secondary objectives as outlined in the Class EA document, 

including: 

 

 

 

 

Intense re-vegetation of slope 

Slope trimming and intense re-vegetation of slope 

Retaining wall with slope filling 

Extended retaining wall with slope trimming 

In accordance with the Class EA planning process, a full range of alternatives must be 

developed, including both traditional and innovative approaches. The type and range of 

alternatives developed, such as the ones listed above, will vary by project as they are based 

on the nature, cause and extent of the problem, and must be tailored to the individual 

characteristics of each site. 

The decision-making process used in the selection of the preferred remedial solution is 

documented in detail in Section 4.0. 

In determining the preferred method of remediation for the erosion and slope instability 

problem two major factors were considered: risk to structure(s); and the cause(s) of the 

hazard. According to TRCA’s Design Criteria, potential risk to existing structures is deemed 

to be the most important factor and accordingly is given more weight than the physical and 

geological condition associated with the cause of erosion and/or instability. 

In all cases, the design of erosion control and slope stabilization works must provide 

protection compatible with TRCA’s Design Criteria, which includes improvements to or 

enhancements of the existing terrestrial habitat conditions through natural designs. 

Due to the size of the site, and the significant different in the conditions of the valley wall 

between the two extents of the project limits (Nos. 30 and 48 Royal Rouge Trail), the project 

area was divided into two sites, with the transition from Site A to Site B occurring between 

Nos. 40 and 42 Royal Rouge Trail. 

Site A spans the houses from Nos. 30 to 40 Royal Rouge Trail, and the recommended 

remedial course of action consists of slope trimming with intense re-vegetation of the slope to 

address the over steepened areas of instability while providing strength to the valley wall 

thought the use of vegetation. 

Site B is located between Nos. 42 – 48 Royal Rouge Trail, and is identified as the more 

serious of the two sites. At Site B the proposed remedial works include extensive trimming 

and reinforcement with a vegetated retaining wall system. 

The decision-making process used in selecting the preferred remedial action is documented 

in detail in Section 4.0 of this report. The proposed undertaking meets all TRCA planning and 

policy objectives, and satisfies the needs and concerns of the affected property owners and 

general public. 

8 




1.5 Rationale for Undertaking 

In 2008 TRCA retained Terraprobe Limited to undertake a geotechnical investigation of the 

slope stability and erosion risk assessment for the ten (10) residential properties; Nos. 30 – 

48 Royal Rouge Trail. The recommendations of the investigation identified that there was a 

potential risk to the existing structures on the aforementioned properties, and that major earth 

works would be required to halt the active erosion on the upper portion of the valley wall and 

provide long-term stability to the area. 

As part of the initial planning for the Class EA for this site, TRCA evaluated the “Do Nothing” 

option, as per the Class EA requirements. The results of the assessment indicated that the 

likelihood for substantial loss of valuable table land, the risk to life and property, and the 

value of the properties at risk illustrated the overall net benefit of addressing the slope 

stability concerns through the Class EA process. It is for this reason that TRCA made the 

determination to proceed with the Class EA for this site. 

2.0 BACKGROUND 

This section provides factual information as to the causes, effects, extent and associated 

hazards relating to erosion and slope instability at the project site. The findings and 

recommendations of previous studies are presented herein, as justification for TRCA 

involvement. 

2.1 History of the Problem 

2.1.1 History of Subdivision Development 

The development and approval of the Deauville subdivision where Royal Rouge Trail is 

located, was reviewed and approved by TRCA staff prior to the development of the 

Comprehensive Basin Management Plan, and the Valley and Stream Corridor Management 

Program developed and adopted by TRCA in the 1990’s. 

Planning of the subdivision began in 1983 with a comprehensive site analysis and inspection. 

The initial inspections were conducted by the geotechnical engineering firm Soil Eng on 

behalf of Deauville Developments Limited, and concluded with the following 

recommendations: 

 

 

 

Vegetation, topsoil, and slope should remain undisturbed; 

Concentrated runoff should not be allowed to drain onto the slope face; 

Structures should be set back at least 10 metres away from the existing top of bank. 

The report also identified that there is potential for shallow slope failures in the upper section 

of the valley wall in the proposed area of development as the result of the water drainage 

pattern for the tableland. 

This report was included with the draft site development plan, when circulated to TRCA staff 

for review in October of 1984. The compiled comments from staff regarding the draft 

subdivision plan addressed the following concerns: 

9 




Grading; 

Stormwater Management; 

Acquisition of the valley lands; 

Fencing; and 

Set back requirements for all structures. 

TRCA comments also addressed a circulated Zoning By-Law (15907) Amendment pertaining 

to the Royal Rouge Trail Development which specified that all buildings and structures be set 

back 10 metres from the rear property line, coincidental to the TRCA staked top of slope. 

As part of the planning process for the subdivision, The City of Scarborough arranged the 

sale of the valley slope lands included in the parcel owned by Deauville Developments 

Limited to TRCA, to be added to the network of acquired lands within the Rouge Valley 

Corridor. 

TRCA’s Senior Plans Analyst provided comments to the City of Scarborough in September 

1985 regarding the final registration of the subdivision stating that all of TRCA’s concerns, as 

previously noted, had been addressed and there were no further objections regarding the 

proposed plan. 

Final approval of the subdivision was authorized by the City of Scarborough. In conjunction 

with the approval of this site development plan a By-law (15907) was established for the 

subdivision that required a 10 metre structural setback limit from the rear property line for all 

major earth works including houses, and swimming pools. 

At that time, TRCA’s role in the approval and permitting of subdivision developments was 

limited to acting in a review capacity, to aid the Municipality in reviewing stormwater 

management plans and geotechnical reports, and to provide comments and 

recommendations to the Municipality for consideration in the approval and issuance of 

permits for the application. 

The adoption of the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program in 1994 marked a 

significant step forward in TRCA’s role in the planning of new subdivisions within the Greater 

Toronto Area. The Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program represents the 

establishment of new policy directions based on the evolution of previous planning 

documents including: 

- 1980 Watershed Plan and 1986 Update; 

o Flood Control Program; 

o Erosion Control Program (Valleylands component only); 

o Conservation Land Management Program; 

o Stormwater Management Program; 

- 1982 Environmentally Significant Areas Study; 

- 1985 Parking Lot Policy 

- 1987 Flood Susceptible Sites Policy; 

- 1990 Comprehensive Basin Management Strategy for the Rouge River Watershed; 

and 

- 1991 Special Policy Areas Policies. 

10 




The results of the adoption of the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program represent 

the amalgamation of a number of updated planning policies including the introduction of 

designated corridors from which setbacks be required to adhere to, creating green space 

between developed parcels of land, and environmentally significant areas. This program 

specifically promoted the establishment of a standard 10 metre buffer between the long-term 

stable slope crest and the proposed development area. Further, it provided TRCA with a 

strategic direction for the implementation of the 1989 TRCA (Former MTRCA) Greenspace 

Strategy. With respect to this subdivision specifically, the properties in question are 

immediately adjacent to Rouge Park and fall within the area that is governed by the more 

restrictive policies and principles of the Rouge Park Management Plan, May 1994 which was 

introduced the same year as the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program. The 

Rouge Park Management Plan is a Provincial Plan which states that where comprehensive 

redevelopment is proposed, the park boundaries are to be extended 30 metres inland from 

the long-term stable slope crest 

In 1998 a minor variance application to install a swimming pool in the rear lot at No. 48 Royal 

Rouge Trail (Lot 32) was approved by the City of Toronto. TRCA’s involvement with this 

process was limited to providing property clearance for the site as the proposed placement of 

the structure did not fall within the regulated 10 metre structural setback limit from the top of 

bank. The following recommendations were also provided to the City of Toronto regarding 

the installation of the swimming pool: 

1) All excavated fill material from pool installation works will be removed from the site. 

2) Under no circumstance should any pool discharge be directed to the rear, over the 

slope. 

3) All discharge should be directed into the homeowner’s sanitary system. 

As TRCA did not issue a permit in this instance, there is no way of assuring that the 

recommendations provided to the City of Toronto were incorporated as restrictions in the 

permit, or enforced during construction. Further, it is noted that the comments to the City of 

Toronto identified that residents with properties directly adjacent to the crest of the valley 

slope in this subdivision had been cautioned previously about developing in their rear lots, as 

the area may be subject to future erosion. 

An in-depth review of TRCA files indicate that the approved rear property line for this 

subdivision was generally the visual crest of the valley slope as staked by TRCA, concurrent 

with the recommendations of the Soil Eng report for the original subdivision development 

plan, and that the permitting and approval of swimming pools within this subdivision was 

regulated by the City of Toronto (Former City of Scarborough), with TRCA providing only 

property clearance, for works not located within the 10 metre setback limit from the crest of 

the valley slope. 

At the time that the properties on Royal Rouge Trail were developed, the setback limit was 

applied specifically to protect structures, and not the long-term value of the properties 

themselves. With changes to the planning process through the introduction of the Valley and 

Stream Corridor Management Program, development setbacks are now applied from the 

long-term stable slope crest, whereby areas susceptible to natural processes such as erosion 

remain undeveloped. 

11 




As of May 2006, new regulation lines for this subdivision were put into effect requiring that a 

TRCA Permit be obtained for any proposed site works within the regulated area under 

Regulation 166/06 as illustrated in Figure 8. 

Figure 8. General study area with new regulation line (166/06) for the subdivision, May 2006. Source: 

TRCA, 2009. 

2.1.2 History of the Instability and Erosion of Slope 

Royal Rouge Trail is a residential subdivision backing onto the Rouge Valley corridor. The 

height of the valley wall in the affected area is greater than 30 m. TRCA was first made aware 

of the erosion problem at the rear of 42 Royal Rouge Trail in the summer of 1989 and carried 

out minor drainage improvement works in 1992. Despite TRCA’s efforts to control the 

erosion, slides continued at the rear of the property prompting TRCA to retain Terraprobe Ltd. 

in 1994 to complete a slope stability assessment. 

Terraprobe concluded that a perched water table and groundwater seepage were the primary 

causes of the erosion at this location, and that although there appeared to be no immediate 

12 




danger to the existing dwelling, some additional crest loss would be expected. It was 

recommended by Terraprobe that temporary stabilization measures be carried out using 

staked timbers and vegetation on the exposed areas, and that french drains be considered 

for a more permanent solution. 

As a result, temporary stabilization works were carried out by TRCA in 1998 and again in 

2003. Although these measures have reduced localized erosion and instability to some 

degree, ongoing groundwater seepage remains a problem at the site. 

In 2004, the owners at 30 and 48 Royal Rouge Trail notified TRCA of similar erosion 

conditions and expressed concern over the potential risk to their properties over the long 

term. Inspections were carried out at these properties shortly thereafter, at which time they 

were added to TRCA’s erosion site list for annual monitoring. Staff monitoring records 

indicated that the erosion appears active at several sections of valley wall between 30 and 48 

Royal Rouge Trail, and recommended that a slope stability analysis be carried out to 

determine the level of risk to these properties. A letter followed in October 2004 signed by the 

owners of 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46 and 48 Royal Rouge Trail requesting a 

“comprehensive assessment and plan for permanent repair” be carried out behind all 

properties from 30 – 48 Royal Rouge Trail. 

A comprehensive assessment of the slope, and an updated risk assessment for the 

properties on the affected tableland was completed in 2007/08, and the results of the study 

indicate that there is significant risk to property as a result of slope instability. The 

assessment report recommended that large scale remedial works be implemented in order to 

provide long term protection to the ten properties currently at risk. 

This information was conveyed to the residents of the 30 – 48 Royal Rouge Trail in a public 

information meeting held in July of 2008, with the understanding that TRCA would be 

requesting permission to commence a Class Environmental Assessment (EA) for the 

development of remedial erosion control works in 2009, pending the approval of funding for 

the project. 

2.2 Identification of Previous Studies 

2.2.1 Geotechnical Reports 

Soil Engineering Limited (1984) – Soil Investigation for Bank Stability Assessment 

Prior to the development of the subdivision the developer, Deauville Developments Limited, 

retained Soil-Eng Limited to conduct a geotechnical investigation to assess the stability of the 

deep valley bank of the Rouge Valley corridor for a residential subdivision. The Soil-Eng 

report concluded the bank was stable and suitable for residential development provided that 

the bank face be left intact, runoff be diverted away from the slope, and structures have a 

minimum setback of 10 m. 

Furthermore, Soil-Eng identified the potential for shallow translation failures along the upper 

slope due to the perched water table along the slope. 

13 




Terraprobe Limited (1994) – Bank Stability Assessment 

Terraprobe Limited conducted a slope stability assessment of the valley wall directly behind 

Nos. 40 - 42 Royal Rouge Trail to assess ongoing erosion concerns. The firm concluded the 

residential dwelling was not in jeopardy; however there would be additional crest loss in 

order for the slope to re-position to a stable slope angle. Furthermore, Terraprobe outlined 

several temporary stabilization and maintenance alternatives to help stabilize the slope in the 

short term, and noted that further planning and finances were required to develop a design 

that would offer long-term stabilization. 

Terraprobe Limited (2008) – Geotechnical Investigation and Slope Stability Assessment 

As a result of the ongoing concern regarding active erosion in the area, TRCA retained 

Terraprobe Limited in 2007 to conduct a geotechnical investigation to re-asses the risk to the 

properties at Nos. 30 to 48 Royal Rouge Trail. The results of the investigation revealed there 

was significant risk of additional property loss at all to all 10 of the residential properties, and 

as a result Terraprobe recommended that large scale remedial works be undertaken to 

provide long term protection to each of the properties at risk. As such, this investigation 

initiated the need for a Class EA to examine slope stability alternatives from Nos. 30 to 48 

Royal Rouge Trail. 

2.2.2 Planning Documents 

The study area has received extensive scrutiny at all levels of government as part of the 

Toronto Watershed planning process. In developing the range of alternatives for evaluation 

under the Class EA guidelines, TRCA incorporated many of the planning recommendations 

from the municipal, provincial and federal governments into the study. 

Greenspace Strategy (1989) 

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority completed the Greenspace Strategy (the 

strategy) for the Greater Toronto Region, a strategic planning exercise to establish long-term 

goals for the management of greenspace within the Authority’s jurisdiction. This strategy 

provided direction for the conservation of the Lake Ontario waterfront, the river valleys, and 

the Oak Ridges Moraine, and identified the need for greater cooperation to achieve more 

integrated natural resource planning and management. It proposed that the TRCA establish a 

planning task force for each major watershed, and for the Lake Ontario waterfront within the 

TRCA’s jurisdiction. 

As per the strategy a watershed defined as the total area of land drained by a watercourse 

and its tributaries, and the objective of the strategy is to provide direction on natural systems 

protection, restoration, public education, recreation, and cultural and heritage planning 

activities within a watershed. To date, the TRCA has established planning task forces and 

completed watershed management strategies for three of the nine watersheds within its 

jurisdiction. In 1990, the TRCA adopted the Comprehensive Basin Management Strategy for 

the Rouge River Watershed, the first watershed management strategy. Forty Steps to a New 

Don, was published by the Don Watershed Task Force in 1994, and in 1997 Legacy: A 

Strategy for a Healthy Humber and A Call To Action were published as an integrated 

watershed management strategy for the Humber River (TRCA 1999). 

Comprehensive Basin Management Strategy for Rouge River (1990) 

14 




A Rouge Watershed Task Force was formed of staff from the Toronto and Region 

Conservation Authority, Rouge Park Alliance and multi-stakeholders to help develop an 

integrated watershed plan for the Rouge River watershed. As previously noted, this initiative 

was led by TRCA’s commitment, under its 1989 Greenspace Strategy, to prepare a watershed 

strategy for each of the nine watersheds within its jurisdiction. 

Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program (1994) 

The Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program is a guideline document developed by 

TRCA to direct land use activities and development within valley and stream corridors. This 

Program acknowledges the need for risk management related to flooding, erosion, slope 

instability, while ensuring that future environmental degradation is prevented, and natural 

areas are restored. This Program includes policies and criteria that govern any change to 

existing resource-based uses of valley and stream corridors. The Program also offers 

recommendations for the rehabilitation of valley and stream corridors that helps to direct 

short and long-term resource planning activities. 

Rouge Park Management Plan (1994) 

The Rouge Park Management Plan is a provincial plan that was developed to maintain and 

enhance the ecological and cultural integrity of the park. It should be noted that the plan 

distinctively states that where comprehensive land redevelopment is proposed, the park 

boundaries are to be extended 30 m inland from the long-term stable slope crest. 

Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan (1994) 

The Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan (RAP) was developed by all levels of 

government and multi-stakeholders. The plan encompasses 2000 km 2 within the TRCA 

jurisdiction within the City of Toronto for areas of concern including the Lake Ontario 

waterfront and all the watersheds from Etobicoke Creek on the west to Rouge River on the 

east. The Toronto RAP Team consists of Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of Natural 

Resources and TRCA, who implement the RAP throughout the Toronto area. The remedial 

action plan works towards the following goals: 

 

 

 

 

 

Clean waters 

Healthy Habitats 

Science and Monitoring 

Sustainability 

Education and Involvement 

Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy (2006) 

Toronto and Region Conservation’s Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy (TNHSS) was 

designed to enhance biodiversity and the quality of life for residents by seeking to increase 

the amount of forest and wetland habitats. It uses a science-based analytical tool, based on 

ecological criteria to identify an expanded and targeted land base for inclusion in a terrestrial 

natural heritage system. The TNHSS was designed for the entire TRCA jurisdiction as 

terrestrial systems and their interactions span watershed boundaries. The target system 

relates to the terrestrial component of the natural heritage system. Although increases in 

natural cover benefits many other system components, such as promoting natural water 

budget, the target terrestrial natural heritage system was designed using terrestrial ecological 

criteria. The TNHSS contains a number of strategic directions including proposed land use 

15 




planning policies, land management, stewardship and education opportunities, and longterm 

monitoring. 

2.2.3 Aquatic and Terrestrial Habitat Reports 

In the past twenty years, management plans have been developed to preserve and improve 

the aquatic and terrestrial conditions along the Rouge River watershed. The Rouge River 

watershed is viewed is the largest natural environment park in an urban area in North 

America, and as such it is important to sustain this rare environment of aquatic and terrestrial 

habitats for future generations. 

This Class EA incorporates a number of studies completed over the last thirty years in order 

to provide a broad understanding of the environmental conditions within the Rouge River 

watershed. The following sources of information are only several of the resources that were 

used to define the aquatic and terrestrial conditions for the study area: 

CFN# 38392: Nos. 30 – 48 Royal Rouge Trail Slope Stability Analysis and Erosion 

Risk Assessment, TRCA Corporate Records. 

CFN# 21901: Royal Rouge Trail, TRCA Corporate Records. 

Environment Canada, Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Natural Resources, 

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.1989. Metro Toronto and Region 

Remedial Action Plan. Stage 1. Environmental Conditions and Problem Definition. 

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). 1982. Environmentally 

Significant Areas Study. 

Toronto Ornithological Club. 2007. Species of Birds in Rouge River Watershed. 

Retrieved November 17, 2009. (www.torontobirding.ca). 

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2008. Natural Heritage Information 

Centre, Rouge River Watershed. Retrieved December 1, 2009. 

(nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/nhic_old.cfm). 

Government of Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in 

Canada (COSWIC). 2009. Retrieved December 1 2009. (www.cosewic.gc.ca). 

Terrestrial and aquatic data was obtained by TRCA. Data from these inventories are 

referenced in this report where applicable. 

2.2.4 Socioeconomic and Cultural Heritage Studies 

The following sources of information are only several of the resources that were used to 

define the socioeconomic conditions and cultural heritage resources for the study area: 

 

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 2009. Archaeology Department. 

City of Toronto website. 2001 and 2006. Royal Rouge Neighbourhood Profile. 

(http://www.toronto.ca/demographics/cns_profiles/cns131.htm). 

Roots, B., Chant, D.A. and Heidenreich, C.1999. Special Places: The Changing 

Ecosystems of the Toronto Region. 

Toronto Neighbourhoods website. 2009. Rouge Hill. (http://www.torontoneigh 

bourhoodguide.com/regions/scarborough/139.html). 

16 




Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) website. 2009. Bus Routes, 85 Sheppard East. 

(www.ttc.on.ca). 

The community of Rouge Hill was predominately agricultural until the construction of 

Highway 401in the 1950s. The construction of the highway prompted the development of 

residential subdivisions that continued well through the 1970s and 1980s. The Rouge Hill 

community is located south of the Toronto Zoo, west of the Rouge River watershed, and 

north of Highway 401. 

Royal Rouge Trail is situated along the eastern border of the community, bounded by the 

crest of the Rouge Valley Corridor within the Rouge Valley Park. The Rouge Hill subdivision is 

located within the larger community of Rouge. Figures 9 and 10 illustrate the boundaries of 

Rouge Hill, and Rouge. 

Prior to the settlement of the Rouge community by European Settlers in the late 18 th century, 

there is an extensive history of aboriginal activity in the area, predominantly surrounding the 

Rouge River, as a major watercourse and trading route, and in relation to the coastline of 

Lake Iroquois following the last intercontinental ice age, approximately 12,000 year ago. 

Figure 9. Boundaries of Rouge Hill Community. Source: Toronto Neighbourhoods, 2009. 

17 




Figure 10. Boundaries of Rouge Community. Source: City of Toronto, 2006. 

PalaeoIndian Period – 12,000 to 10,000 B.P. 

Twelve thousand years ago, as the glaciers retreated from southern Ontario, nomadic 

peoples gradually moved into areas recently vacated by the massive ice-sheets. These 

people lived in small family groups and it is presumed that they hunted caribou and other 

fauna associated with the cooler environment of this time period. It should be remembered 

that as the glaciers melted at the end of the last ice age, the landscape of southern Ontario 

was very much like the tundra of the present day eastern sub-arctic. Traditionally, the 

PalaeoIndian occupation of southern Ontario has been associated with glacial lake 

shorelines, however recent investigations in the Toronto vicinity indicate that these peoples 

also exploited interior locations situated inland from the glacial lakes. 

Archaic Period – 10,000 to 2800 B.P. 

As the climate in southern Ontario warmed, Aboriginal populations adapted to these new 

environments and associated fauna. Thus, many new technologies and subsistence 

strategies were introduced and developed by the Archaic peoples of this time period. 

Woodworking implements such as groundstone axes, adzes and gouges began to appear, 

as did net-sinkers (for fishing), numerous types of spear points and items made from native 

copper, which was mined from the Lake Superior region. The presence of native copper on 

archaeological sites in southern Ontario and adjacent areas suggests that Archaic groups 

18 




were involved in long range exchange and interaction. The trade networks established at this 

time were to persist between Aboriginal groups until European contact. To harvest the new 

riches of the warming climate, the Archaic bands of southern Ontario followed an annual 

cycle, which exploited seasonably available resources in differing geographic locales within 

watersheds. As the seasons changed, these bands split into smaller groups and moved 

inland to exploit other resources that were available during the fall and winter such as deer, 

rabbit, squirrel and bear, which thrived in the forested margins of these areas. 

Initial Woodland Period – approximately 1000 B.C. (3000/2800 B.P.) to A.D. 700 

Early in the Initial Woodland period, band size and subsistence activities were generally 

consistent with the groups of the preceding Archaic Period. Associated with the earliest 

components of this cultural period is the introduction of clay pots. Additionally, around two 

thousand years ago a revolutionary new technology, the bow and arrow, was brought into 

southern Ontario and radically changed the approach to hunting and warfare. These two 

technological innovations allowed for major changes in subsistence and settlement patterns. 

As populations became larger, camps and villages with more permanent structures were 

occupied longer and more consistently. Generally, these larger sites are associated with the 

gathering of macrobands. Often these larger groups would reside in favourable locations to 

cooperatively take advantage of readily exploitable resources. It was also during this period 

that elaborate burial rituals and the interment of numerous exotic grave goods with the 

deceased began to take place. Increased trade and interaction between southern Ontario 

populations and groups as far away as the Atlantic coast and the Ohio Valley was also taking 

place. 

Late Woodland Period – A.D. 700 to 1650 

Around A.D. 700, maize was introduced into southern Ontario from the south. With the 

development of horticulture as the predominant subsistence base, the Late Woodland Period 

gave rise to a tremendous population increase and the establishment of permanent villages. 

These villages consisted of longhouses measuring six metres wide and high and extending 

anywhere from three to 15 metres in length. Quite often these villages, some of which are one 

to four hectares in size, were surrounded by multiple rows of palisades suggesting that 

defence was a community concern. Aside from villages, Late Woodland peoples also 

inhabited hamlets and special purpose cabins and campsites that are thought to have been 

associated with larger settlements. Social changes were also taking place, as reflected in the 

fluorescence of smoking pipes; certain burial rituals, including community burials in 

ossuaries; increased settlement size; and distinct clustering of both longhouses within 

villages (clan development) and villages within a region (tribal development). One interesting 

socio-cultural phenomenon that occurred during this period as a result of the shift in 

emphasis from hunting to horticulture was a movement away from the traditional patrilineal 

and patrilocal societies of the preceding band-oriented groups to a matrilineal orientation. 

According to oral traditions, Anishinabe peoples migrated from the Eastern coast into the 

Great Lakes region around 1400. Living on the Canadian Shield, these groups remained 

largely nomadic well into the Historic or EuroCanadian Period. The Late Woodland groups 

that inhabited the Toronto area eventually moved their villages northward toward Georgian 

Bay. It was these and other groups in southwest Ontario that eventually evolved into the 

Aboriginal nations who interacted with and were described by French missionaries and 

explorers during the early seventeenth century. 

19 




PostContact Period – 1650 to 1805 

Also called the Early Historic Period, these years are characterized by the arrival of a small 

number of Europeans interested in exploration, trade, and establishing missions, coupled 

with a gradual adoption of European materials by First Nations peoples. In terms of material 

culture, it is often difficult to distinguish between Haudenosaunee, Anishinaabe, Métis and 

colonial settler campsites during these early years. This is due to the interaction and adoption 

of each others’ material goods and subsistence strategies which blur cultural boundaries. 

Such interaction was essential to early explorers and missionaries who relied on local people 

for survival strategies and knowledge of the local landscape. These permeable boundaries 

continued until the Crown established segregated reserves in the eighteenth and early 

nineteenth centuries for the Haudenosaunee and Anishinaabe communities who remained 

here while granting properties to European settlers. 

EuroCanadian Period –1787 to Present (York County) 

Following the American Revolutionary War, the British government decided to reopen the 

overland trade route from Lake Ontario to Lake Huron, known as the “Passage de Taronto.” 

Consequently, in 1783 the British bought from the native Mississauga a tract of land 

stretching from Cataraqui (Bay of Quinte) to the Etobicoke Creek at the west end of Toronto. 

Due to irregularities in the treaty and in order to establish the actual lands negotiated, on 

September 23, 1787 the Crown further purchased lands from the Mississauga; which is 

known as the “Toronto Purchase.” Additional negotiations in 1805 led to clarification and the 

lands were finally settled in 1923 by the Williams Commission. Since 1788 the land north of 

Lake Ontario formed part of the District of Nassau in the Province of Quebec. Following the 

creation of the Province of Upper Canada in 1791 Colonel John Graves Simcoe, the first 

lieutenant-governor, in 1792 renamed it the Home District and formed nineteen distinct 

counties including York County. York County originally incorporated modern day York 

Region, Peel Region, Halton Region, Toronto, parts of Durham Region and the City of 

Hamilton. It was divided into two ridings known as East and West York. Ten other townships 

formed York County and these included, East Gwillimbury, East York, Etobicoke, Georgina, 

King, North Gwillimbury, North York, Scarborough, Vaughan, Whitchurch and York (Reaman 

1971:20). “Simcoe made every effort to give English names to countries, towns, townships 

and rivers, in order to impress on the Loyalists that there was a continuing British presence 

north of the lost American Colonies” (Rayburn 1996). Unfortunately no survey diaries are 

available for York Township earlier than 1821 and accordingly, there is no record of this area 

or the terrain as it existed when it was initially surveyed. However, early accounts provide 

insight into the conditions of the area during the late eighteenth century from Lady Simcoe’s 

descriptions and drawings from her diary that dates between 1791 and 1796. 

Scarborough Township 

The lands that became Scarborough Township are believed to have been acquired by the 

British from the native Mississaugas in 1787 negotiations outside of the larger Toronto 

Purchase. Originally called Glasgow, the township was later named in honour of the Duke of 

York and the Yorkshire town of Scarborough. The white lakeside cliffs reminded Simcoe’s 

wife Elizabeth of the grey cliffs of the English town. Incorporated as a township in 1850, 

Scarborough Township was included in the East Riding of York County. In 1967 Scarborough 

became a borough of Metropolitan Toronto, then a city in 1983 and finally in 1998 it was 

amalgamated with other municipalities as the City of Toronto. Scarborough Township was 

surveyed by the Surveyor Generals office between 1793 and 1794 by Abraham Iredell. It was 

later completed in 1833 by John Galbraith. Scarborough was laid out in nine concessions, 

20 




four of which are interrupted by the shore of Lake Ontario. Each concession is one and a 

quarter miles (two kilometers) apart, running west of the boundary with Pickering Township 

and the angled lakefront. They were divided by side roads a half mile (0.8 kilometers) apart 

running south and north. Other than the gore lots along the lakefront, and those smaller lots 

along the east and north boundaries, each concession was divided into 200 acre (81 hectare) 

lots, two between every side road, numbered east to west. 

The first wave of immigration to the Scarborough area was by settlers of Scottish, Irish, and 

English descent and in smaller numbers settlers of French, German and Dutch descent. By 

1809 only 140 people were living in Scarborough Township, and by 1812 there was an abrupt 

halt to the land patenting due to the war. The process of land grants and patents resumed 

and in 1861 there was huge growth in the Scarborough area (Myrvold 1997). Like most of the 

Greater Toronto Area, this area of northeast Scarborough or the “Rouge”, underwent massive 

development due to urban sprawl which tapered off in the early 1990s (Kelman 1999). Prior to 

the 1950s the area was predominantly rural. Once Highway 401 was built, development 

progressed in the 1960s along Sheppard Avenue. The 1970s and 1980s saw the most 

development in mixed use shopping, parks and housing and by the end of the century, 

residential development was increasing. The current project area is situated north of a 

housing development that was built in the late 1980s. Aerial photos illustrate the gradual 

change in development in the area. An aerial view dating to 1950 highlights the rural nature of 

the area at that time (Figure 11). The Graham farm can be seen in the central area of the 

photograph. The current project area is located slightly north and west of the farm. A later 

aerial photograph dating to 1987 shows the aforementioned housing as it was being 

constructed (Figure 12). Interestingly, the farmstead still appears at the eastern boundary of 

the neighbourhood with the farm lane extending north from Kingston Road. 

Figure 11. Aerial photograph taken in 1950 showing the rural nature of the project area. Source: 

TRCA, 2010 

21 




Figure 12. Aerial photograph taken in 1987 showing the housing development. Source: TRCA, 2010a 

Although no structures were indicated on any nineteenth century maps within the immediate 

project area it should be noted that not every feature of potential interest today would have 

been illustrated. Given the close proximity of the project area to two registered Aboriginal 

sites and the extensive use of the area during the nineteenth century, the likelihood of 

encountering both historic era materials and aboriginal materials is very high. Due to this, a 

Stage 1 and 2 Archeological Assessment was completed prior to any land disturbance. 

Additionally, a licensed archaeologist was recommended to be on-site during ground 

disturbance construction activities to ensure that any additional finds were documented and 

registered appropriately. 

2.3 Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment 

As part of the planning process for the Class EA, and as per TRCA protocol regarding 

projects of this nature, a Stage 1 and Stage 2 archaeological assessment was completed in 

the spring of 2010. The objectives of this assessment were twofold; to determine the 

presence of any historical or archaeological resources of interest, and if so to determine the 

nature, extent and condition of any cultural heritage resources on the properties subject to 

potential disturbance resulting from the proposed erosion control works, and to assess the 

value of any such resources in terms of their importance within the context of the surrounding 

cultural landscape. Both of these objectives had to be met prior to determining the required 

course of action to mitigate any damage to potentially valuable cultural or heritage resources 

present. 

The fieldworks were completed over the course of two days in the Spring of 2010, utilizing the 

protocol outlined in the Ontario Ministry of Culture License to Conduct Archaeological 

Exploration Survey or Fieldwork guidelines. 

22 




Three sites of potential importance were identified as the result of the Stage 2 investigation, in 

the rear yards of the properties at 32, 36 and 38 Royal Rouge Trail (Figure 13). AkGs-044 is 

located at 32 Royal Rouge Trail. Eight lithics and one body sherd were recovered from the 

site. AkGs-045 is situated approximately 30 metres east of AkGs-044, in the backyard of 36 

Royal Rouge Trail, and four lithic flakes were identified at this site. At AkGs-046, located 

approximately 30 metres east of AkGs-045 behind 38 Royal Rouge Trail, six lithic items were 

uncovered. In total, 18 lithics and one body sherd were recovered. 

Figure 13. Location of positive test pits as a result of stage 2 testing. Source: TRCA, 2110a 

Due to the findings of the Stage 2 investigation, TRCA was required to undertake Stage 3, 

and Stage 4 investigations of the subject areas; AkGs-044, AkGs-045 and AkGs-046, and 

coordinated the presence of a First Nations monitor to be present during the completion of 

the Stage 3 & 4 investigation. 

2.4 Stage 3 and 4 Archaeological Assessment 

The area surrounding the AkGs-044 (Gyimah Sparks), AkGs-045 (Jhuman) and AkGs-046 

(Corvese) sites has a long history of occupation. During the initial background study of the 

general area, five provincially registered archaeological sites were identified within a two 

kilometer radius of the project area. Of particular interest are two archaeological sites: the 

Rouge Hill Stables site (AkGs-005), a Post Contact Seneca burial, and the Graham site 

23 




(AkGs-008), which is a Post Contact Seneca Village. These sites are located approximately 

500 metres east of the three sites, and are collectively known as Bead Hill, a National Historic 

Site. The Graham site is one of three known Seneca villages in the Greater Toronto Area and 

it is the only one that remains relatively intact. It is a seventeenth century Post Contact site 

and its location adjacent to both the Rouge River and the Carrying Place Trail suggests that it 

was likely an important meeting and trading place. Early European residents of the area were 

familiar with the village and over the years, amateur and professional archaeologists have 

visited the site (Mayer, et al. 1988). Limited excavations undertaken between 1985 and 1987 

recovered over 3,000 artifacts and identified one midden and several artifact concentrations 

that are indicative of multiple longhouses. The topography and artifact distribution also 

strongly suggest the possibility of a palisade (Mayer et al. 1988). Existing archaeological 

evidence of Aboriginal settlement in the vicinity of the current project includes Bead Hill, the 

site of a seventeenth century Seneca village. Also documented nearby is the Rouge River 

branch of the Carrying Place Trail, an Aboriginal portage route that linked Lake Ontario to 

Lake Simcoe. 

2.4.1 Gyimah Sparks site (AkGs-044) 

The Gyimah Sparks site (AkGs-044), is named for the current owners of 32 and 30 Royal 

Rouge Trail respectively where the largest concentrations of artifacts were located. The 

properties are located on Lot 1, Concession II on the border that historically divided the 

Scarborough and Pickering Townships, York County. 

The Gyimah Sparks site (AkGs-044) is situated on tableland in the manicured back yards of 

30, 32 and 34 Royal Rouge Trail. The topography is level on the tableland and slopes very 

steeply towards the Rouge Valley. Severe erosion is an inherent risk to these properties that 

are located on sandy soils (Brighton Sandy Loam, a grey-brown podzolic with good drainage 

and no stones) on the edge of a ravine. Root structures of trees shrubs and other plantings 

provide some stability to the slopes, and consequently, an absence of plantings or disruption 

of plantings can contribute to slope instability. Plantings in each of these back yards included 

grass lawns with some trees around the perimeter and extensive trees and shrubs on the 

slope outside of the fenced yard. Additionally, 30 Royal Rouge Trail has a swimming pool 

with interlocking stone pool deck and established gardens, while 34 Royal Rouge Trail had 

extensive perennial gardens intermixed with trees and shrubs along the entire perimeter of 

the yard. Even though these properties have been significantly impacted by 20 th century 

construction, the soil profile remains intact throughout most of the yards largely due to 

capping of the original A horizon by fill and topsoil after construction of the houses. 

The primary purpose of the Stage 3 investigation was to determine the limits of the site 

encountered during Stage 2 assessment where eight lithic flakes and one bodysherd was 

located in seven separate test pits in the backyard of 32 Royal Rouge Trail. Since the artifacts 

were distributed throughout the backyard it was anticipated that the site might continue 

across property lines to both 30 and 34 Royal Rouge Trail. The Stage 3 assessment targeted 

30 and 32 Royal Rouge Trail but no Stage 3 units were excavated at 30 and 34 Royal Rouge 

Trail. The Stage 3 assessment began on August 24, 2010 and was immediately followed by 

the Stage 4 excavation which was completed on September 20, 2010. All excavation was 

performed under the project direction and field direction of Janice Teichroeb (P338). All 

fieldwork was conducted under the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture Licence to 

24 




Conduct Archaeological Exploration Survey or Fieldwork (P338) issued to Janice Teichroeb, 

archaeologist at the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority in accordance with Part IV of 

the Ontario Heritage Act (R.S.O. 1990, c 0.18). 

Seventeen 1m² units were excavated during the Stage 3 investigation within the back yard of 

32 Royal Rouge Trail. No additional diagnostic Woodland artifacts, such as body sherds, 

were encountered; instead all artifacts found were lithics. A total of 220 artifacts were 

collected from the seventeen 1m 2 units. This included 211 flakes, 3 chipped stone tools or 

tool fragments, 1 groundstone tool fragment, and 5 soil stained faunal fragments. The Stage 

3 investigation concluded that even though a Woodland bodysherd was encountered during 

the Stage 2 assessment the Gyimah Sparks site contained predominantly lithic material and 

was likely an archaic campsite with a Woodland component. Due to the threat of erosion and 

the proposed erosion control measures to be implemented, it was determined that avoidance 

and protection was not a viable option for this sensitive resource and that Stage 4 excavation 

was required. 

The purpose of the Stage 4 excavation of the Gyimah Sparks site was to document and 

remove the site data as completely as possible given the constraints of working in a 

subdivision with fences, decks, swimming pools, gardens and disturbed soils and also with 

the inherent risks of moving large quantities of soil in an area at risk of severe erosion. In 

accordance with Ministry technical standards, Stage 4 1m² units were excavated surrounding 

any Stage 3 or Stage 4 units that contained lithic artifacts numbering ten or more, or with 

diagnostic lithic artifacts. The Stage 4 units were excavated in stratigraphic layers to five 

centimeters below subsoil. Wherever possible the excavation of 1m² units continued until 

there were yields or fewer than ten artifacts at the edge of the block excavation. Exceptions 

included areas disturbed by previous construction of houses and pools as well as areas 

within the drip line of trees on the property which were deemed inaccessible due to risks 

associated with damage to root structures that may result in stress to the trees and disruption 

of the root mat that aids in the stability of the adjacent failing slope. 

The Stage 3 and 4 excavations at the Gyimah Sparks site (AkGs-044) have resulted in the 

identification of a high-density multi-component Middle and Late Archaic site (ca. 5000 to 

2800 BP) with a small Woodland (ca. 1000 BCE to 1600 CE) component. A preliminary count 

of 3,944 artifacts across 142 1m² units demonstrates the rather dense nature of this site. 

Preliminary dating for the Middle and Late Archiac is attributed to two projectile points that 

have been identified as Brewerton points dating to the Middle Archaic (ca. 5000 to 4500 BP), 

two projectile points that has been identified as Normanskill points dating to the Late Archaic 

(ca. 4500 to 2800 BP), and one projectile point that has been identified as a Snook Kill point 

dating to the Late Archaic (ca. 4000 to 3500 BP). Preliminary dating for the Woodland 

component is attributed to the small ceramic assemblage and the possible Saugeen 

projectile point recovered from the site and dated to the Middle Woodland (ca. 500 to 500 

CE). While the density of the artifacts suggested this was a longer term camp taking 

advantage of the plentiful resources in the area such as fish from the river and nuts from the 

mast forest, the presence of unfinished biface fragments, in addition to early and late stage 

flaking debris, suggested that one of the primary activities of the site was manufacturing 

and/or rejuvenation of flaked stone tools. No cultural features were identified during the 

investigation. 

25 




Together with the neighboring Jhuman site (AkGs-045) and Corvese site (AkGs-046) the 

Gyimah Sparks site (AkGs-044) is a rare example of intensive use of the land by Aboriginal 

peoples during the Middle and Late Archaic (ca. 5000 to 2800 BP) and the Woodland period 

(ca. 1000BC to AD1600). The site is considered an Archaic camp with a small Middle 

Woodland component. Previous provincially registered sites in the vicinity include both a Late 

Woodland Period village and an Archaic campsite both situated approximately 500 metres 

east of the Gyimah Sparks site. Close proximity to the Rouge River was likely an important 

factor in selecting a settlement, whether temporary or permanent. 

The Gyimah Sparks site (AkGs-044) has been fully mitigated through excavation and may be 

considered free from archaeological concerns. A total of 3,944 artifacts have been recovered 

from this site, including 3,899 lithic items, 37 faunal items, and eight ceramic items. Six 

diagnostic projectile points were identified and have been preliminarily dated to the Middle 

and Late Archaic, with one point identified as possibly being Middle Woodland. It is therefore 

recommended that there are no further archaeological concerns for impacts to the Gyimah 

Sparks site (AkGs-044) under Section 48 of the Ontario Heritage Act. 

2.4.2 Jhuman Site (AKGs-045) 

The Jhuman site (AkGs-045), named for the current owners of 36 Royal Rouge Trail, is 

located on Lot 1, Concession II in the former Borough of Scarborough. During the Stage 2 

assessment, a lithic site consisting of four flakes from four separate test pits were identified in 

the backyard of 36 Royal Rouge Trail. A Stage 3 investigation was undertaken for this site 

with the expectation that if required, a Stage 4 excavation would immediately follow based on 

discussions with the Ministry of Tourism and Culture’s Archaeological Review Officer. The 

objectives of the Stage 3 assessment were to determine the spatial extent of the site, to 

evaluate the cultural heritage value of the site and to develop a mitigation strategy if 

warranted. The objectives of the Stage 4 excavation were to fully document and mitigate the 

site since protection and long term preservation of the site was not feasible due to the threat 

of severe erosion. The assessment and excavation of the Jhuman site were conducted over a 

period of eight days in the summer of 2010. The Stage 3 assessment began on July 20, 2010 

and was immediately followed by the Stage 4 excavation which was completed on July 30, 

2010. All excavation was performed under the project direction and field direction of Janice 

Teichroeb (P338). All fieldwork was conducted under the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and 

Culture Licence to Conduct Archaeological Exploration Survey or Fieldwork (P338) issued to 

Janice Teichroeb, archaeologist at the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority in 

accordance with Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (R.S.O. 1990, c 0.18). 

The Jhuman site (AkGs-045) is situated on tableland in the manicured back yards of 34 and 

36 Royal Rouge Trail. The topography is level on the tableland and slopes very steeply 

towards the Rouge Valley. Severe erosion is an inherent risk to these properties that are 

located on sandy soils (Brighton Sandy Loam, a greybrown podzolic with good drainage and 

no stones) on the edge of a ravine. Root structures of trees shrubs and other plantings 

provide some stability to the slopes, and consequently, an absence of plantings or disruption 

of plantings can contribute to slope instability. Plantings in each of these back yards included 

grass lawns with some trees around the perimeter and extensive trees and shrubs on the 

slope outside of the fenced yard. Additionally, 34 Royal Rouge Trail had extensive perennial 

gardens intermixed with trees and shrubs along the entire perimeter of the yard. 

26 





encountered during Stage 2 assessment where four lithic flakes were located in four separate 

test pits along the western boundary of 36 Royal Rouge Trail. Because the artifacts were 

found along the fence line, the Stage 3 assessment was targeted for both 34 and 36 Royal 

Rouge Trail. A second objective of the investigation was to determine the cultural affiliation of 

the site and determine if it was associated with the Seneca Village located nearby. This 

seemed possible despite the fact that no Woodland artifacts had been encountered in this 

yard during Stage 2, however a single body sherd had been recovered in a test pit at 32 

Royal Rouge Trail during the same Stage 2 assessment (TRCA 2010a). Due to the sensitive 

nature of the Bead Hill site nearby, and because a Woodland artifact was found during the 

Stage 2 assessment, First Nations Liaison Corrine Hill was retained to work at this site during 

the Stage 3 investigation and to remain during the Stage 4 excavation if required. The third 

and final objective of the Stage 3 investigation was to determine the soil profile and the 

degree of disturbance at the site. 

Stage 3 investigative units were hand excavated in 1m² units according to current technical 

standards on a five meter grid until units contained no artifacts, or until areas of severe 

disturbance or obstacles were reached, or until a property with a registered site was reached 

that was to be assessed independently. Occasionally, units were slightly relocated if trees, 

shrubs or other immovable objects were in the way. The TRCA restoration/erosion control 

staff responsible for the slope remediation advised that excavations within the drip line of 

trees on the properties be avoided and that any plantings that contributed to the stability of 

the adjacent slope be avoided. However, it was determined that individual units, as opposed 

to block excavations, would do minimal harm to the plantings if the roots were left intact and 

would still provide a clear assessment of the site limits. Units were excavated in stratigraphic 

layers to five centimetres below subsoil. Once the limits of the site were identified, additional 

units comprising at least 20% of the grid unit total were excavated in areas of dense artifact 

concentrations or where positive test pits were encountered during the Stage 2 assessment. 

All soil was screened through 6mm mesh to facilitate artifact recovery and all artifacts were 

collected and retained. 

Twenty-seven 1m² units were excavated during the Stage 3 investigation. Twenty-one units 

were excavated on a five metre grid across the two properties. An additional six units were 

excavated in areas of dense artifact concentrations or in locations where positive Stage 2 test 

pits were encountered. No diagnostic Woodland artifacts such as body sherds were 

encountered; instead all artifacts found were lithics and the single diagnostic projectile point 

which dated to the Late Archaic (3500-2800 BP). A total of 355 artifacts were collected from 

the 27 1m 2 units. This included 347 flakes, 4 chipped stone tools or tool fragments, 3 soil 

stained faunal fragments, and 1 calcined bone. The Stage 3 investigation concluded that the 

Jhuman site contained far more cultural information than was indicated during the Stage 2 

assessment and appears to be a high-density multi-component Middle and Late Archaic 

campsite. Due to the threat of erosion and the proposed erosion control measures to be 

implemented, it was determined that avoidance and protection was not a viable option for 

this sensitive resource and that Stage 4 excavation was required. 

The purpose of the Stage 4 excavation of the Jhuman site was to document and remove the 

site data as completely as possible given the constraints of working in a subdivision with 

fences, decks, swimming pools, gardens and disturbed soils and also with the inherent risks 

of moving large quantities of soil in an area at risk of severe erosion. In accordance with 

27 




Ministry technical standards, Stage 4 1m² units were excavated surrounding any Stage 3 or 

Stage 4 units that contained lithic artifacts numbering ten or more, or with diagnostic lithic 

artifacts. A total of 73 1m 2 units were excavated during the block excavation. However, no 

block excavation was undertaken at 34 Royal Rouge Trail since no Stage 3 units contained 

diagnostic artifacts, calcined bone or artifacts in excess of nine. The Stage 4 units were 

excavated in stratigraphic layers to five centimetres below subsoil. Wherever possible the 

excavation of 1m² units continued until there were yields or fewer than ten artifacts at the 

edge of the block excavation. Exceptions were limited to areas within the drip line of trees on 

the property which were deemed inaccessible due to risks associated with damage to root 

structures that may result in stress to the trees and disruption of the root mat that aids in the 

stability of the adjacent failing slope. One small area avoided was located along the 

northwest corner of the block excavation and the other was located more centrally along the 

north edge. Ordinarily test units would be excavated up to 10 metres beyond the block 

excavation but in this instance the limits were constrained by a steep slope to the north, a 

deck to the south and a swimming pool located at 38 Royal Rouge Trail to the east. A site 

located northeast of the Jhuman site and north of the pool at 38 Royal Rouge Trail was fully 

excavated under PIF P338-011-2010 (TRCA 2010b). In total, 1,785 artifacts were collected 

during the Stage 4 excavation, including 1,677 flakes, 11 chipped stone tools, 1 groundstone 

tool, and 95 soil stained faunal fragments. 

Seventeen stone tools and tool fragments were recovered from the Jhuman site. Fifteen are 

considered projectile points or projectile point fragments, one is a flake scraper, and one is a 

groundstone celt. Preliminary analysis of the diagnostic lithic artifacts from the Jhuman site 

indicates a date range of Middle to Late Archaic (ca. 5000 to 2800 BP). Five Brewerton 

Corner Notched projectile points date to the Middle Archaic (ca. 5000 to 4500 BP), two of 

which have been repurposed into bunts and/or scrapers. One Innes projectile point was also 

recovered, dating to the Late Archaic (ca. 3500 to 2800 BP). The remaining nine projectile 

point fragments are considered too fragmentary to determine a cultural or temporal affiliation. 

The Stage 3 and 4 excavations at the Jhuman site (AkGs-045) have resulted in the 

identification of a high density multi-component Middle and Late Archaic (ca. 5000 to 2800 

BP) site. A preliminary count of 2,140 artifacts across 100 1m² units demonstrated the rather 

dense nature of this site. Preliminary dating is attributed to five projectile points that have 

been identified as Brewerton points dating to the Middle Archaic (ca. 5000 to 4500 BP) and 

one projectile point that has been identified as an Innes point dating to the Late Archaic (ca. 

3500 to 2800 BP). While the density of the artifacts suggested this was a longer term camp 

taking advantage of the plentiful resources in the area such as fish from the river and nuts 

from the mast forest, the presence of unfinished biface fragments, in addition to early and late 

stage flaking debris, suggested that one of the primary activities of the site was 

manufacturing and/or rejuvenation of flaked stone tools. No cultural features were identified 

during this investigation. 

The objectives of the archaeological excavation have been met. The Jhuman site (AkGs-045) 

has been fully mitigated through excavation and may be considered free from archaeological 

concerns. The complete excavation has removed and documented all resources within the 

proposed area of impact and as a result, it is therefore recommended that there are no 

further archaeological concerns for impacts to the Jhuman site (AkGs-045) under Section 48 

of the Ontario Heritage Act. 

28 




2.4.3 Corvese Site (AKGs-046) 

The Corvese site (AkGs-046), is named for the current owner of 38 Royal Rouge Trail. The 

property is located on Lot 1, Concession II in the former Borough of Scarborough. A Stage 3 

investigation was undertaken for this site with the expectation that if required, a Stage 4 

excavation would immediately follow based on discussions with the Ministry of Tourism and 

Culture’s Archaeological Review Officer. The objectives of the Stage 3 assessment were to 

determine the spatial extent of the site, to evaluate the cultural heritage value of the site and 

to develop a mitigation strategy if warranted. The objectives of the Stage 4 excavation were to 

fully document and mitigate the site since protection and long term preservation of the site 

was not feasible due to the threat of severe erosion. TRCA’s Archaeology Resource 

Management Services was granted permission by the homeowners at 38 Royal Rouge Trail 

to conduct this archaeological program and to remove artifacts for analysis. The assessment 

and excavation of the Corvese site were conducted over a period of five days in the summer 

of 2010. The Stage 3 assessment began on September 20, 2010 and was immediately 

followed by the Stage 4 excavation which was completed on October 4, 2010. All excavation 

was performed under the project direction and field direction of Janice Teichroeb (P338). All 

fieldwork was conducted under the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture Licence to 

Conduct Archaeological Exploration Survey or Fieldwork (P338) issued to Janice Teichroeb, 

archaeologist at the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority in accordance with Part IV of 

the Ontario Heritage Act (R.S.O. 1990, c 0.18). 

The Corvese site (AkGs-046) is situated on a tableland in the manicured back yard of 38 

Royal Rouge Trail. The topography is level on the tableland and slopes very steeply towards 

the Rouge Valley. Severe erosion is an inherent risk to these properties that are located on 

sandy soils (Brighton Sandy Loam, a grey-brown podzolic with good drainage and no 

stones) on the edge of a ravine. Root structures of trees shrubs and other plantings provide 

some stability to the slopes, and consequently, an absence of plantings or disruption of 

plantings can contribute to slope instability. Plantings in the back yard included grass lawns 

with some trees around the perimeter and extensive trees and shrubs on the slope outside of 

the fenced yard. Past disturbance of the deep soil profile on this property prior to 

construction of the house in the 1980’s included ploughing during the 19 th and 20 th centuries 

when this land was farmed. Disturbances and land alterations related to the subdivision 

construction and homeowner improvements include construction of the house foundations, 

some evidence of topsoil stripping, leveling of the back yard through addition of fill and 

topsoil, plus installation of a swimming pool, deck and irrigation system. Even though this 

property has been significantly impacted by 20 th century construction, the soil profile remains 

intact throughout most of the site area due to capping of the original A horizon by fill and 

topsoil after construction of the house. 


encountered during Stage 2 assessment where six lithic flakes were located in four separate 

test pits in the backyard of 38 Royal Rouge Trail. Though the artifacts were tightly clustered to 

the north of the swimming pool it was anticipated that the site might continue east of the pool 

as well. The Stage 3 assessment targeted the entirety of the undisturbed portions of the back 

yard at 38 Royal Rouge Trail. A second objective of the investigation was to determine the 

cultural affiliation of the site. A single bodysherd recovered in a test pit at 32 Royal Rouge 

Trail during the same Stage 2 assessment (TRCA 2010a) suggested the possibility that the 

site could be dated to the Woodland period. However, since the Stage 4 excavations of the 

29 




neighboring Gyimah Sparks site (AkGs-044) (TRCA 2010b) and Jhuman site (AkGs-045) 

(TRCA 2010c) were dated predominantly to the Middle and Late Archaic, it was anticipated 

that this site would also prove to date to the Archaic as well. The third and final objective of 

the Stage 3 investigation was to determine the soil profile and the degree of disturbance at 

the site, particularly because the cluster identified during the Stage 2 assessment was 

located within three meters of an in-ground swimming pool. Additionally, Stage 2 testing 

across the entire project area indicated that soil depths varied and that there were pockets of 

disturbance with intermixture of 19 th and 20 th century materials. Stage 3 investigative units 

were hand excavated in 1m² units according to current technical standards on a five metre 

grid until units contained no artifacts, until areas of severe disturbance or obstacles were 

reached, or until a property with a registered site was reached that was to be assessed 

independently. Occasionally units were slightly relocated if stumps, rock gardens or other 

immovable objects were in the way. The TRCA restoration/erosion control staff responsible 

for the slope remediation advised that excavations within the drip line of trees on the 

properties be avoided and that any plantings that contribute to the stability of the adjacent 

slope be avoided. However, no large trees were encountered within the area excavated for 

this site. Units were excavated in stratigraphic layers to five centimeters below subsoil. Once 

the limits of the site were identified, additional units comprising at least 20% of the grid unit 

total were excavated in areas of dense artifact concentrations or where positive test pits were 

encountered during the Stage 2 assessment. Soil was screened through 6mm mesh to 

facilitate artifact recovery and all artifacts were collected and retained. 

Fourteen 1m² units were excavated during the Stage 3 investigation. Ten units were 

excavated on a five meter grid with an additional unit attempted but the area was thoroughly 

disturbed from pool and patio construction. An additional four units were excavated in areas 

of dense artifact concentration or in selected locations where positive Stage 2 test pits were 

encountered. No diagnostic Woodland artifacts, such as body sherds, were encountered; 

instead all artifacts found were lithics. A total of 118 artifacts were collected from the 14 1m 2 

units. This included 117 flakes, and 1 projectile point fragment. The Stage 3 investigation 

suggested that the Corvese site is a Late Archaic campsite. Due to the threat of erosion and 

the proposed erosion control measures to be implemented, it was determined that avoidance 

and protection was not a viable option for this sensitive resource and that Stage 4 excavation 

was required. 

The purpose of the Stage 4 excavation of the Corvese site was to document and remove the 

site data as completely as possible given the constraints of working in a subdivision with 

fences, decks, swimming pools, gardens and disturbed soils and also with the inherent risks 

of moving large quantities of soil in an area at risk of severe erosion. In accordance with 

Ministry technical standards, Stage 4 1m² units were excavated surrounding any Stage 3 

units that contained lithic artifacts numbering ten or more, or with diagnostic lithic artifacts. A 

total of 37 1m 2 units were excavated during the block excavation. The Stage 4 units were 

excavated in stratigraphic layers to five centimeters below subsoil. Wherever possible the 

excavation of 1m² units continued until there were yields or fewer than ten artifacts at the 

edge of the block excavation. Exceptions were limited to areas of disturbance alongside the 

swimming pool. Ordinarily test units would be excavated up to 10 metres beyond the block 

excavation, however in this instance the limits were constrained by a steep slope to the north, 

and a swimming pool and deck to the south. To the west, the Jhuman site (AkGs-045) was 

fully excavated under PIF P338-010-2010 (TRCA 2010b). In total, 602 artifacts were collected 

30 




during the Stage 4 excavation, which included 558 flakes, 9 chipped stone tool fragments 

and 35 faunal fragments. 

Six lithic flakes were recovered from four separate test pits during the Stage 2 investigation at 

the Corvese site (AkGs-046). Stage 3 and 4 excavations yielded an additional 720 artifacts 

from within 51 1m 2 units with no subsoil cultural features encountered. The Stage 3 and 4 

excavations at the Corvese site (AkGs-046) have resulted in the identification of a Late 

Archaic campsite (ca. 3500 to 2800 BP). The preliminary count of 720 artifacts across 51 1m² 

units demonstrated the rather dense nature of this site. Preliminary dating of this site was 

attributed to one projectile point that has been identified as an Innes point dated to the Late 

Archaic (ca. 3500 to 2800 BP). The density of the artifacts suggested this was a longer term 

camp which took advantage of the plentiful resources in the area such as fish from the river 

and nuts from the mast forest. In addition, the presence of spent cores along with early and 

late stage flaking debris, suggested that one of the primary activities of the site was 

manufacturing and/or rejuvenation of flaked stone tools. 

The objectives of the archaeological excavation have been met since the complete 

excavation has removed and documented all resources within the proposed area of impact. 

The Corvese site (AkGs-046) has been fully mitigated through excavation and can be 

considered free from archaeological concerns. The artifacts and all documentation relating to 

this project are permanently curated with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and 

it is therefore recommended that there are no further archaeological concerns for impacts to 

the Corvese site (AkGs-046) under Section 48 of the Ontario Heritage Act. 

2.5 Justification of Conservation Authority Involvement 

TRCA has a mandate to carry out remedial erosion control works as set out in Section 20 of 

the Conservation Authorities Act (R.S.O. 1990): 

“The objects of an authority are to establish and undertake, in the area 

which it has jurisdiction, a program designed to further the 

conservation, restoration, development and management of natural 

resources other than gas, oil, coal and minerals (R.S.O. 1990, C.27, 

s.20).” 

As part of this broad mandate, CAs are considered to have prime responsibility over water 

management in terms of water quantity and related hazards through administrative and 

regulatory powers. In the 1980 Watershed Plan, TRCA developed and implemented its 

Erosion and Sediment Control Program (ESCP) with two major directions: 

“To minimize the aggravation or creation of erosion or sediment 

problems as a result of new development, and to rectify existing 

problems through protective works” (TRCA, 1980). 

These directions are categorized as either preventative, or protective, respectively. The 

project falls under the protection component of the ESCP, which is designed to protect lives 

and minimize loss of property through the construction of suitable remedial works. Through 

annual capital funding from the City of Toronto, TRCA is able to implement a program or 

major remedial works for shoreline protection and slope stabilization throughout the 

31 




watersheds within the City of Toronto. The goal of TRCA through this project is to prevent, 

eliminate or reduce the risk of hazard to life and property, and to protect and enhance the 

natural attributes along the Metropolitan, Lake Ontario shoreline and the primary river valleys 

within Metropolitan Toronto. 

The results of the geotechnical assessment carried out by Terraprobe (2008) as described in 

Section 2.2 indicate that erosion and slope instability will likely continue at the site, and will 

eventually affect the residential dwellings located on Royal Rouge Trail if remedial action is 

not taken. 

The extent to which the slope is expected to recede is identified by the long-term stable slope 

line, which illustrates the required inclination of a given slope to be considered stable. Based 

in the conditions of this site, the stable slope is in the order of 1.6 : 1 (h : v) for vegetated 

areas and 1.9 : 1(h : v) for bare areas. The current projected stable slope lines are illustrated 

in Figure 18. 

3.0 BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY 

Once the determination has been made that remedial works are warranted at a given site, a 

baseline inventory is prepared. The baseline inventory provides the information needed to 

evaluate the alternative options developed through the Class EA process, and a baseline 

from which to monitor the types and level of environmental impacts that may result from 

implementing the preferred alternative. 

TRCA has developed the following baseline inventory of the existing conditions of the Royal 

Rouge Trail valley wall and surrounding environments. The baseline environmental inventory 

provides the information required to evaluate the alternative methods, and the forms of the 

baseline from which the preferred alternative will be compared to determine its effectiveness, 

and environmental impact. 

The inventory involves the examination and documentation of: 

the erosion problem 

existing site conditions, including physical, biological, cultural and socioeconomic 

characteristics 

engineering/technical aspects to be considered 

previous protective measures that have been implemented within the study area 

This baseline environmental inventory takes into consideration the directly and indirectly 

affected environment. The indirect area affected by the project includes the Rouge valley 

corridor. This indirect area is referred to as the regional study area. The area directly 

affected by the project is referred to as the study area or project site. 

Baseline environmental data was collected from the following organizations due to their 

specific expertise relevant to the regional and local study area: 

 

 

 

Environment Canada 

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 

Ontario Ministry of the Environment 

32 




Toronto Field Naturalists 

Toronto Ornithological Club 

Rouge Park Alliance 

To assist with the review and expansion of the baseline inventory, as well as the design of the 

preferred alternative, TRCA retained the services of the geotechnical engineering firm 

Terraprobe Limited in 2008. 

Several groups were contacted for their input into the inventory process. This included local 

landowners, community groups, Rouge Park Alliance and local Councillor Ron Moeser. 

3.1 Existing Site Conditions 

In accordance with the Class EA process, the broad definition of ‘environment’, as provided 

in the Environmental Assessment Act, is applied to this section. The prepared 

environmental description is “an inventory of elements for which a given project is likely to 

have an impact” (Conservation Ontario, 1993). The inventory includes an evaluation of the 

presence and extent of physical, biological, cultural, social, economic, and technical 

engineering elements applicable to the study area. 

A drawing of the existing site conditions for the project area is in Appendix B. 

3.1.1 Physical Environment 

Unique Landforms 

There are no unique landforms within the study area. 

Existing Mineral/Aggregated Resource Extraction Industries 

There are no existing mineral/aggregate resource extraction industries within the study area. 

Earth Science – Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) 

There is no Earth Science or Areas of Natural Scientific Interest (ANSI-ES) within the project 

area. 

Specialty Crop Area /Agricultural Lands or Production 

There are no specialty crop areas or agricultural lands within the study area. 

Niagara Escarpment/Oak Ridges Moraine 

The study area is not located in the Niagara Escarpment or the Oak Ridges Moraine. 

Environmentally Significant Areas (ESA) – Physical 

There are no physical, Environmentally Significant Areas (ESA’s) within the study area. 

Air Quality 

The study area is located to the northeast of Toronto’s downtown core. The project area 

experiences similar air quality conditions found throughout the Toronto region as a result of 

urbanization and industrial development in Southern Ontario. Atmospheric pollutants that are 

sampled on an hourly basis in the Toronto area include carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2), ground level ozone (O3), sulphur dioxide (SO2), and suspended particulates 

33 




and total reduced sulphur compounds. Typically, most air pollutants have decreased in 

concentration or remained relatively stable since the late 1960’s (TRCA, 2004). 

The Air Quality Index (AQI) is an indicator of air quality, based on hourly pollutant 

measurements of some or all of the six most common air pollutants listed above and is used 

to inform Toronto residents of the existing air quality and to provide health advisories when 

the combined levels of the pollutants exceed certain levels of the index (MOE, 2009). If the 

air quality value is below 32, the air quality is considered relatively good. If the AQI value is in 

the range of 32 to 49 (moderate category), there may be some adverse effects on very 

sensitive people. An index value in the 50 to 99 range (poor category), may have some 

short-term adverse effects on the human or animal populations, or may cause significant 

damage to vegetation and property. An AQI value of 100 or more (very poor category) may 

cause adverse effects on a large proportion of those exposed (MOE, 2009). 

Elevated air temperatures during the summer are related to increased air quality index 

advisories and warnings may be issued for up to several weeks at a time depending on 

weather conditions. Overall, air quality in Toronto is below National Ambient Air Quality 

Objectives (MOE, 2009). Below are two examples of testing during spring and summer 

months. The AQI ratings in July are much lower than the ratings in August and are typical to 

what is found during these months. 

Table 2. Air Quality Readings for Eastern Toronto (August 20, 2009) 

Air Quality for TORONTO EAST 

Date Time AQI Cause 

20-Aug-09 12:00 AM 32 Ozone (O3) 

20-Aug-09 1:00 AM 31 Ozone (O3) 

20-Aug-09 2:00 AM 29 Ozone (O3) 

20-Aug-09 3:00 AM 27 Ozone (O3) 

20-Aug-09 4:00 AM 22 Ozone (O3) 

20-Aug-09 5:00 AM 20 Ozone (O3) 

20-Aug-09 6:00 AM 17 Ozone (O3) 

20-Aug-09 7:00 AM 17 Ozone (O3) 

20-Aug-09 8:00 AM 15 Ozone (O3) 

20-Aug-09 9:00 AM 18 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 



20-Aug-09 12:00 PM 24 Ozone (O3) 

Source: MOE, 2009 

Table 3. Air Quality Readings for Eastern Toronto (October 20, 2009) 

Air Quality for TORONTO EAST 

Date Time AQI Cause 

20-Oct-09 12:00 AM 15 Ozone (O3) 

20-Oct-09 1:00 AM 16 Ozone (O3) 

20-Oct-09 2:00 AM 15 Ozone (O3) 

20-Oct-09 3:00 AM 13 Ozone (O3) 

20-Oct-09 4:00 AM 13 Ozone (O3) 

20-Oct-09 5:00 AM 11 Ozone (O3) 

34 




20-Oct-09 6:00 AM 10 Ozone (O3) 

20-Oct-09 7:00 AM 10 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 





20-Oct-09 12:00 PM 18 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 

Source: MOE, 2009 

At a local scale, no significant sources of air pollution exist within the immediate and 

surrounding study area. No component of this project is anticipated to significantly degrade 

air quality or be influenced by local or regional sources of air pollution. Any impacts from 

machinery and/or vehicles used as part of the construction phase will be temporary and 

minimal, and are therefore not deemed to be significant. 

Agricultural Tile or Surface Drains 

The land use is predominately residential; therefore no agricultural drains exist within the 

project area. According to Terraprobe (2008), no surface water is being directed over the 

slope from pools, drains, or any other unnatural sources. 

Noise Levels and Vibration 

The project site is located within an urban residential area. As such, most noise within the 

study area is typically associated with vehicular traffic on Kingston Road or Sheppard Avenue 

East. 

Water Flow Regime (High / Base and Low / Base) 

There is no water body within the project limits. The closest water body is the Rouge River 

approximately 300 metres north of the project site. 

Existing Surface Drainage / Groundwater Seepage /Groundwater Recharge and Discharge 

Zones 

According to Terraprobe (2008), water runoff and seepage exits along the valley wall several 

metres from the crest of the slope and no surface water was being directed over the slope 

from pools, drains, or any other unnatural sources. Gullies were formed along the lower slope 

to channel the seepage, natural runoff and rain water into the valley. 

Littoral Drift/Other Coastal Processes 

As the subject project site is located within a valley corridor, the closest water body is Rouge 

River approximately 300 m from the study area. Therefore, there are no coastal processes at 

the project site. 

Water Quality 

Water quality is not deemed to be an applicable component of the project and is not 

sampled. 

Soil/Fill Quality 

In general, the subsurface soil conditions encountered in the boreholes consisted of a layer 

of topsoil (approximately 150 mm to 200 mm thick) underlain by a layer of silty sand. The 

silt/silty sand layer is underlain by a thin layer of clayey silt that contains trace sand. The 

35 




clayey silt layer is considered to have a firm to stiff consistency. A layer of glacial till 

encountered in the boreholes consisted of a matrix of silty sand with some to trace clay and 

trace gravel. The till is in a dense to very dense condition. 

Contaminated Soils/Sediment/Seeps 

No sampling was conducted. If excavated material is to be taken off the site, it will be 

sampled to determine the appropriate method of disposal. 

Existing Transportation Routes 

The main transportation routes surrounding the study area are Kingston Road to the south 

and Sheppard Avenue East to the west. The closest main transportation route is Sheppard 

Avenue East which is approximately 285 m west of the project site. 

Major arterial roads that service the study area include Kingston Road (Highway 2), Highway 

401 and Sheppard Avenue East. The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) has public transit 

buses through the Rouge Hill community along the Sheppard Avenue East (e.g. Bus 85 

Sheppard East) with various routes and times (TTC, 2009). 

There is no access road at the base of the slope within the Rouge valley in the vicinity of the 

project area. 

Constructed Crossings 

There are currently no constructed crossings within the study area. 

3.1.2 Biological Environment 

Wildlife Habitat 

The forested areas and grasslands within the study area provide a continuous corridor of 

habitat for mammal, bird and reptile species within the Rouge River Parklands. 

Significant Vegetation Linkages or Corridors 

A local significance “L-Rank” has been created by the TRCA and it is applied to species, or 

communities to provide a measure of their biological significance, or abundance in a Greater 

Toronto Regional context. Local ranks “L-Ranks” are assigned according a variety of 

biological criteria including provincial and national significance. L-Ranks represent a scale of 

significance that ranges from L1 to L5. L1 or a low L-score represents a high significance, 

and high L-score represents low significance. Also included is L+, which indicates a nonnative 

species or community which is not ranked in the range. 

Table 4. Typical L - Rank Description 

Status 

L1 

L2 

L3 

Description 

Extremely significant in TRCA Region due to rarity, stringent habitat needs, and/or 

threat to habitat 

Highly significant: occurs in high-quality natural areas and is probably declining in 

the Toronto area, often already rare 

Locally significant: generally occurs in natural rather than cultural areas; may be 

vulnerable to decline 

36 




L4 

Generally secure; may be a conservation concern in a few specific situations 

L5 Dependent on degraded, often urban habitats; not a conservation concern 

Non-native species or community which generally requires management unless 

L+ special conservation concern exists 

Source: TRCA 

Some of the criteria used in this database include: local occurrence, population trend, habitat 

dependence, area sensitivity, mobility restriction, and sensitivity to development. The 

following table and figure represents the “L” rating for flora species for the Rouge Valley 

within the vicinity of the project area. 

Figure 14. General location of the “L” rating flora species within the vicinity of project area. Source: 

TRCA, 2009 

Several of the species in the table have an “L” rating of L4 indicating that this area contains 

species of concern and should be protected and maintained in order to enhance diversity. 

37 




Table 5. Flora Species and Level of Concern within TRCA’s Jurisdiction. 

Flora Species of Concern 

Rouge Valley 

Scientific Name Common Name Level of Concern (L1-L4) 

Acer spicatum Mountain maple L4 

Adiantum pedatum Northern maidenhair fern L3 

Amelanchier laevis Smooth serviceberry L4 

Apois americana Ground-nut L4 

Aquilegia canadensis Wild columbine L3 

Asarum canadensis Canadian wild ginger L4 

Aster umbellatus Flat-topped white aster L3 

Betula allegheniensis Yellow birch L4 

Betula papyrifera Paper Birch L4 

Boehmeria cylindrica False nettle L4 

Carex arctata Nodding Wood Sedge L4 

Carpinus caroliniana Blue Beech L4 

Carex cephaloidea Thin-leaved Sedge L3 

Carex communis Fibrous-rooted Sedge L4 

Cardamine diphylla Broad-leaved Toothwort L4 

Carex laxiflora Loose-flowered Sedge L4 

Carex platyphylla Broad-leaved Sedge L3 

Carex retrorsa Retrorse Sedge L4 

Carex tenera Straw Sedge L4 

Caulophyllum giganteum Long-styled Blue Cohosh L4 

Chelone glabra Turtlehead L3 

Cornus rugosa Round-leaved Dogwood L4 

Cystopteris bulbifera Bulblet Fern L4 

Eupatorium perfoliatum Boneset L4 

Fagus grandifolia American Beech L4 

Fraxinus nigra Black Ash L4 

Impatiens pallida Pale Touch-me-not L4 

Maianthemum canadense Canada Mayflower L4 

Monarda didyma Bee–balm L3 

Myosotis laxa Smaller Forget-me-not L4 

Oryzopsis asperifolia 

White-grained Mountainricegrass 

Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia Creeper L4 

Picea glauca White Spruce L3 

Pinus strobus White Pine L4 

Quercus rubra Red Oak L4 

Ranunculus hispidus Swamp Buttercup L3 

L3 

38 




Flora Species of Concern 

Rouge Valley 


Thuja occidentalis White Cedar L4 

Trillium erectum Red Trillium L4 

Tsuga canadensis Eastern Hemlock L4 

Source: TRCA, 2009. 

Environmentally Sensitive/Significant Areas (biological) 

There is a biological environmental sensitive area (ESA) identified as the Little Rouge Forest, 

located approximately 400 m north of the project area (Figure 17). This ESA was selected to 

represent the significant vegetation features found in the Little Rouge Forest. 

Fish Habitat 

There is no water body within the project site. 

Species of Concern – Flora 

As described above in the Significant Vegetation Linkages or Corridors section, TRCA has 

identified species of regional interest within the vicinity of the project area. Furthermore, 

TRCA specialists recently completed an inventory of local flora, which identified the following 

ten species of interest that were observed within the general study area: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wild Columbine (Aquilegia canadensis) 

Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum) 

Swamp Buttercup (Ranunculus hispidus) 

Bee-balm (Monarda didyma) 

Lesser Forget-me-not (Myosotis laxa) 

Flat-topped Aster (Aster umbellatus) 

Small Yellow Lady Slipper (Cypripedium parviflorum) 

Thin-Leaved Sedge (Carex cephaloidea) 

Broad-leaved Sedge (Carex platyphylla) 

Round-leaved Dogwood (Cornus rugosa) 

The Small Yellow Lady Slipper (Cypripedium parviflorum), Thin-Leaved Sedge (Carex 

cephaloidea), and Broad-leaved Sedge (Carex platyphylla) are listed on the Natural Heritage 

Information Centre as S5 species of interest (MNR, 2009), that are demonstrably secure in 

Ontario. It should also be noted that the Small Yellow Lady Slipper (Cypripedium parviflorum) 

was not listed in Table 4. 

Species of Concern – Fauna 

As described above in the Significant Vegetation Linkages or Corridors section, TRCA has 

categorized and ranked the fauna species depending on the level of concern, known as “L- 

Ranks”. The following table and figure represents the “L” rating for flora species for the 

Rouge Valley within the vicinity of the project area. 

39 




Figure 15. General location of the “L” rating fauna species within the vicinity of project area. Source: 

TRCA, 2009. 

Table 6. Fauna Species and Level of Concern within TRCA’s Jurisdiction. 

Fauna Species of Concern 

Rouge River Watershed 


Setophaga ruticilla American Redstart L3 

Bufo americanus American Toad L4 

Polioptila caerulea Blue-grey Gnatcatcher L4 

Geothlpis trichas Common Yellowthroat L4 

Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis Garter Snake L4 

Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern Kingbird L4 

Contopus virens Eastern Wood-pewee L4 

Dumetella carolinensis Grey Catbird L4 

Picoides villosus Hairy Woodpecker L4 

Passerina cyanea Indigo Bunting L4 

40 




Fauna Species of Concern 

Rouge River Watershed 


Oporornis philadelphia Mourning Warbler L3 

Stelgidoptery x serripennis 

Northern Rough-winged 

Swallow 

Pheuctiscus ludovicianus Rose-breasted Grosbeak L4 

Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo L4 

Archilochus colubris Ruby-throated Hummingbird L4 

Actitis macularia Spotted Sandpiper L4 

Catharus fusecescens Veery L3 

Sitta carolinensis White-breasted Nuthatch L4 

Troglodytes troglodytes Winter Wren L3 

Rana sylvatica Wood Frog L3 

Hylocichla mustelina Wood Thrush L3 


TRCA specialists recently completed an inventory of local fauna, which observed three 

species of interest within the general study area, including Wood Thrush (Hylocichla 

mustelina), Winter Wren (Troglodytes troglodytes), and Wood Frog (Rana sylvatica). 

Exotic/Alien and Invasive Species 

There are several terrestrial exotic/alien and invasive species found within the project area, 

which can cause problems with the local environment. These species include: dog-strangling 

vine (Pale swallowwort), Common reed (Phragmites australis), and Manitoba maple (Acer 

negundo). These species reproduce prolifically and tend to out-compete many desirable 

plant species. 

Wildlife/Bird Migration Patterns 

The study area is located within an important migratory zone, which encompasses both the 

Atlantic and Mississippi flyways. Songbirds rely on the vegetated Rouge River watershed 

when in need of rest, food, or shelter from adverse weather conditions during migration. This 

habitat serves as an important staging area for these birds when they are most vulnerable. 

Waterfowl, shorebirds, and birds of prey are also common migrants. Shorebirds utilize the 

beaches, marshes and river banks of the Rouge River watershed to forage during migration. 

Wildlife Population 

The beaches, river, wetlands, marshes, valley, and woodland habitats of the Rouge River 

watershed support several fauna species. Recorded mammal species are considered well 

adapted to living in close proximity to urban development. Larger mammals such as coyote 

and white-tailed deer have large ranges and find temporary forage and shelter within the 

habitats associated with the study area. The remainder are relatively small mammals that can 

be sustained within the limited habitat within the Rouge River watershed. 

L4 

41 




Table 7. Rouge River Watershed Mammal Species. 

Eptesicus fusus 

Tamias sriatus 

Sciurus carolinensis 

Scientific Name 

Microtus pennsylvanicus 

Eptesicus fusus 

Tamias sriatus 

Sylvilagus floridanus 

Marmota monax 

Myotis lucifugus 

Ondatra zibethicus 

Sylvilagus floridanus 

Marmota monax 

Mustela vison 

Blarina brevicauda 

Canis latrans 

Tamiasciurus hudsonicus 

Mustela erminea 

Mustela vison 

Blarina brevicauda 

Castor canadensis 

Vulpes vulpes 

Procyon lotor 

Parascalops breweri 

Mephitis mephitis 

Peromyscus leucopus 

Didelphis virginiana 

Odocoileus virginianus 

Condylura cristata 


Big Brown Bat 

Eastern Chipmunk 

Gray Squirrel 

Meadow Vole 

Big Brown Bat 

Eastern Chipmunk 

Eastern Cottontail 

Woodchuck 

Little Brown Bat 

Muskrat 

Eastern Cottontail 

Woodchuck 

Mink 

Short-tailed Shrew 

Eastern Coyote 

Red Squirrel 

Short-tailed Weasel 

Mink 

Short-tailed Shrew 

Beaver 

Red Fox 

Raccoon 

Hairy-Tailed Mole 

Striped Skunk 

White-footed Mouse 

Virginia Opossum 

White-tailed Deer 

Star-nosed Mole 

Common Name 

Furthermore, the Rouge River watershed provides an important habitat to birds when in need 

of rest, food, or shelter. During 2007, the Toronto Ornithological Club identified seventeen 

(17) important species of birds within the watershed (Table 7); however, none of these birds 

were sighted within the vicinity of the project area (Figure 16). The majority of the birds were 

observed within Rouge Beach Park and Rouge River Marshes, approximately 2.5 kilometers 

(km) south of the project area. While the Wood Duck was observed along the Rouge River, 

approximately 0.5 km south of the project area and the American White Pelican was 

observed approximately 3 km north of the project area, near the Metro Toronto Zoo. 

42 




Table 8. Bird Species observed within the Rouge River watershed. 

Scientific Name Common Name Location of Sighting 

Pelecanus erythrorhynchos American white pelican Rouge River 

Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned night heron Rouge Beach Park 

Aythya valisineria Canvasback Rouge River Marshes 

Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Cliff swallow Rouge Beach Park 

Ardea herodias Great blue beron Rouge Beach Park 

Ardea alba Great egret Rouge Beach Park 

Podiceps auritus Horned grebe Rouge Beach Park 

Calidris or Erolia minutilla, Least sandpiper Rouge Beach Park 

Colaptes auratus Northern flicker Rouge Beach Park 

Dryocopus pileatus Pileated woodpecker Rouge Beach Park 

Melanerpes carolinus Red – Bellied woodpecker Rouge Beach Park 

Euphagus carolinus Rusty blackbird Rouge Beach Park 

Calidris pusilla Semipalmated sandpiper Rouge Beach Park 

Calidris himantopus Stilt sandpiper Rouge Beach Park 

Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter swan Rouge River Marshes 

Erolia mauri Western sandpiper Rouge Beach Park 

Aix sponsa Wood duck Rouge Park 

Source: Toronto Ornithological Club, 2007. 

Figure 16. General area of bird sightings in the Rouge River watershed. Source: Toronto 

Ornithological Club, 2007. 

43 




Wetlands 

TRCA specialists did observe a willow swamp with stagnant water at the base of the valley 

wall. This type of willow community grows on peat or muck soils in a moist environment. 

Typically, these swamps are flooded seasonally, potentially with a variety of wetland trees 

and shrubs. Aside from the willow swamp, there are no wetlands within the study area. 

The willow swamp area will need to be assessed further prior to the implementation of the 

remedial works to determine that appropriate mitigation measures are in place during 

construction. 

Microclimate 

There are no unique microclimate areas within the study area. 

Unique Habitats 

As described in the section Wetlands, TRCA specialists did observe a willow swamp with 

stagnant water at the base of the valley wall. This type of willow community grows on peat or 

muck soils in a moist environment. Typically, these swamps are flooded seasonally. 

Areas of Natural Scientific Interest - Life Science (ANSI-LS) 

As previously noted, there was no earth science, areas of natural scientific interest (ANSI-ES) 

within the project area. However, there is a life science ANSI, referred to as the Rouge River 

Valley, selected by the MNR to depict the range of species within the valley. The entire Rouge 

River watershed is considered an ANSI for life science (Figure 17), as the valley possess the 

following notable life science features: 

“A remarkable diversity of native ecosystems; mature upland forests of 

White Pine, White Cedar, Hemlock, Red Oak, White Oak, Red Maple, 

Sugar Maple and Beech - with many trees over a century old - as well as 

successional forests, Toronto's largest marsh, extensive wooded 

bottomland terraces, Great Lakes shoreline beaches, spectacular 

erosional bluffs, horsetail streamside meadows, old pastures and 

abandoned homesteads” (OMNR, 1991). 

As the project area is along the valley wall, TRCA recognizes that the life science features of 

the Rouge River watershed are significant. Any works conducted along this sector will be 

conducted to minimize and mitigate potential negative impacts. 

44 




Figure 17. General area of Rouge River Valley, Life Science – ANSI. Source: TRCA, 2009. 

3.1.3 Cultural Environment 

Traditional Land Uses 

As discussed in Section 2.3 and 2.4, it was determined that the rear yards of the properties at 

Nos. 32 – 38 Royal Rouge Trail, that form the Jhuman site (AkGs-045) and Corvese site 

(AkGs-046) the Gyimah Sparks site (AkGs-044) represent a rare example of intensive use of 

the land by Aboriginal peoples during the Middle and Late Archaic (ca. 5000 to 2800 BP) and 

the Woodland period (ca. 1000BC to AD1600). The site is considered an Archaic camp with a 

small Middle Woodland component. Previous provincially registered sites in the vicinity 

include both a Late Woodland Period village and an Archaic campsite both situated 

approximately 500 metres east of the Gyimah Sparks site. 

Aboriginal Reserve or Community 

There are no known reserves or communities within the study area. 

Outstanding Native Land Claims 

There are no known native land claims within the study area. 

Transboundary Water Management Issues 

There are no transboundary water management issues within the study area. 

45 




Riparian Uses 

The study area is located within the Rouge community subdivision of Rouge Hill, in the 

former City of Scarborough. The majority of the properties in this area are owned by private 

landowners, and the 10 residential properties within the study area are situated along the 

crest of the Rouge Valley, with the closest water body located approximately 300 m northeast 

of the site down in the floodplain, in Rouge Park. The valley wall and the Rouge 

parklands are owned by TRCA and managed by the Rouge Park Alliance. It should be noted 

that the majority of the proposed work will be completed on TRCA property. 

Recreational or Tourist Uses of a Waterbody and/or Adjacent Lands 

There are no water bodies within the project area, however, the Rouge River, approximately 

300 m north of the project area in the floodplain of Rouge Park, is used for recreational 

purposes such as canoeing, and the parklands adjacent are used for walking and cycling. 

Recreational or Tourist Uses of Existing Shoreline Access Locations 

There are no water bodies within the project area, and there is no existing recreational or 

tourist uses of the shoreline access within Rouge Park 

Aesthetic or Scenic Landscapes or Views 

The study area is located in a low-density residential area bounded by open greenspace, and 

is generally perceived as having high aesthetic value. 

Archaeological Resources, Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes 

TRCA archaeological staff reported no archaeological sites within the project area. However, 

the staff did report that there were five archaeological sites within a few kilometers of the 

project area. Of these five, four are Aboriginal in origin. The following five archeological sites 

were identified: 

1) Rouge Hill Stables Site Burial (AkGs-005) 

2) Graham Site Seneca Village, Poulton 1991 (AkGs-008) 

3) William Brown Site EuroCanadian Mill Complex, Mayer 1987 (AkGs-011) 

4) Rouge Trail Site Woodland Findspot – 2 Shreds, Mayer 1988 AkGs-012) 

5) Stonechurch Site Lithic Scatter, Warrick 1994 (AkGs-017) 

The Graham Site Seneca Village is approximately 0.5 km to the east of the project area, 

where hillside middens (Aboriginal garbage/artifact areas) have been encountered along the 

valley wall. Therefore, TRCA archeology staff are required to complete an investigation prior 

to any construction activities. 

The TRCA archaeologists provided the name and contact information of the five aboriginal 

groups affiliated with the above-noted archeological sites to the TRCA project planning team. 

The following five aboriginal groups were informed of the Royal Rouge Trail Erosion Control 

Project and were invited to become a member of the Community Liaison Committee 

established by TRCA: 

1) Conseil de la Nation Huronne - Wendat 

2) Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation 

3) Métis Nation of Ontario 

4) Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation 

46 




5) Six Nations of the Grand River Territory 

Furthermore, the Ontario Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs was contacted to determine the 

presence or absence of treaty claims within the project area. 

Correspondence The letters to each of the aboriginal groups and the Ontario Ministry of 

Aboriginal Affairs is provided in Appendix D. 

It should be noted that on April 6 th , 2009, TRCA received a response from Chief Kris 

Nahrgang of the Kawartha Nishawbe First Nation with a description of the Treaty and 

Aboriginal rights in relation to conservation and preservation of archeological sites, cultural 

and sacred sites. The letter to TRCA from Chief Kris Nahrgang is provided in Appendix D. 

Due to the sensitivity of the site with potential burials and undocumented traditional land use 

TRCA attempted to undertake additional consultation with the aforementioned groups to 

ensure all concerns are addressed appropriately. 

Historical Canals 

There are no water bodies or historic canals within the project area. 

Federal Property 

There is no federal property within the project area. 

Heritage River System 

There are no water bodies with the project area. However, the Rouge River is approximately 

300 m north of the project site, in the valley ands of Rouge Park and has not been designated 

a Canadian Heritage River. 

3.1.4 Socioeconomic Environment 

Surrounding Neighbourhood or Community 

The neighbourhood of Rouge Hill is situated on lands formerly designated as agricultural that 

were re-developed as a low-density residential subdivision after the construction of Highway 

401 in the 1950’s. The neighbourhood is located south of the Toronto Zoo, west of the 

Rouge Park, and north of Highway 401 (Figure 9). Royal Rouge Trail is situated on the 

eastern boundary of the community, adjacent to Rouge Park. 

The Rouge Hill subdivision is located in the larger community of Rouge. This area is located 

within Ward 36 of the City of Toronto (Figure 10). Rouge is bounded to the north by Steeles 

Avenue East, the Rouge River, and the Pickering town line to the east, Lake Ontario to the 

south, and Markham Road and Port Union Road to the west. 

The Rouge community is home to approximately 43,180 people and consists of about 8,485 

households. The community is composed of 20.6 % children (0 – 14), 15.9 % youth (15 – 24 

yrs), 55.7 % working age individuals (25 – 64 yrs), and 7.7 % seniors (65 years or greater) 

(City of Toronto, 2001). The average household income is $79, 996, which is well above that 

of the larger city, which averages $69,125 (City of Toronto, 2001). 

Surrounding Land Uses and Growth Pressure 

47 




The study area is located within a well-established residential neighborhood, and as such is 

subject to limited growth pressure. Due to the age of the homes within the study area, there 

is evidence of several properties undergoing major renovations; however presently there is 

no new development. 

Existing Infrastructure, Support Services, Facilities 

There is typical residential infrastructure (e.g., storm and sanitary sewers, watermains) within 

the project area; however there is no infrastructure within the limits of the proposed work area 

(e.g., valley wall). 

Pedestrian Traffic Routes 

Rouge Park, located immediately adjacent to the north of the project area provides a trail 

system thought the park, for recreational pedestrian traffic. Although the trail network is 

extensive within the park, it is not form part of a greater pedestrian through-way. Additionally, 

in the floodplain area adjacent to the valley wall in the study area, there are no existing formal 

or informal trails. 

Property Values or Ownership 

The properties being protected by the proposed works located at the top of slope are 

privately owned residential properties. However, the Rouge parklands (e.g., valley wall) is 

owned by TRCA and managed by the Rouge Park Alliance. 

Existing Tourism Operation 

There are no known tourism operations within the study area. 

Property/Farm Accessibility 

There is currently no access to the affected area, other than via the existing residential roads, 

and the creation of a temporary construction access route between the houses in the study 

area to the slope; as such TRCA must acquire permission from each of the residents with 

proposed accessibility prior to any commencement of remedial works. 

3.1.5 Engineering/Technical Environment 

Rate of Erosion in Ecosystem 

If no remedial work is undertaken on the slope, property loss is anticipated at each of the 

properties from Nos. 30 to 48 Royal Rouge Trail based on the results of the most recent study 

completed by Terraprobe Ltd. The projected loss is identified in Table 9. 

Table 9. Projected property loss from Nos. 30 to 48 Royal Rouge Trail. 

Projected Crest Loss for Stable Slope Inclinations 

Lot. No. 

Shortest Distance from 

Projected Crest Loss (m) 

House to Crest (m) (Vegetated Slope) (Bare Slope) 

30 19 4 7 

32 15 4 7 

34 17 4 7 

36 23 5 8 

38 16 2 5 

40 15 5 8 

48 




42 14 3 5 

44 14 6 9 

46 14 9 11 

48 15 9 11 


Sediment Deposition Zones in Ecosystem 

There are no water bodies within the project area. 

Flood Risk in Ecosystem 

There are no water bodies within the project area; however there is a floodplain within the 

parklands between the project area and the Rouge River. During high flow storm events the 

waters of the Rouge River, naturally spills out over the south bank of the river into the 

adjacent floodplain, however the flooding typically does not extend as far south as the valley 

wall contact. 

Slope Stability 

Slope instability in the study area the result natural groundwater seepage issues 

approximately 6 to 10 m below the slope crest of the residential properties located at Nos. 32, 

36, 38, and 44 to 48 Royal Rouge Trail. The seepage has resulted in the formation of bare 

and unstable areas on the slope causing the loss of vegetation with the loosening of root 

systems. 

All detailed geotechnical slope stability analyses require the selection of a design minimum 

Factor of Safety (F.S.); the values for which are used to determine the long-term stable slope 

inclination. According to the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Policy Guidelines a 

minimum F.S for active land use, including at residential properties such as Nos. 30 to 48 

Royal Rouge Trail, typically are between 1.3 to 1.5 (MNR, 1994). The following table has 

further details on the MNR Policy Guidelines of F.S: 

Table 10. MNR Recommended Minimum Design Factors of Safety. 

Type 

Land – Uses 

PASSIVE: no buildings near slope; farm field, bush, forest, 

A 

timberland, woods, wastelands, badlands, tundra 

LIGHT: no habitable structures near slope; recreational parks, 

B golf courses, buried small utilities, tile beds, barns, garages, 

swimming pools, shed, satellite dishes, dog houses 

ACTIVE: habitable or occupied structures near slopes; 

C residential, commercial, and industrial buildings, retaining 

walls, storage/warehousing of non-hazardous substances 

INFRASTRUCTURE and PUBLIC USE: public use structures 

and buildings (i.e. hospitals, school, stadiums), cemeteries, 

D bridges, high voltage power transmission lines, towers, 

storage/warehousing of hazardous materials, waste 

management areas 

Source: MNR, 1994. 

Design Minimum 

Factor of Safety 

1.1 

1.20 to 1.30 

1.30 to 1.50 

1.40 to 1.50 

49 




Based on the five (5) selected cross-sections (e.g., A-A, B-B, C-C, D-D, and E-E) and the 

representative soils the following table outlines the minimum F.S for each of the cross 

sections: 

Table 11. Results of the Slope Stability Analysis. 

Minimum Factor of Safety for Potential Slope Slides 

Section 

Vegetated Slope 

Bare Slope 

Shallow Deep Shallow Deep 

A-A 1.2 1.6 1.0 1.6 

B-B 1.2 1.8 1.0 1.4 

C-C 1.6 1.8 1.1 1.5 

D-D 1.4 1.6 1.1 1.3 

E-E 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.3 


Figure 18 illustrates the locations of each of the five (5) selected cross sections. Based on 

the slope stability analysis results, the areas most susceptible to slope instability or erosion 

are at the residential properties located at 32, 36, 38, and 44 – 48 Royal Rouge Trail. 

4.0 EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS 

The information obtained in completing the baseline inventory is used in the evaluation of 

alternative options, giving specific consideration to the advantages and disadvantages of 

each method. 

4.1 Description of Preliminary Concepts 

In March 2009, TRCA retained the services of Terraprobe Ltd for the purpose of developing 

site-appropriate remedial alternative options to address the ongoing erosion through the 

Class EA process. Terraprobe was selected based on previous experience and a strong 

understanding of the processes occurring at this site. 

During the initial phases of the project, Terraprobe identified that it would be difficult to 

develop one solution for the entire length of the study area, based on the understanding that 

the types and extent of the erosion varies between two distinct sections. As a result the 

project was divided into two sections as follows: 

 

 

Site A – Nos. 30 to 40 Royal Rouge Trail 

Site B – Nos. 42 to 48 Royal Rouge Trail 

For each of the two sites (Site A and Site B) two preliminary site appropriate remedial options 

were prepared, in addition to the overall assessment of the Do Nothing option. 

Site A – Preliminary Concepts 

1. Concept 1 – Intense Vegetation 

2. Concept 2 – Slope Trimming with Intense Vegetation 

Site B – Preliminary Concepts 

1. Concept 1 – Retaining Wall and Filling 

50 




2. Concept 2 – Extended Retaining Wall and Trimming 

These options were formally reviewed and discussed by the Community Liaison Committee 

(CLC) at Meeting #1, held on the evening of June 18 th , 2009 at the Tall Pines Community 

Centre located at 64 Rylander Boulevard in Toronto, Ontario. A description and evaluation of 

the preliminary alternatives follows. The evaluation includes an examination of the types and 

extents of impacts, both positive and negative, of each alternative. 

4.1.1 “Do Nothing” Alternative 

The “do nothing” option is a mandatory alternative that must be considered in the Class EA 

process, as it is used to justify the need to undertake a remedial flood or erosion control 

project. Should the “do nothing” option, or other Conservation Authority programs such as 

land acquisition be deemed to be a more acceptable solution, then there is no further 

consideration for remedial action and the Class EA process terminates. 

Under the “do-nothing” alternative recession is expected to continue until the slope reaches a 

stable inclination, referred to as the long-term stable slope crest (LTSSC), which would result 

in loss of a significant portion of the existing tableland, and an additional amount, including 

two existing swimming pools, being placed within the erosion hazard limit. In general, the 

recession rate was calculated to be approximately 0.18 metres per year. The following table 

provides an estimate of the projected length and time it will take for each of the properties to 

recede to the LTSSC: 

Table 12. Estimate of Time to Long-Term Stable Slope Crest. 

Lot No. 

Total Projected Crest Loss (m) 

Time Estimated to 

LTSSC 

LTSSC 

LTSSC (years) 

(Vegetated Slope) (Bare Slope) 

30 4 7 20 to 40 

32 4 7 20 to 40 

34 4 7 20 to 40 

36 5 8 15 to 20 

38 2 5 10 to 25 

40 5 8 30 to 45 

42 3 5 15 to 25 

44 6 9 30 to 50 

46 9 11 5 to 15 

48 9 11 5 to 15 


Figure 18 shows the anticipated position of the slope crest in 100 years, based on an 

average annual recession rate of 0.18 m / yr away from the instability of the valley wall. It 

should be noted that the planning horizon for the do-nothing scenario is 100 years. 

51 




Figure 18. Long-term stable slope line without any remedial protection. Source: Terraprobe, 2009. 

52 

Project Plan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 


As this option does not address, reduce, or remove the existing safety hazard, it is not 

recommended as a preferred alternative and was therefore eliminated as a viable option. 

4.1.2 Site A: Preliminary Concept 1 – Intense Vegetation 

This alternative provides the least disturbance due to construction activity by maintaining the 

current inclination of the valley wall, while increasing the vegetative cover. A conceptual plan 

view of this option is shown in Figure 19. 

Figure 19. Proposed Preliminary Concept 1 for Site A. Source: Terraprobe, 2009. 

4.1.3 Site A: Preliminary Concept 2 – Slope Trimming with Intense Vegetation 

This alternative proposes trimming of the oversteepened areas of the upper slope to a stable 

inclination of approximately 1.3 : 1 (H : V), and intensive plantings over the length of the 

affected area. A conceptual plan view of the proposed work is illustrated in Figure 20. 

53 




Figure 20. Proposed Preliminary Concept 2 for Site A. Source: Terraprobe, 2009. 

4.1.4 Site B: Preliminary Concept 1 – Retaining Wall and Filling 

This alternative provides full protection of the valley wall in Site B by filling the over steepened 

areas on the upper slope to create a stable slope inclination behind Nos. 42 to 44 Royal 

Rouge Trail, and the construction of a retaining wall system behind Nos. 44 to 48 Royal 

Rouge Trail. Both the filled area and face of the retaining wall would be planted and seeded 

to enhance the vegetative coverage and long-term stability of the structure. This alternative is 

designed to prevent further recession of the valley wall and to provide a long-term stable 

inclination. A conceptual plan view of this option is shown in Figure 21. 

54 




Figure 21. Proposed Preliminary Concept 1 for Site B. Source: Terraprobe, 2009. 

4.1.5 Site B: Preliminary Concept 2 – Extended Retaining Wall and Trimming 

Concept 2 (Site B) proposes an extended retaining wall structure that spans the entire length 

of the properties from Nos. 44 – 48 Royal Rouge Trail, and ties in on the property at 42 Royal 

Rouge Trail. This concept also proposes re-grading the oversteepened portion of the valley 

wall behind Nos. 42 – 44 Royal Rouge Trail to a stable inclination of approximately 1.3 : 1 (H : 

V). A conceptual plan view of this option is shown in Figure 22. 

55 




Figure 22. Proposed Preliminary Concept 2 for Site B. Source: Terraprobe, 2009. 

4.2 Evaluation of Preliminary Concepts 

4.2.1 Site A - Evaluation of Preliminary Concepts 

Both concepts 1 and 2 incorporate the use of intense vegetation to increase the shear 

strength of the valley wall through the formation of a dense rooting mat, and minimizes the 

lateral (slope) erosion rates along the site to a gradual long term rate.. Additionally, the 

vegetation will increase the potential for fauna habitat along the valley wall. 

The major disadvantage of Concept 1 are that the success of this method is completely 

dependent on plant survivorship rate, and establishment period for the plantings as it is 

anticipated that vegetation will take approximately one to two years to fully establish. This 

provides a delay in the final stability of the site, and the long-term stability would be low, as it 

would be completely subjective based on plant survivorship. 

The key advantages of Concept 2 are that re-grading the over steepened areas provides 

instant stability to the slope, and minimal long-term loss of tableland. However, Concept 2 

would be more expensive to undertake and has the potential to disrupt any existing habitat 

temporarily along the valley wall during the construction period. 

56 




Table 13 provides a comparison of the anticipated impacts of the proposed options for Site A 

(not including the “Do Nothing” option), used to aid in the selection of the preferred 

alternative. 

Table 13. Evaluation of Preliminary Concepts for Site A. 

Potential Impact 

Preliminary Concept 1: 

Intense Re-Vegetation 


Trimming & Intense 

Re-Vegetation 

Cost Low Medium 

Level of Stabilization to Existing Slopes Low Medium 

Amount of Tableland Loss Medium Very Low 

Loss of Habitat /Vegetation on Slope Low Medium 

Production of New Habitat N/A N/A 

Access Requirements on Private Property Low Medium 

Construction Equipment on Private 

Property 

None 

Medium 

Disruption During Construction Very Low Medium 

Valley Land Impact Low Medium 


4.2.2 Site B - Evaluation of Preliminary Concepts 

The advantage of implementing either Concept 1 or 2 is that each alternative would provide 

immediate slope stabilization from possible future failure, and there would be some 

improvements to natural features on the slope. 

There are similar disadvantages for each of these alternatives including high costs, extensive 

valley wall modifications, short term slope disturbance and habitat impacts, and a lengthy 

construction period (anticipated to be approximately 8 weeks). 

Table 14 provides a comparison of the anticipated impacts of the proposed options for Site B 

(not including the “Do Nothing” option), used to aid in the selection of the preferred 

alternative. 

Table 14. Evaluation of Preliminary Concepts for Site B. 



Retaining Wall 

and Filling 


Extended Retaining 

Wall and Trimming 

Cost High High 

Level of Stabilization to Existing Slopes High High 

Amount of Tableland Loss Very Low Low 

Loss of Habitat /Vegetation on Slope High Medium 

Production of New Habitat High High 

Access Requirements on Private Property High High 

Construction Equipment on Private 

Property 

High 

High 

Disruption During Construction High High 

Valley Land Impact High Medium 


57 




4.3 Selection of the Preferred Alternative 

The preferred alternatives for Sites A & B were determined based on discussion with TRCA 

staff and Terraprobe Ltd., and the review involving a review of the comments provided by the 

CLC following CLC Meeting 1. 

Option 2 was selected as the preferred alternative for Site A, as it provides immediate longterm 

stability by trimming the over steepened areas, and intensive re-vegetation of the whole 

site. For Site B, Option 2 was also selected for the structural integrity provided by the 

installation of the retaining wall structure along the lengths of the properties from Nos. 44 – 

48, and for a portion of the property at No. 42 Royal Rouge Trail. 

Primary considerations for these selections included: 

 

 

 

 

 

Providing adequate long-term stability of the valley wall and protection of public 

safety; 

Compatibility with, and minimizing impacts on, the surrounding physical and 

biological environment; 

Providing terrestrial enhancements to the greatest extent possible; 

Cost effectiveness; and 

Public opinion 

Design drawings of the preferred alternatives for Site A and B are found in Appendix C. 

Public evaluation of the alternative options leading to development of the preferred 

alternatives for Site A and Site B are discussed further in Section 6.0 of this report; detailed 

minutes of the Community Liaison Committee meetings can be found in Appendix D. 

4.4 Refinement of the Preferred Alternative for Site B 

The development of the detailed design drawings for the preferred alternative (Option 2) for 

Site B identified the need to address the transition of the proposed retaining wall, into the 

native material on the valley wall, through the property at No. 42 RRT. 

In the consideration of possible methods to address this transition point, a retaining wall 

system comprised primarily of stacked interlocking bags (Envirolok) was proposed for this 

area. 

Upon further consideration of the envirolok structure, it was determined that the structural 

integrity, flexibility of the material, and the incorporation of vegetation into the retaining 

structure would be a more appropriate treatment for the entire length of the retaining wall 

from Nos. 42 – 49 Royal Rouge Trail, rather than the original proposed material (Sierrascape). 

58 




5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING 

5.1 Detailed Environmental Analysis of the Preferred Alternatives 

To complete the detailed environmental analysis of the preferred alternatives, the information 

collected for the baseline inventory is examined in greater detail to confirm potential impacts, 

refine methods of mitigation, and to identify any unforeseen impacts. The evaluation of 

impacts includes both temporary impacts during construction of the undertaking, and 

permanent impacts due to function and maintenance of the works after construction. Table 

15 screens the potential negative and positive effects of the proposed undertaking on the 

environment during construction and maintenance phases. It includes the consideration of 

the magnitude, geographic extent, duration, frequency, permanence or reversibility and 

ecological context of the effects, as well as proposed mitigation measures and any residual 

effects. 

Environmental components that have been identified as potentially having an effect on the 

environment, both positive and negative, are discussed herein. Those that have been 

determined as not applicable (n/a) as identified in Table 15, have been omitted from further 

discussion. 

59 




Table 15. Detailed Environmental Analysis of the Preferred Alternative. 

Rating of Potential Effects 

Screening Criteria -H -M -L NIL +L +M +H NA Comments 

Physical 

Unique Landforms ● 

Existing Mineral/Aggregate Resources Extraction Industries ● 

Earth Science - Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest ● Construction will not occur within ANSI – ES area. 

Specialty Crop Areas ● 

Agricultural Lands or Production ● 

Niagara Escarpment ● 

Oak Ridges Moraine ● 

Environmentally Sensitive/Significant Areas (physical) ● No physical ESA within or surrounding the project area. 

Air Quality ● Mitigative measures will be taken to minimize impacts of equipment use during construction. 

Agricultural Tile or Surface Drains ● 

Noise Levels and Vibration ● Mitigative measures will be taken to minimize impacts of equipment use during construction. 

High/Storm Water Flow Regime ● 

Low/Base Water Flow Regime ● 

Existing Surface Drainage and Groundwater Seepage ● Proposed remedial work will improve drainage system along the valley wall. 

Groundwater Recharge/Discharge Zones ● 

Littoral Drift ● 

Other Coastal Processes (Wave Climate) ● 

Water Quality ● 

Soil/Fill Quality ● Only clean aggregates and/or rubble will be used in construction. 

Contaminated Soils/Sediment/Seeps (Sediment Quality) ● 

Existing Transportation Routes ● Existing residential roads will be used to gain access to the site. 

Constructed Crossings (e.g. bridges, culverts) ● 

Geomorphology ● 

Other ● 

Biological 

Wildlife Habitat ● Proposed remedial work will improve terrestrial habitat currently threatened by erosion. 

Habitat Linkages or Corridors ● Project will result in an improvement to habitat linkages and corridors. 

Significant Vegetation Communities ● Proposed remedial work will help with the re-establishment of vegetation on the valley wall. 

Environmentally Sensitive/ Significant Areas (biological) ● Construction will not occur within the area of the Little Rouge Forest ESA. 

Fish Habitat ● There is no construction proposed in or near water or other potential fish habitat 

Species of Concern ● Species of concerns will be protected or re-planted during construction. 

Exotic/Alien and Invasive Species ● Restoration plan will include only native vegetation. 

Wildlife/Bird Migration Patterns ● Temporary disruption only; long-term positive effect through increased vegetation cover. 

Wildlife Population ● Short-term disruption only. 

Wetlands ● No wetlands; Any potential negative impacts to willow swamp will be minimal or mitigated. 

60 



Rating of Potential Effects 

Screening Criteria -H -M -L NIL +L +M +H NA Comments 

Microclimate ● 

Unique Habitats ● Mitigative measures will be taken to protect the Willow swamp from any impacts of equipment use during construction and operation. 

Life Science - Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest ● During construction any potential negative impacts to this ANSI (Life Science) will be minimized or completely mitigated. 

Other 

Cultural 

Traditional Land Uses ● 

Aboriginal Reserve or Community ● 

Outstanding Native Land Claim ● 

Transboundary Water Management Issues ● 

Riparian Uses ● 

Recreational/Tourist Uses of Water Body and/or Adjacent Land ● 

Recreational/Tourist Uses of Existing Shoreline Access ● 

Aesthetic or Scenic Landscapes or Views ● In the long term, the views of the valley wall will improve with the increase in vegetation growth. 

Culturally Significant Resources ● 

Archeological investigation will be completed prior to any construction activities to ensure no cultural significant areas/artifacts 

are undocumented. 

Historic Canals ● 

Federal Property ● 

Heritage River System ● 

Other ● 

Socioeconomic 

Surrounding Neighbourhood or Community ● Temporary disruption only. 

Surrounding Land Uses or Growth Pressure ● 

Existing Infrastructure, Support Services, Facilities ● Protects existing infrastructure and services. 

Pedestrian Traffic Routes ● 

Property Values or Ownership ● Protection work will reduce or eliminate further loss of property and protect property values from Nos. 30 to 48 Royal Rouge Trail. 

Existing Tourism Operations ● 

Property/Farm Accessibility ● 

Other ● 

Engineering/Technical 

Rate of Erosion in Ecosystem ● Proposed works will stop erosion along the crest of the valley wall. 

Sediment Deposition Zones in Ecosystem ● 

Flood Risk in Ecosystem ● 

Slope Stability ● Proposed works will minimize loss of tableland. 

Existing Structures ● Provides protection for existing structures in the long term. 

Hazardous Lands/Hazardous Sites ● Slope instability will be reduced. 

Other Engineering Projects at this Location ● 

Note. Screening of potential effects as negative (-), neutral (NIL) or positive (+) and rating them as relatively high (H), medium (M), low (L) or not applicable (NA). From Conservation Ontario, Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial 

Flood and Erosion Control Projects, 2002, p23, Table 3. 

61 



5.1.1 Physical Environment 

Air Quality 

No component of this project is anticipated to degrade air quality or be influenced by local or 

regional sources of air pollution. 

Noise and Vibration 

Implementation of the proposed undertaking will result in a limited and temporary increase in 

noise and vibration levels from the presence of construction equipment and vehicles. The 

effects of noise and vibration will be minimized by limiting work hours between 7:00 am – 

5:00 pm, Monday to Friday when the majority of local residents are not at home. 

Existing Surface Drainage and Groundwater Seepage 

At Site A the proposed works will provide deep-rooting vegetation to reduce groundwater 

seepage. At Site B the proposed works will install a geo-composite sheet drain between the 

native and fill layers to prevent groundwater seepage from compromising the stability of the 

slope by conveying subsurface flow to safely outlet behind the retaining wall. 

Soil/Fill Quality 

At Site A, top soil will be mixed into the native soils to provide additional nutrients to the new 

vegetation, providing an overall improvement in the quality of existing soil composition. At 

Site B the existing soils are highly susceptible to erosion; the vegetated retaining wall will 

effectively replace this poor soil quality with site appropriate fill material that will improve 

drainage and prevent future over steepening in the project area. 

Existing Transportation Routes 

There is no access road at the base of the valley wall within the Rouge Park in the vicinity of 

the project area and TRCA does not consider the base as an ideal access point due to the 

height and condition of the wall. Furthermore, TRCA does not want to disrupt the Willow 

swamp at the base of the valley wall during construction. Therefore, the most beneficial route 

to access the project area is via the existing residential roads in the subdivision and between 

the various residential properties. 

5.1.2 Biological Environment 

Wildlife Habitat 

Temporary disruption of wildlife habitat will occur during construction due to the clearing 

required for the access route and construction stockpile and staging areas. 

Through conscientious design for the surrounding environment, all attempts will be made to 

minimize the amount of disturbance required by limiting the site and location of the stockpile 

and staging areas to those while require the least loss of vegetation. All disturbed areas will 

be restored using appropriate native species; therefore there is no long-term negative impact 

on wildlife habitat. 

The increase in total vegetation at the project site through the proposed restoration plan will 

result in an overall net positive effect on wildlife habitat. 

62 



Royal Rouge Trail Erosion Control Project August 17, 2011

Habitat Linkages or Corridors 

The proposed project will have no adverse impacts on the existing habitat linkages or 

corridors within Rouge River watershed. 

Significant Vegetation Communities 

Species of interest identified at this site include Level 3 (L3) and Level 4 (L4) ranked species, 

which are identified as species able to withstand minor to moderate disturbance. There were 

no species identified within the study area that were not able to withstand minor 

disturbances, and all practical measures will be taken to ensure that site disruption is 

minimized, therefore no significant adverse impacts are expected. 

Species of Concern – Flora and Fauna 

With respect to the floral species of interest in the project area, the conservation concern is 

the protection of the Yellow Lady Slipper (Cypripedium parviflorum), Oval-headed Sedge 

(Carex cephalophora), and Broad-leaved Sedge (Carex platyphylla). These three species are 

listed on the Natural Heritage Information Centre as rare species of interest (MNR, 2006). To 

prevent damage to or loss of these significant communities, the population will be staked off 

before construction begins, and will be avoided during construction. 

Faunal species of interest will be temporary disrupted during the construction period, 

however TRCA expects the wildlife habitat will improve as vegetation growth increases on the 

valley wall. 

Exotic/Alien and Invasive Species 

The impacts to the existing vegetation will be minimized, and only native materials will be 

used in the restoration of the site. No new exotic or invasive species will be introduced to the 

project area as the result of the site restoration plan. During construction, any invasive 

species (such as Dog-strangling vine, Phragmites and Manitoba maple) located within the 

limits of construction activities will be removed and replaced with native species. 

Wildlife/Bird Migration Patterns 

Construction activities are only expected to temporarily displace resident wildlife only. No 

residual impacts are anticipated. In the long term, the wildlife habitat will improve as 

vegetation growth increases on the valley wall. 

Wildlife Population 

Impacts to existing wildlife populations within the project limits are likely to occur as the result 

of implementing the proposed undertaking due to the increase in noise and vibration levels 

from construction vehicles and equipment. Any displacement of wildlife populations is 

anticipated to be short-term, and when weighed against the overall increased vegetative 

cover and improved quality of wildlife habitat by using native species, this temporary impact 

is deemed acceptable. 

Unique Habitats 

With respect to the unique landforms in the project area, the only conservation concern is the 

protection of the willow swamp at the base of the valley wall. To prevent damage to or loss of 

this significant community, the area will be staked off before construction begins, and will be 

63 




avoided during construction. Furthermore, to prevent any disruption of sediment to the willow 

swamp, silt fencing will be used to act as a barrier. 

Life Science - Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) 

As the project area is located within a life science ANSI, known as the Rouge River Valley. 

TRCA recognizes that the life science features of the Rouge River watershed are significant 

and any works conducted along the valley wall will be conducted to minimize and mitigate 

potential negative impacts. 

5.1.3 Cultural Environment 

Aesthetic or Scenic Landscapes or Views 

The increase of vegetative cover at the project site, and on the eroding valley wall in 

particular, is generally perceived as improving the aesthetic landscape. 

Archaeological Resources, Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes 

A preliminary review of the TRCA database of known archaeological sites identified five (5) 

archaeological sites within a 2km radius of the project area. These included the Rouge Hill 

Stables, Graham, William Brown, Rouge Trail and Stonechurch Sites. 

An application of the TRCA’s Archaeological Site Predictive Model further indicated that the 

project area was classified as a High Probability Area due to its proximity to a major water 

course, and as a result Stage 1 and 2 investigations were completed for all of the properties 

in the study area. Several artifacts were uncovered during the Stage 1 and 2 assessments, 

and based on the findings, as discussed in Section 2.3 and 2.4, stage 3 and 4 investigations 

were completed for the properties at Nos. 32-38 Royal Rouge Trail. 

At the end of the investigation over 10,000 artifacts including, lithic items, faunal fragments 

and a body sherd was discovered. These items were cataloged and registered in accordance 

with the requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act, and upon completion of a review of the site 

reports filed in January of 2011, it was determined that there is no further archaeological 

concerns with the site under Section 48 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Copies of the clearance 

letters provided by the Ministry of Culture and from the City of Toronto are included in 

Appendix E. 

As a result of the quantity of archaeological materials found at the site, it was recommended 

that a licensed archaeologist be on-site during ground disturbance construction activities to 

ensure that any additional finds are documented and registered appropriately. 

5.1.4 Socioeconomic Environment 

Surrounding Neighbourhood or Community 

The surrounding neighbourhood will be temporary disrupted during construction, as 

construction vehicles will be accessing the project area using the existing residential roads of 

the subdivision. TRCA will implement precautions to minimize and mitigate any potential 

negative impacts to the surrounding neighbourhood during construction. 

Surrounding Land Uses or Growth Pressure 

The surrounding land uses or growth pressure will not be affected by the proposed works. 

64 




Existing Infrastructure, Support Services, Facilities 

There is no existing infrastructure within the limits of the proposed work. 

Property Values or Ownership 

The proposed undertaking is not likely to have an adverse effect on property values for the 

homeowners on Royal Rouge Trail. Conversely, the long-term protection of the affected 

slope is expected to protect property values at the subject site. 

5.1.5 Engineering/Technical Environment 

Rate of Erosion in Ecosystem 

The final design is expected to effectively stabilize the slope against further erosion. 

Slope Stability 

The stability of the upper slope will be greatly increased through the implementation of the 

proposed remedial works at both Sites A & B. 

Existing Structures 

The proposed works will provide long-term protection for the existing residential dwellings on 

Royal Rouge Trail. All construction equipment will enter the site from the proposed access 

points between various residential dwellings located from 30 to 48 Royal Rouge Trail (e.g, 30 

and 34, 38 and 40, 44 and 46, or 46 and 48). TRCA will implement precautions to minimize 

and mitigate any potential negative impacts to structures on the tableland resulting from 

construction activities. 

Hazardous Lands/Hazardous Sites 

The preferred alternatives for Site A and Site B will decrease the angle of repose of the valley 

wall thus reducing slope instability. 

6.0 SUMMARY 

This section of the Project Plan provides a summary of comments received during the 

planning and design phases of the project, a discussion of how these concerns have been 

addressed, and an outline of the monitoring program which will be implemented both during 

construction and once the project is completed. 

6.1 Role of the Community Liaison Committee 

The following information is provided from Conservation Ontario’s Class Environmental 

Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects (January 2002). 

“In an effort to facilitate more on-going public involvement at the 

project level, the Conservation Authority shall, based on its contact 

group mailing lists and expressions of interest from the local 

landowners, members of the general public, interest groups, or 

agencies, establish a Community Liaison Committee (CLC) to assist 

65 




the Authority by obtaining additional public input concerning the 

planning and design process of an individual flood and/or erosion 

control project, and to review information and provide input to the 

Conservation Authority throughout the process. The Conservation 

Authority shall strive to ensure that the membership of the CLC is 

representative of all views respecting a proposed remedial and 

erosion control project. (Conservation Ontario, 2002).” 

“As the name implies, the function of the CLC, in the Class EA 

process, will be to assist the Conservation Authority to reach out and 

maintain contact with community residents, groups, associations and 

organizations. The CLC will provide direct input into the process. At 

the end of the process, the entire committee will have been exposed 

to the entire process, will have understood how decisions have been 

reached and will have had their questions answered during the 

process. 

To fulfill its function, the CLC will: 

• Identify items of public concern with regard to the impact and 

design of proposed erosion control alternatives; 

• Provide direct input on these concerns to the Conservation Authority 

to be utilized throughout the planning and design process; 

• Co-host, with Authority Staff, meetings organized by the Authority to 

facilitate the resolution of concerns relating to a proposed remedial 

work; 

• Review any Part II Order Requests made by members of the public 

and attempt to resolve the issues of concern between the Part II 

Order requesters and the Conservation Authority before the request 

gets referred to the Minister of the Environment for a decision; and 

• Where appropriate, submit an assessment to the Conservation 

Authority, upon project completion, commenting on the 

effectiveness of the Class EA process for meeting public concerns 

for the specific project, and where relevant, identify possible 

improvements (pp.36-37) (Conservation Ontario, 2002).” 

More information regarding the CLC is described in the following section. 

6.2 Public Notifications and Consultation 

The following is a summary of comments received during the consultation process for the 

Royal Rouge Trail Erosion Control Project. Documents related to public outreach component 

of this project; including all published notices, meeting materials and minutes, and comment 

forms are included in Appendix D. 

66 




Comment forms were distributed by TRCA following each public consultation session to 

ensure that an understanding of the project objectives and direction was maintained 

throughout the planning process. The forms also provided a means of soliciting input into 

the planning and design phases of the project, and were utilized in the development of the 

alternative options considered and in the selection and refinement of the preferred alternative. 

Written comments ensured that ideas and concerns were investigated and addressed at 

meetings, facilitating open dialogue between staff and the general public. 

6.2.1 Project Initiation 

In July 2008, TRCA held a meeting with the affected residents to discuss the findings of the 

slope stability and erosion risk assessment completed by Terraprobe Limited for the 

properties at Nos. 30 to 48 Royal Rouge Trail. At that meeting TRCA informed the residents 

that a Class EA for Remedial Food and Erosion Control Protection would need to be 

conducted to develop and evaluate alternative options to determine the most ideal preferred 

alternative to stabilize the valley wall, and that staff would ask for permission to commence. 

On February 27 th , 2009, TRCA received permission from the TRCA’s Board of Directors to 

proceed with the Royal Rouge Trail Erosion Control Project. 

6.2.2 Notice of Intent 

In accordance with the Class EA process, the first point of public contact occurred when the 

Notice of Intent was published in the Scarborough Mirror on Friday March 13, 2009. The 

Notice of Intent was also delivered to the following: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Residents of Nos. 30 to 48 Royal Rouge Trail 

TRCA staff with an interest in the project 

City of Toronto staff with an interest in the project 

Councillor Moeser, Ward 44 – Scarborough East 

Wayne Arthurs, M.P.P., Pickering – Scarborough East 

Honourable Dan McTeague, M.P., Pickering – Scarborough East 

Ministry of the Environment 

Conservation Ontario 

General Manager of Rouge Park 

Rouge Park Alliance 

A Community Liaison Committee (CLC) was subsequently formed, which included the 

affected landowners, TRCA staff, Terraprobe Ltd., Councillor Moeser, Rouge Park Alliance, 

Rouge Park staff and other interested individuals who expressed an interest in the project. 

6.2.3 Community Liaison Committee Meeting #1 

The first CLC meeting, held on June 18, 2009 at the Tall Pines Community Centre, was 

attended by several staff from TRCA, Councillor Ron Moeser, several local property owners, 

an employee from Rouge Park, and staff from Terraprobe Limited. The following five (5) 

aboriginal groups and the Ontario Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs were also sent invitations; 

however representatives were not in attendance at the meeting: 

67 




Conseil de la Nation Huronne – Wendat 

Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation 

Métis Consultation Unit 

Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation 

Six Nations of the Grand River Confederacy Council 

The project area was divided into two (2) sites, identified as Site A (Nos. 30 to 40 Royal 

Rouge Trail) and Site B (Nos. 42 to 48 Royal Rouge Trail). There were two (2) separate 

preliminary remedial alternative options developed and presented for each of the erosion 

sites. 

Site A – Preliminary Concepts 

1. Concept 1 – Intense Vegetation 

2. Concept 2 – Slope Trimming with Intense Vegetation 

Site B – Preliminary Concepts 

1. Concept 1 – Retaining Wall and Filling 

2. Concept 2 – Extended Retaining Wall and Trimming 

Additionally, the “Do Nothing” option was discussed. Examining this option is a required 

step in the Class EA process, and is used as a tool to demonstrate the long-term results of 

not undertaking remedial works. Through the examination of the Do Nothing option it was 

illustrated that the long-term, stable slope crest for this unprotected section of the valley wall 

would place numerous residential structures at risk. 

At the conclusion of the meeting, a comment form was distributed to the participants asking 

for input into the next steps of the planning process for the project. Based on the comment 

sheets received there was a strong preference for the trimming and intense re-vegetation for 

Site A, and an extended retaining wall and trimming for Site B. Reasons cited for the 

preference include: 

 

 

 

Encourages immediate stability. 

Provides native species along the valley wall. 

Improves slope stability in short as well as long-term. 

The documentation of this meeting is contained in Appendix D. 


A CLC meeting was held at the West Rouge Community Centre on December 9 th , 2009 to 

discuss the selected preferred alternatives for Site A and Site B for the Royal Rouge Erosion 

Control Project. The meeting was attended by several staff from TRCA, a staff from 

Terraprobe Limited, Councillor Ron Moeser, a staff member from Rouge Park Alliance, and 

several local property owners. 

Terraprobe Limited (Terraprobe) presented the alternative design concepts for Site A and Site 

B. A comment form was distributed to the CLC Committee to provide feedback on each of 

68 




the options presented, to select the preferred design concept, and to assess the importance 

of the evaluation criteria for each of the concepts presented. 

A draft version of the Environmental Study Report was also provided to the CLC Committee 

for preliminary review at the meeting. 

6.2.5 Meeting with Affected Landowners 

On June 22, 2010 a meeting with the affected landowners was held at the West Rouge 

Community Centre to discuss the preliminary findings of the Stage 1 & 2 Archaeological 

Assessment that was completed in the Spring of 2010. 

At the meeting, staff from TRCA Archaeology Resources Department discussed the initial 

findings of the Stage 1 and 2 archaeological assessment of the site, and outlined the 

importance of completing Stage 3 and 4 assessments on several of the properties in the 

study area. 


A CLC Meeting was held on Wednesday August 17, 2011 at the Tall Pines Community Centre 

to present the refined, final designs to the CLC, and to discuss the next steps for the project. 

6.2.7 Notice of Filing 

The second public notification will occur when the Project Plan is filed on August 26 th , 2011. 

As per the requirements of Section 4.2 of the Class EA document, a Notice of Filing will be 

distributed to all of the parties contacted in the Notice of Intent that expressed interest in the 

project and to the Conservation Ontario and the Ministry of the Environment. Copies of this 

report will be provided at the local Councillor’s office, the Port Union Public Library, on the 

TRCA website http://www.trca.on.ca/protect/environmental-assessment-projects/royalrouge-trail-erosion-control-project.dot, 

and at the TRCA Eastville office for public review 

during the 30 day review period. 

6.2.8 Notice of Project Approval 

In the interest of good project management, a Notice of Project Approval and a Notice of 

Project Completion shall be sent to all parties who expressed an interest in the project and to 

Conservation Ontario. 

6.3 First Nation and Aboriginal Group Consultation 

As discussed in Section 3.1.3 TRCA contacted the Ontario Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs to 

inquire about the status of any land claims within the study area. As confirmed by the 

Ministry, there are no active claims in the study area 

Further, the following Aboriginal Groups, as provided by TRCA Archaeological Resources 

Staff, were contacted regarding the proposed project, and provided with the opportunity to 

provide feedback on any concerns regarding the study area, and to participate in public 

consultation for this project. 

69 




Conseil de la Nation Huronne – Wendat 


Métis Consultation Unit 


Six Nations of the Grand River Confederacy Council 

Staff did not receive any indication from any of the aforementioned groups that there was 

interest in participating in, or in the receipt any further information regarding this project. 

Upon the identification of archaeological resources within the study area in the Spring of 

2010 as discussed in Sections 2.3 & 2.4, notification of the commencement of the Stage 3 & 

4 archaeological investigations was issued, and an Aboriginal Monitor from the Six Nations of 

the Grand River Confederacy Council was present during the excavation. 

6.4 Monitoring Program 

A program to monitor the performance of the slope stabilization works will consist of frequent 

visual inspections and formal surveys, with comparisons being made to expected 

performance. Immediately following construction, the visual inspection will be completed 

after each major storm event for the period of 1 year. Surveys will be conducted annually 

until a period of 5 years has passed, after which time inspection will be adjusted to an 

appropriate frequency depending on structure condition. 

If a significant deviation from expected performance is noted during a visual inspection, 

additional surveys will be undertaken immediately. If a survey detects a significant deviation 

from expected performance, then remediation construction will be planned and implemented 

immediately such that the stabilized slope meets design performance criteria at all times. 

7.0 REFERENCES 

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) website. 1999. Canadian 

Environmental Quality Guidelines. (www.ec.gc.ca). 

City of Toronto website. 2001 and 2006. Rouge Neighbourhood Profile. (http://www.toronto. 

ca/demographics/cns_profiles/cns131.htm). 

Conservation Ontario. 1993 & 2002. Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood 

and Erosion Control Projects. 

Environment Canada, Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto 

and Region Conservation Authority.1989. Metro Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan. 

Stage 1. Environmental Conditions and Problem Definition. 

Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of Environment, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 

and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 1994. Toronto and Region Remedial Action 

Plan. Retrieved November 18 th , 2009. (torontorap.ca). 

70 




Government of Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada 

(COSEWIC). 2009. Retrieved December 1 2009. (www.cosewic.gc.ca). 

Kelman, D.,1999. Your Guide to Toronto Neighbourhoods. Maple Tree Publishing, Toronto. 

Mayer, Pihl, Poulton and Associates Incorporated.1988. The Archaeological Facility Master 

Plan Study of the Northeast Scarborough Study Area, Volume III & IV. Ms. on file with the 

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 

Myrvold, B.,1997. The People of Scarborough a History. Grenville Printing, Don Mills, ON. 

Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 1994. Rouge Park Management Plan. (www.rougepark. 

com/about/plans/pdfs/RP_mgt_plan1994.pdf). 

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1991. Ecological Survey of the Rouge Valley Park. 

Parks and Recreational Areas Section, Central Region, Aurora, Ontario. Retrieved November 

17, 2009. (nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca). 

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2008. Natural Heritage Information Centre, Rouge 

River Watershed. Retrieved December 1, 2009. (nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca/nhic_old.cfm). 

Rayburn, A. 1996. Yorkshire Names in Canada. www.bifhsgo.ca/classics/classics_arayburn.htm, 

accessed. Feb. 19, 2008. 

Reaman, G. Elmore. 1971. A History of Vaughan Township, University of Toronto Press. 

Roots, B., Chant, D.A. and Heidenreich, C.1999. Special Places: The Changing Ecosystems 

of the Toronto Region. 

Soil – Eng Limited. 1984. A Soil Investigation for Bank Stability Assessment, N.W. Quadrant of 

Sheppard Avenue and Kingston Road, City of Scarborough. 

Terraprobe Limited. 1994. Slope Stability Assessment, 42 Royal Rouge Trail. 

Terraprobe Limited. 2008. Geotechnical Investigation and Slope Stability Analysis, Nos. 30 to 

48 Royal Rouge Trail. 

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 1982. Environmentally Significant Areas Study. 

Final Report. Metro. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, North York, Ontario. 

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 1989. Green Space Strategy. 

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 1990. Comprehensive Basin Management 

Strategy for Rouge River. 

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 1994. Valley and Stream Corridor Management 

Program. Retrieved November 20, 2009. (trca.on.ca/dotAsset/40105.pdf). 

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). 1999. State of the Watershed Report: 

Highland Creek Watershed. 

71 




Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 2006. Regulation of Development, Interference 

with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses, Ontario Regulation 166/06 

Under Conservation Authorities Act. Retrieved November 20, 2009. (trca.on.ca/dot 

Asset/15293.pdf). 

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). 2006. Terrestrial Natural Heritage System 

Strategy. Retrieved November 18, 2009. (trca.on.ca/protect/land/terrestrial-natural-heritage). 

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 2009. TRCA Archeological Sites Database. 

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). 2010a. Archaeological Assessment of 

TRCA Property in the City of Toronto (Stage 1and 2), Royal RougeTrail Erosion Control (P303- 

056-2010). Manuscript on file with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). 2010b. Archaeological Investigation and 

Excavation in the City of Toronto (Stage 3 and 4), Preliminary Excavation Report, The Corvese 

Site (AkGs-046) Royal Rouge Trail Erosion Control (P338-011-2010). Manuscript on file with 

the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). 2010c. Archaeological Investigation and 

Excavation in the City of Toronto (Stage 3 and 4), Preliminary Excavation Report, The Jhuman 

Site (AkGs-045) Royal Rouge Trail Erosion Control (P338-010-2010). Manuscript on file with 

the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 

Toronto Neighbourhoods website. 2009. Rouge Hill Community. Retrieved November 17, 

2009. (www.torontoneighbourhoodguide.com/regions/scarborough/139.html). 

Toronto Ornithological Club. 2007. Species of Birds in Rouge River Watershed. Retrieved 

November 17, 2009. (www.torontobirding.ca). 

Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) website. 2009. Bus Routes, 85 Sheppard East. 

(www.ttc.on.ca). 

72 




APPENDIX A 

Criteria & Implementation Procedures for Valley & Stream 

Corridor Regeneration and Remedial Works Projects

APPENDIX B 

Existing Conditions

APPENDIX C 

Design Drawings of the Preferred Alternative

APPENDIX D 

Public, Agency and Aboriginal Consultation

28 

SCARBOROUGH MIRROR | Friday, March 13, 2009 | 

Houses for Sale 

OPEN House Sunday 2- 

4, 8 Porchester Drive. 

Just Reduced, Great Value. 

$315000. 5 Bedroom 

Bungalow with 1 Bedroom 

Basement Apartment. 

Steps to Eglinton 

Go, 4 Car Parking. To 

View Call: Ruth Abbott, 

Sales Representative, 

Royal Lepage Homeward, 

Brokerage. 416- 

698-2090 . 

POWER of Sale. 

416-800-0695 

Re/Max Hallmark. 

www.ByTheBank.com 

Business 

Opportunities 

$$$ 

ATTN: BUSINESS 

OWNERS 

Add thousands to 

your bottom line by 

becoming 

a U-Haul Dealer. 

Call 

1-800-270-2792 

$384 DAILY! No experience 

required! Data entry 

positions available Now! 

Internet access needed! 

Income is Guaranteed! 

Apply today! www.datahomeworker.com 

DATA ENTRY PROCES- 

SORS NEEDED! Earn 

$3,500-$5,000 Weekly 

Working from Home! 

Guaranteed paychecks! 

No Experience Necessary! 

Positions Available 

Today! Register Online 

Now! www.DataCash 

Now.com 

BELLAMY/ Lawrence. 

Large, bright, clean 1 

bedroom basement. 

Steps to TTC & shopping. 

Separate entrance. 

Cable, laundry. No smoking/ 

pets. Furnished or 

unfurnished. $650 inclusive. 

416-438-9697 

BIRCHMOUNT/ Eglinton. 

Furnished Bachelor with 

Separate entrance, in 

raised bungalow. Steps to 

TTC/GO. Includes internet, 

cable, utilities. $600. 

Call 416-752-7539 

BRIGHT, sunny 1 bedroom 

basement. Clean, 

quiet home. Separate entrance. 

Laundry. Parking. 

Cable. TTC. $680 inclusive. 

Ellesmere/ Markham. 

416-697-8129, 416- 

431-7968 

DANFORTH Rd. & Eglinton, 

Danforth Estates. 1 

bedroom $769, 2 bedroom 

$859, 3 Bedroom 

$1,199 - 416-264-3411 

www.metcap.com 

DANFORTH/ St. Clair. 2 

bedroom basement. Carpet. 

Front separate entrance. 

Available immediately. 

$800. 647-204- 

5788, 647-669-7088 

KENNEDY/ Eglinton. 3 

bedroom bungalow, main 

floor. CAC, parking, laundry. 

No smoking/ pets. 

$1250 inclusive. 416- 

648-2058 

MIDLAND/ Sheppard. 2 

bedroom. No smoking/ 

pets. Lease required. 

Quiet area. 416-291-3517 

Tax & Financial 

Directory 

Free Tax Preparation for 

Low Income Earners 

$25,000/Individual; $30,000/family 

(add $2,000/child; interest income < $1000) 

To book an appointment, please call 

416-494-3269 

From Tuesday to Friday, 9am- 12noon 

Unfortunately, voice messages will not be returned 

Clinics conducted: 

Beginning March 14th 

Saturdays 9:30 A.M. – 1:00 P.M. 

First Alliance Church 

3250 Finch Ave. East 

Scarborough, Ontario 

Business 

Opportunities 

JOIN TODAY! 

Become a 

consultant with 

“GATHERINGS” 

a shop at home 

experience. 

For Seminar Dates 

and Location call: 

416-548-8417 

Or visit 

www. 

Gatheringsliving.com 


Directory 

SMALL corporations & 

contractors. Specialists 

for 30 years. John Woitzik 

BCom. 416-918-0455 

APTS FOR RENT 

KENNEDY/ Ellesmere. 

Bright, clean 2 bedroom 

basement, full bath, close 

to TTC/ amenities, $750 

inclusive. No pets/ smoking. 

Immediate. 416-289- 

3753 

MARKHAM/ Kingston. 

2 bedroom, $959. Hardwood 

fl oors, balcony, 

laundry, newly renovated. 

416-738-5516 

MCCOWAN/ 

Bright, clean, 1 bedroom 

+ kitchen, basement 

apartment. Separate entrance. 

Town Centre, RT. 

Quiet Neighborhood. 

$650 Including cable, 

utilities & laundry. 

Available immediatly. 

416-999-6923. 

MCCOWAN/ Ellesmere; 

Two bedroom basement, 

four appliances, Separate 

Entrance, TTC, nonsmoking. 

$750+ inclusive. 

905-472-6660. 

MORNINGSIDE & Ellesmere, 

80 Mornelle Crt., 1 

Bedroom- $799.00, 2 

Bedrooms- $839.00, 3 

Bedroom- $1099.00, 416- 

284-8011, 


MORNINGSIDE/ Morningview. 

2 bedroom 

basement. Close to TTC, 

UofT. March 1st. Price 

negotiated. Call Kugan 

416-724-4622, 416-418- 

7614 


Directory 


Directory 

$$$ ACCESS LAWSUIT 

CASH NOW!!! AS seen 

on TV. Injury Lawsuit 

Dragging? Need $500- 

$500,000++ within 

48/hrs? Low rates. AP- 

PLY NOW BY PHONE! 1- 

888-271-0463 www.cashfor-cases.com 

ONE STOP 

ACCOUNTING 

SERVICE 

Personal and 

Corporate Taxes 

Accounting and 

Bookkeeping. 

Serviced by a 

Professional 

Accountant. 

Amir Hudani C.G.A. 

416-795-2647 

Mortgages, Loans 

$$MONEY$$ Consolidate 

Debts Mortgages to 95% 

No income, Bad credit 

OK! Mortgage Centre 

#10969 1-800-282-1169 

www. 

mortgageontario.com 

PRIVATE FUNDS! Power 

of sale stopped! 1st, 2nd 

mortgages. Any situation, 

bad credit ok, low rates, 

low payments. Peter 

416-460-4594. 

Furnished Rentals 

A large Furnished Bachelor 

Studio Apartment with 

Separate Entrance 

available for Rent for April 

1/ 09. Close to all 

Amenities. Include Laundry, 

Cable, Parking & all 

Utilities. First & Last 

month deposit required 

Serious Applicants, 

Please call 416-887-5428 

Ellesmere. 

Houses for Rent 

AGINCOURT! Sunny 2 

Bedroom Bungalow, New 

Paint & Carpet. Huge Private 

Deck & Yard. Appliances 

& Laundry Included. 

$1250/ mo+ 50% 

Utilities. Tiffany Lee 

Re/Max. 416-599-7766. 

BIRCHMOUNT/ Ellesmere 

3 bedroom, Sunroom, 

A/C, close to 

amenities. No pets/ 

smokers. $1250+utilities. 

Available immediately or 

April. 416-755-1484 

GOLF Club/ Lawrence. 3 

bedroom, 1.5 bathrooms. 

Central air. 4 appliances. 

Finished basement. 

Close to schools, Hospitals, 

shopping. $1350+ 

utilities. Available March 

15/ April 1. 416-831-8700 


Directory 


KINGSTON/ Lawrence. 

Newly renovated 3 bedroom. 

Non-smoking. 

Shared laundry. $1,200 +. 

416-897-5950 


Upper level 1 

bedroom house. 4 

piece washroom, livingroom, 

kitchen, Separate 

entrance. $680. 

April 1st. Humaira: 

416-724-2670 

Townhouses for Rent 

FRIENDLY Neighbourhood. 

Morningside/ Milner, 

3 bedroom townhouse, 

$979+ utilities. 

Market rent only. 416- 

282-3976 

MARKHAM COR- 

NERS. 30 Kimbercroft 

Court. Markham Rd/ 

401. Park like setting. 

Town homes (Patios, 

in-suite laundry, carpeted). 

Apartments 

(Balconies, hardwood 

fl oors). Access to 

Pool, playgrounds, 

Onsite daycare. Ask 

about move in incentives. 

OPEN HOUSE 

M-F 10am-6pm, Sat- 

Sun 12pm-4pm. 416- 

292-0118 

www.realstar.ca 

Shared Accommodation 

FINCH/ McCowan. Furnished 

separate room. 

$400 including utilities, 

laundry. Internet/ cable. 

No parking. Male preferred. 

24 hour TTC. Immediately. 

416-786-7177 

NEILSON/ Sheppard. 

Room for rent. $350 including 

utilities/ cable. 

working person. Male 

preferred. Close to mall/ 

TTC. 416-282-7319. 

Available Immediately. 

Vacation Properties 

SELL/RENT YOUR 

TIMESHARE NOW!!! 

Maintenance fees too 

high? Need Cash? Sell 

your unused timeshare 

today. No commissions or 

Broker Fees. Free Consultation. 

www.sellatimeshare.com 

1-866-708- 

3690 

Travel 

BUS trip. New York, 

NY. May 16- 18. 

$220/ person. Includes: 

bus, hotel. 

Call Tess 416-265- 

0861, 416-315-7692 

Public Notices 

SEARCHING for Jean 

Pierre. If you know his 

whereabouts please contact 

416-320-9418 

Tenders 

INVITATION 

TO TENDER 

Toronto Community News is 

accepting tenders to deliver 

newspapers between its 2 offices 

in Scarborough and Etobicoke 

Contracts commence March 23 rd , 2009. 

Bid packages are available at Toronto 

Community News, 

100 Tempo Ave, Willowdale, 

2nd floor reception or 

307 Humberline Dr, Etobicoke 

Tender due date: 

Wednesday, March 18 th , 2009. 

To the attention of: 

Julie Montgomery 

Lowest or any bid not necessarily accepted. 

INVITATION 

TO TENDER 

Toronto Community News is accepting 

tenders to deliver newspapers on 

Fridays to retail locations in the 

Etobicoke area. 


Bid packages are available at 

Toronto Community News, 









Nannies 

LIVE- in nanny. 2 year 

old daughter. FT. Schomberg 

CPR/ First Aid. 

$9.25/ hr. Fax resume attention 

Brian: 416-265- 

3939 

LIVE-IN nanny required 

for 4 & 1 year old children. 

More than 1 year 

experience. $9.35/ hour. 

Warden/ Ellesmere. Call 

Jean 416-751-5941 

Private Tuition/Schools 

TUTORING, in-home, by 

certified teachers, all 

grades and subjects. Excellent 

service guaranteed. 

416-410-4591 

www.alittleextrahelptutoring.com 

Check 

Out: 

Tenders 

Tutoring Service 

French, Chemistry, Physics, 

Biology, Calculus, 

English, Math, Accounting 

& More. From Grade 

2-12. Groups/One-on- 

One, Good rates 

(416)609-9508 

MATH 

WORKSHOPS 

Grade 3 & Up 

Multiplication, 

division, number 

theory, fractions, 

decimals 

Saturdays: 

12 ‘til 2pm 

Starts: 

Feb 7 ‘til April 11 

For schedule & 

cost call: 

416-266-0424 

4637 Kingston 

Road @ Manse 



NOTICE 

Pursuant to the Cemeteries Act (Revised) 

Section #30, Resthaven Memorial Gardens 

will be applying to the Registrar of 

the Cemeteries Act for a Declaration that 

the interment rights of the follow people 

are abandoned. 

Gordon Rogers, 39 Kitson Drive, Scarborough ON 

Andrew Rodgers, 9 Bardwell Crescent, 

Scarborough ON 

Douglas Robinson, 4010 Lawrence Avenue, 


Donald Pearl, 381 Friendship Avenue, 


Joseph Perrin, 4205 Lawrence Avenue, 


Joyce Prestwick, 93 Beechgrove Drive, 


Alfred Mills, 98 Elinor Avenue, Scarborough ON 

Annie Morrison, 67 Fenwood Heights, 


James Murray, 7 Palacky Street, Scarborough ON 

Donald Patterson, RR#2 Midland Avenue, 


Anyone knowing any of these people's 

whereabouts is asked to contact: 

Resthaven Memorial Garden at: 

1-416-267-4653 

Ask for Melissa Fraser, Assistant Manager 

March 6th, 2009 

www.insidetoronto.com 



Places of Worship 

EL CURSO ALPHA 

NOTICE OF INTENT 

Diseñado para explorar la razon de vivir. 

Este Curso es Gratis y empieza el Martes 

24 de Marzo a 6:30 pm y continua todos 

los Martes por 10 semanas. 

Cada sesión empieza con una cena, 

seguida por un video, en Español o Ingles, 

como usted prefiera y luego una discusion 

en pequeños grupos. 

Lo esperamos en: 330 Bellamy Road, N. 

Scarborough (Lawrence Av & Bellamy) 

Para mas Informacion llamar a Juan Carlos 

o Mirian: 416-439-2521 o 416-697-4504 

The ALPHA COURSE 


Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has 

commenced a study regarding the fi nal design of alternatives 

to remediate ongoing slope erosion that is occurring along a 

section of the Rouge River Valley at the rear of the properties 

located at Nos. 30 – 48 Royal Rouge Trail in the City of 

Toronto. 

TRCA invites you to participate in this study, which is subject 

to approval under the Class Environmental Assessment for 

Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects. Your input will 

be incorporated in the planning and design process for this 

project. 

If you wish to be involved in this study, or to receive further 

information, please contact: 


Supervisor, Project Planning 


1 Eastville Avenue 

Toronto, ON M1M 2N5 

Phone: (416) 392-9690 

Fax : (416) 392-9726 

Email: pnewland@trca.on.ca 

TODOS SON 

BIENVENIDOS 

ALL WELCOME 

Designed to explore the meaning of life. 

This FREE course begins with a complimentary 

Information Dinner on Tuesday, March 24 th 

at 6:30pm, then starts on March 31 st , 

and runs every Tuesday for 10 weeks. 

Every evening starts with a dinner, 

followed by a video, and small group 

open discussions. 

Held at BENDALE BIBLE CHAPEL, 

330 Bellamy Road N., Scarborough 

For Information Call Stellis Robinson 

at 416-266-4221 




Subject to comments received as a result of this study and the 

receipt of necessary approvals and funding, TRCA intends to 

proceed with the construction of this project.

onserRvaNuon 

for The Living City 


Toronto, ON 

M1M 2N5 

CFN 38329.1 

83-33-2 

April 29, 2009 

Honourable Dan McTeague, M.P. 

Pickering - Scarborough East 

Constituency Office 

6758 Kingston Road, Unit 3 


M1B 1G8 

Dear Honourable 

Dan McTeague, 

Re: #30 - 48 Royal Rouge Trail Class Environmental Assessment 

Please be advised that the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) recently 

commenced a study regarding the final design of alternatives to remediate ongoing erosion on a 

section of the Rouge River Valley at the rear of Nos. 30 - 48 Royal Rouge Trail in the City of 

Toronto. This project is subject to the Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and 

Erosion Control Projects. A "Notice of Intent" formally initiating the project appeared in the 

Scarborough Mirror on Friday, March 13, 2009. 

As part of the Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) process, a Community Liaison 

Committee, or CLC, will be formed to aid in the collection of public input through the planning 

and design phases of this project. The first CLC meeting for this project is scheduled for 

Thursday May 14, 2009 at 7:30 pm at the Tall Pines Community Centre. Should you or your staff 

be unable to attend these meetings, please be assured that we will keep you updated regularly 

of the project status should you wish to participate in the process. 

A package of information accompanies this letter providing a brief update on the history of this 

site, and information on the Class EA process. 

If you have any questions or would like more detailed information about the project, please do 

not hesitate to contact the undersigned at (416) 392-9690, or by email atpnewland@trca.on.ca 

Sincerely, 

~a~ 

Supervisor, 

Restoration 

Project Planning and Monitoring 

Services 

Enc!. 

cc: 

Jim Berry, 

Moranne McDonnell, 

TRCA 

TRCA 

Member of Conservation Ontario 

5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-6898 www.trca.on.ca

onserRvaoon 




M1M 2N5 

CFN 38329.1 

B3-33-2 

April 23, 2009 

Wayne Arthurs 

M.P.P., Pickering - Scarborough 


Suite 13 

300 Kingston Road 

Pickering, ON 

L1V 6Z9 

Dear Mr. Arthurs, 










an'd design phases of this project. The first CLC meeting for this project is scheduled for 








Sincerely, 


Supervisor, Project Planning and Monitoring 

Restoration Services 

Ene!. 

cc: 

Jim Berry, 


TRCA 

TRCA 


·a~ 

5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-6898 www.trca.on.ca ~~" ..•.,.~~'

onserRvaNuon 




M1M 2N5 

CFN 38392.1 

B3-33-2 

April 24, 2009 

Natasha Leahy 

Conservation Ontario 

P.O. Box 11 

120 Bayview Avenue 

Newmarket, ON 

L3Y 4W3 

Dear Ms. Leahy, 










Sincerely, 

~//LJ 


Supervisor, 

Restoration 

Enc!. 


Services 

cc: 

Jim Berry, 


TRCA 

TRCA 


5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-6898 www.trca.on.ca 

.~. .~t. 

' ..-..'

onserRvaNiiOn 




M1M 2N5 

CFN 38392.1 

83-33-2 

April 29, 2009 

Shannon McNeill 

Environmental Resource Planner and Environmental Assessment Coordinator 

Central Region Technical Support Section 


5775 Yonge Street, 9th Floor 


M2M 4J1 

Dear Ms. McNeill, 



commenced a study regarding the final design of alternatives .to remediate ongoing erosion on a 




Scarborough Mirror on Friday, March 13,2009. 



and design phases of this project. The first CLC meeting is scheduled for May 14, 2009 at 7:30 

pm at the Tall Pines Community Centre should you or your staff be interested in attending. 



Sincerely, 




Enc!. 

cc: 

Jim 8erry, 


TRCA 

TRCA 


5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-6898 www.trca.on.ca ;~\ ~ 

.••.••Rt:'i'

onserRvaNfiOn 




M1M 2N5 

CFN 38329.1 

B3-33-2 

April 29, 2009 

Lewis Yeager 

General Manager, Rouge Park 

Rouge Park Office 

50 Bloomington Road West, 

Aurora, Ontario 

Canada 

L4G 3G8 

Dear Mr. Yeager, 

Re: 

#30 - 48 Royal Rouge Trail Class Environmental Assessment 
















~4 





Ene!. 

cc: 

Nick Saccone, 

Jim Berry, 


TRCA 

TRCA 

TRCA 



~;~' '~.'

Patricia Newland/MTRCA 

04/29/2009 03:30 PM 

To widget@sympatico.ca, fostersteve@rogers.com, 

sal.jhuman@averydennison.com, mlcorvese@gmail.com, 

estherto@rogers.com, trevordsouzaca@yahoo.ca, 

cc Jim Berry/MTRCA@MTRCA, Moranne 

McDonnell/MTRCA@MTRCA, 

councillor_moeser@toronto.ca 

bcc 

Subject Royal Rouge Trail - Erosion Control Project Meeting #1 

Dear Residents, 

As you are aware, a slope stability and erosion risk assessment was completed for the ravine at 

the rear of the properties between 30 and 48 Royal Rouge Trail in late 2007. The final report 

was received by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Eastville Office in 

January 2008. Pending the allocation of proper resources, a review of final design options has 

now been implemented under the Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and 

Erosion Control Projects (Class EA). 

A public meeting has been scheduled with staff from TRCA and Terraprobe Limited, the 

consulting engineers, to discuss the options regarding the development of the preferred 

engineering solution to address the areas affected by erosion. 

The meeting will be held: 

Thursday, May 14 th , 2009 

7:30 PM – 9:30 PM 

Tall Pines Community Centre 

64 Rylander Boulevard, Scarborough 

A package of information providing a brief overview of the Class EA process, the anticipated 

project timelines, and a map of the community centre has been attached for your convenience. 

[attachment "TALL PINES_CLC Map.pdf" deleted by Patricia Newland/MTRCA] [attachment 

"CLC Package 29Apr09.pdf" deleted by Patricia Newland/MTRCA] [attachment "Notice of 

Intent.pdf" deleted by Patricia Newland/MTRCA] 

Please RSVP for the meeting by Friday, May 8th, 2009 at (416)392-9690 or 

pnewland@trca.on.ca. 

We thank you for your ongoing patience regarding this study and look forward to your 

attendance at next months’ meeting. 

Patricia Newland B.Sc., A.Sc.T. 



Tel: (416) 392-9690 

Fax: (416) 392 - 9726 

E-mail: pnewland@trca.on.ca

onserRvaNuon 




M1M 2N5 

CFN 38329.1 

83-33-2 

April 29, 2009 

Honourable Dan McTeague, M.P. 

Pickering - Scarborough East 


6758 Kingston Road, Unit 3 


M1B 1G8 

Dear Honourable 

Dan McTeague, 


















Sincerely, 

~a~ 

Supervisor, 

Restoration 


Services 

Enc!. 

cc: 

Jim Berry, 


TRCA 

TRCA 


5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-6898 www.trca.on.ca

onserRvaoon 




M1M 2N5 

CFN 38329.1 

B3-33-2 

April 23, 2009 

Wayne Arthurs 

M.P.P., Pickering - Scarborough 


Suite 13 

300 Kingston Road 

Pickering, ON 

L1V 6Z9 

Dear Mr. Arthurs, 










an'd design phases of this project. The first CLC meeting for this project is scheduled for 








Sincerely, 




Ene!. 

cc: 

Jim Berry, 


TRCA 

TRCA 


·a~ 

5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-6898 www.trca.on.ca ~~" ..•.,.~~'

onserRvaNiiOn 




M1M 2N5 

CFN 38392.1 

83-33-2 

April 29, 2009 

Shannon McNeill 

Environmental Resource Planner and Environmental Assessment Coordinator 

Central Region Technical Support Section 


5775 Yonge Street, 9th Floor 


M2M 4J1 

Dear Ms. McNeill, 



commenced a study regarding the final design of alternatives .to remediate ongoing erosion on a 




Scarborough Mirror on Friday, March 13,2009. 



and design phases of this project. The first CLC meeting is scheduled for May 14, 2009 at 7:30 

pm at the Tall Pines Community Centre should you or your staff be interested in attending. 



Sincerely, 




Enc!. 

cc: 

Jim 8erry, 


TRCA 

TRCA 


5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-6898 www.trca.on.ca ;~\ ~ 

.••.••Rt:'i'

onserRvaNfiOn 




M1M 2N5 

CFN 38329.1 

B3-33-2 

April 29, 2009 

Lewis Yeager 

General Manager, Rouge Park 

Rouge Park Office 



Canada 

L4G 3G8 

Dear Mr. Yeager, 

Re: 

















~4 





Ene!. 

cc: 

Nick Saccone, 

Jim Berry, 


TRCA 

TRCA 

TRCA 



~;~' '~.'


05/12/2009 02:48 PM 

To 

cc 

bcc 

widget@sympatico.ca, fostersteve@rogers.com, 

sal.jhuman@averydennison.com, mlcorvese@gmail.com, 

estherto@rogers.com, trevordsouzaca@yahoo.ca, 

Jim Berry/MTRCA@MTRCA, Moranne 

McDonnell/MTRCA@MTRCA, 

councillor_moeser@toronto.ca, jcrowder@terraprobe.ca, 

Subject Royal Rouge Trail - Erosion Control Project Meeting #1 - 

RESCHEDULE NOTICE 


Further to my last email, the meeting scheduled for May 14th, 2009 will have to be rescheduled, to 

ensure that Terraprobe has time to re-inspect your properties prior to the meeting. This inspection is 

important to ensure that the information presented is as accurate as possible. 

We anticipate that the new meeting date will be confirmed shortly depending on the availability of 

meeting space, and participants. 

Sincerely, 




Tel: (416) 392-9690 

Fax: (416) 392 - 9726 

E-mail: pnewland@trca.on.ca 

__________________ 


As you are aware, a slope stability and erosion risk assessment was completed for the ravine at 

the rear of the properties between 30 and 48 Royal Rouge Trail in late 2007. The final report 

was received by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Eastville Office in 

January 2008. Pending the allocation of proper resources, a review of final design options has 

now been implemented under the Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and 

Erosion Control Projects (Class EA). 

A public meeting has been scheduled with staff from TRCA and Terraprobe Limited, the 

consulting engineers, to discuss the options regarding the development of the preferred 

engineering solution to address the areas affected by erosion. 

The meeting will be held: 

Thursday, May 14 th , 2009 

7:30 PM – 9:30 PM 

Tall Pines Community Centre 

64 Rylander Boulevard, Scarborough 

A package of information providing a brief overview of the Class EA process, the anticipated 

project timelines, and a map of the community centre has been attached for your convenience.

[attachment "TALL PINES_CLC Map.pdf" deleted by Patricia Newland/MTRCA] [attachment 

"CLC Package 29Apr09.pdf" deleted by Patricia Newland/MTRCA] [attachment "Notice of 

Intent.pdf" deleted by Patricia Newland/MTRCA] 

Please RSVP for the meeting by Friday, May 8th, 2009 at (416)392-9690 or 

pnewland@trca.on.ca. 

We thank you for your ongoing patience regarding this study and look forward to your 

attendance at next months’ meeting. 




Tel: (416) 392-9690 

Fax: (416) 392 - 9726 

E-mail: pnewland@trca.on.ca

History: 

STEVE FOSTER 

 

05/19/2009 09:14 PM 

Please respond to 

fostersteve@rogers.com 

This message has been forwarded. 

To Patricia Newland 

cc 

bcc 

Subject Re: Invitation: Royal Rouge Trail CLC Meeting #1 (Jun 18 

06:30 PM EDT in Tall Pines Community Centre) 

Hi Patricia: 

I will attend on June 18th. 

Thanks .... Steve 

--- On Tue, 5/19/09, Patricia Newland wrote: 

From: Patricia Newland 

Subject: Invitation: Royal Rouge Trail CLC Meeting #1 (Jun 18 06:30 PM EDT in Tall Pines Community Centr 

To: chope@toronto.ca, councillor_moeser@toronto.ca, estherto@rogers.com, fostersteve@rogers.com, jcrowde 

"Kyle Reyes" , "Lindsay Prihoda" , "Mark Preston"

onservaNuon 




M1M 2N5 

CFN 38329.1 

B3-33-2 

May 19,2009 

Mr. Alan Wells 

Chair, Rouge Park Alliance 

C/O Rouge Park Office 



Canada 

L4G3G8 

Dear Mr. Wells, 






Erosion Control Projects. 




Thursday June 18, 2009 at 6:30 pm at the Tall Pines Community Centre. If you wish to 

participate as a member of the CLC for this project, please RSVP by June 5th, 2009. Should you 

be unable to attend these meetings, staff will keep you updated regularly of the project status. 

Please find attached a copy of the communication received by the Authority on April 24, 2009 

discussing the planning history of the subdivision, as well as a communication package 

compiled for parties interested in the project which includes a brief update on the history of the 




onserRvaNuon 




M1M 2N5 

CFN 39382.1 

B3~33-2 

May 19, 2009 

Attn: Mr. Luc Laine 

Conseil de la Nation Huronne-Wendat 

255 Place Chef Michel Laveau 

Wendake Lake, QC 

GOA4VO 

Dear Mr. Laine 


Please be advised that the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has commenced 

a study regarding the development of remedial alternatives for the stabilization of a valley wall in 

the Rouge Valley Corridor. The project area is located near Kingston Road and Sheppard 

Avenue East in the City of Toronto and is subject to the Class Environmental Assessment for 

Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects (2002), or Class EA. 

To assist with your evaluation of interest in this project a brief summary of known archaeological 

sites in the area is provided. While there are no known archaeological points of interest within 

the project limits, there are five sites within a few kilometres of the project. Of these five, four are 

Aboriginal in origin. The list of sites is included below. 

1) AkGs-005 - Rouge Hill Stables Site Burial 

2) AkGs-008 - Graham Site Seneca Village, Poulton 1991 

3) AkGs-011 -"William Brown Site EuroCanadian Mill Complex, Mayer 1987 

4) AkGs-012 - Rouge Trail Site Woodland Findspot - 2 Sherds, Mayer 1988 

5) AkGs-017 - Stonechurch Site Lithic Scatter, Warrick 1994 

A public meeting has been scheduled with staff from the TRCA and Terraprobe Limited, the 

consulting engineers, to discuss the Class EA process and options for the design of remedial 

slope stability works. The details for the public meeting are as follows: 

Thursday, June 18th, 2009 

6:30 PM - 8:30 PM 

Tall Pine Community Centre 

64 Rylander Boulevard, 

Scarborough, ON 

Please RSVP attendance by Friday June 5th, 2009. 

Please find enclosed a package of information providing a brief overview of the Class EA 

process and the anticipated project timelines. 


5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-6898 www.trca.on.ca 5~~ m· 

• '"'BR~S .


not hesitate to contact the undersigned at (416) 392-9690 or pnewland@trca.on.ca. 

Sincerely, 


Supervisor, Environmental Engineering Projects 


Encl: 

cc: 

Jim Berry, TRCA 

Moranne McDonnell, TRCA 

Cathy Crinnion, TRCA

onserRvaoon 




M1M 2N5 

CFN 39382.1 

83-33-2 

May 19, 2009 

Chief Kris Nahrgang 


257 Big Cedar Lake Rd 

Big Cedar, ON 

KOL2HO 

Dear Chief Nahrgang, 


) 












3) AkGs-011 - William Brown Site EuroCanadian Mill Complex, Mayer 1987 







6:30 PM - 8:30 PM 








5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-6898 www.trca.on.ca ;~t;, m. ~18~" •



Sincerely, 

~/d1 

Patricia Newland ' 



Encl: 

cc: 




onservaoon 




M1M 2N5 

CFN 38329.1 

B3-33-2 

May 19, 2009 

Mr. Martin Rukevina 

Ontario Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs 

Aboriginal Relations & Ministry Branch 

160 Bloor Street East - 9th Floor 

Toronto, ON M7A 2E6 

Dear Mr. Rukevina, 

Re: 

#30 - 48 Royal Rouge Trail Erosion Control Project 





Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects (2002). A map of the project area is enclosed for 

your reference. 

TRCA is requesting that the Ontario Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs provide information regarding 

any conflicts with land claims and / or treaties fot the area of the above mentioned project. As 

part of the project outreach, staff have notified the following First Nations groups: 



3) Six Nations of the Grand River Confederacy Council 

4) Conseil de la Nation Huronne-Wendat 

5) Metis Nation of Ontario (Region 8) 



Sincerely, 

·~djJ 

Patricia Newland ~ 



Ene!. 

cc: 



Cathy Crinnion, TRCA 


5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-6898 www.trca.on.ca ;~\ 1ft 

. "I8RE~ •

onservaoon 




M1M 2N5 

CFN 38329.1 

B3-33-2 

May 19, 2009 

Mr. Martin Rukevina 

Ontario Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs 

Aboriginal Relations & Ministry Branch 

160 Bloor Street East - 9th Floor 

Toronto, ON M7A 2E6 

Dear Mr. Rukevina, 

Re: #30 - 48 Royal Rouge Trail Erosion Control Project 





Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects (2002). A map of the project area is enclosed for 

your reference. 

TRCA is requesting that the Ontario Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs provide information regarding 

any conflicts with land claims and / or treaties fot the area of the above mentioned project. As 

part of the project outreach, staff have notified the following First Nations groups: 



3) Six Nations of the Grand River Confederacy Council 

4) Conseil de la Nation Huronne-Wendat 

5) Metis Nation of Ontario (Region 8) 



Sincerely, 

~~~ Patricia Newla~ /?~/ I 

Supervisor, 

Restoration 

Ene!. 


Services 

cc: 



Cathy Crinnion, TRCA 


5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-6898 www.trca.on.ca 5'4;1' ~ 

""'8RES·

onserRvaNuon 




M1M 2N5 

CFN 39382.1 

83-33-2 

May 19, 2009 

Attn: Janet Leader 

Director of Communications 

Metis Consultation Unit 

Metis Nation of Ontario Head Office 

500 Old Patrick Street, Unit D 

Ottawa, ON 

K1N 9G4 

Dear Ms. Leader, 








sites in the area is provid~d. While there are no known archaeological points of interest within 












6:30 PM - 8:30 PM 








5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-6898 www.trca.on.ca ;~; m""'8Rt'O'



Sincerely, 




Encl: 

cc: 



Cathy Crinnion, 

TRCA

onserRvifNoon 


1 Eastville Avenue. 


M1M 2N5 

CFN 39382.1 

83-33-2 

May 19, 2009 

Chief Tracy Gauthier 


22521 Island Road 

Port Perry, ON 

L9L 1B6 

Dear Chief Gauthier, 

Re: 




















6:30 PM - 8:30 PM 








5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-6898 www.trca.on.ca ;~~ a· 

• "ISR('.S·



Sincerely, 

~/lJ 




Encl: 

cc: 




onserRvaNoon 




M1M 2N5 

CFN 39382.1 

83-33-2 

May 19, 2009 

Mr. Leroy Hill 

Council Secretary 

Six Nations of the Grand River Confederacy 

1695 Chiefswood Road 

Oshweken, ON 

NOA 1MO 

Council 

Dear Mr. Hill, 

Re: 






Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects (2002), or Class EA 














6:30 PM - 8:30 PM 








5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-6898 www.trca.on.ca ;'4;1' ~ 

• "'S~$'



Sincerely, 

~dj 




Encl: 

cc: 




COMMUNITY LIAISON COMMITTEE 

INFORMATION PACKAGE 



Prepared by 


April 2009

This document has been prepared exclusively for those who expressed an interest in 

participating on the Community Liaison Committee (CLC) for the Royal Rouge Trail Erosion 

Control Project, and for those cited on the project Contact List as part of the Class 

Environmental Assessment process. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................. 1 

1.1 Study Area.................................................................................................................... 1 

1.2 Background ................................................................................................................. 1 

1.3 Project Objectives...................................................................................................... 2 

2.0 THE CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS................................. 2 

2.1 Relationship to the Environmental Assessment Act......................................... 2 

2.2 Definitions of Undertakings Within the Class..................................................... 3 

2.3 Environmental Planning and Design Principles................................................. 3 

2.4 Planning and Design Process................................................................................. 4 

2.4.1 The Baseline Inventory........................................................................................ 5 

2.4.2 Evaluation of Alternative Options ...................................................................... 5 

2.4.3 Selecting a Preferred Alternative ....................................................................... 5 

2.4.3.1 Detailed Environmental Analysis of the Preferred Alternative ................ 6 

2.4.4 Documentation and Approval ............................................................................ 6 

3.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN THE CLASS EA PROCESS........................................ 6 

3.1 Role of the Community Liaison Committee ........................................................ 6 

4.0 PROJECT TIMELINES ................................................................................................... 7 

5.0 SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ 8 

6.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS................................................................................................. 9 

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES 

Figure 1. Map of the project area .................................................................................................. 1 

Figure 2. Class Environmental Assessment Planning and Design Process ................................ 4 

CLC Information Package 


Royal Rouge Trail Erosion Control Project April 29, 2009

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) recently received approval to 

commence a study regarding the development of alternatives to remediate the ongoing erosion 

occurring along a section of valley wall in the Rouge Valley behind the properties at 30 – 48 

Royal Rouge Trail in the City of Toronto. The purpose of the study is to determine a preferred 

measure of erosion control through the planning and design process prescribed in the Class 

Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects (2002)(Class EA). 

More information about this process is presented in Section 2.0. 

1.1 Study Area 

The area of concern is a section of valley wall in the Rouge Valley behind the properties at 30 – 

48 Royal Rouge Trail, where upper slope instability is creating a risk to private property. A map 

of the area is presented in Figure 1. 

Area of Concern 

Figure 1. Map of the project area 

1.2 Background 

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) was first made aware of erosion 

problems on Royal Rouge Trail in the summer of 1989. Over the past 20 years several minor 

stabilization works have been implemented by TRCA at isolated locations within the project 

site, and although these measures have reduced localized erosion and instability to some 

degree, ongoing groundwater seepage remains a problem at the site. 

In 2007 staff undertook a comprehensive risk assessment and slope stability analysis at the 

request of the residents of 30 – 48 Royal Rouge Trail and the results indicate that large scale 

1 




emedial works are required to provide long-term protection to the 10 properties currently at 

risk. Staff subsequently requested permission and funding from the Authority to commence a 

Class EA for the development of remedial erosion control works in 2009, which was approved 

on February 27, 2009 at the Annual Authority Meeting. 

1.3 Project Objectives 

The objective of the Royal Rouge Trail Erosion Control Project (the project) is to provide longterm, 

low maintenance protection against erosion and slope instability that will prevent further 

loss of private property, reduce the risk to public safety and existing structures, and improve 

terrestrial habitat wherever possible. 

The proposed undertaking will be carried out in accordance with the Environmental Planning 

and Design Principles described further in Section 2.3. 

2.0 THE CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS 

2.1 Relationship to the Environmental Assessment Act 

TRCA is defined as a public body in Section 3 of Regulation 334/90 in the Environmental 

Assessment Act (R.S.O. 1990), and as such, must conduct its remedial flood and erosion 

control projects with said Act. 

Recognizing that common elements exist in addressing flood and erosion problems, a 

coordinated approach to environmental assessments was developed by Conservation Ontario 

for all Conservation Authorities (CAs) known as the Class Environmental Assessment for 

Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects (Class EA). According to the Class EA document, 

Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects refer to those projects undertaken 

by Conservation Authorities, which are required to protect human life and 

property, in previously developed areas, from an impending flood or erosion 

problem. Such projects do not include works which facilitate or anticipate 

development. Major flood and erosion control undertakings which do not suit 

this definition, such as multipurpose projects, lie outside the limits of this Class 

require an Individual Environmental Assessment (Conservation Ontario, 2002, 

s.2.3). 

Nearly 20 years of experience have demonstrated that using the Class EA approach for dealing 

with flood and erosion control projects is an effective way of complying with Environmental 

Assessment Act requirements. Approval of the Class EA allows CAs to carry out these types of 

projects without applying for formal approval under the Environmental Assessment Act, on the 

condition that all other necessary federal and provincial approvals are obtained. 

2 




2.2 Definitions of Undertakings Within the Class 

There are four situations in which remedial flood and erosion control projects may be 

undertaken within the Class EA: 

1. Riverine flooding 

2. Riverine and valley slope erosion 

3. Shoreline flooding 

4. Shoreline erosion 

The primary objective of the Royal Rouge Trail Road Erosion Control Project is to provide longterm 

protection against ii) Riverine and valley slope erosion. Alternative remedial measures to 

address this situation may include: 

• Soil bioengineering with the use of vegetation to stabilize soil, slow runoff, and dissipate 

erosive energy 

• Improvements to internal drainage through the use of French drains, interceptor drains , 

or tile drains 

• Improvements to surface drainage by redirecting water way from the slope, or by 

providing swales 

• Regrading of the slope to provide a long-term stable angle of repose 

2.3 Environmental Planning and Design Principles 

It is important to ensure that the planning and design of remedial flood and erosion control 

projects reflect a concern for ecosystems. This requires that emphasis be placed not only on 

the prevention and mitigation of environmental impacts but also on environmental 

enhancement. As outlined in the Class EA Document (pg. 19) the following principles 

endeavour to promote these goals, and will be applied during the planning and design process 

for the Royal Rouge Trail Erosion Control Project: 

• Remedial works shall be carried out only for the protection of existing development. 

These works will not be implemented for the sole purpose of facilitating development. 

• Alternatives which replicate the natural environment shall be given preference over 

“hard” alternatives wherever possible, and, all projects should evaluate opportunities for 

enhancement of terrestrial or aquatic habitats as part of project design. 

• Detailed technical design, as well as specific requirements for supervision and 

monitoring of projects undertaken shall be completed by a multidisciplinary team. 

Collectively this team should possess all of the necessary qualifications to address 

technical issues surrounding the implantation of the undertaking. 

• Remedial project design shall strive to re-establish, maintain or enhance the natural 

function (both biological and physical) and appearance of the watercourse or shoreline 

and associated features (floodplain, valley, wetlands, beaches, etc.) while recognizing 

and preserving existing cultural and archaeological features of significance in the study 

area. 

3 




• Remedial measures shall be designed based on a thorough understanding of the 

biological, physical and hydrologic characteristics of the watercourse or the coastal 

processes of the lake. Characteristics include ecosystem structures/features, functions, 

boundaries and thresholds. Where remedial works are necessary in a riverine situation, 

the solution shall be developed based upon an appropriate river reach or valley system. 

Likewise, in a shoreline situation, the entire littoral cell will be considered. 

• During rehabilitation, provide for the re-establishment of vegetative cover within the 

shoreline or valley system, particularly adjacent to the watercourse (riparian zone) or 

shoreline (backshore). Vegetation re-establishment shall be compatible with the 

existing, local or disrupted community and efforts should be made to use native species 

of the local flora. 

• The design of remedial works, involving migratory corridors, shall strive to ensure 

preservation or enhancement of the migratory character of the feature. This includes the 

valley system; watercourse and shoreline interface both for terrestrial and aquatic fauna. 

• In identifying the objectives for the aquatic/terrestrial environments, the potential quality 

of the ecosystem, as well as its existing condition, shall be considered. 

2.4 Planning and Design Process 

This section describes the specific planning process followed once a remedial flood or erosion 

control project has been identified and the Class EA process has been initiated. Figure 2 

illustrates the planning and design process that will be followed to evaluate the alternative 

options in determining the preferred remedial measure. 

Figure 2. Class Environmental Assessment Planning and Design Process. Source: Class Environmental 

Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects, Conservation Ontario, 2002, p18. 

4 




2.4.1 The Baseline Inventory 

The baseline inventory provides the information needed to evaluate the alternative options 

developed through the Class EA process, and a foundation from which to monitor the types 

and level of environmental impacts that may result from implementing the preferred alternative. 

The inventory involves the examination and documentation of: 

• The erosion problem, 

• Existing site conditions, including physical, biological, cultural and socioeconomic 

characteristics; 

• Engineering/technical aspects to be considered; and 

• Previous protective measures that have been implemented within the study area, if any. 

The results of the baseline inventory will be discussed during CLC meetings, and will be 

formally documented at the conclusion of the study by TRCA in the final report. 

2.4.2 Evaluation of Alternative Options 

The information obtained in completing the baseline inventory is used in the evaluation of 

alternative options, giving specific consideration to the advantages and disadvantages of each 

method. 

Several alternatives will be examined by TRCA and members of the Community Liaison 

Committee (CLC) at meetings and through the distribution of materials and feedback forms. 

The evaluation of these alternatives will include an examination of the types and extents of 

impacts, both positive and negative, which would likely result with each alternative. 

Once the examination of the potential impacts of each alternative are reviewed and discussed 

by the CLC, a preferred alternative will be selected. Additional input from the CLC will be 

sought to ensure that the concerns of all interested and affected parties are taken into 

consideration and addressed as part of the detailed environmental analysis of the preferred 

alternative, discussed further in the following section. 

2.4.3 Selecting a Preferred Alternative 

In determining the preferred measure to remediate the erosion and slope instability problem, 

two major factors will be considered: risk to structure(s) and the cause of the hazard. The 

potential risk to existing structures is deemed the most important factor and accordingly is 

given more weight than the physical and geological condition associated with the cause of the 

erosion and/or instability. Valley wall conditions considered include slope height, slope angle, 

percentage of vegetative cover, groundwater characteristics and the soil type and composition. 

In all cases, the design of erosion control and slope stabilization works must provide protection 

compatible with the Environmental Planning and Design Principles described in Section 2.3 

and with TRCA’s own design criteria, which includes improvements to or enhancements of 

habitat through natural designs. 

5 




TRCA remedial erosion control works are carried out within the context of a comprehensive 

plan which balances the various resource management and ecological benefits of these works 

with public access and related issues, and are further analyzed on the basis of financial 

cost/benefit. The preferred measure must meet all TRCA planning and policy objectives, and 

must satisfy the needs and concerns of the affected property owners and general public. 

2.4.3.1 Detailed Environmental Analysis of the Preferred Alternative 

In order to determine the impacts likely to be associated with implementation of the preferred 

alternative, a Detailed Environmental Analysis is required. To complete this environmental 

analysis, the information collected for the baseline inventory will examined in greater detail to 

confirm potential impacts, refine methods of mitigation, and identify any unforeseen impacts. 

The evaluation includes both temporary impacts during construction, and permanent impacts 

resultant from the installation of the proposed works. 

This stage of the Class EA process screens the potential impacts of the proposed undertaking 

on the environment during construction and maintenance phases. It includes the consideration 

of the magnitude, geographic extent, duration, frequency, permanence or reversibility, and 

ecological context of the effects, as well as proposed mitigation measures and any residual 

effects. 

2.4.4 Documentation and Approval 

The Class EA process will systematically identify all areas of concern with the proposed 

undertaking, and will document all methods of mitigation required to address these concerns 

and outline any concerns that cannot be resolved through mitigation measures. This process 

will be fully documented and included in a final report available to all interested parties. 

Upon completion of the final document, the report will be filed for public review for a period of 

30 calendar days. If there are no objections during this review, the project is considered 

approved under the Class EA process, at which time TRCA will seek to obtain authorizations 

from the required provincial and federal agencies, such as the Department of Fisheries and 

Oceans, Ministry of Natural Resources, among others. The length of time required to obtain 

approvals depends on the scope and complexity of the project. 

3.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN THE CLASS EA PROCESS 

The Class EA process has been developed to provide avenues through which the public, local 

interest groups, non-government organizations and federal and provincial agencies can 

participate. The following section outlines the role of the CLC, as it is the most intensive form of 

public involvement and pertains directly to the intended readers of this document. 

3.1 Role of the Community Liaison Committee 

The following information is provided from Conservation Ontario’s Class Environmental 

Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects (2002). 

In an effort to facilitate more on-going public involvement at the project level, the 

Conservation Authority shall, based on its contact group mailing lists and expressions 

6 




of interest from the local landowners, members of the general public, interest groups, or 

agencies, establish a Community Liaison Committee (CLC) to assist the Authority by 

obtaining additional public input concerning the planning and design process of an 

individual flood and/or erosion control project, and to review information and provide 

input to the Conservation Authority throughout the process. The Conservation Authority 

shall strive to ensure that the membership of the CLC is representative of all views 

respecting a proposed remedial project. 

As the name implies, the function of the CLC in the Class EA process will be to assist 

the Conservation Authority to reach out and maintain contact with community residents, 

groups, associations and organizations. The CLC will provide direct input into the 

process. At the end of the process, the committee members will have a clear 

understanding of how decisions have been reached and what value judgments have 

been made in the development of a detailed design. 

To fulfill its function, the CLC will: 

• Identify items of public concern with regard to the impact and design of proposed flood 

and erosion reduction alternatives; 

• Provide direct input on these concerns to the Conservation Authority to be utilized 

throughout the planning and design process, 

• Co-host, with Authority staff, meetings organized by the Authority to facilitate the 

resolution of concerns relating to a proposed remedial work; 

• Review Part II Order requests made by members of the public and attempt to resolve 

the issues of concern between the Part II Order requesters and the Conservation 

Authority before the request gets referred to the Minister of the Environment for a 

decision; 

• Where appropriate, submit an assessment to the Conservation Authority, upon project 

completion, commenting on the effectiveness of the Class EA process for meeting 

public concerns for the specific project, and where relevant, identify possible 

improvements (pg. 73). 

4.0 PROJECT TIMELINES 

The following is an outline of the proposed timeline for the project. Please note that this 

timeline is based on prior experience by TRCA on projects of this nature, and does not take 

into account any significant deviations in the planning, design and approvals phases of the 

project due to actions beyond the control of the project planning staff. 

7 




The following is an outline of the tentative project schedule: 

5.0 SUMMARY 

The Royal Rouge Trail Erosion Control Project will examine and address the on-going slope 

instability and long-term risk to property through the Class EA process. 

The Class EA process is a self-assessment process mandated by Conservation Ontario for use 

by all CA’s for the purpose of addressing Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects. The 

Class EA includes a strong public input component through the planning and design phases of 

the project. 

8 




6.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS (Excerpt from Class EA Document - Appendix J) 

9 




10 




11 




12 




13 




14 




15 




16 




Monday, April 06, 2009 

Aaniin, 

In an effort to answer any questions as to the validity of Kawartha Nishnawbe First 

Nation and to offer the history of our Mississauga community to relevant agencies, and 

institutions, I have on behalf of our community requested a letter of opinion from our 

legal council for your files. 

The following should serve to enlighten the reader and to clarify the existing legal duty 

for our community to be consulted with. Further, we wish to notify relevant parties of 

our intention to exert our right to be consulted within our Treaty Territory on issues 

which may affect these Rights. (see attached map), 

Please feel free to forward this document to any of your colleagues, or associates, that 

may benefit from this information. 

Meegwich, 

Chief Kris Nahrgang 

Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation, 

Burleigh Falls Ontario.

Christopher M. Reid 

Barrister & Solicitor 

l5,l Monarch Park Ave., Toronto ON M4J 4R6 

Tef : (,116) 166-9928 * Fax: (416) 466-1852 * tawreid@aot.com 

April 3.200c) 

Kris Nahrgang. C'hiel' 

Kawartha Nishnan'be First Nation 

P.O. Box 1432 

Lakelield. ON KOl, 2l{0 

[)ear('hicf Nahrgang: 

I anr writillg in rcsponse to yclrr recluest lirr an opinion lettcr dcscribipg the l'rcaty ancl 

Ahoriginal rights of'tlic tttcl.ttbers ol'Kawartha Nishnawbc First Nation with rcipcct to tracliti.nal 

harvestirrg practises artd the care ancl protection of archaeological. cultural apd sacred sites. 

Suurmar), 

Kau'artha Nislrrlaw'be is a conttnultity whose rlentbers are clescendec'l fi6lt thc originiil 

irlhabitallts ol-('urvc Lakc / [3Lrrleigh Falls arca. Thcir ancestors usecl and occr-rpic6 a large area" 

slrtrwn on the attached rttap. AlthoLrgh ncvel" registered as a "bancl" uncler the Indiun Ac,t 

(('unutlu)^ Kawartha Nishnawbc has bcen recognizecl by the Supreme Courl ol'Canadal as a 

distinct First Natiun cor.nrnunity with a traclitional form of governance.2 

f n thc casc of R. r. ,lo:t,1th.ltthnstm'r 

the Oltario Court of Justice hclcl that the mentbers o1- 

Kawartha Nishnaw'be havc constitutionally protected harvesting rights pursuant to T'reaty No. 20" 

signcd in ltil8. 'l'he Court Iurther held in ,lohnson that Kawartha Nishnawbe was ror a pa*),rc) 

thc Williams'l'reatics of lc)23 in which their neighbouring [rirst Nation copmupiticsi sold t'heir 

oll'-reservc Aboriginal and -freaty rights to thc (lrown. 

'l'rcaty 

Kaw,artha Nishnawbe's Aboriginal and 

rights thcrefbrc' retnain intacthroughout the community's traclitional territor\,. 

' Ltt'cltrcc t'. Onlurirt. [2000i I S.C.R. 9-50. In ref-erring to Kawartha Nishnawbc the Supreme Court said: .'l'heir 

ancestral. conlnlunitr'^ political and social structures are tamily - or clan-based. where firnilies have been linked 

together by' shared use clf lands and comrron social interests." 

- As discussed below under the heading "Discrimination Against 

'Non-Status' First Natiols". whether or not a First 

Nationcotrrllttttlity isanlndiun.!c'l"band"isirrelevanttowhetherthecommunityholdsAboriginal 

orTreat.vrights. 

and has no relevance with respecto the Crown's obligation to respect 

r 

and accorr.rrrodate thoseiights. 

Decided Januarv 29.2002 ui Pete.bororgh" Ont.; unreported. The Crown filed a notice of appeal but abandoned 

the appeal. 

'The williams Treaties rvere signed by Christian Island. ceorgina Island. Rama, Rice l-ake. Curve Lake. Scugog Lake 

and Alderville First ),lation communities.

2 

The efTect of the Williams Treaties in extinguishing the off-reserve harvesting rights of 

Kar'lartha Nishnawbe's neighbours was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1994 

Hov'ttrd5 case- and again more recently by the Oniario Superior Courl of .lustice(Divisional 

Cotrrt) in Hiuvrulltu First llulion v. Onlario (Minister o/ the Environment)6. 

'fhis case. also 

knowi as the Settlon kmcl,s case. also confirmed tliat the care and protection of'burial sites is an 

Aboriginal righl protected by section 35(l) of rhe Con,stitution Act, 1982, provicied" of course. 

that a comnlunitv can establish that it has existing Aboriginal or Treaty r.ig'ht, in respect of the 

lancls in question. or a credible claim to such rights. 

The law is clear that all government agents. employees and offlcials have a duty to engage in 

consultaticlns with Kawafiha Nishnawbe whenever they contemplate permitting activities which 

coLrld impact on thc rights of Kawartha Nishnawbe's members. 

Kawartl hnawbe Burlci 

T'hc lacts oLrtlined out itt this scctiorr werc proven in thc .Johnson case" largely thr.r.rgh the cxpcrt 

testirllol-lv of Ms..loan IlollrtesT. in acldition to the evidence ol'several other witnesses. 

Karvartha Nishnawbe l'irst Nation is a Mississauga communitv. 'l'he Mississaugas are a subgroup 

o1'thc O.iibway Nation. Thc MississaLlga and Ojibway are part ol'a larger gro,ping of' 

Aboriginal nations callcd '"Algonkian". T'hc Algonkians inclLrcle tlrc O1ibway. Cree. Chippcwa 

ancl other First Nations grollps. 

Bl thc carll' 1700s thc Mississar-rga occupiecl the arca now known as central C)ntario. inclLrdins 

the arcas around Ilurleigh lialls" Lovesick I-ake and Mud Lake. 

Mississauga conrnrunitics werc traditionally based on kinship tics. They spent sunrmers togelhcr 

at a '"base" locatiorr. and tlien dispersed in thc winter months to thcir rcspective farnily trap-1;n.r. 

Mississar"rga corrlnturtities did not traditiclnally 

'l'hcre 

live ycar-round in a single location or..reser'e". 

was llo "perlllallcllt" village in the sense ol- a year-round rcsidelce. The band wclr_rlcl 

gatller cluring the sunlnrer nronths at a village site. but thcn disperse clurirrg the winter t. 

individr"ral l'amily trap lines or logging cantps. 

Mississauga cott-tnrunitics. or "bands", have traditionally been ntadc up ol petworks ol'extcncled 

l-anlilies ri'liich Ltsc a particular area o1'land lbr traditional harvesting" sLrch as hunting. fishing. 

trapping and bcrry' harvesting. 'l'he lamilies which cornprise tlie banil would recogpize certai' 

respectcd older nicn as leaders. or "headmen". who could speak fbr the commulity in political 

matters. Ovcr tirnc. somc o1'these men came to be known as "Clhiefs". T'he Chiel's w.erc not 

clected. thcy were chosen bv community consensus. 

Mississauga bands did not have rigidly fixed memberships. 

'fraditionally. bands wor-rldivicie 

atld neu' bands lbrnl as a rcsult of family alliances, economic or political chalges or other 

' R. t'. Htnrut'Ll Ll99112 S.C.R. 299. 

" I{iuv'uthu Flrst Nutiortt'. Onturio (trlinister o/ the Environnlent),2007 L'unLII 3185 (ON 

t S('.D.('.; 

The Historical Developrrent of Kawartha Nishnawbe (200 l; Joan Holmes & Associates).

3 

factors. These divisions into new bands were oflen necessary to avoid intra-group contlicts. or to 

respond to economic or political pressures on the band. 

lJntil the late I [100s. the f-amilies which comprise Kawarlha Nishnawbe were associatecl with the 

Cun'e Lake band. They lived at Burleigh Falls fiom April to November every 1'ear. and spent 

thc rvinter months oll their f-antily trap lines. During the late 1800s. a distinct cgnrmunitv bega' 

to crlerge at Burleigli Falls as certain lamilies took up guiding and logging to augnrentheir 

incomes liom trapping. hLrnting and fishing. 

'['hc cconomy o1- tlie Burleigh Falls comrnunity diverged liom the economy of the C]urve [,ake 

bancl durirtg this pcriod as the members of the Br-rrleigli Falls community continued to fbllow zr 

more traditional lifbstl,le. primarily based on traditional trapping. hr-urting and fishing ancl otltcr 

harvesting. At the satrtc titne. the Curve Lake band began to abandon these traditional econontic 

pursuits and devclop an ccollorny based more on fbrming and labouring in tlie wage ecoltopt\'. 

At thc samc timc as thesc cconomic changcs \ cre ()ccurr.ing. (during the late lc)tl' cerrtr-rry) the 

l-cdcral governltlcnt began imposing Ihc Indiun At't on l-irst Nation conlmllnities in southern and 

cclttral Ontaritl. Members of thesc communitics were classillcd as either "status Indians" or 

"rtott-status lrtdians"'. Only statr-rs Indians had the right to live on thc rcsen,c. votc in band 

council clections. and reccive certain beneflts liom thc l'edcral govcrnmcnt. "No1-statgs" 

Indians werc cxcluded. 

'l'lte classiflcation o1'l'irst Nalions pcople as "status Indians" or "non-status Indians" was ofien 

arbitrary' and had little or nothing to do with whelher or rrot a person was "lirll-bloodcd" or not. 

Nevertheless. the "non-status Indians" who settlecl at Burleigh Falls were olten callccl "Hall'- 

Brccds" or "Mctis" to clistinguisli them fiom the status lndians who wcre membcrs of resen,cbascd 

bands registered undcr the Int{iun Act. Many non-status Irrdians eventually came to refbr 

to thet-nsclves as "Mctis". ln rccent years. however. thc Br-rrleigh Falls community has adopted 

thc ttatue "Kawartha Nislinawbe First Nation". to ref'lect their Mississauga heritage and culture. 

Sotnc nrcrnbers ol'Kau'artlia Nishnawbc continuc to ref-er to thcmselvcs as both "Metis" and 

"Nishnawbc". 

By 1912 a lirlly distinct community or "'band" had emerged. with its base at llurlcigh l.'alls. 

Some rnembcrs o1- this ncw band continued to spend winters with relatives on the Curvc Lake 

rcscrvc. or on thcir lamily' trap lines. but it is clear that a separatc band now existed. 

The Burlcigh lralls band had its own leadcrship (.lack.lacobs was the acknowledged Clhief of the 

comuunitl') and a distinct political. social and economic lif'e liom the flurve Lake reserve. The 

members of'the ncw band wcre primarily "non-status" Indians whose ancestors had oncc been 

menrbers ol-the Clurve Lake band. 

The new community' \\'as comprised of the members of flve extended lamilies.s All of these 

lantilies had at onc time been members of the C'urve Lake band. but they were not registered as 

"status" Indiarrs under the Incliun Acl. They had established close ties to each other and to the 

Burleigh Falls area during the late 1800s and early 20'" century. 

" The surnantes of the five families: Jacobs. Hoggarth. Johnson Brown and Taylor.

4 

The Treat.v- of 1818 

'freaty No.20 w'as sig'ed in l8l8 betweenthe "Honourable wm. claus. Deputl,superintendenl 

Cieneral of Indian Affbirs. in behalf of t-lis Malesty, ... and principal Men of the Chippewa 

Nation of Indians inhabiting the back part of the New Castle District ...". In this Treatv the 

Mississaugancestors of Kawartha Nishnawbe purportedly ceded title to surrounding the Kawartha Lakes. from east of Rice Lake to the southern tip of l.ake ";;;.i^oi'r*j Muskoka. in 

return lbr f7zl0 w'orth o1-goods. but they did not cecle their hunting and fishing rights. 

The'Curve I-ake band and Kawartha Nishnawbe did not exist as separate bands in 1g1g. Indeecl. 

tlrerc was no Intliun Ac't at that time and therelbre no Intliun Ac.t "bands"'or..status 

"non-status 

lndians..or 

Indians"'. Prior to the enactment of the flrst Indiun Act in 1g76. only traditional 

kinship-based bands existed. l'he distinct Mississauga bands which pow exist. whether In4iun 

barlcls such as (lurl'c 

"1c'1 

l,akc. or "non-status" bancls suclr as Kawartha Nishnawbe. arc 

descendants liunr tlie clans and tribcs which signed the'freaty in lglg. 

Althougli they ma1'tlot havc bcen a distinct. scparate comnrunity in 1818. there is no cloubthat 

the ancestors o1- Kawartha Nishrlawbe were signatories to the Treaty and that any rights f'lowing 

fiorrr the T'rcaty llow cqually to status and non-status dcsccndants of the signatories. This fact 

was conceded b1'the Crclwn's expert witness in the ,lohn,son case and confirrlcd b1, thc Court. 

T'he (Englisli onl,v) text of the l8l8'frearty docs not explicitly mention hr-rnting or fishing rights. 

Hower"cr. in l98l thc Ontario (lclurt of Appeal held in R. r,. Tuyltn untl ilittir,*.i,,-n"r.-r-i 

history. conllnncd by the minutes of the Treaty negotiations ancl coirespondence liom the Treatv 

Cotnnlissit)l]ers. provccl that thc Ilrdian signatories had bcen promised durirrg tr-l. rr.rti 

negotiations that the 1'reaty woulcl havc no cfl'ect on their harvesting traclilions. l'he Court fbu'd 

that these promiscs conslitr-rtccl a part ol-the 'l'reaty, although they were rever acjded to thc 

writtcn texl of the '|rcatv. 

The Tuykt'casewas trcated by the Crowu as a test case on thc issue of whether oral promises 

whicli were not rradc explicit in the written text clf thc 'l'reaty could ncvcrtht--less conslitute 

l'reaty righls. In 7'u1'171v. thcretore. the Crown did not argLle tliat the 'l'rcaty rights w[ich werc 

conllrmccl in the I'rcaty ol- lUl8 were extinguished by the Williams'l'reaties of 1923. 'l'his issue 

was addrcssed by tlre Suprerne Court in the Ilov'ard case . 

'fhe Williarrs T'reaties 

ln the earll' 1920s thr.: government of Ontario came to the conclusicln thatthc Mississaugand 

Chippewa Nations continued to hold Aboriginal rights and title throughout large parts of central 

and sor-rthern Ontario. This led to uncertainty with respecto land title andthe validity of deeds. 

leases and land use permits issued to non-Aboriginar interests. 

In 1923 a Treatl'' Comtnission was appointed to negotiate a Treaty which would achieve a 

surrender of the rights and title of the Mississaugand Chippewa. The Comntission visited the 

' R. t, Tut'lor ctntl lL'illiums ( l98l ). 34 O.R. (2d) 360.

communities to gather evidence of the extent of their harvesting territories ancl negotiate the 

terms fbr purchasing their existing rights and title. 

The William Treaties cover a lir"rge land area in central Ontario lrom the Quebec border along the 

Ottawa River to the l.ake Ontario shoreline. Signatories to the Treaties were the Mississauga 

cot.nmttnities of Rice Lake. Mud L,ake. Lake Scugog and Alderville; and the Chippe*,o of 

Christian Island. Georgina Island and Rama. The Treaty negotiations involved both the 

Gor''ernment o1- Canada and the Government of Ontario. These Treaties wcre diflbrent in manv 

respccts fioni other treaties in that they did not secure hunting and fishing rights nor dicl thej 

guetrantee possessiort of rcserves. Instead the Crown purchased the First Nations' hunting and 

fishing riglrts. and other rights and title. in exchange for cash. 

Kau'artha Nishnaw'be did not participate 

'freaties.'l'herc 

in the Williams is 6ral cvidcnce tltat 

Kan'artha Nishnau'be's ('hiel. .lack.lacobs. 

attemptcd to attenrJ the freaty negotiatiorrs in 6rder 

to warn his f-ellow ('hief.s that thcy should not sell their rights and title, bLrt hc was excluded b1' 

thc "status" Indian Clhiefs who did not recogrrize him as "legitimate"' because his cgmnrupil\, w4s 

not an Indiun At'tband. 

Legal Framework 

Section 35 of thc ('on,s'titutittn Act. 1982provides: 

35 (l ) The aboriginal and trcatyrights of the aboriginal pcoples ol'C'anada arc hercbr, 

recognized and allirmcd. 

(2) In this Act. "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includcs thc Indian. Inuit and Mctis 

peoplcs of C'anada. 

Irr R. r'. I'un dcr I'aaltt'the Slrprernc Court articulated tl-re test to identify whcther an applicant has 

cstabfishedanAboriginal rightprotectedbys.35(l)ol'the('on.;tittrtionAct. IgS2.1l_paragraph 

[46] the ('ourt said. ''in order to be an aboriginal right an activity rnust be an elcment of a 

practice" custom or tradition integral to the distinctive culturc of the aboriginal group clairning 

the right." Certainly the traditional harvesting practices ol-Kawartha Nishnawbe mcmbers would 

hc pr()tccted br s. 15. 

ltt Hiuv'ulhrr the Ontario Sr-rperior Court of .lustice lbund that "l'here is general agrecmenthat 

thc Anishnaabcg practicc ol-honouring the burial sites o1'their ancestors (also) nteets this tcst..." 

and is protected by s. 35( 1 ). 

ln Sptrrrov'". the Supreme Court held that treaty or Aboriginal rights which were regulated b1. 

fbderal or provittcialegislation prior to 1982 were not extinguished merely because the1,'were 

regLrlated. Evert riglits which were heavily regulated may nevertheless be "existing" rights 

protected bv section 35( 1 ). 

5 

tt' R. r,. L'un der Peet. [1996] 2 S.C.R.507. 

t' R. t'. Spurnlr'[990] I S.C.R. 1075.

The burden of proving that a Treaty or Aboriginalright has been extinguished prior to l9g2 is on 

the Crown. Extinguishment cannot be implGd. The Crown must provide ..strict proof-.' of the 

fact of extinguishment 

each case. It must be "plain and 

extinguished treatl, rights. 

r 2 

clear', that the Crown intentionallr. 

As discussed belou'. the []rown must.iustify any infringement of Aboriginal or 'l reaty rights or 

any such rights which have been credibly assefted. In order to justify infiingement the Crown 

must prove 

-where 

that it has consulted u,ith the afl'ectcd comr"nunity and. necessary. 

accommodated the community's concerns. 

APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS 

6 

Irt'l'u1'lot' untl Williunz^r the Ontario Clourt of Appcal helcl that the sections 9f o.tario's (jume uncl 

l''i'sh Acl which restrict hunting and lishing to certain seasons could not apply t. clcscendants of 

tlic Mississauga w'ho hold rights under'frcaty No.20 in lSltirr. ln Trrt,'l,,t.untl williun.r the 

dcf-errdarlts wcrc Ilrenrbers ol'thc Curve Lake band. In the .kthnson case iiwas also conceded by 

the Crowrl's expert w'ittless that the mernbcrs of Kawartha Nishnawbe are descendants of thosc 

who signed'freaty No. 20. 

'fhere is no 

'l'reaty doubt thcrefbre that No. 20 includes a righr to hunt and llsh in the Burleigh 

Falls arca" ancl throughouthc area coverecl by that Treaty. ln ,kthnsr.rn the Crown. s expert 

wittless acknowledged that any benclits which flow fiom the l8l8'freaty would llow 

the dcscendants who signccl thc 'freaty. to all ol' 

regardless of whether or no1 thcy are registcrecl "status" 

Indiarrs undcr thc Indiun Ac,t. 

Afthotrgh Kawartha Nislinawbe is not recognizecl under rhe Incliun Ac't as a "'bancl". and rnosl ol. 

its rrlembers are not registered "status" Indians, the Suprenie Court has held that therc is rro 

conriectiorl bctween registration as a "status" Indian under the Intliun Ac't and whcthcr or not a 

person holds -l-reat)' rights.l+ Thc Intliun Ac't rs essentially the legislative regir'e firr thc 

administration of rcgistered bands and reserves. It does not purport to clellne who is arr 

..lndian" 

firr all purposes. or to deflne who is and who is not a "treaty Indian" with 'l-reaty rights. N.r 

cottld the Indiun lc't have such an el'tbct since treaty rights are constitutionally protected. 

ln ./ohn,s'on tlieretbre. the Court held that it is sufhcient that Kalr,artha Nishnawbe is a lrirst 

Nation conrmunitl'whosc ancestorsigned the Treaty o1'1818. 'fhe tribes which signccl the 

Treatv of l8l8 w'ere not divided irfio Indian lc'l bands and "status" ancl "non-status" I'dians 

until decades alier signing the Treaty. 

t,t.R. 

t'. Budgar [1996] I s.c.R. 77r; Miki.seu'crce I-'N 

1i 

r,. Canudu [2005] 3 s.c.R. igg 

In this case the court did not consider the eftbcts of 

'fhe the Williarns Treaties. Supreme Couft has since he16 in 

R t'. Hov'urti that the "status" Indian lcl bands which signed the Willianrs Treaties in 1923 knorvingly,surrendered 

their rights under Treatl No. 20 in return fbr cash payments. 

'- Simon l R., il9851 2 S.C.R.387.

The Williams Treaties of 1923 

Once it r'vas established in ,lohnson that the members of Kawarlha Nishnawbe are directh, 

connected to the First Nations which signed the Treaty of 1818" and therefbre hold Treatl,.righti. 

tlte ouus shifted 1o the Crown to prove that their Treaty rights had been extingr,rishei. fn. 

Sttprenle C'ourt o1'Canada has consistently held that extinguishmcnt cannot be irnpliecl. The 

crorvn nrust provide'-strict proo f'-' ol' the f-act of extinguishment. 

In the 1991 Htn'trrrlt5 case, the Supreme Court addressed the 1923 Williams'l'reaties which 

pr-rrport to extingr"rish the harvesting rights of the signatory First Natiops in return fbr cash 

pa)'ments. Tlie Court emphasized that the evidence presented by the Crown in that case showed 

that the bands which were parties to thc 1923 Treaty had engaged in extensive negotiations 'lith 

the Crowtl prior to signirrg thc 'l'rcaty. The Court also emphasized tliat the bands w.hich signed 

the'l'rcatl'wcrc firlly'aware o1'thc contents o1'the'l-reaty and had gir,,cn their infbrrled consc.nt to 

the ternrs of the 'frcaty. 'l'heir cclnsent to the ternts of the'l'reaty extingr-rishing thcir rights was 

not implied but rather bascd on clear evidence. 

ln .ltthn^srtn the flrowrl argued that even though Kawartha Nishnawbe hacl rrot participated in thc 

Willianls'l'rcaties their Aboriginal rights were nevertheless extinguished by virtue of the fact that 

thc Crowti. ill executillg thc Williams'freaties. had show.n its intention to extingLrish thc rights o1' 

af l lrirst Natiorls itr the area. I{owever. in tlie Sktuit' case the Supremc Court held that trcat' 

rigllts callllot be cxtingr,rishcd "'without the consent of the Indians conccrncd". ,\ipr2 contlrnts 

that thc conscrtt tll-the all-ectcci Indians cannot be implicd. nor can it be givel o' thcir behalt'b1. 

other parties. There nlust bc strict prool'ol'the fact of extinguish1ncnt and evide'ce ol'a plain 

arld clear irrtcntion otl tlic part of the golernrnr'nt t() r'xtingr-rish trcaty rights. T.hc flourt cannot 

inl'cr or inlply'cxtinguishment 

the absence o1-"plain and clear" eviclencc and'"strict pro.f'. 

Tfre C'oLrrt lreld in .ltthrr.sttrt that Kawartlta Nislrnawbe was an indepenclerrt First Nation cor,nru'itr,. 

separatc altcl clistittct liorrl the ('urve Lake rescrvc cclrnrnunity ancl other Williams'l-rcaty ba.cls: 

"Alt Indialt ctltrlltrttttity ccrtainly does exist at tsurleigh Falls and is p11w klgr.vrr as the Kar.r,artha 

Nishnar'vbe. I)espite thc ttalne. whetlter it is the Burleigh Falls cc'rrnrnunity or the Kawartha 

Nishnarvbc. in nly opiniorl it is representativc o1'the original group w6i1 settlecl ip the BLrrleigh 

lalls al'eit. 

ln ,lohnsort it ll'as clearll' proven that Kawartha 

'l'reatics 

Nishnawbe was not a party to the Williams 

of 1923. In f-act. there is cvidcncc that thc then Chief of Kawartha Nishnawbe. .lack 

.lacobs. atter-nptcd to take part in the 'freaty negotiations, in order to express his communitv's 

opposition to the Treaty. btrt hc was excluded by the "status" Chief,s ol-the Incliunlc,l bands. N. 

representative of the Burleigh Falls community sigr-red the Trcaties. 

The rr-rcmbers o1- the bands which signed the Williams Treaties o1' 1923 received cash payments 

in return fbr surrendering their 1'reaty hunting and fishing rights. With the exceptio'r oi a f'e* 

rnet]rbers ol- one lamily who were members of the Curve Lake band and had married into the 

t5 R. t'. Httrurd ll991l2 S.C.R. 299 

'" R. r,. Siorri U9901 I S,C.R. 1025.

8 

Burleigh Falls community. no members of Kawartha Nishnawbe ever received any of those 

payments or any benefrts under the Williams Treaty. 

As the Clcrurt fbund in ,kthn'son the Williams Treaties of 1923 could not have extinguished thc 

T'rcaty hunting and fishing rights of the members of Kawarlha Nishnawbe. Nor could the 

williams Treaties affect the existing Aboriginal rights and title of Kawartha Nishnawbe 

mentbers throughout tlieir traditional territorl. 

Thc eftect of thc Williants l'reaties in extinguishing the ofl:reserve harvcsting rights of 

Kaw'artha Nishnawbe's neighbouring First Nation communities was confirmed recentliby tne 

Ontario Supcrior Clourt of .lustice(Divisional Courl) in Hitnruthcr l-ir.yt Nuti,n v. Onturi, 

(Mini'slar d thc Envirttnmcnl). 'fhis case conf-rrmed that the bands which signed the Williams 

Treaties havc no existing Aboriginal or 'freaty rights which require thenr to be consulted with 

respect to archacological sites not localed on their respective reservesince thcy sold all of'their 

Aboriginal and'l'rcaty rights in 1923. with thc exccption ol'thcir rights to hunt and flsh on their 

reserVes. 

Geographical F.xtent o1' Kawartha Nishnawbe Rights 

Thc Aboriginal rights of Kawartha Nishnawbe are not limited to the tcrritory covercd by, the 

T'reaty of 1818. That'l'rcaty confirntcd tlic cornmunity's harvesting rights the area covered by it 

(see map attached) but did not purport to recognize or cxtinguiih the rights and titlc of thc 

signatorics throughout thcir traditional territory. This view is conflrrncd by the Williants Treatv 

negotiations oi I923. 

Following thc.lohn,sttn decision. ancl the Crown's abandonment o1'the appeal of that clecisio'. 

ontario's Ministry o1' Natural Resources acknowledged that the niernbers of' Kawartha 

Nishnawbc ltavc Aboriginal righls with respcct to harvcsting and cultural" sacred ancl 

archaeological sites throughout thcir traditional territory, including rnuch of the area c.vcred by, 

tlre Willianrs l'reatr. 

The attachcd n'rap shows thc arca. surrounded by a broken blue line. in respect of which Ontario 

has acknor,r,'lcdgcd thc existing Aboriginal rights of Kawartha Nishnaw,be. 

The DLrty to Consult and Accommodate 

'l'herc is no question that Aboriginal peoples have a right to be consulted on rnatters af1-ecting 

their hunting and lishing rights and other Aboriginal rights.lT 'fhe duty to consult llows fiom 

recognition of the Crown's fiduciary duty toward Aboriginal Peoples.'8-Th. Supreme Court has 

said that the dutl'to consult is grounded in the honour of the crown.l" 

t'- Delgtrmtruktr t'. Briti,sh ('olutnhiu.[lg91l 3 s.c.R. 1010, at para 168; Hctidu Nati0n y. Britislt coluntbiu(Minister 

of Forests). [200,1] 3 S.C.R. 5l l. at para 40. 

'* R , .\i,r'urr.ll990 l I S.C.R. l0J5:Gtr,,t.irtt. ('anLt(lLt.I lgg4] I S.C.R. ji5. 

HuiJu' Ttktr Rivc'r'Tlingit f:irst Nution v. British Columbiu (Project Assessment Director), t2004] 3 S.C.R. 550; 

.t I tKt.\c|'.

9 

The duty of the Crown to consult with First Nation communities is triggered as soon as the 

Crow'n considers permitting an activity which could impact on the community's Aboriginal or 

Treaty rights. ln F{uidu the Supreme Court said: ''the duty arises when the Crown has 

knowledge. real or constructive, of the potential existence of the Aboriginal right or title and 

contetttplates conduct that might adversely aflbct it: see Hulfit,uy Rit:er Fir.gt l\,ittti6n t,. Briti.rh 

('olumbiu(trlinistrv 

of'l''orest^s) . [1997] 4 C.N.L.R. 45 (B.C.S.C.), at p. 71. per Dorgan J.'" 

with rcspecto the scope of the duty to consult, the courl said in Huicla: 

[37] There is a distinction belwecn knowledge suflcient to trigger a duty to consult and. 

if appropriate. accommodate. and the contenl or scope of the duty in a particular case. 

Knowlcdge of a credible but Lrnproven claim sulllces to trigger a duty to consult and 

accommodale. The content ol' thc duty, however, varies with the circumstances. as 

discussed rnore fr-rlly bclow. A dubior"rs 

peripheral clainr may attract a mere dr-rtv of 

notice. r,vhile a strongcr claim may attract more stringcrrt duties. Thc law, is capahlc ol' 

difl-crerrtiating between tenuous claims. clairns posscssing a strong prirna f-acie case. ancl 

cstablished claims. Partics can assess these matters and if they cannot agree. tribunals 

and courts can assist. Ditllculties associated with thc abscnce ol'prool'ancl definition o1- 

clainls arc adclressccl by assigning appropriate content to the durty. not by dcniring the 

existence ol'a dut1,'. 

With rcspccto thc determining tl.re scope ol- consultations required in a particular situation. the 

C'ourt saicl: 

[3t)l 'l'he content ol'tl-re duty to consult and acconrmodate varics with the circunrstanccs. 

Preciscly' what duties arisc in different situations will bc definccl as the case law in this 

enlerging arca develops. Iu general terms. however. it may be asserted that the scope o1' 

the duty' is proportionate to a preliminary assessment of the strcngth of the case 

sr-rpporting thc existcnce ol- the right or titlc. and 1o thc seriousness o1- the potentially 

adverscfl'ect upon thc right or titlc claimed. 

Significantly" thc Cottrt set out the lbllowing ground rules which must be observed in cascs 

where the Crown is requircd to consull with First Nations: 

[42] At all stagcs. good faith on both sides is required. 

'fhc common thread on the 

('rowu's part mlrst be'"the intention o1'substantially addressing [Aboriginal] concents" as 

they are raised (Delgumuulot,, ,supru, at para. 168). through a nteaningful process o1- 

consultation. Sharp dealing is not permitted. Ilowever. there is no duty to agree: rather. 

the commitntent is to a meaninglul process of consultation. As fbr Aboriginal claimants. 

thcv must not fir-rstrate the Crown's reasonable good f-aith attenipts. nor sliould they take 

unreasonable positions to thwart government fiom making decisions or acting in cases 

where. despite meaningful consultation, agreement is not reached: see Ilct|/tt'(ry) River 

Fir.st i\tution y. Briti,;h ('olumbiu(Ministr! of Forest.s:). [1999] 4 C.N.L.R. I (B.C.C.A.). 

at p. 44: Heiltsuk Tribal ()ouncil v. Briti.sh (olumbia (Minister o/'sustuinuble Re.source 

llunugement). (2003). I I B.C'.L.R. (4''') 107 (B.C.S.C.).

10 

clearlv' whenever any branch or department of the fbderal or provincial government 

contemplates perrnitting any activity which could impact on the lands or resources within 

Kawartha Nishnawbe's traditional tenitory, as shown on the attached map. it must thoroughly, 

consult in good faith with Kawar-tha Nishnawbe. In most cases there will be a duty 

accommodate 

to 

the community's concerns. Accommodation could take the fbrm of measures 

prevent 

to 

or Ilitigate potential impacts and/or compensation lbr irnpacts which cannot be avoided. 

Finally' itt Miku'scvt'. the Court also held that the clrown nrust consult in good faith and cannot 

decicle the outcotre o1- the consultations belbre they begin. This type oT ..consultations.. was 

dcscribecl bl the Suprcnte Court as".meaningless,.: 

"collsullatitln tllat excludes frorrr the outset any lorm ol'accornmodation rvclulcl be rneaningless. 

l'lte contenlplated proccss is not sirnply one of giving the Mikisew an oppoftLprity to blow 

stealn 

ofF 

befbre the Minister proceeds to clo what she intended to clo all along.' lreat),rnaking 

il-tlpoftant 

is a' 

stage ill thc long process of reconciliation, but it is only a stage. what occurred at Fort 

chipewy'an in 1899 r'vas trot tltc complete discharge of thc dLrtl, arisir[ 

('rolvrr. 

ftgnr the 56'.ur o1't6e 

but a redcdication of it.'.r,, 

As ntrted above. Kaw'arlha Nishnawbe has never bcen registcrecl as a "band" under the Indiun 

'+ct' nctr could thet' become a band sincc the proccss is ciicular: only members ot'communities 

recognizecl as Indiun lcl "bands" are considered "status Indians". and o.ly a communitv 

cornprised errtirely of "stzrtr-rs" Indians can apply to bc recognized as a..band...rl 

Discrinlination agaitrst so-called "non-status" First Nation cornmunities and ..nor-r-status.. Ifirst 

Natitltls pefsolls cotltinues to be widespreacl. with nrany govcrnment deparlments a1d ofllcials 

crroncouslv presunling that only Indiun lc'l bands and "status Inclians;' have constit,tionallr,, 

protected Aboriginal and l'reaty rights. So-called "non-status" comntunities. includi,rg Ii;;;il; 

Nishnawbe are licquentli' ignored because it is contmonly thought that the In4iurt Ac,t is a 

statutorv tnechanisrr lbr identilying those communities which hold Aboriginal and Jrcatl rights. 

This vicw is wholly incorrect and has been consistently re.iectcd by the courts.lr f n iu.t] tf-'. 

Indiun ,'1t't has nothing to do with identilying the holclers olt Aboriginal ancl Treaty rights. It is 

nlercly the statutory fiamework fbr the adrninistration of "bands" and rcserves. 

-fhere is rlo legal basis r.l'hatsoever for treating so-called "non-status" communities difl-erentl_v 

tlran comnrunities r,vhich are rccognized as "'bands" under the Intliun Ac't. In fact. it has been 

dctermined that sr-rch diffbrential treatment constitr-rtes discrimination. contrary to section l5 of 

lhe ('uruttliun('hurtar ol Right,s untl Freedonts.23 

-" lllikisew Cree t,. ('unudu. paragraph 54. 

., INDIAN STATUS AND BAND MEMBL,RSHIP ISSUES. 

tt 

Library of Parliament, 1996. 

R. r,. Fctw'ler (1993), 134 N.B.R. (2d) 361 (prov. Ct.); R. v. Harclttail(1993). 144 N.B.R. (2d) 146 (prov. Ct.). R. r.,. 

Cheyrier. [989] I C.N.L.R. 128 (Ont. Dist.Ct.). 

-' ('antttlu(Attornet Generul) v. trli.sc1uuclis,2003 FCA 370.

n 

CON{CLTJSION 

fhe commlrnity.ol-Kawartha Nishnawbe, based at Burleigh F-alls, is comprised of descendants of 

the Mississauga signatories 

Treaty No. 20 of 1818. The community arose fiom a division of 

the Curve Lake (MLrd Lake) band which began in the late 1800s and culminated in the l9l0s. 

81 l9l2 a distinct community had emerged. 

Kawartha Nishnaw'be did not participate in the williams-freaties of lc)23 which extinguished the 

rights and title of those lrirst Nation communities which did participate. and received none ol'the 

bencllts undcr thosc'frcaties. Their rigltts uncler the l8l8 Treaty. as well as their Aboriginal 

rights throughoLrt their traditional territory, therefore remain intact today and are protected by s. 

35 of thc ('onslilutittn Ac'|,19,92.'fhesc rights include traditional harvesting and a iight to proiect 

and care fbr cr.rltural" sacred and archaeological sites. 

J'hc C'rou''n. at all levels" has a duty to consult with Kawartha Nishnaw,bc whencver it 

contcnlplates pcrmitting any activities which coulcl impact on the rights of Kawarlha 

Nishnawbe's menrbcrs. Consultations must be in good faith with a vi.ir. to substantially 

addrcssing the community's conccrns. In rnany cases it will be necessary to accomnrodate 

Kawartha Nishrrawbe throLrgh modiflcations to the proposccl activity to avoid or mitigate 

impacts. Itl cases whcre irnpacts catrnot be avoided, compensation will nornrally be rcqLrircd. 

Sincercly. 

C'hlislophcr M. Rcid

TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 

ROYAL ROUGE TRAIL EROSION CONTROL PROJECT 

COMMUNITY LIAISON COMMITTEE MEETING #1 

THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 2009 

6:30 PM – 8:30 PM 

TALL PINES COMMUNITY CENTRE 

64 RYLANDER BLVD, SCARBOROUGH 

AGENDA 

6:30 – 6:45 Attendance sign in, welcome and opening remarks 

6:45 – 7:30 Presentation by TRCA 

• The Class EA process 

• Brief overview of past TRCA Erosion Monitoring and 

Remedial Works at Royal Rouge Trail 

7:30 – 8:30 Discussion Period 

Comment Form 

Next Steps 

Meeting adjournment 

Presentation by Terraprobe Limited 

• Review of geotechnical investigation and slope stability 

analysis 

• Overview of design concepts for slope remediation 

• Discussion of potential construction access locations

28 

SCARBOROUGH MIRROR | Friday, March 13, 2009 | 

Houses for Sale 

OPEN House Sunday 2- 

4, 8 Porchester Drive. 

Just Reduced, Great Value. 

$315000. 5 Bedroom 

Bungalow with 1 Bedroom 

Basement Apartment. 

Steps to Eglinton 

Go, 4 Car Parking. To 

View Call: Ruth Abbott, 

Sales Representative, 

Royal Lepage Homeward, 

Brokerage. 416- 

698-2090 . 

POWER of Sale. 

416-800-0695 

Re/Max Hallmark. 

www.ByTheBank.com 

Business 

Opportunities 

$$$ 

ATTN: BUSINESS 

OWNERS 

Add thousands to 

your bottom line by 

becoming 

a U-Haul Dealer. 

Call 

1-800-270-2792 

$384 DAILY! No experience 

required! Data entry 

positions available Now! 

Internet access needed! 

Income is Guaranteed! 

Apply today! www.datahomeworker.com 

DATA ENTRY PROCES- 

SORS NEEDED! Earn 

$3,500-$5,000 Weekly 

Working from Home! 

Guaranteed paychecks! 

No Experience Necessary! 

Positions Available 

Today! Register Online 

Now! www.DataCash 

Now.com 

BELLAMY/ Lawrence. 

Large, bright, clean 1 

bedroom basement. 

Steps to TTC & shopping. 

Separate entrance. 

Cable, laundry. No smoking/ 

pets. Furnished or 

unfurnished. $650 inclusive. 

416-438-9697 

BIRCHMOUNT/ Eglinton. 

Furnished Bachelor with 

Separate entrance, in 

raised bungalow. Steps to 

TTC/GO. Includes internet, 

cable, utilities. $600. 

Call 416-752-7539 

BRIGHT, sunny 1 bedroom 

basement. Clean, 

quiet home. Separate entrance. 

Laundry. Parking. 

Cable. TTC. $680 inclusive. 

Ellesmere/ Markham. 

416-697-8129, 416- 

431-7968 

DANFORTH Rd. & Eglinton, 

Danforth Estates. 1 

bedroom $769, 2 bedroom 

$859, 3 Bedroom 

$1,199 - 416-264-3411 


DANFORTH/ St. Clair. 2 

bedroom basement. Carpet. 

Front separate entrance. 

Available immediately. 

$800. 647-204- 

5788, 647-669-7088 

KENNEDY/ Eglinton. 3 

bedroom bungalow, main 

floor. CAC, parking, laundry. 

No smoking/ pets. 

$1250 inclusive. 416- 

648-2058 

MIDLAND/ Sheppard. 2 

bedroom. No smoking/ 

pets. Lease required. 

Quiet area. 416-291-3517 


Directory 

Free Tax Preparation for 

Low Income Earners 

$25,000/Individual; $30,000/family 

(add $2,000/child; interest income < $1000) 

To book an appointment, please call 

416-494-3269 

From Tuesday to Friday, 9am- 12noon 

Unfortunately, voice messages will not be returned 

Clinics conducted: 

Beginning March 14th 

Saturdays 9:30 A.M. – 1:00 P.M. 

First Alliance Church 

3250 Finch Ave. East 

Scarborough, Ontario 

Business 

Opportunities 

JOIN TODAY! 

Become a 

consultant with 

“GATHERINGS” 

a shop at home 

experience. 

For Seminar Dates 

and Location call: 

416-548-8417 

Or visit 

www. 

Gatheringsliving.com 


Directory 

SMALL corporations & 

contractors. Specialists 

for 30 years. John Woitzik 

BCom. 416-918-0455 

APTS FOR RENT 

KENNEDY/ Ellesmere. 

Bright, clean 2 bedroom 

basement, full bath, close 

to TTC/ amenities, $750 

inclusive. No pets/ smoking. 

Immediate. 416-289- 

3753 

MARKHAM/ Kingston. 

2 bedroom, $959. Hardwood 

fl oors, balcony, 

laundry, newly renovated. 

416-738-5516 

MCCOWAN/ 

Bright, clean, 1 bedroom 

+ kitchen, basement 

apartment. Separate entrance. 

Town Centre, RT. 

Quiet Neighborhood. 

$650 Including cable, 

utilities & laundry. 

Available immediatly. 

416-999-6923. 

MCCOWAN/ Ellesmere; 

Two bedroom basement, 

four appliances, Separate 

Entrance, TTC, nonsmoking. 

$750+ inclusive. 

905-472-6660. 

MORNINGSIDE & Ellesmere, 

80 Mornelle Crt., 1 

Bedroom- $799.00, 2 

Bedrooms- $839.00, 3 

Bedroom- $1099.00, 416- 

284-8011, 


MORNINGSIDE/ Morningview. 

2 bedroom 

basement. Close to TTC, 

UofT. March 1st. Price 

negotiated. Call Kugan 

416-724-4622, 416-418- 

7614 


Directory 


Directory 

$$$ ACCESS LAWSUIT 

CASH NOW!!! AS seen 

on TV. Injury Lawsuit 

Dragging? Need $500- 

$500,000++ within 

48/hrs? Low rates. AP- 

PLY NOW BY PHONE! 1- 

888-271-0463 www.cashfor-cases.com 

ONE STOP 

ACCOUNTING 

SERVICE 

Personal and 

Corporate Taxes 

Accounting and 

Bookkeeping. 

Serviced by a 

Professional 

Accountant. 

Amir Hudani C.G.A. 

416-795-2647 

Mortgages, Loans 

$$MONEY$$ Consolidate 

Debts Mortgages to 95% 

No income, Bad credit 

OK! Mortgage Centre 

#10969 1-800-282-1169 

www. 

mortgageontario.com 

PRIVATE FUNDS! Power 

of sale stopped! 1st, 2nd 

mortgages. Any situation, 

bad credit ok, low rates, 

low payments. Peter 

416-460-4594. 

Furnished Rentals 

A large Furnished Bachelor 

Studio Apartment with 

Separate Entrance 

available for Rent for April 

1/ 09. Close to all 

Amenities. Include Laundry, 

Cable, Parking & all 

Utilities. First & Last 

month deposit required 

Serious Applicants, 

Please call 416-887-5428 

Ellesmere. 


AGINCOURT! Sunny 2 

Bedroom Bungalow, New 

Paint & Carpet. Huge Private 

Deck & Yard. Appliances 

& Laundry Included. 

$1250/ mo+ 50% 

Utilities. Tiffany Lee 

Re/Max. 416-599-7766. 

BIRCHMOUNT/ Ellesmere 

3 bedroom, Sunroom, 

A/C, close to 

amenities. No pets/ 

smokers. $1250+utilities. 

Available immediately or 

April. 416-755-1484 

GOLF Club/ Lawrence. 3 

bedroom, 1.5 bathrooms. 

Central air. 4 appliances. 

Finished basement. 

Close to schools, Hospitals, 

shopping. $1350+ 

utilities. Available March 

15/ April 1. 416-831-8700 


Directory 



Newly renovated 3 bedroom. 

Non-smoking. 

Shared laundry. $1,200 +. 

416-897-5950 


Upper level 1 

bedroom house. 4 

piece washroom, livingroom, 

kitchen, Separate 

entrance. $680. 

April 1st. Humaira: 

416-724-2670 

Townhouses for Rent 

FRIENDLY Neighbourhood. 

Morningside/ Milner, 

3 bedroom townhouse, 

$979+ utilities. 

Market rent only. 416- 

282-3976 

MARKHAM COR- 

NERS. 30 Kimbercroft 

Court. Markham Rd/ 

401. Park like setting. 

Town homes (Patios, 

in-suite laundry, carpeted). 

Apartments 

(Balconies, hardwood 

fl oors). Access to 

Pool, playgrounds, 

Onsite daycare. Ask 

about move in incentives. 

OPEN HOUSE 

M-F 10am-6pm, Sat- 

Sun 12pm-4pm. 416- 

292-0118 

www.realstar.ca 

Shared Accommodation 

FINCH/ McCowan. Furnished 

separate room. 

$400 including utilities, 

laundry. Internet/ cable. 

No parking. Male preferred. 

24 hour TTC. Immediately. 

416-786-7177 

NEILSON/ Sheppard. 

Room for rent. $350 including 

utilities/ cable. 

working person. Male 

preferred. Close to mall/ 

TTC. 416-282-7319. 

Available Immediately. 

Vacation Properties 

SELL/RENT YOUR 

TIMESHARE NOW!!! 

Maintenance fees too 

high? Need Cash? Sell 

your unused timeshare 

today. No commissions or 

Broker Fees. Free Consultation. 

www.sellatimeshare.com 

1-866-708- 

3690 

Travel 

BUS trip. New York, 

NY. May 16- 18. 

$220/ person. Includes: 

bus, hotel. 

Call Tess 416-265- 

0861, 416-315-7692 


SEARCHING for Jean 

Pierre. If you know his 

whereabouts please contact 

416-320-9418 

Tenders 

INVITATION 

TO TENDER 

Toronto Community News is 

accepting tenders to deliver 

newspapers between its 2 offices 

in Scarborough and Etobicoke 


Bid packages are available at Toronto 

Community News, 









INVITATION 

TO TENDER 

Toronto Community News is accepting 

tenders to deliver newspapers on 

Fridays to retail locations in the 

Etobicoke area. 


Bid packages are available at 

Toronto Community News, 









Nannies 

LIVE- in nanny. 2 year 

old daughter. FT. Schomberg 

CPR/ First Aid. 

$9.25/ hr. Fax resume attention 

Brian: 416-265- 

3939 

LIVE-IN nanny required 

for 4 & 1 year old children. 

More than 1 year 

experience. $9.35/ hour. 

Warden/ Ellesmere. Call 

Jean 416-751-5941 

Private Tuition/Schools 

TUTORING, in-home, by 

certified teachers, all 

grades and subjects. Excellent 

service guaranteed. 

416-410-4591 

www.alittleextrahelptutoring.com 

Check 

Out: 

Tenders 

Tutoring Service 

French, Chemistry, Physics, 

Biology, Calculus, 

English, Math, Accounting 

& More. From Grade 

2-12. Groups/One-on- 

One, Good rates 

(416)609-9508 

MATH 

WORKSHOPS 

Grade 3 & Up 

Multiplication, 

division, number 

theory, fractions, 

decimals 

Saturdays: 

12 ‘til 2pm 

Starts: 

Feb 7 ‘til April 11 

For schedule & 

cost call: 

416-266-0424 

4637 Kingston 

Road @ Manse 



NOTICE 

Pursuant to the Cemeteries Act (Revised) 

Section #30, Resthaven Memorial Gardens 

will be applying to the Registrar of 

the Cemeteries Act for a Declaration that 

the interment rights of the follow people 

are abandoned. 

Gordon Rogers, 39 Kitson Drive, Scarborough ON 

Andrew Rodgers, 9 Bardwell Crescent, 


Douglas Robinson, 4010 Lawrence Avenue, 


Donald Pearl, 381 Friendship Avenue, 


Joseph Perrin, 4205 Lawrence Avenue, 


Joyce Prestwick, 93 Beechgrove Drive, 


Alfred Mills, 98 Elinor Avenue, Scarborough ON 

Annie Morrison, 67 Fenwood Heights, 


James Murray, 7 Palacky Street, Scarborough ON 

Donald Patterson, RR#2 Midland Avenue, 


Anyone knowing any of these people's 

whereabouts is asked to contact: 

Resthaven Memorial Garden at: 

1-416-267-4653 

Ask for Melissa Fraser, Assistant Manager 

March 6th, 2009 

www.insidetoronto.com 




EL CURSO ALPHA 

NOTICE OF INTENT 

Diseñado para explorar la razon de vivir. 

Este Curso es Gratis y empieza el Martes 

24 de Marzo a 6:30 pm y continua todos 

los Martes por 10 semanas. 

Cada sesión empieza con una cena, 

seguida por un video, en Español o Ingles, 

como usted prefiera y luego una discusion 

en pequeños grupos. 

Lo esperamos en: 330 Bellamy Road, N. 

Scarborough (Lawrence Av & Bellamy) 

Para mas Informacion llamar a Juan Carlos 

o Mirian: 416-439-2521 o 416-697-4504 

The ALPHA COURSE 


Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has 

commenced a study regarding the fi nal design of alternatives 

to remediate ongoing slope erosion that is occurring along a 

section of the Rouge River Valley at the rear of the properties 

located at Nos. 30 – 48 Royal Rouge Trail in the City of 

Toronto. 

TRCA invites you to participate in this study, which is subject 

to approval under the Class Environmental Assessment for 

Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects. Your input will 

be incorporated in the planning and design process for this 

project. 

If you wish to be involved in this study, or to receive further 

information, please contact: 





Toronto, ON M1M 2N5 

Phone: (416) 392-9690 

Fax : (416) 392-9726 


TODOS SON 

BIENVENIDOS 

ALL WELCOME 

Designed to explore the meaning of life. 

This FREE course begins with a complimentary 

Information Dinner on Tuesday, March 24 th 

at 6:30pm, then starts on March 31 st , 

and runs every Tuesday for 10 weeks. 

Every evening starts with a dinner, 

followed by a video, and small group 

open discussions. 

Held at BENDALE BIBLE CHAPEL, 

330 Bellamy Road N., Scarborough 

For Information Call Stellis Robinson 

at 416-266-4221 




Subject to comments received as a result of this study and the 

receipt of necessary approvals and funding, TRCA intends to 

proceed with the construction of this project.

TORONTO AND REGION CONSER 



(f) 


6:30 PM - 8:30 PM 


64 RYLANDER BOULEVARD, SCARBOROUGH 

RECORD OF ATTENDEES 

ADDRESS/ORGANIZATION 

/\VCL..D 

v 

DAYTIME PHONE 

TaA..-\ . 

(,/1/.9 q(J~IT B'} 

~(p - Z r~~L:.-o 

LiIG- Z &'b- 55~ 

7'/b -- ~;).- I ()2-8" 

til- 3yy- 13gs 

'116'" J-~2 - VII 7 

r05 -7/5 -b3ci 

~(0 2.1{I b 1-3 

l U?d-C o-I..f /17· 

~\(.,4~S-'1Sq 

EMAIL 

ADDRESS 

onserRvifUon 



1 of 2

TORONTO AND REGION CONSER' 




6:30 PM - 8:30 PM 



I 

fie, [N)-;J~c ~V' 

mutt- 

NAME (Please print) ADDRESS/ORGANIZATION 

EMAIL SIGNATURE 

DAYTIME PHONE 

~ {'JI/\ 

'bur'V\ f\JM",Do~'Il~.J( 

e:..) \t., ~ 

rR..e-A f1~v."'C::) L(tC. p ro::> 1& ~t-- '-;-!f{c...A r - 

'~AO~ QQM ~, 

'lRLA-. 

"fUTrA~rc;)1.:\(.. 

T(2.cA 

RECORD OF ATTENDEES (CONTINUED) 

. 

onserRillfUon 


2 of 2 

"-I~_L-..._ .t! £""' .••...•_".., .•..••_ ••• _s: __ r'\._s __:_

Project Location 

30 – 48 Royal Rouge Trail 

Erosion Control Project 

Community Liaison Committee 

Meeting #1 

June 18 th , 2009 

Background Information 

‣ Erosion behind Royal Rouge Trail was first brought to the attention of TRCA in 1989 

‣ Minor stabilization works have been carried out at isolated sections over the past 20 

years with limited success 

‣ Risk assessment and slope stability analysis completed in 2007 for 30-48 Royal 

Rouge Trail at the request of the property owners results indicate that remedial 

works are required to provide long-term protection for the properties 

‣ Capital funding for remedial erosion control works received from the City of Toronto 

in January 2009 

‣ Permission to initiate Class Environmental Assessment (EA) process granted from 

the Authority on February 27, 2009 

‣ Terraprobe retained by TRCA in March 2009 to assist with the technical aspects of 

the Class EA process, including the final design of remedial works 

Project Objectives 

‣ Provide long-term, low maintenance protection against erosion 

and slope instability 

‣ Prevent loss of property and eliminate risk to existing structures 

‣ Include enhancements to terrestrial habitat wherever possible 

‣ Complete the project following the Class Environmental 

Assessment process 

‣ Implement the proposed works within the next year 

Class EA Planning and Design Process 

The 

Class Environmental Assessment 

(Class EA) 

Process 

Step 1: Notify 

Public 

1

Step 1: Notify Public 

• “Notice of Intent” published in 

The Scarborough Mirror on March 

13, 2009 

• Copies of Notice also sent to 

agencies and individuals who 

may have an interest in the 

project including: Federal, 

Provincial, and Municipal 

Politicians, Parks Department, 

Rouge Park Alliance, Cultural and 

Heritage Interest Groups 

Step 2 : 

Establish CLC 


The CLC is… 

Step 2: Establish CLC 

Step 2: Establish CLC 

‣ A group of individuals 

involved/interested in a given 

remedial project 

‣ Formed to ensure that all views 

regarding the proposed works are 

represented 

‣ Structured according to amount 

of public interest shown 

Key Functions: 

• To assist the TRCA in obtaining public input 

• To identify issues of concern regarding a remedial project 

• To review information and provide comments to be utilized 

during the planning and design process 

‣ An essential component of the Class 

Environmental (EA) process 

Step 3: Prepare 

Baseline 


Step 3: The Baseline Inventory 

The Baseline Inventory provides the information needed to evaluate the 

alternative options developed through the Class EA process, and includes: 

• Existing site conditions, (physical, 

biological, cultural and socioeconomic) 

• Historical site usage, including 

archaeological data, and migration patterns 

• Engineering/technical aspects to 

be considered 

2

Step 3: The Baseline Inventory 


A full description of the baseline will be documented in the final report for this 

project that will: 

• Ensure that both the directly and indirectly 

affected environments are taken into 

consideration during the development and 

design of the preferred remedial measure 

• Serve as a baseline from which to 

monitor the effectiveness of the 

action taken 

Geotechnical Investigation and 

Slope Stability Analysis 

Geotechnical Investigation and 

Slope Stability Analysis 

#30 to #48 Royal Rouge Trail 

Toronto, Ontario 

Prepared by Terraprobe Ltd. 

Mike Tanos, P.Eng. 

Jason Crowder, P.Eng. 

June 18, 2009 

Terraprobe 

Ltd. 

Site Overview - Previous Investigations 

Outline of Work 

● Site Overview – Previous Investigations 

● Geology and Subsurface Conditions 

● Site Inspection 2007 

● Existing Conditions 2009 

● Development of Remedial Alternatives 

● 1984 - Geotechnical Investigation (Soil-Eng) for subdivision plan 

approval 

● 1985 - Stormwater Management Report (Fred Shaeffer & Assoc) as part 

of TRCA purchase of ravine land 

● 1994 - TRCA retains Terraprobe to complete a slope stability 

assessment behind 42 Royal Rouge Trail following collapse of fence. 

Note: tree planting and gravel blanket placed previous year by TRCA T 

(1993) 

● 1997 - Terraprobe submits report of updated slope stability assessment 

for 42 Royal Rouge Trail, following complaint of additional loss of 

property. Buttress and plantings subsequently installed (1998) 

● 2001 - Terraprobe completes updated slope stability assessment for 42 

Royal Rouge Trail following complaint of additional loss of property. 

Timber retaining wall, gravel and plantings subsequently installed 

(2003) 

● 2007 - Slope stability assessment for 30-48 Royal Rouge Trail by 

Terraprobe commences following petition by residents (2004) 

● 2008 – Terraprobe presents results of study to community 

Terraprobe Ltd. 

3

Geology of the Area 

BH1 

BH2 

BH3 


Subsurface 

Conditions 

BH1 

#32 

Ground water level 

from 4.6 to 5.0 

metres below 

ground (in sand ~1 

to 2 metres above 

clayey silt layer) 

Areas of less vegetation 

Seepage 

Bare areas (no vegetation) 

Gravel fill 

Observed crest of slope 



General Slope Observations 

● Generally well vegetated 

● some downed trees 

● Several bare areas 

● indications of recent erosion, slumping or sloughing 

of upper silty sand 

● Some undercutting and seepage in same areas 

● No evidence of water directed over slope 

● Large tree toppled at #48 (spring 2007) 

● Slope steep & bare, and has regressed close to pool 

● Gravel infilling at #42 



4

Existing Conditions 

● Slope re-inspected in May 2009 

● Scarp below #48 & 46 considerably larger, 

seepage and wet zones 

● Surficial fill found below eastern portions of #48 

● Found new scarp below #30 and 32, with seepage 

● New pool at #30 

● Small timber retaining wall below #44 

● Gravel infill below #42 

● Generally no loss of crest west of #44 

● Two main areas of concern 

● #44 to 48 and #30 to 32 



Existing Conditions 2009 

48 to 44 

Royal 

Rouge Trail 


48 to 44 



48 to 44 



5

48 to 44 

Royal Rouge 

Trail 

42 



42 



42 



38 



30-32 

32 



6

30 to 32 



Evaluation of Remedial 

Alternative Options 

“Do Nothing Scenario” 

Mandatory component of the Class EA process to 

demonstrate that remedial works are justified 

If no remedial works are undertaken for Royal Rouge 

Trail: 

● Slope will eventually stabilize to a stable inclination 

● Not necessarily at LTSSC as defined by FS = 1.5, but by 

an inclination defined by a lower FS 

● Pools, sheds, and a significant portion of tableland 

are within the erosion hazard limit 


• Pros 

“Do Nothing” Scenario 

Pros 

• Very low cost 

• Very low effort 

• No construction impacts to slope or vegetation 

• Cons 

• Estimated loss of tableland, loss of use, risk to 

structures 

• Loss of vegetation / habitat in areas of failure or 

slumping 

• Unknown timeframe 


“Do Nothing” Scenario – Typical Section 

“Do Nothing” Scenario – Typical Section 


7

Remediation Options 

• Site divided into two sections 

• Site “A” – from #30 to #40 Royal Rouge Trail 

• Site “B” – from #42 to #48 Royal Rouge Trail 

• Two preliminary concepts for each section 

Site A – Preliminary Concept 1 

• Intense Re-Vegetation 

• No structures at risk in Site A – only portions of 

tableland at risk 

• Increased planting and / or seeding 

• Could involve placement of perforated cellular 

confinement system – topsoil & vegetation 

• Other options: live staking, bio-fascines 

• Remove all debris from slope face prior to re- 

vegetating 

• Some long term loss of tableland is possible 



Site A – Plan of Preliminary Concept 1 






• Slope Trimming & Intense Re-Vegetation 

• Trim the upper, over-steepened areas to a more 

stable inclination 

– Use FS of 1.25 – generally acceptable engineering FS 

for slopes to establish more stable trimmed inclination 

– More stable inclination of 1.3 H : 1 V 

• Intensely re-vegetate areas of trimming 

• Intensely re-vegetate other areas on the upper 

slope area that have less-dense or no vegetative 

cover 

• Little long term loss of tableland is anticipated 



8


Typical Section 

Site A – Evaluation of Concepts 


Preliminary 

Concept 1: 

Intense Re- 

Vegetation 

Preliminary 

Concept 2: 


Re-Vegetation 




Loss of Habitat / Vegetation on Slope Low Medium 



Construction Equipment on Private Property None Medium 





Site B – Preliminary Concept 1 

• Retaining Wall and Filling 

• Construct retaining wall over parts of #44 to #48 

» Hard stone face - Siena Stone facing (no long term 

maintenance) 

– Soft vegetated Face - SierraScape wire basket (some 

maintenance of vegetated face required) 

» Geogrid reinforced soil 

• Infill the upper, over-steepened areas behind #42 

and #44 

– Rubble or rock fill (coarse( 

angular gravel, blast rock, 

broken concrete rubble, etc.) 

– Clear stone filter at slope / fill interface to facilitate 

drainage of ground water and to prevent piping 

– Re-vegetate areas of filling - top dressing and seeding 


Site B – Plan of Preliminary Concept 1 



Typical Retaining Wall Section 





9


Typical Fill Section 

Rubble Fill – 

Top Dumping 



Late 1980s 

1979 



2005 2008 

CIV 523 –JAN –APR 

2009 


10

Construction of 

Siena Stone Walls 

Examples of Siena 

Stone Retaining 

Walls 



SierraScape Walls 

Examples of 

Vegetated 




Site B – Plan of Preliminary Concept 2 

• Extended Retaining Wall and Trimming 

• Construct retaining wall over from #44 to #48 

» Hard stone face - Siena Stone facing 

» Soft vegetated Face - SierraScape wire basket 

» Geogrid reinforced soil 



– Use FS of 1.25 – generally acceptable engineering FS 


– More stable inclination of 1.3 H : 1 V 

– Intensely re-vegetate areas of trimming 



11



Site B – Evaluation of Concepts 


Preliminary 

Concept 1: 



Preliminary 

Concept 2: 

Extended Retaining 





Loss of Habitat / Vegetation on Slope High Medium 


Construction Equipment on Private Property High High 




Potential Site Access Points 

Between 

#32 & #34 

Between 

#38 & #40 


10 Bram Court 

Brampton, ON L6W 3R6 

P: 905.796.2650 

F: 905.796.2250 

E: brampton@terraprobe.ca 

Between 

#44 & #46 

Between 

#46 & #48 


Class EA Process – Next Steps 

Next Steps 

• CLC members to complete questionnaire and return to TRCA by June 25th, 

2009 

• TRCA to work with Terraprobe Ltd. to modify/add/omit alternative options 

based on input received 

• Next CLC meeting tentatively scheduled for mid to end of July, 2009 

12

Thank you for your time ☺ 

13

CFN 39382.1 

B3-33-2 

MINUTES 



LOCATION: Tall Pines Community Centre, 64 Rylander Boulevard, Scarborough, ON 

DATE: June 18, 2009 

TIME: 6:30 – 8:30 pm 

PARTICIPANTS 

Jim Berry, TRCA Moranne McDonnell, TRCA Kyle Reyes, TRCA 

Jason Crowder, Terraprobe 

Ltd. 

Tom Deile, 44 Royal Rouge 


Trevor D’Souza, 42 Royal 


Danielle Giggie, 48 Royal 


Ed Giggie, 48 Royal Rouge 


Councillor Ron Moeser 

Patricia Newland, TRCA 

Maria Papoulias, Rouge Park 

Jim Petit, 44 Royal Rouge Trail 

Mark Preston, TRCA 

Jamie Sparks, 30 Royal 


Kathy Sparks, 30 Royal 


Malcolm Wilson, 46 Royal 


Shakira Wilson, 46 Royal 


Mike Tanos, 


DISTRIBUTION 

Wayne Arthurs, 

M.P.P., Pickering-Scarborough 

Carlo Corvese, 38 Royal 

Rouge Trali 

David Chung, 40 Royal Rouge 


Steve Foster, 34 Royal Rouge 


File Participants 

Debora Gyimah, 32 Royal Ryan Ness, TRCA 


Steve Heuchert, TRCA 

Maria Parish, TRCA 

Chris Hope, City of Toronto 

Dan McTeague, 

M.P., Pickering-Scarborough 

East 

Lewis Yeager, Rouge Park, 

General Manager 

MINUTES 

Item Description Action By 

Introductions 

Presentation 

• Jim Berry (JB) starts the meeting by welcoming the 

group to the CLC meeting, introduces Councillor 

Moeser, TRCA staff, and Terraprobe Engineering 

Consultants. He then invites the attendees to introduce 

themselves. 

• Patricia Newland (PN) begins the presentation by 

recapping TRCAs history of involvement with Royal 

Rouge Trail, and discusses the Class Environmental 

Assessment (Class EA) process. 

1 of 6

CFN 39382.1 

B3-33-2 

• Jason Crowder (JC) continues the presentation with a 

recap of the results of geotechnical investigation 

conducted by Terraprobe Ltd. in 2007, comparing that 

information to the updated visual assessment of the 

slope completed in May 2009. He then reviewed some 

of the typical methods used to stabilize slopes. 

• JC continues on to explain that the site has been divided 

into two sectors based on the type and extent of erosion 

activity on the slope. Site A spans from Nos. 30 - 40 

Royal Rouge Trail; Site B spans from Nos. 42 – 48 Royal 

Rouge Trail. JC then introduces the preliminary design 

concepts for Sites A and B and discusses the 

advantages and disadvantages of each. 

Site A Preliminary Design Concepts include: 

1. Intense Re-vegetation 

2. Slope Trimming with Intense Re-Vegetation 

Site B Preliminary Design Concepts include: 

1. Retaining Wall with Slope Filling 

2. Extended Retaining Wall with Slope Trimming 

• Two variations of the retaining wall option were 

presented: one with a traditional vertical stone face; the 

other being a slightly terraced wire basket structure with 

a vegetated face. Both options require the inclusion of 

geogrids (a geosynthetic material usually made from 

polyester or polypropylene fibres bonded together in a 

grid-like pattern) in the soil behind the face of the 

retaining wall for reinforcement. JC completes his 

presentation with a discussion on potential construction 

access points on Royal Rouge Trail. 

Discussion Period 

• Malcom Wilson (MW) inquires about the positioning of 

the geogrid in the Site B options. 

‣ JC explains that the geogrid retaining wall system 

can be designed to be closer to the existing slope 

face, or farther out depending on the extent of 

cutting or filling permitted. 

• Trevor D’Souza (TDS) inquires as to how the perched 

water table will be addressed in the design of works for 

Site B, as neither or the proposed options appears to 

address the drainage issue. 

‣ JC responds that none of the options will obstruct 

the natural flow of groundwater. 

‣ PN adds that the drainage will be addressed during 

construction, to ensure that the problem is not 

shifted to another portion of the slope. 

2 of 6

CFN 39382.1 

B3-33-2 

‣ Mike Tanos (MT) clarifies that the materials used are 

free-draining. 

‣ TDS states that he does not feel that seepage is 

being adequately addressed. 

‣ JC & MT explain that intense re-vegetation of the 

slope will aid in the uptake of the groundwater. 

‣ Moranne McDonnell (MM) adds that TRCA has 

implemented similar bioengineering measures at 

other sites where seepage has been an issue with 

great success, and suggested that staff bring 

photographs of these sites to the next meeting. 

• Danielle Giggie (DG) refers to one of the presentation 

slides that shows heavy machinery and asks how the 

machinery will access the slope to implement the works. 

‣ JC replies that the machinery should be able to 

access the slope from the top. 

‣ MM adds that site access will be addressed as part 

of the detailed analysis of the final design, noting 

that the sensitivity of the Rouge Valley must be 

acknowledged. 

‣ Jim Petit (JP) inquires as to whether there will access 

from the base of the slope 

‣ Mark Preston (MP) replied that he did not feel that it 

would be beneficial to access the site from the base 

of the valley wall, based on the height of the slope 

and its condition. 

‣ TDS adds that there is a swamp at the base of the 

slope, making it difficult for machine access. 

• TDS inquires into the type of machinery required to 

complete the project, wondering if a conveyer belt 

system or something similar can be used to ensure that 

track machines do not destroy the residents’ rear yards. 

‣ MP explains that the type machinery needed cannot 

be confirmed until the final design is selected, 

however TRCA has access to a wide variety of 

machines. 

‣ JP inquires if there are any specific machines that 

will be required. 

‣ MP replies that the type of machines is unknown at 

this point, but suggests that a backhoe, dozer and 

perhaps a rubber tire loader would be required. MM 

adds that the machines would probably work their 

way down from the top of slope. 

• MW asks about the costs associated with the retaining 

wall option. He refers to the access options presented, 

and raises his concern over the potential removal of 

fences and plantings, wondering who is responsible for 

the cost of repairing damages. 

‣ PN replies that the access routes have yet to be 

3 of 6

determined, but that there may be some expenses 

for the homeowners, which will be addressed at the 

appropriate time. 

‣ MM adds that legal agreements must be secured 

with each of the property owners prior to 

commencing construction, and that a representative 

from TRCA’s Property Department will be involved in 

that component of the project. 

• TDS inquires as to when the work is going to be 

implemented, adding that erosion problems at this site 

have been ongoing for 20 years. 

‣ MM replies that it is TRCA’s intention is to implement 

work in late 2009/early 2010. 

‣ JB adds that this site is one of many that feature 

significant erosion at present, and that it is TRCA’s 

position that this site will have works implemented by 

2010. 

‣ Councillor Ron Moeser also adds that he would like 

to see a long-term solution implemented, and that it 

must be environmentally sound to minimize impact 

to all parties affected, including Rouge Park, which is 

situated at the base of the valley slope. 

• JP states that he shares a tree with 46 Royal Rouge Trail. 

He asks whether this tree and others like it will have to be 

removed in order to be able to access the project area. 

‣ MM explains that it is likely tree removals will be 

necessary, however the removal of specific trees will 

not be determined until the final design is completed. 

MM adds that TRCA works closely with Urban 

Forestry, and that it is standard practice to replace 

removed trees at a ratio of 3:1. 

• DG inquires about the project timelines indicated in the 

CLC Package and whether or not TRCA is adhering to it. 

‣ PN explains that while the project meeting schedule 

is off-track, TRCA intends to commence the 

implementation of works by 2010 as illustrated in the 

tentative project timeline, but that the final design will 

dictate the appropriate time to commence works. 

‣ DG then asks for a more precise date. 

‣ MM replies that winter construction is most probable, 

but that final site restoration would have to take 

place in the spring. 

• TDS inquires about the total project budget. 

‣ JB explains that $200,000 has been allocated for 

2009, and $190,000 is anticipated for 2010, for an 

overall project budget of $390,000. 

‣ TDS questions whether this is enough to 

implement the proposed works. 

CFN 39382.1 

B3-33-2 

4 of 6

‣ JB & MM explain further about the capital budget 

process, and reassure the CLC members that 

funding was not something to be concerned about. 

• Tom Deile (TD) asks when the final design will be 

completed. 

‣ MM replies that based on the result of the comment 

forms, internal review of the proposed concepts, and 

the recommendations of Terraprobe, TRCA would 

like to come back with the preferred alternatives for 

both sites (A & B) at the next meeting. 

• Kathy Sparks (KS) inquires as to whether the CLC 

members will actually have any say in the selection of 

the preferred alternatives. 

‣ MM explains that all opinions will be taken into 

account in the selection of the preferred 

alternatives, but that the impact evaluation of the 

options ultimately determines the preferred 

approach. MM adds that while public opinion is 

critical to the process, it is not the only factor to 

consider. TRCA’s job in this process is to take all 

things into consideration and demonstrate that the 

approach taken is justified given the merits of the 

work. 

• TDS inquires about the possibility if having a copy of the 

presentation emailed out to the CLC participants. 

‣ MM explains that TRCA will provide a copy of the 

presentation on CD to anyone that requests it. 

• Jamie Sparks (JS) inquires about whether the concepts 

provided for Site A will address overland drainage. 

‣ JC replies that he is not aware of water draining over 

the slope and then refers to the borehole logs which 

indicate that the upper slope is relatively permeable 

where water can infiltrate and exit downslope. 

‣ MT adds that the proposed plantings would include 

around the seepage areas and that the types of 

plantings selected are chosen to absorb water and 

anchor the soil. He explained that this is the 

preferred method of addressing seepage at Site A 

because this area is not as steep as Site B. 

• TD inquires as to whether or not there is a wetland at the 

base of the valley wall, and that he thinks that having the 

slope stabilized will protect the area by preventing the 

valley wall from falling into it, adding that he hopes the 

construction works will not impact the ecosystem. 

‣ PN explains that the TRCA ecology group has 

indicated that this is a swampy wetland area at the 

base of the slope with some ecologically sensitive 

CFN 39382.1 

B3-33-2 

5 of 6

species present. 

‣ MM adds that all impacts are assessed as part of the 

Class EA process, however TRCA is committed to 

minimizing the impacts of the proposed works and 

will work closely with the Rouge Park Alliance to 

ensure that impacts to the Rouge Park are 

minimized. 

• JP inquires if any resistance is expected from other 

parties not present at the meeting. 

‣ MM replies that she doesn’t anticipate any resistance 

with this project, and that staff will be working closely 

with internal reviewers from the ecology, and 

engineering departments of TRCA, as well as 

coordinating the flow of information from external 

agencies such as the Rouge Park Alliance, and any 

interested First Nations groups. MM goes on to 

assure the CLC that staff would keep them apprised 

of any potential delays. 

CFN 39382.1 

B3-33-2 

Next Steps 

Meeting 

Adjournment 

• PN summarizes TRCA’s next steps regarding the EA 

process, adding that the next meeting will be scheduled 

during the summer, and that vacation schedules would 

be appreciated. She also asks that everyone fill out the 

comment form provided, and send it back to TRCA either 

by fax or email. 

• Meeting adjourned at 8:30 pm. 

Prepared By: KR, PN, MM Date Published: June 30, 2009 

This confirms and records TRCA’s interpretation of the discussions which occurred during this 

meeting. 

6 of 6




THURSDAY, JUNE 18,2009 

6:30 PM - 8:30 PM 



COMMENT 

FORM 

1. Do you understand and agree with the Project Objectives? If not, please explain. 

2. Please share your thoughts regarding each of the alternatives presented. 

Site A - Concept 

1: Intense Re-vegetation 

Site A - Concept 2: Slope Trimming and Intense Re-vegetation 

Site B - Concept 

1: Retaining Wall and Slope Filling 

Site B - Concept 2: Extended Retaining Wall and Slope Trimming 

onservaNoon 


1 of 2 

Member of Conservation Ontario

3. Please rank your responses to the following questions in order of importance (i.e., do not 

circle the same number more than once) 

How important is it that the remedial works ... 

(a) maintain a "natural" look?-~ 1 

(b) protect/enhance terrestrial habitat? ': cP 

(c) cause minimal disturbance during construction1f' 1 

(d) are cost effective? l' 1 

(e) are low maintenance? 1. 1 

(g) Other (please specify) 1 

1 = most important 6= least 

2@ 

2 3 

2 3 

2 3 

(Y 3 

2 3 

4 

4 

4 

(V 

4 

4 

important 

5 

5 

~ 

5 

5 

5 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

6 

4. Please circle the concept for each site that you would most like to be given further 

consideration through the Class EA process. 

Site A: 

Concept 

1: Intense Re-vegetation 

concep@Slope Trimming and Intense Re-vegetation 

Site B: 

Concept 

1: Retaining Wall and Slope Filling 

concep@Extended 

Retaining Wall and Slope Trimming 

5. Please use this space to express any concerns with the concepts currently being evaluated or 

with the project in general; make suggestions regarding other concepts that you feel may have 

been overlooked; and provide any other information that you feel may be important to the project. 

Name (please print): 

Please complete this questionnaire/comment sheet and leave it a the sign-in table or forward it to 

the address below by June 26,2009 to: 



Scarborough, ON M1 M 2N5 

Attention: Patricia Newland 

Phone: (416)392-9690 • Fax: (416) 392-9726 • Email: pnewland@trca.on.ca 

onserRvaNoon 



2 of 2





6:30 PM- 8:30 PM 



COMMENT 

FORM 

1. Do you understand and agree with the Project Objectives? If not, please explain. 

'I-t-C;., :I 

u..v...~J4.~ c:.-t-av-..l A-~6 .::s:: o..c~~r.u 

2. Please share your thoughts regarding each of the alternatives presented. 

Site A - Concept 1: Intense Re-vegetation . 

~ e-- \""r\ 0.{\. 

5~~ r~CJ(\O\.~~ - ~~IY\ K-~\~\As.+- ~O\. e.cS1 - ~'A-~ 

~ 

Site A - Concept 2: Slope Trimming and Intense Re-vegetation ~ \ I 

$e.bYl-S ..ecs \\1\\.5 

~~-\-\Jc..."\.~~ L.\'-t. K~\c.. \ KU\.4.~ \> }lA.sT \? ~ C;\'lI\lI\tll\.~. -n ~~ 

~'("\cM., ~\f'l.}"" \CN\ 

onserRvaNUon 

for The Living City 1 of 2 

Member of Conservation Ontario

3. Please rank your responses to the following questions in order of importance (i.e., do not 

circle the same number more than once) 

How important is itthat the remedial works... 

1 = most important 6= least 

important 

4. 

(a)...maintain a "natural" look? 

(b).. .protect/enhance terrestrial habitat? 

(c)... cause minimal disturbance during construction? 

(d)...are cost effective? 

(e).. .are low maintenance? 

(g)... Other (please specify) 

~ ~

danielle giggie 

 

06/30/2009 12:42 AM 

To 

cc 

bcc 

Subject 

Kyle Reyes 

eddie wallace giggie 

Re: 30 -48 Royal Rouge Trail CLC COMMENT FORM 

Follow-Up 

Hi Kyle........ We are very excited about the concepts presented, and are looking forward to you finally starting 

terrified as to the speed in which we have been loosing the land and trees behind our home. Thank you so much 

needs to be started before the next spring (2010) as this is when the majority of the land loss occurrs. 


--- On Mon, 6/29/09, Kyle Reyes wrote: 

From: Kyle Reyes 

Subject: 30 -48 Royal Rouge Trail CLC COMMENT FORM Follow-Up 

To: trevordsouzaca@yahoo.ca, sal.jhuman@averydennison.com, widget@sympatico.ca, dgiggie@yahoo.ca, spr 

Cc: PNewland@trca.on.ca, "Moranne McDonnell" 

Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:38 PM 

Good Afternoon Everyone, 

Just a friendly reminder that we are still waiting on some outstanding Comment Forms (they were due back on Friday June 

presented , or even just a quick email stating that you are satisfied / dissatisfied with the progress that TRCA is making on 

Attached is a copy of Comment Form in pdf format. You can fill out the form and email or fax (or mail) it back to the attentio 

to pnewland@trca.on.ca stating your opinions. 

We appreciate everyone's feedback, and ongoing involvement in the project. 

Also, copies of the presentation will be made available on a CD for those that request it. 

Thank you kindly, 

Kyle Reyes 

Environmental Engineering Technician 

Restoration Services Division 

Toronto Region Conservation Authority 

1 Eastville Ave, Toronto, ON 

416.393.6346 / Fax: 416.392.9726 

email: kreyes@trca.on.ca

Sparks 

 

06/30/2009 03:12 PM 

To 

cc 

bcc 

Subject 

 

RE: 30 -48 Royal Rouge Trail CLC COMMENT FORM 

Follow-Up 

Yes we understand what has been proposed by the conservation. 

For Site A - I would prefer the intense re-vegetation over the slope trimming. I would also 

like to know if we can get some fill behind #32. There is such a drop now and with the 

undercutting and 1 tree that is growing on an angle. It can take out a huge area if a storm 

takes it. 

For site B - I thin that the extended slope filling is the best idea. With a wall I am afraid of 

it becoming a hazard with safety of people walking at the top. With no railing and a 30 - 40 

foot drop that can be very dangerous. 

3. a) 1 

b) 2 

c) 5 

d)3 

e)2 

4. site A intense re-vegetation 

site B Extended retaining wall and slope trimming 

5. Please consider putting some fill behind #32. We are quite worried about the hill 

slipping. This is not a new slide that has happened or new water that has started coming 

out. But we have noticed over the past couple of years that the vegetation behind there is 

becoming quite sparse. We are worried that if just intense re-vegetation is done you 

wouldn't come back to fix it in years when we discovered it didn't work. 

Thank you very much for helping us with the issue of our hill. I am very happy to see 

things progressing this quickly. 

Kathy Sparks 

To: KReyes@TRCA.on.ca 

Subject: Re: 30 -48 Royal Rouge Trail CLC COMMENT FORM Follow-Up 

From: KReyes@TRCA.on.ca 

Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 08:25:01 -0400 

Good Morning Everyone, 

I apologize for not attaching the questionnaire as stated in the email I sent yesterday afternoon. Please 

find attached the questionnaire in pdf format. Also attached below is the email I sent yesterday regarding 

how to return your response.


Kyle Reyes 





416.393.6346 / Fax: 416.392.9726 

email: kreyes@trca.on.ca 

Kyle Reyes/TRCA 

06/29/2009 03:38 PM 

To trevordsouzaca@yahoo.ca, sal.jhuman@averydennison.com, widget@sympatico.ca, 

dgiggie@yahoo.ca, sprinklerfitter1@yahoo.ca, maria_papoulias@rougepark.com 

cc PNewland@trca.on.ca, Moranne McDonnell/MTRCA 

Sub 30 -48 Royal Rouge Trail CLC COMMENT FORM Follow-Up 

ject 


Just a friendly reminder that we are still waiting on some outstanding Comment Forms (they were due 

back on Friday June 26, 2009). We would appreciate everyone's feedback regarding the design concepts 

presented , or even just a quick email stating that you are satisfied / dissatisfied with the progress that 

TRCA is making on this project. 

Attached is a copy of Comment Form in pdf format. You can fill out the form and email or fax (or mail) it 

back to the attention of Patricia Newland, or alternately, you can cross reference the questions in an email 





Kyle Reyes 





416.393.6346 / Fax: 416.392.9726 


"Maria Papoulias" 

 

07/02/2009 04:49 PM 

To 

cc 

bcc 

Subject 

 

"'Kyle Reyes'" 

RE: 30 -48 Royal Rouge Trail CLC COMMENT FORM 

Follow-Up 

Hello Patricia, 

With regard to the Royal Rouge Trail erosion control project, I would like to offer a few comments on 

behalf of Rouge Park. 

- Intense revegetation for the purpose of erosion control is a good option, provided that native 

species are used and that every effort is made to maintain the natural appearance of the 

vegetated slope. 

- We do not oppose slope trimming where it is considered necessary. However, care must 

be taken to properly dispose of the fill material and avoid sedimentation of the wetlands 

downslope. 

- Slope trimming is preferable to filling, since fill material may introduce foreign contaminants. 

- If a retaining wall must be used, we prefer the “soft” retaining wall option (with vegetation 

consisting of native species), rather than a hard retaining wall. 

- We discourage any passage of equipment through the natural areas of Rouge Park for 

construction purposes. 

- The primary concerns of Rouge Park are the preservation / enhancement of natural 

ecosystems and the quality of experience provided to park visitors. 

I apologize for the late response – as I’m sure you know, this is a very busy time of year. Please feel free 

to give me a call if you have any questions or wish to discuss the project further. 

Thanks, 

Maria 


Manager, Natural Heritage 


50 Bloomington Road West 

Aurora, ON L4G 3G8 

Tel: 905-713-6308 

maria_papoulias@rougepark.com 

www.rougepark.com 

From: Kyle Reyes [mailto:KReyes@TRCA.on.ca] 

Sent: June 30, 2009 8:25 AM 

To: Kyle Reyes 

Subject: Re: 30 -48 Royal Rouge Trail CLC COMMENT FORM Follow-Up 

Good Morning Everyone, 

I apologize for not attaching the questionnaire as stated in the email I sent yesterday afternoon. Please

find attached the questionnaire in pdf format. Also attached below is the email I sent yesterday regarding 

how to return your response. 


Kyle Reyes 





416.393.6346 / Fax: 416.392.9726 

email: kreyes@trca.on.ca 

Kyle 

Reyes/TRCA 

06/29/2009 

03:38 PM 

Totrevordsouzaca@yahoo.ca, sal.jhuman@averydennison.com, widget@sympatico.ca, dgiggie@yahoo.ca, 

sprinklerfitter1@yahoo.ca, maria_papoulias@rougepark.com 

cc PNewland@trca.on.ca, Moranne McDonnell/MTRCA 

Subj30 -48 Royal Rouge Trail CLC COMMENT FORM Follow-Up 

ect 


Just a friendly reminder that we are still waiting on some outstanding Comment Forms (they were due 

back on Friday June 26, 2009). We would appreciate everyone's feedback regarding the design concepts 

presented , or even just a quick email stating that you are satisfied / dissatisfied with the progress that 

TRCA is making on this project. 

Attached is a copy of Comment Form in pdf format. You can fill out the form and email or fax (or mail) it 

back to the attention of Patricia Newland, or alternately, you can cross reference the questions in an email 





Kyle Reyes 





416.393.6346 / Fax: 416.392.9726 


e~ 

.J'd 

(; 

#~~?~d 

~ ~ ~ ~ AILe>

NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING 


Please be advised that the next Community Liaison Committee (CLC) meeting is scheduled for 

7:00 pm on the evening of Wednesday, December 9 th , 2009 at the West Rouge Community 

Centre located at 270 Rouge Hills Drive (see map below), to discuss the results of the 

environmental assessment and to present the preferred alternative options selected to address 

the areas affected by erosion for the Royal Rouge Trail Erosion Control Project. 

Please RSVP your attendance at the meeting by Friday December 4 th , 2009. If you have any 

questions in advance of the meeting please feel free to contact Patricia Newland by telephone 

at (416) 392-9690, or by email at pnewland@trca.on.ca 

Your attendance is appreciated.

NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING 


Please be advised that the next Community Liaison Committee (CLC) meeting is scheduled for 

7:00 pm on the evening of Wednesday, December 9 th , 2009 at the West Rouge Community 

Centre located at 270 Rouge Hills Drive (see map below), to discuss the results of the 

environmental assessment and to present the preferred alternative options selected to address 

the areas affected by erosion for the Royal Rouge Trail Erosion Control Project. 

Please RSVP your attendance at the meeting by Friday December 4 th , 2009. If you have any 



Your attendance is appreciated.

Lindsay Prihoda/TRCA 

11/25/2009 03:43 PM 

To 

cc 

bcc 

Subject 

chope@toronto.ca, councillor_moeser@toronto.ca, 

shenders@toronto.ca, estherto@rogers.com, 

fostersteve@rogers.com, klyeager@rougepark.com, 

Maria Parish/MTRCA@MTRCA, pdawson@toronto.ca, Ryan 

Ness/MTRCA@MTRCA, Steve Heuchert/MTRCA@MTRCA, 

Nick Saccone/MTRCA@MTRCA, Laura 

Public Meeting - Royal Rouge Trail Erosion Control Project 


Please be advised that a public meeting has been scheduled with staff from TRCA and 

Terraprobe Limited, to discuss the results of the environmental assessment and to present the 

preferred alternative options selected to address the areas affected by erosion for the Royal 

Rouge Trail Erosion Control Project. 

The meeting details are as follows: 

Wednesday, December 9 th , 2009 

7:00 PM – 9:00 PM 

West Rouge Community Centre 

270 Rouge Hills Drive, Scarborough 

Please refer to the map attached below for the location of the community centre. 

Please RSVP your attendance at the meeting by Friday December 4th. If you have any 



Your on-going patience with this project is appreciated. We look forward to seeing you at the 

meeting. 

Kindest Regards, 

Lindsay Prihoda, CEPIT 


Environmental Engineering Projects 


1 Eastville Avenue, Toronto, Ontario 

Tel: (416) 393-6346 

Fax: (416) 392-9726 

E-mail: lprihoda@trca.on.ca

"*PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT WHEN DECIDING TO PRINT THIS MESSAGE* 

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Confidentiality Notice: 

The information contained in this communication including any attachments may be confidential, is intended only for use of the 

recipient(s) named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby 

notified that any dissemination, distribution,disclosure or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 

communication in error, please resend this communication to the sender and delete it permanently from your computer system. 

Thank you."




WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2009 

7:00 PM – 8:30 PM 

WEST ROUGE COMMUNITY CENTRE 

270 ROUGE HILLS DRIVE, SCARBOROUGH 

AGENDA 

7:00 – 7:15 Attendance sign in, welcome and opening remarks 


• Review of the comments from CLC #1 


Comment Form 

Next Steps 

Meeting adjournment 

Presentation by Terraprobe Limited 

• Presentation of the Preferred Design Options



Community Liaison Committee 

Meeting #2 

Agenda 

• 7:00 – 7:15 Welcome 

• 7:15 – 7:45 Presentations 

• 7:45 – 8:30 Discussion Period 

• 8:30 Meeting Adjourned 

December 9 th , 2009 

CLC Meeting #2 : 

Summary of Comments Received 

CLC #1 – Comments Received 

Site A (Nos. 30 to 40 Royal Rouge Trail) 

Strong preference for a Slope Trimming and Intense Re-vegetation 

Reasons cited for the preference: 

þ 

Provides long-term stability of the valley wall from Nos. 

30 to 40 Royal Rouge Trail 

þ It would be aesthetically pleasing 

þ Potential to protect and enhance terrestrial habitat 

þ 

Encourages non-native species to be removed and 

native species to be planted 

CLC #1 – Comments Received Con’td 

Site B (Nos. 42 to 48 Royal Rouge Trail) 

Strong preference for a Extended Retaining Wall and Trimming 

Reasons cited for the preference: 

þ Encourages immediate protection of the valley wall 

þ 

Maintains a “natural” look of the valley wall with the 

implementation of the vegetated retaining wall 

þ Potential to protect and enhance terrestrial habitat 

þ 

Addresses all of the erosion issues along the valley 

wall from Nos. 42 to 48 Royal Rouge Trail 

Geotechnical Design 

#30 to #48 Royal Rouge Trail 


Prepared by Terraprobe 

Mike Tanos, P.Eng. 

Jason Crowder, P.Eng. 

December 9, 2009 

Terraprobe 

1

Outline of Work 

Subsurface and Slope Conditions 

Slope Remediation Alternatives Assessment 

 

 

 

 

Do Nothing 

Re-Vegetation, Re-Grading, Retaining Wall 

Site A - #30 to 40 Royal Rouge Trail 

Site B - #42 to 48 Royal Rouge Trail 

Retaining Wall Design 

Construction Access 

Summary 

Terraprobe 

SILTY SAND, 

compact to 

very dense, 

brown, moist 

--- wet 

CLAYEY SILT, 

firm, grey, moist 

to wet 

SANDY SILT TILL, 

very dense, grey, moist 

Subsurface 

Conditions 

BH1 

#32 

Ground water level 

from 4.6 to 5.0 

metres below 

ground (in sand ~1 

to 2 metres above 

clayey silt layer) 

Terraprobe 

Subsurface Conditions 

Design 

Elevation 

at 109 m 

Slope Conditions 

• Slope re-inspected in May 2009 

• Scarp below #48 & 46 considerably larger, 

seepage and wet zones 

• Surficial fill found below eastern portions of #48 

• Found new scarp below #30 and 32, with seepage 

• New pool at #30 

• Small timber retaining wall below #44 

• Generally no loss of crest west of #44 

• Two main areas of concern 

• #44 to 48 and #30 to 32 

Terraprobe 

Terraprobe 

48 to 44 



48 to 44 



Terraprobe 

Terraprobe 

2

• “Do Nothing” 

Do Nothing Scenario 

Slope Remediation Alternatives 

Assessment 

• Slope will eventually self-stabilize stabilize to a stable 

inclination 

Not necessarily at LTSSC as defined by FS = 1.5, but by an 

inclination defined by a lower FS 

• Chain-link fence should be re-located to a safer 

distance back from the slope crest 

Terraprobe 

Terraprobe 

• Pros 

Do Nothing Scenario 

Pros 

• Very low cost 

• Very low effort 

• No construction impacts to slope or vegetation 

Cons 

• Loss of tableland will occur but is only estimated 

• Loss of use 

• Loss of vegetation / habitat in areas of failure or 

slumping 

• Unknown timeframe 

• Cons 

Remediation Options 

• Site divided into two sections 

• Site “A” – from #30 to #40 Royal Rouge Trail 

• Site “B” – from #42 to #48 Royal Rouge Trail 

• Two preliminary concepts for each section 

Terraprobe 

Terraprobe 


• Intense Re-Vegetation 

• No structures at risk in Site A – only portions of 

tableland at risk 

• Increased planting and / or seeding 

• Could involve placement of perforated cellular 

confinement system – topsoil & vegetation 

• Other options: live staking, bio-facines 

• Required to remove all debris from slope face prior 

to re-vegetating 

• Some long term loss of tableland is likely, at 

unknown timeframe 


• Slope Re-Grading & Intense Re-Vegetation 



Use FS of 1.25 – generally acceptable engineering FS for 

slopes to establish more stable trimmed inclination 

More stable inclination of 1.4 H : 1 V 

• Intensely re-vegetate areas of trimming 

• Intensely re-vegetate other areas on the upper 

slope area that have less-dense vegetation cover, 

or no vegetative cover 

• Little long term loss of tableland is anticipated 

Terraprobe 

Terraprobe 

3


Site A – Evaluation of Concepts 

Preliminary 

Concept 1: 

Intense Re- 

Vegetation 

Preliminary 

Concept 2: 


Re-Vegetation 




Loss of Habitat / Vegetation on Slope Low Medium 



Construction Equipment on Private Property None Medium 



Site A – Recommended Concept 

• Some tableland loss anticipated at #32 Royal 

Rouge Trail if only re-vegetated, but at unknown 

timeline 

• Option 2 is preferred choice 

Slope re-grading and re-vegetation 

Known timeframe, under controlled conditions 

Higher level of stabilization 

Terraprobe 

Terraprobe 

Site A –Recommended Concept 


Terraprobe 

Terraprobe 


• Requires erosion control blanket, min. 100 

mm thick layer of topsoil, and hydroseed with 

native grass mixture (or other as specified by 

TRCA) with shrub planting 

Terraprobe 


• Retaining Wall and Filling 

• Construct retaining wall over parts of #44 to #48 

• Hard stone face - Siena Stone facing (no long term 

maintenance) 

• Soft vegetated Face - SierraScape wire basket (some 

maintenance of vegetated face required) 

• Geogrid reinforced soil 

• Infill the upper, over-steepened areas behind #42 

and #44 

Rubble or rock fill (coarse( 

angular gravel, blast rock, 

broken concrete rubble, etc.) 

Clear stone filter at slope / fill interface to facilitate 

drainage of ground water and to prevent piping 

Re-vegetate areas of filling - top dressing and seeding 

Terraprobe 

4


• Larger Retaining Wall and Trimming 

• Construct retaining wall over from #44 to #48 

• Hard stone face - Siena Stone facing 

• Soft vegetated Face - SierraScape wire basket 

• Geogrid reinforced soil 



Use FS of 1.25 – generally acceptable engineering FS 


More stable inclination of 1.4 H : 1 V 

Intensely re-vegetate areas of trimming 

Examples of SienaStone 

Retaining Walls 

Terraprobe 

Terraprobe 

Examples of Vegetated 



Site B – Evaluation of Concepts 

Preliminary 

Concept 1: 



Preliminary 

Concept 2: 

Larger Retaining 





Loss of Habitat / Vegetation on Slope High Medium 


Construction Equipment on Private Property High High 



Terraprobe 

Terraprobe 

Site B – Recommended Concept 

• Concept 2 – Larger Retaining Wall and Re-Grading 

Both concepts have high level of construction & disruption 

Infilling causes larger loss of habitat and larger impact 

“Soft” face retaining wall recommended 

• Allows for vegetation growth 

• Potential habitat creation (birds) 

• Light-weight construction 

• Smaller equipment to construct 

Examples of Vegetated 


Terraprobe 

Terraprobe 

5

Example of a Vegetated SierraScape Wall 

Site B – Recommended Concept 

Terraprobe 

Terraprobe 

Site B – Recommended Concept – Re-Grading 

Site B – Recommended Concept – SierraScape Wall 

• Requires erosion control 

blanket, min. 100 mm thick 

layer of topsoil, and 

hydroseed with native grass 

mixture (or other as 

specified by TRCA) with 

shrub planting 

Terraprobe 

Terraprobe 

Site B – Recommended Concept – SierraScape Wall 

Terraprobe 

Wall Design 

• Tableland at Elev. 118 m 

• Bearing layer at Elev. 109 m 

• Therefore, wall height 9 m 

• Since built on slope, require 1.5 m embedment, 

therefore it will look like a 7.5 m high wall 

• Length = 50 m 

• Batter = 18 deg. from vertical ( 1 H : 3 V ) 

• Designed for 8 kPa surcharge (light traffic) 

• Geogrid length of 6.3 m 

• 120 year design life 

Terraprobe 

6

Wall Design 

• Assessed for Global Stability 

• Factor of safety > 1.5 

• New crest of retaining wall = LTSSC 

New 

LTSSC 

Assessed for Global Stability 

Factor of safety > 1.5 

New crest of retaining wall = 

LTSSC 

Terraprobe 

Terraprobe 



SierraScape RSS 

Walls 

Terraprobe 

Terraprobe 

Details of wire 

basket, turf 

reinforcement 

mat and drainage 

Approximate 

Height of 

Proposed 

Royal Rouge Trail 

Wall 

Terraprobe 

Terraprobe 

7

Site Access Points 

Between 

#32 & #34 

Between 

#38 & #40 

• Site A 

• Site B 

Summary 

• Re-Grade slope to 1.4 H : 1 V, and Re-Vegetate 

• Access from between #32 & #34 

• SierraScape Retaining Wall 

50 m long from #44 to #48 Royal Rouge Trail 

9 m high, with 6.3 m length of geogrid RSS 

• Re-Grade slope to 1.4 H : 1 V, and re-vegetate 

• Access from between #38 & #40, and from 

between #46 & #48 

Between 

#44 & #46 

Between 

Terraprobe 

#46 & #48 

Terraprobe 


10 Bram Court 

Brampton, ON L6W 3R6 

P: 905.796.2650 

F: 905.796.2250 

E: brampton@terraprobe.ca 

Next Steps 

Terraprobe 

Class EA Process – Next Steps 

• CLC to complete questionnaire and return to TRCA by December 16 th , 2009 

• CLC to review Draft Project Plan and provide feedback to TRCA by December 18 th , 2009 

• TRCA Staff to undertake Stage 2 Archeological Investigation 

• TRCA Staff to insure that no additional consultation separate from the CLC is required 

Thank you for your time ☺ 

• Project Plan to be filed with Conservation Ontario and Ministry of Environment for 30 

day review period 

• All permits and approvals to be obtained 

• TRCA Property Department will coordinate obtaining cost-sharing agreements with 

each of the residential property owners from Nos. 30 to 48 Royal Rouge Trail. 

• Construction tentatively scheduled for May/June 2010 

8




WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2009 

7:00 PM – 9:00 PM 



COMMENT FORM 

1. Do you have any comments, questions or concerns regarding the Royal Rouge Trail Erosion 

Control Project? Note: if you would like TRCA to reply to your comments please ensure that 

your contact information is provided below. 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

2. Please provide suggestions for ways that TRCA can improve upon its current construction projects 

(e.g., public access, safety, signage, design considerations). 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 


Address: 

Daytime Phone: 

_______________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________ 

_____________________ Email: _________________________________ 

Please complete this comment sheet and leave it at the sign-in table, or forward it by Wednesday, 

December 16, 2009 to: 

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority ● 1 Eastville Avenue, Scarborough, ON, M1M 2N5 ● Attn: 

Patricia Newland ● Phone (416) 392-9690 ● Fax: (416) 392-9726 ● Email: pnewland@trca.on.ca

CFN 38392 

B3-33-2 

MINUTES 

CLC Meeting #2 

PROJECT: Royal Rouge Trail Erosion Control Project 

LOCATION: West Rouge Community Centre, 270 Rouge Hill Drive, Toronto 

DATE: December 9, 2009 

TIME: 7:00 – 9:00 pm 

PARTICIPANTS 


Councillor Ron Moeser, City of 

Toronto 

Shakira Naraine, 46 Royal 


Patricia Newland, TRCA Maria Papoulias, Rouge Park Tom Deile, 44 Royal Rouge 


Mark Preston, TRCA Jamie Sparks, 30 Royal Rouge Trail Jim Petit, 44 Royal Rouge 


Lindsay Prihoda, TRCA 

Jason Crowder, 

Terraprrobe Ltd 

Abdool Jhuman, 36 Royal Rouge 


Trevor D’Souza, 42 Royal Rouge 




DISTRIBUTION 


Debora Gyimah, 32 Royal Rouge Trail 

Steve Foster, 34 Royal Rouge Trail 

Carlo Corvese, 38 Royal Rouge Trail 

David Chueng, 40 Royal Rouge Trail 

MINUTES 


Introductions 

Summary of 

CLC Meeting 

#1 

• Patricia Newland (PN) welcomes the group to the Royal 

Rouge Trail Community Liaison Committee Meeting #2. 

• PN presents a summary of the previous CLC meeting and 

reviews the selected preferred alternative for each erosion 

site (A and B). She went on to note the attendee’s 

comments on each of the preferred alternatives. 

• PN introduces Jason Crowder (JC), the geotechnical 

engineer from Terraprobe Limited. 

Presentation 

by 

Terraprobe 

Limited 

• JC begins his presentation with a summary of additional 

work that has been completed since CLC meeting #1, 

including the advancement of 3 boreholes, and a reinspection 

of the slope. JC also summarizes the slope 

remediation options considered when developing the 

preferred alternative: 

1. Do Nothing Scenario 

2. Site A: Concept 1 – Intense re-vegetation 

3. Site A: Concept 2 – Trimming with re-vegetation 

4. Site B: Concept 1 – Retaining wall and filling 

1 of 8

CFN 38392 

B3-33-2 

5. Site B: Concept 2 – Extended retaining wall and 

Trimming 

• JC goes on to explain the preferred design alternatives for 

each site (A and B) in more detail and discusses the 

design and construction of the proposed Sierrascape 

retaining wall. As well, discusses the predicted position of 

the long-term stable slope crest (LTSSC) with the 

implementation of the remedial erosion works. The 

preferred alternatives for each site are the following: 

Site A: Concept 2 – Trimming with intense re-vegetation 

Site B: Concept 2 – Extended retaining wall and 

trimming 

• JC continues the presentation to summarize the potential 

access points between the residential properties. 

• JC thanks the attendees for attending the meeting and 

invites TRCA to complete the presentation. 

Next Steps 

• PN concludes the presentation with a discussion on the 

following next steps: 

1. CLC to complete comment form and return to TRCA 

by December 16th, 2009. 

2. CLC to review Draft Project Plan and provide feedback 

to TRCA by December 18 th , 2009. 

3. TRCA staff to undertake Stage 2 Archeological 

Investigation. 

4. TRCA staff to insure that no additional consultation 

separate from the CLC is required. 

5. Project Plan to be filed with Conservation Ontario and 

Ministry of the Environment for 30 day review period. 

6. All permits and approvals to be obtained 

7. TRCA Property Department will coordinate obtaining 

cost-sharing agreements with each of the residential 

property owners from 30 to 48 Royal Rouge Trail. 

8. Construction tentatively scheduled from May/June 

2010. 

Discussion 

Period 

• Attendee inquires on the number of boreholes drilled 

during the additional work. 

‣ JC explains that there were 3 boreholes drilled at the 

base of the three most eastern properties from Nos. 

44, 46, and 48 Royal Rouge Trail. 

• Attendee inquires if the trimming is beyond the fence line 

at each of the affected residential properties. 

‣ JC explains at the rear of No. 38 Royal Rouge Trail the 

slope crest will not be beyond the current fence line, 

and at the rear of No. 40 Royal Rouge Trail the slope 

2 of 8

CFN 38392 

B3-33-2 

crest will be beyond the current fence line. 

• Attendee inquires if there is a height restriction for the 

proposed retaining wall. 

‣ JC replies that there are height restrictions and that the 

height of a retaining wall is determined through 

engineering exercises. JC also explained that the 

height allowance for the wall is dependant on the type 

of material used to construct it. 

• Attendee inquires on the life expectancy of the retaining 

wall. 

‣ JC replies the life expectancy of the proposed wall is 

approximately 120 years. 

• Attendee inquires if there will be any type of drainage 

system implemented within the retaining wall. 

‣ JC replies that there will be a drainage system 

constructed within the retaining wall; as well toe 

protection at the base of the wall to ensure the water 

dissipates properly. 

• Attendee inquires about the trimming at the rear of No. 42 

Royal Rouge Trail. 

‣ JC informs the attendee that there will be a 

maximum of 4 m that would be trimmed from the rear 

of this residential property. 

‣ Attendee further inquires if the trimming will interfere 

with the current position of the fence line. 

‣ JC adds that the trimming will interfere with the current 

fence line on the west portion of the property. 

• Attendee inquires the type of material that will be used to 

construct the retaining wall. 

‣ JC replies that free draining gravel will be used to 

construct the retaining wall, and adds it is a 3.5 inch 

stone which will encourage excellent drainage. 

• Attendee inquires on the type of material that will be 

placed in front of the stone material inside the retaining 

wall. 

‣ JC informs the attendees that topsoil will be placed 6 

inches along the face of the retaining wall in order for 

vegetation to be planted. 

• Attendee inquires if trees will be able to be planted and 

grow along the tableland on the retaining wall from Nos. 

44 to 48 Royal Rouge Trail. 

‣ JC replies that the weight and roots of the large trees 

would disrupt the material and function of the retaining 

wall, which will eventually deteriorate the structure. 

Therefore, Jason recommends no trees be planted 

3 of 8

CFN 38392 

B3-33-2 

along the tableland in the vicinity of the retaining wall. 

• Attendee states their concern with the proposed trimming 

and the loss of additional tableland. 

• Attendee comments that their was no erosion behind the 

residential properties located at Nos. 44 to 48 Royal Rouge 

Trail prior to the stabilization works completed in the 

1990’s at No. 42 Royal Rouge Trail. Attendee inquires if 

the construction of the retaining wall will cause the erosion 

to shift to the west towards No. 42 Royal Rouge Trail. 

‣ JC explains that the erosion will not shift to the west 

once the retaining wall is constructed. More 

specifically the valley wall on the east portion of No. 42 

Royal Rouge Trail has stabilized and once the west 

portion of the property is trimmed, the entire valley wall 

at No. 42 Royal Rouge Trail will be stabilized 

• Attendee comments that they have already lost a 

significant amount of property over the last 25 years and is 

not interested in losing additional tableland. 

‣ JC reiterates that the engineering analysis shows once 

the property is trimmed there will be no more loss of 

tableland as the valley slope will be stabilized. 

• Attendee inquires about the proposed slope inclination at 

the rear of No. 42 Royal Rouge Trail. 

‣ JC informs the attendees that the proposed inclination 

at the rear of this property is 2: 1 (Horizontal: Vertical). 

‣ Attendee commented that the retaining wall should be 

extended across the rear of No. 42 Royal Rouge Trail. 

‣ JB informed the attendee that TRCA will inspect the 

rear of the property and discuss further with 

Terraprobe Limited (Action Item #1). 

Jim Berry 

11- Dec- 2009 

• Attendees comment that they have no issues with the 

construction equipment accessing the project area 

through their residential properties. They will be happy 

once the remedial work is complete. 

‣ PN adds that TRCA will complete a pre-construction 

assessment of all areas proposed to be accessed by 

construction equipment to ensure there is no damage 

to any property. 

• Attendee inquires if there will be a drainage system 

incorporated as part of the remedial work from Nos. 30 to 

42 Royal Rouge Trail. 

‣ JC informs the attendees that the remedial work 

completed on from the above-noted properties does 

not require a drainage system that the proposed 

intense re-vegetation will remediate the current 

drainage issues. 

4 of 8

CFN 38392 

B3-33-2 

• Attendee inquires if they would be able to acquire a digital 

copy of the presentation. 

‣ Patricia informs the attendees that a digital copy of the 

presentation will be e-mailed to each of the attendees 

(Action Item #2). 

Lindsay 

Prihoda 

11-Feb-2010 

• Councillor Moeser inquires about the potential costs of 

completing the proposed remedial works. 

‣ Mark Preston (MP) informs the attendees that the cost 

of the project is currently unknown and will not be able 

to be formulated until Terraprobe finalizes the designs. 

‣ JC adds that the detailed designs are approximately 

90% complete, and once TRCA reviews and approves 

the designs for each site, a cost can be formulated. 

• Attendee inquiries if the archeological investigation will 

delay the project. 

‣ PN informs the attendees that the archeological 

investigation may delay the filing of the Project Plan for 

approvals, but that TRCA is hopeful that construction 

will not be significantly delayed as a result. 

• Attendee comments that the valley wall is extremely 

saturated during the spring and the most ideal time to 

begin construction would be winter. 

• An attendee inquires the extent of the archeological 


‣ PN informs the attendees that it is anticipated that the 

investigation will be limited to the valley wall, and that 

the residential properties will not be affected as a 

result. 

• Attendee inquires if an archeological investigation should 

have been completed prior to the development of the 

subdivision. 

‣ PN replies that the regulations regarding the 

development of subdivisions in the early 1980’s were 

different than today, and that there are more stringent 

protocol that are followed today. 

• Attendee comments that prior to the development of the 

subdivision residents from the surrounding area use to 

dump garbage along the valley wall. 

• Attendee inquires about what the procedure is if an artifact 

is found within the project area, before or during 

construction. 

‣ PN replies that construction will be prohibited until the 

Ministry of Culture is notified about the artifact, and the 

artifact is documented and registered with the ministry. 

5 of 8

CFN 38392 

B3-33-2 

In the event that an artifact is found during 

construction, the works are put on hold until The 

Ministry of Culture clears the site. 

• Councillor Moeser inquires about the total cost of the 

project, and how much of a contribution will each of the 

homeowners be required to pay, of the overall project cost. 

‣ JB responds that TRCA has a standard formula utilized 

to calculate the cost 

‣ PN explains that TRCA has a Cost Sharing Agreement 

for Benefitting Landowners that will need to be 

discussed with the affected landowners prior to 

construction. Essentially the affected landowners are 

required to contribute to a cost-sharing program that is 

based on the total costs of the project. 

• Councillor Moeser inquires when the detailed design will 

be complete to determine the total costs and cost-sharing 

for the project. 

‣ JC reiterates that the detailed designs are 

approximately 90% complete, and once TRCA reviews 

and approves the designs for each site, a cost can be 

formulated. 

• Councillor Moeser requested more information on TRCA’s 

cost-sharing program (Action Item #3). 

Jim Berry 

10-Dec-2009 

• Attendee inquires about more information on TRCA’s costsharing 

program. 

‣ PN informs the attendees that the affected landowners 

are responsible for some sort of contribution to the 

project. 

‣ JB apologizes that TRCA’s representative from the 

Property Department was unable to attend the 

meeting. TRCA will organize a meeting with the 

affected landowners and Property Department prior to 

construction to discuss the matter further. JB adds that 

typically there are two types of contributions either a 

sum of money or percentage of property. 

• Attendee inquires who approved the subdivision prior to 

development. 

‣ PN informs the attendees that the City of Scarborough, 

currently City of Toronto, approved the project while 

TRCA only reviewed the permit. 

‣ JB adds that TRCA was not a regulated agency at the 

time of the approval process for the subdivision. TRCA 

was only responsible to provide comment on the 

permit to the city. 

• Attendee inquires about available funds to complete the 

project. 

6 of 8

CFN 38392 

B3-33-2 

‣ JB explains that $390,000 has been allocated to the 

completion of this project, and that approximately 

$50,000 has been spent on completing the Class EA. 

• Attendee inquires about a date that the Project Plan will be 

filed with Conservation Ontario and the Ministry of the 

Environment. 

‣ PN informs the attendees that TRCA requires the 

results of the Archeological Investigation prior to filling 

the Project Plan. 

• Attendee inquires if there is a time period the archeological 

investigation must be completed. 

‣ PN replies that there is no standard time frame for this 

type of investigation, but that staff were working very 

closely with TRCA archaeologists to complete the 

investigation as soon as possible. 

• Attendee inquires about details of the trimming proposed 

from Nos. 30 to 42 Royal Rouge Trail. 

‣ JC explains that the majority of the trimming has been 

proposed at Nos. 32 and 34 Royal Rouge Trail. 

‣ Attendee inquires specifically about No. 30 Royal 

Rouge Trail. 

‣ JC adds that there is limited trimming proposed at No. 

30 Royal Rouge Trail, there has mainly been intense 

re-vegetation proposed at the rear of this property. 

• Attendee inquires if the trees within the proposed trimming 

area will be removed. 

‣ JC replies that all the trees within the proposed 

trimming area will be removed. 

• Attendee requests more details of the 30 day filing period. 

‣ PN explains that the Project Plan will be submitted to 

the Ministry of the Environment (MOE), and a Notice of 

Filing will be published in the local newspaper 

(Scarborough Mirror). There is a 30 day period for the 

MOE and general public to review and comment on 

the proposed remedial work. The general public will be 

able to review the Project Plan at the local library. If 

there are any foreseen potential issues with the 

proposed work, the project may be subjected to a 

“Bump- Up” request, which will require a more detailed 

assessment to be completed of the project to mitigate 

all issues raised by the MOE or general public. 

• Attendee inquires about the construction period to 

complete the proposed remedial work. 

‣ MP replies that he anticipates construction to be 

completed in the summer / fall of 2010. 

‣ Attendee inquires specifically about the retaining wall. 

7 of 8

CFN 38392 

B3-33-2 

‣ JC adds the retaining wall will take approximately 1 -2 

months to construct. 

Meeting 

Adjournment 

Meeting adjourned at 8:45 pm. 

Prepared By: LP/PN Date Issued: February 11, 2010 

Revised by: 

Date Revision Issued: 


meeting. 

8 of 8

deborag@rogers.com 

02/12/2010 10:11 AM 

To 

cc 

bcc 

Subject 

pnewland@trca.on.ca 


History: 

This message has been replied to. 

Hi Patricia. I read the proposal for this project. Thanks for sending it as well as the presentation, especially sinc 

Rouge Trail so my property would come under the proposed action plan for site A. 

1. Please define "trimming" in lay terms. I am assuming it means regrading the slope so that it is not as steep bu 

2. It is hard to tell from the diagram actually how much property we will lose to this project. Do you have this i 

3. What happens to the tree at the back of the property (a Manitoba Maple, I believe), as well as my garden plan 

4. Is the fence replaced or must the property owners look after this themselves? 

5. When can we expect to hear from you next? 

Thanks. Have a good weekend. 

Debora Gyimah 

32 Royal Rouge Trail

"trevor d'souza" 

 

01/04/2010 01:15 PM 

To 

cc 

bcc 

Subject 

Patricia Newland 

Re: Royal Rouge Trail Erosion Control Project - Comment 

Form 

From: Patricia Newland 

To: trevor d'souza 

Cc: Jim Berry ; Lindsay Prihoda 

Sent: Mon, January 4, 2010 11:24:59 AM 

Subject: Re: Royal Rouge Trail Erosion Control Project - Comment Form 

Hi Trevor, 

I did get an email from you back in December, saying that we should refer to the comments that you were 

sending...but no attachment. At the time I thought that perhaps you were mailing the comment form in, 

but perhaps that was a misunderstanding on my part. If you could please re-send your comments that 

would be great. 

Looks like you've been having a real adventure over the past couple of weeks. 

Safe Journey & Happy New Year! 


Supervisor, Project Planning


01/04/2010 02:12 PM 

To 

cc 

bcc 

Subject 

"Maria Papoulias" 

Lindsay Prihoda/TRCA@MTRCA 

Re: Comments - Royal Rouge Trail Erosion Control Project 

Hi Maria, 

Thank you for reviewing the documentation and providing feed-back. We will make the 

necessary changes to the Project Plan, and ensure that additional measures are incorporated in 

the construction drawings to ensure that there is no infilling of the wetland area due to 

sedimentation from construction. 

Further we plan to minimize impact during breeding season as much as possible. Do you have a 

window of time when it would be optimal to avoid doing construction? Our optimal timeline for 

the implementation of works is May - July to minimize disturbance to the residents, and to 

hopefully catch the end of the spring planting season for site restoration. 

Alternately, we will be looking at implementation for the Fall of this year pending the outcome 

of the additional Aboriginal Consulation that is being undertaken as part of the project. 

Thanks for your assistance in this matter. 

Sincerely, 




Tel: (416) 392-9690 

Fax: (416) 392 - 9726 


-----"Maria Papoulias" wrote: ----- 

To: "'Patricia Newland'" 

From: "Maria Papoulias" 

Date: 01/04/2010 11:17AM 

Subject: Comments - Royal Rouge Trail Erosion Control Project 

Hello Patricia, 

Welcome back – I hope you enjoyed the holidays.

I have a few comments on the Royal Rouge Trail Erosion Control project report that was distributed at 

the last CLC meeting on December 9 th . The preferred alternatives look fine – I am pleased to see that 

the vegetated retaining wall was chosen where necessary, as this will help to maintain the natural 

landscape of the Rouge Valley . I trust that the planting plan will incorporate native species that are 

appropriate to the site, and that care will be taken to establish plant species that are compatible with the 

surrounding forest. 

On p. 49, it is mentioned that the Willow Swamp at the base of the slope will be staked off and avoided 

during construction. In addition to this, I would hope that additional precautions will be taken to prevent 

deposition of excessive sediments and other construction debris in the wetland as a result of the 

construction. Silt fencing upslope from the wetland will be required. Also, as I’m sure you are aware, 

work should not take place during bird and amphibian breeding periods in the spring. 

Throughout the report, there is some inconsistency in referring to the Rouge Park :PlaceType – the 

entire valley is part of :placeRouge Park . On p. 19, the Rouge Park Alliance is referred to as a 

community group, which it is not. 

Finally, please be sure to keep Rouge Park staff (through me) informed of the progress of this work, to 

ensure that we can effectively coordinate other activities that may be happening in this part of the park. 

Thank you – please feel free to give me a call if you have any questions. 

Maria 


Manager, Natural Heritage 


50 Bloomington Road West 

Aurora , ON 

L4G 3G8 

Tel: 905-713-6308 

maria_papoulias@rougepark.com 

www.rougepark.com


02/12/2010 02:23 PM 

To 

cc 

bcc 

Subject 


Lindsay Prihoda/TRCA@MTRCA 

Re: Royal Rouge Trail Erosion Control Project 

Hello Debora, 

Thank you for reviewing the information so quickly. To answer your questions... 

1. "trimming" refers to slope regrading, where the oversteepened portions of the slope will be regraded to 

make them less steep. 

2. The proposed trimming across the back of your property will range from 0.5 - 1.5 metres back from the 

crest of the slope, with the majority of the crest only requiring slight modification. 

3. TRCA will take every effort to protect the existing vegetation, however there will be some ground 

disturbance and tree removals required as part of the works. Perhaps you might want to consider 

transplanting your garden temporarily during construction. 

4. The fencing will be addressed as part of the site restoration. Site restoration will include repairing any 

damage to yard space resulting from construction access and activities, as well as re-vegetating areas 

where there are tree / shrub removals. 

5. Currently TRCA is waiting for the completion of some additional consultation, and archaeological 

investigations that have to be documented in the Project Plan. As soon as the document is updated, we 

will notify all of the CLC members, and file the report for the 30 day public review period. I anticipate that 

this will be happening within the next month or so. 

If you have any further questions, please let me know. 

Sincerely, 




Tel: (416) 392-9690 

Fax: (416) 392 - 9726 




02/12/2010 10:11 AM 

To 

cc 

Subject 



Hi Patricia. I read the proposal for this project. Thanks for sending it as well as the presentation, especially sinc 

at 32 Royal Rouge Trail so my property would come under the proposed action plan for site A.

1. Please define "trimming" in lay terms. I am assuming it means regrading the slope so that it is not as steep bu 

2. It is hard to tell from the diagram actually how much property we will lose to this project. Do you have this i 

3. What happens to the tree at the back of the property (a Manitoba Maple, I believe), as well as my garden plan 

4. Is the fence replaced or must the property owners look after this themselves? 

5. When can we expect to hear from you next? 

Thanks. Have a good weekend. 

Debora Gyimah 

32 Royal Rouge Trail 







Thank you."


04/15/2010 09:19 AM 

To 

cc 

korah.thomas@ca.pwc.com 

pvander2@toronto.ca, Moranne 

McDonnell/MTRCA@MTRCA, Lindsay 

Prihoda/TRCA@MTRCA 

bcc 

Subject Re: Royal Rouge (Scarborough) lot number 30-48 

Hello Korah, 

Thank you for your interest in the Royal Rouge Trail Project, a Class Environmental Assessment for the 

development of erosion control works at 30 - 48 Royal Rouge Trail. Please find attached the information 

that has been disseminated regarding this project, to the Community Liaison Committee. As discussed 

on the phone yesterday, the project has not yet been finalized, and is still subject to some revision. 

[attachment "CLC Package 29Apr09.pdf" deleted by Patricia Newland/MTRCA] [attachment "CLC 1 

Presentation FINALreduced.pdf" deleted by Patricia Newland/MTRCA] [attachment "RRT CLC 1 Minutes 

FINAL.pdf" deleted by Patricia Newland/MTRCA] [attachment "2010-02-11 Public Meeting Minutes 

FINAL.pdf" deleted by Patricia Newland/MTRCA] [attachment "CLC 2 Presentation FINAL w 

terraprobe.pdf" deleted by Patricia Newland/MTRCA] [attachment "Notice of Intent.pdf" deleted by Patricia 

Newland/MTRCA] 

If you have any further questions please let me know. 

Sincerely, 




Tel: (416) 392-9690 

Fax: (416) 392 - 9726 




04/14/2010 01:59 PM 

To pnewland@trca.on.ca 

cc 

Subject Royal Rouge (Scarborough) lot number 30-48 

Hi Patricia, 

We spoke just awhile ago - here's my email address. 

Many thanks, 

___________________________________ 

Korah Thomas 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (http://www.pwc.com/ca)

Royal Trust Tower, TD Centre, Suite 3000 

Toronto, ON M5K 1G8 

Telephone: +1 (416) 815-5041 

Cell : +1 (416) 917-8315 

ADVS 


Please consider the environment before printing this email. 

Pensez à l’environnement avant d’imprimer ce courriel. 

This e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed (the "addressee") and may 

contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or 

other use that a person other than the addressee makes of this communication is prohibited and 

any reliance or decisions made based on it, are the responsibility of such person. We accept no 

responsibility for any loss or damages suffered by any person other than the addressee as a result 

of decisions made or actions taken based on this communication or otherwise. If you received 

this in error, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of this e-mail. 

Ce courriel est strictement reserve a l'usage de la personne a qui il est adresse (le destinataire). Il 

peut contenir de l'information privilegiee et confidentielle. L'examen, la reexpedition et la 

diffusion de ce message par une personne autre que son destinataire est interdite. Nous declinons 

toute responsabilite a l'egard des pertes ou des dommages subis par une personne autre que le 

destinataire par suite de decisions ou de mesures fondees sur le contenu de cette communication 

ou autrement. Si vous avez recu ce courriel par erreur, veuillez communiquer avec son 

expediteur et en detruire toutes les copies. 







Thank you."



MEETING WITH AFFECTED LANDOWNERS 

TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 2010 

6:30 PM – 8:30 PM 



AGENDA 

6:30 – 6:45 Attendance sign in 

6:45 – 7:00 Welcome and opening remarks 


Recap of TRCA activities to date 

Archaeological Investigation 


Comment Form 

Next Steps 

Meeting adjournment



Meeting with Affected Homeowners 

June 22 nd , 2010 

• 6:30 – 6:45 Attendance sign in 

Agenda 

• 6:45 – 7:00 Welcome and opening remarks 

• 7:00 – 7:30 Presentation by TRCA 

• Recap of TRCA activities to date 

• Archaeological Investigation 

• 7:30 – 8:30 Discussion Period 

• Comment Form 

• Next Steps 

• Meeting adjournment 

Recap of TRCA Activities To Date 

• CLC to complete questionnaire and return to TRCA by December 16 th , 2009 

• CLC to review Draft Project Plan and provide feedback to TRCA by December 18 th , 2009 

• TRCA Staff to undertake Stage 2 Archaeological Investigation 






• Construction tentatively scheduled for May/June 2010 

Stages of an Archaeological Investigation 

Archaic period artifacts (about 3,000 to 8,000 years old) 

• Stage 1: Background research and evaluation of archaeological potential 

• Stage 2: Field assessment (30 cm² test pits) 

• Stage 3: Determine limits of the archaeological site (1m² units) 

• Stage 4: Excavation of the archaeological site (block excavation) 

1

17 th century Seneca Village 

19 th Century Homestead, ca. 1969 

Taiagon – on the Humber River 

Stage 2 Assessment 

Findings of the Stage 2 Investigation 

Findings of 

the Stage 2 

Investigation 

Findings of 

the Stage 2 

Investigation 

2

Proposed Stage 3 Investigation 

Next Steps 

Next Steps 

• Questionnaire to be completed and submitted to TRCA by July 9, 2010 


• TRCA staff to undertake advanced archaeological investigation (Stage 3 / Stage 4) 

• TRCA staff to file a report with the Ministry of Tourism and Culture regarding the results 

of the archaeological investigation 

• TRCA staff to consult with Aboriginal First Nations Groups regarding findings of the 

investigation, and the proposed erosion control works 

• TRCA to continue to work with consultant to revise the final designs pending the 

outcome of the archaeological investigation 

Thank you for your time 

• CLC Meeting to be held to discuss the final outcome of the archaeological investigation 

and revisions to the final design 




• Construction tentatively scheduled for Late Fall 2010 / Winter 2011 

3

CFN 38392 

B3-33-2 

MINUTES 

Meeting with the Affect Landowners 


LOCATION: West Rouge Community Centre, 270 Rouge Hill Drive, Toronto 

DATE: June 22, 2010 

TIME: 6:30 – 8:30 pm 

PARTICIPANTS 


TRCA 

Jamie Sparks, 30 Royal Rouge Trail 



Patricia Newland, TRCA Debora Gyimah, 32 Royal Rouge 




Lindsay Prihoda, TRCA Alex Gyimah, 32 Royal Rouge Trail Alban Moniz, 52 Royal Rouge 


Janice Teichroes, TRCA Steve Foster, 34 Royal Rouge Trail Gloria Moniz, 52 Royal Rouge 


Councillor Ron Moeser, 


Kathy Sparks, 30 Royal 


Trevor D’Souza, 42 Royal Rouge 


Shakira Naraine, 46 Royal Rouge 


Kenneth McGowen, 460 

Brownfield Gardens 

DISTRIBUTION 


Abdul Jhuman, 36 Royal Rouge Trail 



New Residents, 44 Royal Rouge Trail 

MINUTES 


Introductions 

Summary of 

CLC Meeting 

#2 

• Patricia Newland (PN) welcomes the group to the meeting 

and introduces the Toronto and Region Conservation 

Authority (TRCA) staff. Furthermore, PN informs the group 

that Moranne McDonnell (MM) has been promoted and 

replaced Jim Berry, who has recently retired as Senior 

Manager of the TRCA‘s Environmental Engineering group. 

• PN presents a summary of TRCA’s activities since the last 

Community Liaison Committee (CLC) Meeting held on 

December 9, 2009. 

• PN introduces Janice Teichroeb (JT), an Archaeologist 

from TRCA. 

Presentation 

by TRCA 

Archaeology 

Staff 

• JT begins her presentation with a summary of the four (4) 

Stages of an Archaeological Investigation. 

1. Background research and evaluation of 

archaeological potential 

2. Field Assessment (30 cm 2 test pits) 

1 of 8

CFN 38392 

B3-33-2 

3. Determine limits of archaeological site (block 

excavation) 

4. Excavation of archaeological site (block excavation) 

• JT continues the presentation to explain why there is a 

high potential for archaeology artifacts in the area of the 

project, including its close proximity to a historic site, 

known as Rouge Hill; Kingston Road and Sheppard 

Avenue East, an area considered to be sensitive; and a 

17 th century Seneca Village located at the mouth of the 

Rouge River. 

• Attendee inquires if an archeological investigation should 

have been completed prior to the development of the 

subdivision. 

‣ JT and PN replies that the regulations regarding the 

development of subdivisions in the early 1980’s were 

different than today and that there are more stringent 

protocols that are followed today. 

• JT continues to explain there is also a 19 th century 

Homestead (circa 1969) within the area of the project, 

including a Midden along the valley wall. 

• PN defines a Midden as a garbage dump mainly for 

domestic waste. 

• JT goes on to explain the archaeological work completed 

to date (i.e., Stage 1 and 2 Assessment), which included 

numerous testpits in the rear yards of each residential 

property from 30 to 48 Royal Rouge Trail. There were 

several artifacts discovered in four (4) of the residential 

properties from 32 to 38 Royal Rouge Trail. 

• Attendee inquires on the depth of the testpits. 

‣ JT explains that each testpit was sampled down to the 

subsoil which ranged from 30 centimeters (cm) to 1 

metre (m). 

• JT discusses the type of artifacts on each of the properties 

from 32 to 38 Royal Rouge Trail, including pottery and 

stone making tools. 

• Attendee inquires about the yellow line illustrated on the 

drawings. 

‣ JT explains the yellow line indicates the proposed area 

to be disturbed during construction. 

• Attendee comments that the properties would have 

already been disturbed during the construction of the 

residential development. 

‣ JT replies that there was no evidence of disturbance 

2 of 8

CFN 38392 

B3-33-2 

and the Archaeological staff were shocked on the 

pristine condition of the site. 

• Attendee inquires why the archaeological investigation is 

impacting the project from proceeding. Another attendee 

adds that if the slope is unprotected the artifacts would be 

lost in the erosion. 

‣ MM informs the group that the project cannot proceed 

without conducting the investigation as it is part of the 

Class Environmental Assessment process, which must 

be approved prior to construction. 

• Councillor Moeser inquires on the current legislation. 

‣ MM explains that under the Environmental Assessment 

Act the project is considered a Class Environmental 

Assessment (Class EA), which must be incompliance 

with the Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial 

Flood and Erosion Control Projects document. 

Therefore, the Archaeological investigation must be 

completed in order to secure provincial and federal 

approvals to proceed with the construction of this 

project. 

• Attendee inquires if the Conservation Authority could 

proceed with the trimming of the residential properties 

prior to the completion of the archaeological investigation. 

‣ JT explains that the legislation outlined by the Ministry 

of Culture depicts that the area within 10 m of the 

project must be cleared prior to any type of 

construction. 

• Attendee inquires why the Conservation Authority does not 

proceed with the protection of the valley wall then proceed 

with the archaeological investigation. 

‣ MM reiterates that the Conservation Authority must 

follow the Class EA process and only if the project was 

deemed an emergency could the construction proceed 

prior to the investigation. 

‣ Attendee inquires what is considered an emergency. 

‣ MM explains that a permanent structure, not including 

a pool or shed, must be in imminent risk, for example, 

the foundation of the residents must be exposed. 

• Attendee inquires on the anticipated start date of the 

construction. 

‣ MM explains the Archaeological investigation must be 

complete and the Environmental Study Report will be 

submitted to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) for 

a 30 day period for the MOE and general public to 

review and comment on the proposed remedial work. 

TRCA anticipates the construction to commence in late 

Fall or early Winter 2010. 

3 of 8

CFN 38392 

B3-33-2 

• Attendee inquires on the length of time to complete Stage 

3 and 4 of the Archaeological investigation. 

‣ JT informs the group that it will take approximately 6 to 

7 days to complete the field work. 

• Attendee inquires about Stage 4 of the investigation. 

‣ JT informs the group that a Stage 4 would be the 

excavation of all the area that had not be test pitted in 

Stage 2 or 3 of the investigation. JT further explains 

that due to the findings at 32 Royal Rouge Trail (i.e., 

pottery) there will be no Stage 3, only a Stage 4. 

‣ Attendee inquires if their entire backyard will need to 

be excavated 

‣ JT explains that their backyard will need to be 

excavated as they are the owner of 32 Royal Rouge 

Trail. 

• Attendee inquires about the restoration of the property 

once the investigation is complete. 

‣ MM explains that the property will be completely 

restored with soil, sod, and plantings. MM continues to 

explain TRCA policy, as it is policy to document (i.e., 

photographs) the present condition of the property to 

ensure it is properly restored to the original condition, 

which is at the cost of TRCA. 

• Attendee inquires on the ownership of the artifacts. 

‣ JT explains that the artifacts are owned by trust to 

TRCA. 

‣ Attendee inquires if TRCA will preserve the artifacts. 

‣ JT informs the group that TRCA will responsible to 

preserve each of the artifacts. 

• JT comments that Section 48 of the Heritage Act notes that 

all artifacts must be removed by an Archaeologist. 

• PN summarizes the worse case scenario of the 

Archaeological Stage 3 and 4, which would be to discover 

a burial / human remains. This would require a forensic 

unit to complete an investigation to confirm the age of the 

remains. 

• Councillor Moeser thanks the residents for attending the 

meeting and noted the following: 

1. Recommends each the residents document the 

condition of their properties 

2. Legislation must be followed throughout the project 

3. The project should be completed as soon as possible 

4. It is important to continue the partnership with TRCA 

for the implementation of the project 

5. Thanks the residents for their patience 

4 of 8

CFN 38392 

B3-33-2 

• Attendee inquires if all areas of the property have to be 

excavated 

‣ MM informs the residents that no existing structures, 

including interlocking brick, under decks, and fencing, 

will not be disturbed during the archaeological 

investigation. TRCA will document the current 

conditions of the properties which require Stage 3 and 

4. At the cost of the TRCA, all areas distributed during 

the investigation will be restored. TRCA will contact 

each homeowner next week to document the condition 

of the properties (Action Item #1). 

‣ JT adds that gardens may need to be disturbed 

depending on their location. 

Patricia 

Newland 

29-June-2010 

• Attendee inquires if trees will be disturbed during the 


‣ MM replies that TRCA will attempt to complete the 

investigation outside of each of the tree’s drip line (i.e., 

canopy) to reduce any negative impacts. 

• Attendee inquires if trees will be removed during the 


‣ JT informs the group that no trees will be removed 

during the investigation; however there may be trees 

that may need to be removed during construction. 

• Attendee inquires if the property at 54 Royal Rouge Trail is 

included in the project, as there is erosion along the valley 

wall. 

‣ MM informs the group that at this time, the project site 

is from 30 to 48 Royal Rouge Trail. TRCA can complete 

a visual inspection of the valley wall at 54 Royal Rouge 

Trail to determine the extent of the erosion. 

• Attendee inquires if the archaeological investigation is 

being financed by the project budget and if so, how will it 

affect the budget. 

‣ MM confirms that the money allocated for the project is 

financing the archaeological investigation; however 

this project is a priority project for TRCA and if 

additional finances are required they will be pulled 

from lower priority projects. 

• Attendee inquires if a contractor has been retained to 

complete the construction of the retaining wall. 

‣ MM explains that the contractor cannot be retained 

until we secure all provincial and federal approvals. 

• Attendee inquires when the archaeological investigation 

will be completed. 

‣ JT replies that the Ministry of Culture will need to be 

informed of the results of Stage 2 and then TRCA will 

5 of 8

CFN 38392 

B3-33-2 

be able to proceed with Stage 3 and/or Stage 4 of the 


‣ MM comments that the conditions of each property 

must be documented before we proceed with Stage 3 

and/or Stage 4. 

• Attendee inquires about the anticipated commencement of 

construction. 

‣ MM informs the group that construction is anticipated 

to commence by the end of the year, as the winter will 

be the most ideal construction period with limited 

saturation of the valley wall. 

• Attendee inquires about the potential Stage 3 at the 

property located at 30 Royal Rouge Trail. 

‣ JT comments that it is unknown if a Stage 3 will be 

required at this property, as the results of the Stage 4 

at 32 Royal Rouge Trail will determine if additional 

investigation must be completed at 30 Royal Rouge 

Trail. 

• Attendee inquires about the ramifications if one (1) of the 

(10) properties decides to not participate in the project. 

‣ MM explains that TRCA will continue with the project 

and the design will be modified to not incorporate the 

property. TRCA has completed projects in the past 

with a property being eliminated from a project. 

• Attendee requests a clarification of Stage 3 versus Stage 4 

Archaeological Investigation. 

‣ JT explains that a Stage 3 would be additional testpits, 

approximately 1 m by 1 m. While a Stage 4 would be 

the excavation of the existing area that had not been 

testpitted during Stage 2 and 3 of the investigation. 

Furthermore, it depends on the quantity and type of 

artifacts found which determines if a Stage 4 is 

required. 

• Attendee inquires on the comments and concerns noted at 

the last meeting. 

‣ MM and PN explain that all comments were reviewed 

and provided to the consultant to determine if the 

design could be modified to satisfy all residents. All of 

the revisions will be discussed in the Environmental 

Study Report (ESR), or the resident will be contacted 

to discuss their concerns individually. 

Next Steps 

• PN concludes the presentation with a discussion on the 

following next steps: 

1. Complete questionnaire by July 9, 2010 

2. TRCA to undertake Stage 3 and 4 of Archaeological 

6 of 8

CFN 38392 

B3-33-2 

Investigation 

3. TRCA to consult with Aboriginal Groups of findings 

4. TRCA to continue to work with consultant to complete 

final design 

5. CLC meeting to be held to discuss archaeological 

findings and final design 

6. ESR to be filed with Ministry of Environment for a 30 


7. Secure approvals and permits 

8. Construction tentatively scheduled for Fall/Winter 2010 

• JT informs the residents that the City of Toronto has hired 

an archaeological team to complete an investigation along 

the Rouge River. 

Discussion 

Period 

• An attendee inquires when TRCA will be documenting the 

current condition of the properties requiring Stage 3 or 4 

investigations. 

‣ MM explains the documentation will be completed as 

soon as possible preferably next week (week of June 

27). The condition of each property will be attached to 

the access agreements required to be signed prior to 

the commencement of Stage 3 or 4. 

• MM comments that TRCA will provide the residents with a 

project schedule to inform them of the timelines. 

• Attendee inquires about the cost-sharing agreement. 

‣ PN informs the attendees that the affected landowners 

are responsible for some sort of contribution to the 

project (i.e., land or finances). 

‣ MM adds that TRCA will organize a meeting with the 

affected landowners and Property Department prior to 

construction to discuss the matter further. Typically 

there are two types of contributions either a sum of 

money or percentage of property. Furthermore, MM 

informs the residents that it is preferable if the land is 

transferred to TRCA for any future monitoring or 

maintenance of the slope/structure. A legal survey will 

be completed to determine the extent of land to be 

transferred. 

• Attendee inquires if the residents are able to consult with a 

lawyer regarding the cost-sharing land agreement. 

‣ MM informs the residents that they are allowed to 

retain a lawyer for legal advise at the cost of TRCA. 

• Attendee inquires if they would be able to acquire a digital 

copy of the presentation. 

‣ PN informs the attendees that a digital copy of the 

presentation will be e-mailed to each of the attendees 

(Action Item #2). 

Lindsay 

Prihoda 

12-July-2010 

7 of 8

CFN 38392 

B3-33-2 

• PN thanks the attendees for attending the meeting and 

invites TRCA to complete the presentation. 

Meeting 

Adjournment 


Prepared By: LP/PN/MM Date Issued: July 12, 2010 

Revised by: 



meeting. 

8 of 8

Moranne McDonnell/MTRCA 

06/28/2010 10:15 AM 

To 

cc 

bcc 

Subject 

"trevor d'souza" 

Patricia Newland/MTRCA@MTRCA 

Re: Meeting with Winnie and Trevor 

Hi Trevor, 

No problem, Patricia will contact you to reschedule. Please note that I will be out of the office between 

July 1 to 9, returning on July 12th. 

With respect to the stabilization options for your property, as you and I discussed at the last information 

session regarding the archaeological investigation currently underway, there are a number of other 

products available that are more appropriate for the site conditions. While we are not recommending the 

same structure as proposed for 44-48 Royal Rouge Trail, we would like to meet with you and your wife on 

site to look at the current condition of the slope, discuss your concerns, and talk about other options for 

your property that are satisfactory to all parties prior to finalizing the design. 

I look forward to meeting with you and Winnie in July. 

Sincerely, 

Moranne McDonnell 

Senior Manager, Environmental Engineering Projects 




Scarborough, ON M1M 2N5 

T: (416) 392-9725 

F: (416) 392-9726 

"trevor d'souza" 

"trevor d'souza" 

 

06/28/2010 09:48 AM 

To 

cc 

Subject 

Moranne McDonnell 

Patricia Newland 

Meeting with Winnie and Trevor 

Hi Moranne, 

I recd. your telephone message on Friday requesting a 

meeting at 9 am on Tuesday 2010.. Winnie is a teacher will not be 

available during that time.. She will be available and looking forward for a 

meeting after the 30th June 2010. 

She too is extremely upset that after waiting patientely for 

over 2 decades she became aware after last week's meeting that the initial 

report showed the backyard wall does not extend to behind our eroding 

backyard. 

Trevor


08/24/2010 11:45 AM 

To 

cc 


Lindsay Prihoda/TRCA@MTRCA, Moranne 

McDonnell/MTRCA@MTRCA 

bcc 

Subject Re: Royal Rouge (Scarborough) lot number 30-48 

Hi Korah, 

I don't know if you remember, but we spoke a while ago about the property at # 44 Royal Rouge Trail.... 

As we discussed at that time, the property is currently part of a large-scale project to address ongoing 

erosion concerns for the slope crest at the rear of the properties from 30 - 48 Royal Rouge Trail. 

Since you are the new owners of the property, TRCA is sending out a comprehensive package today via 

purolator so that you have the opportunity to familiarize yourself with the project, and with the works that 

are proposed, prior to the project moving forward. 

Please feel free to give me a call or send me an email if you have any questions, 

Sincerely, 


Project Manager, Environmental Engineering Projects 


Tel: (416) 392-9690 

Fax: (416) 392 - 9726 




04/14/2010 01:59 PM 

To pnewland@trca.on.ca 

cc 

Subject Royal Rouge (Scarborough) lot number 30-48 

Hi Patricia, 

We spoke just awhile ago - here's my email address. 

Many thanks, 

___________________________________ 

Korah Thomas 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (http://www.pwc.com/ca) 

Royal Trust Tower, TD Centre, Suite 3000 

Toronto, ON M5K 1G8 

Telephone: +1 (416) 815-5041

Cell : +1 (416) 917-8315 

ADVS 


Please consider the environment before printing this email. 

Pensez à l’environnement avant d’imprimer ce courriel. 

This e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed (the "addressee") and may 

contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or 

other use that a person other than the addressee makes of this communication is prohibited and 

any reliance or decisions made based on it, are the responsibility of such person. We accept no 

responsibility for any loss or damages suffered by any person other than the addressee as a result 

of decisions made or actions taken based on this communication or otherwise. If you received 

this in error, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of this e-mail. 

Ce courriel est strictement reserve a l'usage de la personne a qui il est adresse (le destinataire). Il 

peut contenir de l'information privilegiee et confidentielle. L'examen, la reexpedition et la 

diffusion de ce message par une personne autre que son destinataire est interdite. Nous declinons 

toute responsabilite a l'egard des pertes ou des dommages subis par une personne autre que le 

destinataire par suite de decisions ou de mesures fondees sur le contenu de cette communication 

ou autrement. Si vous avez recu ce courriel par erreur, veuillez communiquer avec son 

expediteur et en detruire toutes les copies. 







Thank you."

Moranne McDonnell/MTRCA 

05/27/2011 12:53 PM 

To 

cc 

bcc 

Subject 

widget@sympatico.ca, deborag@rogers.com, 

fostersteve@rogers.com, sal.jhuman@averydennison.com, 

mlcorvese@gmail.com, estherto@rogers.com, 

Nick Saccone/MTRCA, Mark Preston/MTRCA, 

councillor_moeser@toronto.ca, Joe Delle Fave/MTRCA, 

30 - 48 Royal Rouge Trail Erosion Control - Update 


Further to the last meeting held on June 22, 2010 and the detailed archaeological investigation and 

analysis that followed over the summer and early fall of 2010, please find an update on the status of the 

Royal Rouge Trail Erosion Control Project below. 

1. 


The archaeological reports were submitted to the Ministry of Culture and City of Toronto several months 

ago, however we do not yet have all approvals required to submit the EA for approval. Staff are checking 

the status of the permits/approvals on a regular basis. At this time we anticipate having all permits and 

approvals related to the archaeological clearances in place by mid June. 

2. Detailed Design 

Since the meeting there have been some modifications to the design that was presented at the last CLC 

meeting. The retaining wall originally proposed for #44 - 48 Royal Rouge Trail has been extended to 

include the property at #42. The type of retaining wall originally proposed was called Sierrascape - we are 

currently working with another supplier through our consulting engineer to determine if another product 

called Envirolok can provide the same level of protection and habitat potential for less cost. Due to the 

unforseen costs for the archaeological investigation, we are required to look for efficiencies in the design 

to ensure that we can complete the work with the funds available. Our consultant is currently preparing 

an estimate for the two retaining wall options and will provide their recommendation within the next 1 - 2 

weeks. 

In the interim, staff are preparing the construction access and restoration plans to include on the detailed 

design plans. The design will be broken down by individual property so that each owner can see what is 

proposed to take place on their propert in detail. Once the detailed plans for the each property becomes 

available, individual meetings with TRCA will be arranged to discuss the legal agreements that will be 

needed prior to construction. Please note that TRCA Construction Services staff will be visiting the 

properties between 30-48 Royal Rouge Trail over the next week to confirm the design details . If you 

have any concerns with them accessing your rear yard , please advise (staff will knock before attempting 

to enter). 

3. Environmental Assessment Process 

The EA report was drafted some time ago, however we have made some major revisions as a result of 

the findings from the archaeological investigation. The report is currently waiting to be updated with the 

design drawings currently underway and for the required archaeological clearances. Once this information 

has been included, the revised draft and design will be distributed for comment. 

A final CLC meeting will be scheduled approximately one week after the detailed design and the report 

have been distributed for comment. At this time we anticipate that this meeting will take place in late June. 

The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss the report and design, and answer any quetsions that you 

may prior to the document and drawings being finalized and submitted for approval. 

Once the EA is submitted for approval, there is a mandatory 30 day public review period. During this time 

TRCA will work to finalize the legal agreements with each property owner and secure other necessary

approvals needed to commence construction. 

4. Timing 

Given the extremely wet spring and the known seepage issues on the slope, TRCA is recommending that 

the slope stabilization work be delayed until the late summer when the slope conditions are likely to be at 

their driest, which is best for this type of work. There are also potential issues with the Migratory Birds 

Convention Act at this time of year when tree removals are required, which places restrictions on this 

activity generally between May 1 and August 1 annually to avoid disturbing migratory birds during their 

active breeding and nesting season. In light of the aforementioned, TRCA is recommending that the work 

commence shortly after Labour Day, which also provides sufficient time to secure approvals and leads 

nicely into the fall planting season. 

Finally, please be advised that Patricia Newland will be returning on June 6, 2011, and will resume her 

role as Project Manager at that time. In the interim please feel free to contact me should you have any 

questions. 

Sincerely, 

Moranne McDonnell | Senior Manager | Environmental Engineering Projects | Restoration Services Division | 

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority |1 Eastville Avenue, Toronto, ON | M1M 2N5 | 416.392.9725 | 

416.392.9726 | mmcdonnell@trca.on.ca

Greetings everyone, 

Patricia Newland/TRCA 

07/18/2011 02:17 PM 

To 

cc 

bcc 

Subject 

estherto@rogers.com, fostersteve@rogers.com, 

klyeager@rougepark.com, Ksharpe@toronto.ca, 

mlcorvese@gmail.com, mwilson@drps.ca, 

Moranne McDonnell/MTRCA@MTRCA, Mark 

Preston/MTRCA@MTRCA, Deanna Cotter/TRCA@MTRCA, 

Andrew Jules/TRCA@MTRCA, Mike 

Royal Rouge Trail Class Environmental Assessment - CLC 

Update 

I trust that everyone is enjoying their summer! I apologize for the length of time between project updates, 

we were waiting on all of the archaeology clearance documents, before moving forward. That said, all 

approvals regarding the archaeological investigation that took place last summer / fall are now in place, 

and TRCA is in a position to move forward with the project. 

During the past few months staff have also been looking into new greener technologies for stabilizing 

valley walls such as those at Royal Rouge Trail, and have been working on modifying the designs slightly 

to incorporate more green materials into the final design. This alteration to the final design will allow for 

the slope to regain a more natural appearance by incorporating more site appropriate vegetation into the 

final product. 

We are currently in the process of revising the final Environmental Study Report (Project Plan), based on 

the findings of the archaeological investigation, and the addition of new technology to the final design of 

works, and anticipate that the final draft will be distributed for your review by the week of August 8th. 

Additionally, we are in the process of scheduling the final CLC meeting for the week of August 15th to the 

19th, 2011. With the tentative dates being Tuesday August 16th, Wednesday August 17th, or Thursday 

August 18th, based on availability of a meeting space at one of the local community centres. As soon as I 

have confirmation on the booking, I will provide an update. We hope that you will all be able to attend. 

If you have any questions regarding this information, please feel free to email, or call me. 

Thanks, 

Patricia 

Patricia Newland | Project Manager | Environmental Engineering Projects | Restoration Services Division | Toronto and Region 

Conservation Authority | 1 Eastville Avenue, Toronto, ON | M1M 2N5 | 416.392.9690 | 416.392.9726 | 


"*PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT WHEN DECIDING TO PRINT THIS MESSAGE*






Thank you."


07/19/2011 03:45 PM 

To 

cc 

bcc 

Patricia Newland/TRCA@MTRCA 

Andrew Jules/TRCA@MTRCA, ckinsle@toronto.ca, 

councillor_moeser@toronto.ca, Deanna 

Cotter/TRCA@MTRCA, deborag@rogers.com, 

Subject Re: Royal Rouge Trail Class Environmental Assessment - 

CLC Update 

Hello again, 

Further to my last email please be advised that the date of the next CLC meeting has been confirmed for 

Wednesday August 17th, 2011, 6:00 pm at the Tall Pines Community Centre. 

We look forward to seeing you all there. 

Have a nice evening! 

Patricia 






07/18/2011 02:17 PM 

To 

cc 

Subject 

estherto@rogers.com, fostersteve@rogers.com, 

klyeager@rougepark.com, Ksharpe@toronto.ca, 

mlcorvese@gmail.com, mwilson@drps.ca, 

papuan@rogers.com, sal.jhuman@averydennison.com, 

trevordsouzaca@yahoo.ca, widget@sympatico.ca, 

deborag@rogers.com, dgiggie@yahoo.ca, 

sprinklerfitter1@yahoo.ca, korah.thomas@ca.pwc.com, 

ckinsle@toronto.ca 

Moranne McDonnell/MTRCA@MTRCA, Mark 

Preston/MTRCA@MTRCA, Deanna Cotter/TRCA@MTRCA, 

Andrew Jules/TRCA@MTRCA, Mike 

Fenning/MTRCA@MTRCA, mtanos@terraprobe.ca, 

jcrowder@terraprobe.ca, councillor_moeser@toronto.ca 

Royal Rouge Trail Class Environmental Assessment - CLC 

Update 

Greetings everyone, 

I trust that everyone is enjoying their summer! I apologize for the length of time between project updates, 

we were waiting on all of the archaeology clearance documents, before moving forward. That said, all 

approvals regarding the archaeological investigation that took place last summer / fall are now in place, 

and TRCA is in a position to move forward with the project. 

During the past few months staff have also been looking into new greener technologies for stabilizing 

valley walls such as those at Royal Rouge Trail, and have been working on modifying the designs slightly 

to incorporate more green materials into the final design. This alteration to the final design will allow for 

the slope to regain a more natural appearance by incorporating more site appropriate vegetation into the 

final product.

We are currently in the process of revising the final Environmental Study Report (Project Plan), based on 

the findings of the archaeological investigation, and the addition of new technology to the final design of 

works, and anticipate that the final draft will be distributed for your review by the week of August 8th. 

Additionally, we are in the process of scheduling the final CLC meeting for the week of August 15th to the 

19th, 2011. With the tentative dates being Tuesday August 16th, Wednesday August 17th, or Thursday 

August 18th, based on availability of a meeting space at one of the local community centres. As soon as I 

have confirmation on the booking, I will provide an update. We hope that you will all be able to attend. 

If you have any questions regarding this information, please feel free to email, or call me. 

Thanks, 

Patricia 










Thank you." 

"*PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT WHEN DECIDING TO PRINT THIS MESSAGE*






Thank you."




WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 17, 2011 

6:00 PM – 8:00 PM 



AGENDA 

6:00 Attendance sign in 

6:15 Welcome and opening remarks 

6:30 Presentation by TRCA 

• Project Recap 

• Envirolok Materials 

7:00 Discussion Period 



• Meeting adjournment




August 17 th , 2011 

• 6:00 Attendance sign in 

Agenda 

• 6:15 Welcome and opening remarks 

• 6:30 Presentation by TRCA 

• Project Recap 

• Envirolok Materials 

• 7:00 Discussion Period 



• Meeting adjournment 

Project Recap 

Archaic period artifacts (about 3,000 to 8,000 years old) 

• 2007/2008 TRCA retained Terraprobe Ltd to complete a geotechnical investigation 

• 2009 TRCA was granted approval to commence the Class EA 

• Nov /Dec 2009 Staff prepared to finalize the Project Plan for the Class EA and were 

scheduling construction to commence pending receipt of all necessary approvals in the 

Spring / Summer of 2010 

• Dec 2009 High potential for archaeological resources were identified and staff were 

notified by TRCA Archaeology Department that further assessment prior to 

construction was required 

• Spring 2010 Stage 1 & 2 Archaeology assessment found artifacts on site requiring further 

investigation 

• Summer / Fall 2010 Stage 3 & 4 Archaeology assessment field work was completed, 

over 10,000 artifacts were recovered 

• Summer 2010 Review of final design identified inconsistency in the proposed 

transition zone for the retaining wall tie-back at 42 Royal Rouge Trail 

Project Recap 

• Fall 2010 Staff worked with Terraprobe to revise the designs of the retaining wall to 

provide an appropriate transition zone at 42 Royal Rouge Trail 

Archaeological Clearance Letters 

• Dec 2010 TRCA staff filed Stage 3 & 4 reports with the Ministry of Tourism and 

Culture for clearance 

• January 2011 Clearance granted by the Ministry of Tourism and Culture 

• Winter / Spring 2011 City of Toronto reviewed Archaeological assessments and 

Aboriginal Consultation component of the investigation – Clearance provided June 

2011 

• Winter / Spring 2011 problems were identified with the proposed retaining wall 

materials (Sierrascape wire basket system) 

• Spring / Summer 2011 Staff and Terraprobe met with manufactures and worked on 

revising the final design to incorporate new material for the retaining wall structure 

• July 2011 Terraprobe finalized revised designs to include the new retaining wall material 

(Envirolok) 

1

Envirolok Retaining Wall Systems 

Envirolok Retaining Wall System 

Envirolok Retaining Wall Systems 



Next Steps 

2

Key Upcoming Project Milestones 

Project Feedback Form 

1. Do you have any outstanding comments, 

questions or concerns regarding the Royal 

Rouge Trail Erosion Control Project? 

2. Do you have any suggestions for TRCA 

regarding the planning process for future 

projects of this nature. 

TRCA would like to thank you for all of 

your time and input for this project 

☺ 

3




WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 17, 2011 

6:00 PM – 8:00 PM 



COMMENT FORM 

1. Do you have any outstanding comments, questions or concerns regarding the Royal Rouge Trail 

Erosion Control Project? Note: if you would like TRCA to reply to your comments please 

ensure that your contact information is provided below. 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

2. If you have any suggestions for TRCA regarding improvements to the planning process for future 

projects of this nature please provide them below. 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________________________ 


Address: 

Daytime Phone: 

_______________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________ 

_____________________ Email: _________________________________ 

Please complete this comment sheet and leave it at the sign-in table, or forward it by Thursday, August 

25, 2011 to: 

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority ● 1 Eastville Avenue, Scarborough, ON, M1M 2N5 ● 

Attn: Patricia Newland ● Phone (416) 392-9690 ● Fax: (416) 392-9726 ● Email: pnewland@trca.on.ca

CFN 38392 

B3-33-2 

MINUTES 



LOCATION: Tall Pines Community Centre, 64 Rylander Blvd. Toronto 

DATE: August 17, 2011 

TIME: 6:00 – 8:00 pm 

PARTICIPANTS 

Abdool Jhuman, 36 Royal 


Andrew Jules, TRCA 

Ashour Rehana, TRCA 



Debora Gyimah, 32 Royal 


Ed Giggie, 48 Royal Rouge Trail 

Jaime Thomas, 44 Royal Rouge 


Korah Thomas, 44 Royal Rouge 


Linda Foster, 34 Royal Rouge Trail 

Malcom Wilson, 46 Royal Rouge 


Maria Papoulias, Rouge Park 

Mark Preston, TRCA 

Patricia Newland, TRCA 

Steve Foster, 34 Royal Rouge 


Shakira Naraine, 46 Royal 


DISTRIBUTION 



Councillor Ron Moeser, City of Toronto 


Jamie Sparks, 30 Royal Rouge Trail 

Kathy Sparks, 30 Royal Rouge Trail 


Trevor D’Souza, 42 Royal Rouge Trail 

Winnie D’Souza, 42 Royal Rouge Trail 

MINUTES 


Introductions 

& 

Welcome 

Project 

Summary 

Presentation 

by TRCA 

• Patricia Newland (PN) welcomes the group and everyone 

introduced themselves for the benefit of new members to 

the CLC. Information packages for each of the properties 

were also distributed at this time. 

• PN presents an overview of the project evolution from 

commencement as a geotechnical investigation in 2007, 

through to the anticipated completion of the Class EA 

process in September 2011, with particular detail to the 

archaeological assessment completed in 2010, where 

more than 10,000 artifacts were recovered from the 

project site. 

• PN presented the final designs for Site A & B, outlining the 

alterations to the design for Site B which primarily 

consisted of changing the facing material of the retaining 

wall from the original Sierrascape ridged wire basket 

system, to the Envirolok system, and explaining (with 

assistance from MP) the benefit of changing the design 

material, and the extension of the envirolok treatment on 

1 of 5

CFN 38392 

B3-33-2 

the property at #42 RRT to create a better transition for 

the final retaining wall. Photographs of the product were 

also presented illustrating during and after construction, 

and the vegetation establishment period. 

• An updated project schedule for the remainder of the 

Class EA process and for the implementation of 

construction was discussed by PN and MP, highlighting 

key milestones including the publication of the final 

Project Plan for the 30 day public review period at the end 

of August, and the commencement of construction in 

mid-October. PN also discussed the need for TRCA staff 

to meet with each homeowner individually to discuss legal 

agreements before the commencement of construction. 

Discussion 

Period 

• Q1 – an attendee inquired as to whether or not Envirolok 

has been used before, or if this is a completely new 

project. 

• PN explained that Envirolok has been used 

extensively in British Columbia, and in other places, 

but that TRCA was not aware of the use of this 

material in applications such as those proposed at 

Royal Rouge Trail until recently. 

• Q2 – an attendee inquired about the lifespan of the 

product (Envirolok). 

• MP explained that this product has a long lifespan, 

and that while there may be minor degradation of 

the bag material over time due to long-term UV 

exposure, but that the rate of degradation is very 

long-term (50+ years), and that the growth of 

vegetation through and around the material will 

compensate for any minor adjustments in the 

structure. 

• Q3 – an attendee inquired about how the drainage of the 

native soils will be addressed, and whether or not they will 

have an affect on the stability of the proposed Envirolok 

retaining system, and whether or not freeze – thaw cycles 

will have any affect on the wall 

• PN explained that during the installation of the wall, 

there will be excavation of the native soils, and 

replacement with site-appropriate backfill materials 

(free draining gravel etc), that will facilitate better 

drainage at the site, and will not be affected by 

freeze-thaw cycles. MP also referred attendees to 

the cross-sections shown on Drawing A6 and 

outlined the area of excavation where the subsurface 

structure of the retaining wall, and the 

2 of 5

CFN 38392 

B3-33-2 

backfill materials will be placed. 

• Q4 – An attendee inquired about how construction will 

affect the existing vegetation on the affected properties, 

and how TRCA intends to address this. 

• PN explained that TRCA intends to complete 

existing conditions surveys for each of the 

properties, with the intention of restoring them on a 

property specific basis to the agreed upon 

restoration plan developed for each property. She 

further explained that in the package distributed at 

the beginning of the meeting to each of the 

homeowners there is a site plan for each property 

that each homeowner is to use to identify any 

existing gardens, trees, structures etc that are not 

illustrated on the drawing to aid in the development 

of the final restoration plans. 

• Q5 – An attendee inquired about the width of the 

construction access road as illustrated in the design 

package, and where / how it will get into their backyards. 

• MP explained that the construction access road will 

be at least 4 m wide to accommodate the 

machinery required for the re-grading and 

excavation of the slope. MP also explained that the 

proposed access point is between #38 & 40 Royal 

Rouge Trail, as this is the least disruptive route. 

• Q6 – An attendee inquired as to whether or not there will 

be a warranty on the Envirolok wall 

• MP explained that the Envirolok wall will have a 

warranty on it and that it will be written into the 

contract tender documents for the construction of 

the wall. 

• Q7 – An attendee inquired about the timing for the 

removal of the existing trees and whether or not the whole 

area is going to be replanted, or just the face of the 

retaining wall. 

• MP explains that the trees will be removed as part of 

the site prep for the project, and that the whole area 

will be re-planted as per the restoration plans 

• Q8 – An attendee inquired as to the duration of the 

construction for the retaining wall, and how it will proceed. 

• MP explains that the construction of the retaining 

wall, not including restoration, will take 

3 of 5

CFN 38392 

B3-33-2 

approximately 1 month to complete, and should be 

completed by mid December. MP went on to 

describe the anticipated construction sequence 

• Site prep and the construction of the access 

road (mid-october) 

• Trimming and re-grading at Site 1 (mid – late 

october) 

• Installation of the Envirolok wall (November) 

• Site Restoration / Stabilization (December) with 

final plantings possibly occurring in the spring 

of 2012 depending on weather conditions. 

• Q9 – An attendee inquired if there is anything that the 

homeowners can do in preparation for construction 

• PN asked that the residents review the materials in 

the packages provided at the beginning of the 

meeting in anticipation of the upcoming individual 

meetings, and that homeowners with swimming 

pools will be asked to drain them prior to the 

completion of the existing conditions surveys, and 

that sprinkler systems be identified on the site 

plans, as well as any other features currently 

missing from the site plans. PN also explained that 

any damage to structures (i.e. swimming pools) 

caused as the result of construction activities will be 

repaired during site restoration by TRCA. 

• Q10 – An attendee inquired as to whether or not all of the 

trees on the slope are going to be removed, and whether 

or not they will be replaced. 

• PN explained that the majority of the trees on the 

slope will be removed, but that TRCA will work to 

save as many as possible, especially in the area of 

re-grading at Site A. PN also went on to explain that 

the restoration of the area will include mostly shrub 

species. 

• Q11 – Attendees inquired as to when the individual 

meetings will be taking place, and who they would be 

meeting with. 

• PN explained that the meetings will be held within 

the next few weeks, probably not starting until the 

beginning of September, and that she would be in 

attendance along with a representative from TRCA’s 

property department. 

4 of 5

CFN 38392 

B3-33-2 

• Q12 – An attendee inquired about the cost-sharing 

agreements discussed at previous meetings, and how 

much money this project will cost each of the 

homeowners. 

• PN explained that in lieu of financial contributions to 

the project TRCA will be discussing the transfer of 

lands with each of the affected homeowners, 

whereby TRCA would take ownership of the areas 

where the works are to be completed, in exchange 

for the completion of the works. PN went on to 

clarify that this is the preferred course of action by 

TRCA, as the valley wall is part of the Rouge Valley 

Corridor within Rouge Park. 

• Q13 – An attendee inquired about Maria Papoulias (MPa) 

interest / role in the project. 

• MPa explained that she was attending as a representative 

of Rouge Park, and that their interest in the project has to 

do with the potential impacts to the rouge valley from the 

construction of the retaining wall, and the removal and 

replacement of existing vegetation. They are also 

interested in the archaeological materials recovered at the 

site. 

Next Steps 

• Notice of Filing and Project Plan to be filed for 30 Day 

Public Review Period (August 26, 2011) 

• DELAYED to Monday September 12, 2011 

• Individual Landowner Meetings (September 2011) 

• Existing Conditions Surveys to be completed (September 

/ October 2011) 

• Regulatory approvals (October 2011) 

• Commencement of Construction (October 2011) 

• Final Site Restoration (December 2011 / Spring 2012*) 

*depending on weather conditions 


Prepared By: AR/PN Date Issued: September 8, 2011 

Revised by: 



meeting. 

5 of 5

NOTICE OF FILING 

30 – 48 ROYAL ROUGE TRAIL 

EROSION CONTROL PROJECT 

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has now completed the Project 

Plan regarding the 30 – 48 Royal Rouge Trail Erosion Control Project, located 

along a section of the Rouge Valley Corridor, at the rear of the properties at 30 – 48 

Royal Rouge Trail in the City of Toronto. The Project Plan has been prepared in 

accordance with the Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and 

Erosion Control Projects (2002), approved for projects of this type. 

As described in the Project Plan, TRCA is proposing to remediate ongoing slope 

instability through the construction of an envirolok retaining structure, re-grading, 

and intensive plantings to stabilize the upper valley wall. 

Interested persons are invited to review this document at the TRCA Waterfront 

Office at 1 Eastville Avenue, or on-line at: 

http://www.trca.on.ca/protect/environmental-assessment-projects/royal-rouge-trailerosion-control-project.dot 

. Copies are also available for review at the following 

Toronto locations: 

Port Union Library, 5450 Lawrence Avenue 

Highland Creek Library, 3550 Elllesmere Road 

Office of Councillor Ron Moeser, 100 Queen Street West, Suite B33 

Constituency Office for Councillor Ron Moeser, 5504 Lawrence Ave. E. 

You may provide written comments within 30 calendar days from the date of this 

Notice to: 




M1M 2N5 

Phone: (416) 392-9690 

Fax: (416) 392-9726 


Subject to comments received as a result of this study and the receipt of necessary 

approvals and funding, TRCA intends to proceed with the construction of this 

project. If any individual feels that serious environmental concerns remain 

unresolved after consulting with TRCA staff, it is their right to request that the 

project be subject to a Part II order by the Minister of the Environment. Part II Order 

requests must be received by the Minister, with a copy to TRCA, at the following 

address within 30 calendar days following the date of this Notice: 

Minister of the Environment 

135 St. Clair Avenue West, 15 th Floor 


M4V 1P5

APPENDIX E 

Archaeological Site Clearance Letters

Ministry of Tourism and Culture 

Ministère du Tourisme et de la Culture 

Culture Programs Unit 

Unité des programmes culturels 

Programs and Services Branch Direction des programmes et des services 

401 Bay Street, Suite 1700 401 Rue Bay, Bureau 1700 

Toronto, ON, M7A 0A7 

Toronto, ON, M7A 0A7 

Telephone: 416-212-8003 Téléphone: 416-212-8003 

Facsimile: 416-314-7175 Télécopieur: 416-314-7175 

Email : Norbert.Stanchly@ontario.ca Email : Norbert.Stanchly@ontario.ca 

January 14, 2011 

Ms. Janice Teichroeb 

TRCA 

Archaeology Resource Management Services 

5 Shoreham Drive 

Downsview ON M3N 1S4 

RE: 

Recommendation of No Further Concerns for Impacts to Archaeological Resources, Royal 

Rouge Trail Slope Failure and Erosion Control Project, 30-48 Royal Rouge Trail and Part of 

Lot 1, Concession II, City of Toronto 

Dear Ms. Teichroeb: 

This office has reviewed the reports entitled: 

“Preliminary Excavation Report, Archaeological Investigation and Excavation in the City of Toronto 

(Stages 3 and 4), The Gyimah Sparks Site (AkGs-044), Lot 1, Concession II, Former Borough of 

Scarborough, City of Toronto” (PIF P338-009-2010) 


(Stages 3 and 4), The Jhuman Site (AkGs-045), Lot 1, Concession II, Former Borough of Scarborough, City 

of Toronto” (PIF P338-010-2010) 


(Stages 3 and 4), The Corvese Site (AkGs-046), Lot 1, Concession II, Former Borough of Scarborough, City 

of Toronto” (PIF P338-011-2010) 

The reports detail the archaeological assessment of an approximately 0.3 hectare property in the City of 

Toronto undertaken in advance of a proposed development project to remediate ongoing slope erosion. 

During the Stage 2 archaeological survey of the property three archaeological sites were discovered: 

Corvese (AkGs-046), Jhuman (AkGs-045), and Ghyimah Sparks (AkGs-044). It was recommended that 

they be considered significant enough to warrant Stage 3 investigations and Stage 4 mitigation involving 

detailed documentation and removal through excavation. Subsequently, Stage 3 and 4 investigations have 

been conducted at the Corvese (AkGs-046), Jhuman (AkGs-045), and Ghyimah Sparks (AkGs-044) sites 

concluding with the detailed documentation and removal of the sites through excavation. 

Upon review of the above noted preliminary reports associated with the Stage 3 and Stage 4 work 

conducted at the Corvese (AkGs-046), Jhuman (AkGs-045), and Ghyimah Sparks (AkGs-044) sites, this 

ministry issued letters, dated December 22, 2010 concurring with the recommendations made in the Stage 

3 and 4 preliminary reports that the Provincial interest in the archaeological sites identified as Corvese 

(AkGs-046), Jhuman (AkGs-045), and Ghyimah Sparks (AkGs-044) have been addressed.

Given the above, this Ministry is satisfied that concerns for archaeological resources have been met for the 

subject property, identified as “Project Area” as depicted by Figure 10 of the archaeological assessment 

report entitled "Archaeological Assessment of TRCA Property in the City of Toronto (Stage 1 and 2), Royal 

Rouge Trail Erosion Control, Lot 1, Concession II, City of Toronto, Former Borough of Scarborough” 

(P303-056-2010). 

Should you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Sincerely, 

Norbert Stanchly 

Archaeology Review Officer 

cc. 

Archaeological Licensing Office 

Susan Hughes, Heritage Preservation Services, City of Toronto

"Susan Hughes" 

 

06/29/2011 02:58 PM 

To 

cc 

bcc 

Subject 

"Janice Teichroeb" 

, 

Re: Royal Rouge Trail Archaeological Excavation - report 

review 

Hello Janice: 

In order to expedite your EA process I am providing this email correspondence. 

Heritage Preservation Services (HPS) has received and reviewed the following reports: 

1. Archaeological Assessment of TRCA property in the City of Toronto ( Stage 1 and 2) Royal 

Rouge Trail Erosion Control, TRCA, September 16, 2010. 

2. Archaeological Investigation and Excavation in the City of Toronto ( Stages 3-4) Preliminary 

Excavation Report, The Gyimah Sparks Site ( AkGs-044), TRCA, November 9, 2010. 

3. Archaeological Investigation and Excavation in the City of Toronto (Stages 3 and 4) 

Preliminary Excavation Report, The Corvese Site (AkGs-046), TRCA, November 9, 2010. 

4. Archaeological Investigation and Excavation in the City of Toronto (Stages 3 and 4), 

Preliminary Excavation Report, The Jhuman Site (AkGs-045), TRCA, November 9, 2010. 

The archaeological assessment work cited was undertaken in order to prepare for planned 

stabilization work on slope erosion occurring along a portion of the Rouge River Valley at the 

rear of several residential properties on Royal Rouge Trail in the City of Toronto. 

Heritage Preservation Services concurs with the archaeological assessment report findings and 

agrees that archaeological concerns with the sites have now been addressed. We will also 

require copies of all final reports completed for these archaeological sites. 

In addition, as we discussed, Heritage Preservation Services will be meeting with TRCA staff at 

a future date to determine a protocol for how First Nations engagement and consultation will 

take place for archaeological sites located within the City of Toronto. 

Finally, Heritage Preservation Services has the following advisory comment on the above-noted 

assessment reports: 

1. In the event that deeply buried archaeological remains are encountered on the property 

during construction activities, the Heritage Operations Unit of the Ministry of Tourism 

and Culture be notified immediately at (416) 314-7146 as well as the City of Toronto, 

Heritage Preservation Services Unit (416) 338-1096.

2. In the event that human remains are encountered during construction, the proponent 

should immediately contact both the Ministry of Tourism and Culture, and the Registrar 

or Deputy Registrar of Cemeteries at the Cemeteries Regulation Unit, Ministry of 

Government Services, (416) 326-8393. 

Regards, 

Thanks Susan, 

I will wait for your next email. In the meantime Margie and I will organize our concerns for discussion. 

The letter for the EA should be copied to Morrane McDonnell at mmcdonnell@trca.on.ca and to Patricia 

Newland at pnewland@trca.on.ca 

Janice 

___________________________________________________________ 

Janice Teichroeb, M.A. 

Archaeologist, Field Supervision and Reporting 



Tel: (416) 661-6600 ext. 6406 Cell: 416 991-3591 Email: jteichroeb@trca.on.ca 

Archaeology is not what you find, it’s what you find out. David Hurst Thomas 

"Susan 

06/24/2011 03:16 PM 

To "Janice Teichroeb" 

cc "Margie Kenedy" 

Subject Re: Royal Rouge Trail Archaeological Excavation - report review

"Susan Hughes" 

06/14/2011 12:49 P 


M 

cc "Margie Kenedy" 

Subject Re: Royal Rouge Trail Archaeological Excavation - report review 

Susan Hughes 

Supervisor Special Projects - Archaeology 

Heritage Preservation Services 

Policy and Research Division 

City Planning 

Toronto City Hall, 

2nd Floor, Suite A16, 

100 Queen Street West, 


M5H 2N2 

Phone:(416) 338-1096 

Fax: (416) 392-1973

email: shughes@toronto.ca 

Website: www.toronto.ca/heritage-preservation/archaeology.htm 

Susan Hughes 




City Planning 





M5H 2N2 

Phone:(416) 338-1096 

Fax: (416) 392-1973 



>>> Janice Teichroeb 06/09/2011 9:01 AM >>> 

Thanks Susan. 

___________________________________________________________ 






Archaeology is not what you find, it’s what you find out. David Hurst Thomas 

"Susan Hughes" 

06/08/2011 03:47 PM 


cc 

Subject Re: Royal Rouge Trail Archaeological Excavation - report review

Hi Janice 

I will put it back on the top of the list. Sorry about this. 

Susan 

Susan Hughes 




City Planning 





M5H 2N2 

Phone:(416) 338-1096 

Fax: (416) 392-1973 



>>> Janice Teichroeb 05/26/2011 3:43 PM >>> 

Hello Susan, 

The EA for the Royal Rouge Trail project will be submitted within the upcoming month. Can you please 

expedite the review of the archaeological excavation reports so that the EA submission and the 

construction program can proceed as planned. It would be ideal if the reports were reviewed before 

June 17th. 

Please let me know when we can expect the review to be completed. 

Thanks, 

Janice 

___________________________________________________________ 






Archaeology is not what you find, it’s what you find out. David Hurst Thomas





notified that any dissemination, distribution,disclosure or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received 

this communication in error, please resend this communication to the sender and delete it permanently from your computer system. 

Thank you."

Royal Rouge Trail Erosion Control Project - Toronto and Region ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?