Chedoke Watershed

The Importance of Streams to Cootes Paradise and of  Stream Buffers for Water Quality.

1. Spencer Creek Restoration Action Plan?
2. M695R7/08-2009 Moved By: Little
   Seconded By: Beattie
   “That the Commission endorse the letter from NEC staff, of August 11, 2009, to the City
   of Hamilton regarding the Sanatorium Road Realignment- Flood and Erosion Control
   Impact Assessment Class EA; noting in particular that -
   a) Erosion in this channel that crosses the Escarpment slope at 18% is of concern and
   that mitigation is appropriate in this case where there are opportunities to address
   the increase peak flows above the Escarpment; and,
   b) The mitigation of the increase in peak flow should be re- examined in terms of
   a more detailed evaluation of the potential for expansion of the existing Tiffany
   Road storm water management pond, and/or the opportunity to negotiate with the
   developers of the Chedoke Brow lands for additional capacity in the proposed storm
   water management ponds on the privately owned lands.”
   Motion Carried
3. CHEDOKE CREEK SUBWATERSHED
4. Stormwater Alternatives
5. Hamilton Harbour and Watershed Fisheries Management Plan

Talking Points

• Express support for the proposed stream buffers, but state that they must be expanded. Corridor widths should be expanded from 100 feet to 150 feet on each side of the stream. Express support for the proposed inner “riparian” (50 feet) and “outer” (50 feet) zones, but call for expansion of both. Wider buffers provide stronger water quality protections.
• Call for a “no-cut” zone for the inner “riparian zone” of the buffer that contains the stream area.
• New stream buffer regulations must be administered by the Park Commission and not delegated to local governments. The FUND and Waterkeeper monitor the regulation of development by local governments around the lake and find the process and result weak, inconsistent, and unsatisfactory. Stream buffer regulations are too important to the lake’s future to be delegated to local governments. There needs to be a uniform approach in application, review and enforcement. This will only happen with centralized administration by the Park Commission.
• The Park Commission proposes to regulate all “permanent” and “intermittent” streams. The Park Commission should add definitions of both to the regulations and provide an inventory to the public that locates all “permanent” and “intermittent” streams.
• The buffer width should increase 2 feet in width for each percent of slope greater than 10 percent.
• Definition of a “tree” should be 3 inches DBH (diameter at breast height), as is found in state law, not 6 inches DBH as proposed. Under the Park Commission proposals all trees or shrubs under 6 inches DBH could be removed without consequence.
• Timber harvesting should be prohibited within 75 feet of the stream within the “inner zone.” Timber harvesting should be a regulated activity by the Park Commission within the “outer zone.”
• There should be no clearing of downed trees within the inner zone. Downed trees in the stream channel are important for fish and other wildlife habitat, unless a threat to humans or property.The LGPC should develop a new section of the stream regulations for “Restoration,” which should enumerate a process for stream corridor restoration between the Park Commission and a private landowner, resulting in a restoration plan, for all portions of streams that contain pre-existing uses within the stream buffer area.